View report page

The label on this mixture was held not to be in accordance with
the definition of "appropriate designation" in Section 2 (3) of the
Labelling of Food (No. 2) Order, 1944, and the matter was passed on
to the Ministry of Food, who accepted an undertaking from the manufacturers
for a reprinting of their labels whereby the misleading description
of " Milk Substitute " was omitted.
Vinegar—No. 118 (Informal Sample) Nos. 178 and 261.
No. 118 was a vinegar with a faint trace of carbolic acid brought
in by a resident. This was an informal sample and in view of the
difficulty in tracing the vendor from whom it was purchased, no action
could be taken.
Nos. 178 and 261—the Analyst reported that they contained
Sodium Chloride (Common Salt) which was not a natural ingredient
of Malt Vinegar. It was, however, a "trade practice" and no further
action was taken.
Beef Sausage Meat—Nos. 162 and 231.
No. 162 contained 45% and No. 231 contained 38% instead of
50% beef meat. The Committee accepted satisfactory explanations
in both instances and warnings were issued.
Meat Pie—No. 177.
This sample consisted of 79% pie crust and 21% filling. The
percentage of meat in the filling was 30% and in the whole 6.3%. In
the analyst's opinion, the filling of a meat pie should contain at least
50% of meat and the proportion of cooked meat should be not less
than 10% of the whole. In the absence of a statutory standard no
further action was taken.
Milk—Nos. 171, 173, 184, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 197,
and 198.
All the above samples were concerned in one extraordinary,
extremely complicated and intricate legal case of designated milk
in course of delivery to a Hospital in this district, which was shown to
have a deficiency in Cream. The initial samples of the milk were taken
in course of delivery in the district, those in the second stage were
taken in course of delivery to a Dairy at Reading and those in the third
and last stage were samples of the milk taken as" Appeal to Cow
samples at two farms in Berkshire. It involved three Food and Drugs
Act Authorities and the Farmer, the Dairy Company, the Milk Marketing
Board and the Ministry of Food.
Prosecutions were commenced at Wallington and the Dairy
Company were convicted and fined £15 on each of two Summonses
with £15 15s. costs. An appeal was however made, which was heard
at the Kingston Quarter Sessions early in January, 1948, when judgment
and 75 guineas costs were awarded to the Appellant.
52