View report page

BREAD AND FLOUR REGULATIONS, 1963
These Regulations which came into force on 1st September 1964, re-enact the Flour (Composition)
Regulations, 1956. They regulate the contents, qualities and labelling specifically for
the various types of bread and flour.
The Regulations deem it an offence to import flour which does not contain chalk and nutrients
in proportions set out in Schedule 1 of the Regulations and an offence to import flour containing
a bleaching agent or improving agent other than those approved by the Regulations. Specific
conditions are provided for added colouring matter.
It is normal practice where "formal" samples are taken from an imported food to place the
consignment under detention at the Docks, but this procedure has proved impracticable with large
consignments of flour owing to the length of time required by the Public Analyst for his examination.
The detention at the Docks would inevitably cause serious congestion and impede the
flow of imports into the discharging berths. For this reason, the consignments have been allowed
forward to the terminal warehouse under formal and agreed detention and there to remain pending
the sample examination and report of the Public Analyst. This adopted procedure has proved
acceptable to those concerned.
During the year, an aggregate of 10,051 tons of flour were imported into the Docks and, from
this, 14 samples were taken for examination by the Public Analyst, of which 8 proved satisfactory
and 6 were unsatisfactory. None were considered as seriously offending the provisions of the
Regulations but were found deficient in one or other constituent, such as chalk or nicotinic acid.
The Importers were notified and warned that the flour should be treated to obviate the deficiencies
before distribution for human consumption.
THE COLOURING MATTER IN FOOD REGULATIONS, 1957
During the year 1964, due to the immigrant population from Asia and the West Indies as well
as the growing popularity of oriental food in the home and restaurants, a marked increase has
been noted in the importation of such commodities as chilli and turmeric powders, together with
curry powder, which contains varying proportions of these two powders mixed with cayenne, ginger
and other spices. Upon analysis, some of the powders, primarily of East African origin, were
found to contain prohibited colouring dyes, including Sudan Red, Brilliant Croceine and Metanil
Yellow. In one instance, the crude dye had been found in the form of small lumps amongst the
powder. During the normal analysis, any adulteration is also reported by the Public Analyst and
in some cases this was discovered to constitute large proportions rising to as much as 30% by
the admixture of ground rice, com and pea meal. Whilst such adulteration does not strictly contravene
the provisions of the Imported Food Regulations, and has occurred without the powder
containing a prohibited dye, the normal practice of disclosing the Public Analyst's findings to
the Medical Officer of Health of the district to which the goods were destined has continued. The
merchant has also been advised of his responsibility under the Food and Drugs Act should he
wish to offer the commodity for retail sale. The Public Analyst has stated that in order to find
a recorded example of this type of adulteration it has been necessary to refer back to a publication
"Food, its Adulterations and the methods for their Detection", by Hassal, published in
1876.
It is gratifying to report that demands for re-export of seven consignments, totalling 17½ tons
which contained prohibited colouring dyes, has led to the almost complete cessation of this
practice. It is also interesting to note that, as a result of consistent vigilance of the Inspectors
concerned, one of the leading importers in this country has now required from the exporters a
certificate of analyst prior to the shipment of these powders.
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1926
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS REGULATIONS, 1960
Seven samples of Feeding Stuffs were submitted to the Agricultural Analyst. No sample of
Fertiliser was sent
In each case the sample was found to be within the limits of variation permissible under
the Regulations.
36