View report page

Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and Milk and Dairies (Regulations)
1959.
One pint bottle of milk containing foreign matter—defendants
pleaded guilty—fined £10 with £7 costs.
One pint bottle of milk—bottle in dirty condition—defendants
pleaded guilty—fined £10 with £7 costs.
One pint bottle of milk—bottle in dirty condition—defendants
pleaded guilty—fined £10 with £7 costs.
One pint bottle of milk—bottle in dirty condition—defendants
pleaded guilty—fined £10 with £7 costs.
One pint bottle of milk containing mould growth—defendants
pleaded guilty—fined £25 with £5 costs.
One pint bottle of milk—bottle in dirty condition—defendants
pleaded guilty—fined £10 with £7 costs.
Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1960.
Thirty summonses were brought against the proprietor of a
bakehouse for offences under these Regulations—defendant
pleaded guilty to 25 summonses, and the remaining five
were withdrawn prior to the hearing — defendant had been
found guilty in respect of similar contraventions by Wimbledon
Magistrates Court in 1969—now fined £10 in respect of each
offence (£250) with £7 costs.
Inspection of Imported Food.
In the past imported foodstuffs were inspected at the port of
entry. However, with the development of the Container system, a
changed procedure has been instituted to allow the inspection to take
place at the point where the container is unpacked. When this is
done, not at a port, but an inland destination, special provisions are
necessary. The Imported Food Regulations, 1968, which came into
operation on 1st August, 1968, makes provision for the contents of a
food container to receive health clearance at its destination when the
container is opened prior to distribution. Inland local authorities have
the same powers of inspection and detention as Port Health authorities,
since the responsibilities under the Regulations are transferred to them.
Unopened food containers have been arriving at two premises in
this London Borough at irregular intervals during the past year,
although latterly only one firm's premises were concerned. As a general
rule, the Port Health authority notifies me by telephone that a container
is on the way (on other occasions notification is by post), and a
visit is made by an Inspector immediately the notification is received.
Despite this arrangement containers do invariably arrive, are unloaded
and depart before the arrival of the Inspector. I have made informal
arrangements with the local receiving firm to keep container contents
apart until the Inspector has visited. The firm is most co-operative in
this respect, but there would appear to be no obligation for them to
do so.
I think there is room for improvement in this procedure, and if
the inland receiver was required to notify the local authority immediately
a container arrives at his premises, and was also obliged to
refrain from opening the container until the expiration of a given
period of time, this would overcome the present difficulty and enable
the local authority Inspector to be present at the time of opening.
80