View report page

29
The Chief Officer of the Public Control Department makes the following
comments on the samples listed as unsatisfactory:-
"As to the nine unsatisfactory milk samples, all were of hot milk, seven
(procured from four restaurants) contained added water. The percentages of
water varied from 34 to 10.3. All four restaurant proprietors were prosecuted
and convicted. One was fined £6 with £2.2.Od. costs another £1 with £2. 2. 0d.
costs and in each of the other two cases an absolute discharge was granted on
payment of £l.1.0d, costs. The other two samples of hot milk were deficient
in fat - follow-up samples proved genuine and no further action was taken.
The two samples of "cream lolly" were the product of the same manufacturer
and contained no milk fat. The firm was prosecuted under the Defence
(Sale of Food) Regulations and fined £2 and ordered to pay £5. 19.Od. costs.
The sample of dried milk was unfit for human consunption. It had been
distributed by the Ministry of Food who, when informed, withdrew existing
stocks and took steps to prevent recurrence.
The sample of non brewed condiment was deficient in acetic acid and the
seller received an official caution.
The case of the sweets was a sample of fruit flavoured sweets described
by the confectioner-retailer as crystallised fruits. He received an official
caution,
The nine samples of vinegar adversely reported upon were procured from
six traders and were all samples of loose vinegar. In one case there was a
slight deficiency in acetic acid otherwise the vinegar was genuine malt
vinegar, A subsequent purchase was correct and no further action was taken.
In the other eight cases non-brewed condiment was sold for vinegar. One
trader was prosecuted and allowed an absolute discharge on payment of £2. 2.0d.
costs; three traders received official cautions, and in the last case on a
check follow up the trader declared that what he was selling was non-brewed
condiment and no further action was taken on the first sample.
As the Food and Drugs Authority my Council enforces the provisions of the
Merchandise Marks Act 1926 and the Inported Food Orders made thereunder which
require in the cases of foods controlled that imported articles bear an
indication of origin, namely either "Empire" or "Foreign" as the case may be
or else the specific country in which the goods were produced. During the
year 388 inspections were made at retail premises in Tottenham and 2, 174
pieces, packets or stacks of meat, apples, tomatoes, poultry, dried fruit,
gelatine were examined Arising from these and apart from verbal cautions
or minor non labelling offences two traders received official cautions, one
in respect of Australian turkeys not marked with their origin and one for
Empire apples similarly not marked.