View report page

125
'' . . . of . . . was summoned for obstructing a Tottenham
sanitary inspector when carrying into execution the provision of
the Public Health Act. A sanitary inspector said that when
passing stores in High Road, Tottenham, he noticed tins
of peas, condensed milk, fruit and vegetables which appeared
"blown'' and in bad condition. "Blown'' tins, said witness,
were those swollen by gases from inside. He 'phoned defendant
and seized the goods, but arrived later and ordered an
employee to put them in his car, saying, "I have seen my solicitors."
Mr assistant solicitor, prosecuting for the Tottenham
Council, said there was no suggestion that defendant
sold or intended to sell the goods, but it was his action of obstructing
the inspector that was complained of. Defendant said
the premises had been closed a fortnight previous to the date
when the goods were being removed, and they were being collected
to be sent back to the makers. ' 'It is a very serious matter
to interfere with sanitary inspectors," said Mr J.P.,
fining defendant £1 and ordering him to pay two guineas costs.''
Recent Recommendations.—Recently, both the Society of
Medical Officers of Health and the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing
Joint Committee have had under consideration recommendations
directed towards ensuring good conditions of food manufacture and
distribution. The Society of Medical Officers of Health, in a
memorandum published in "Public Health," March, 1934, recommended
that all food manufacturers' premises should be registered
and open to inspection and sampling by the proper authority.
At the same time, however, experience in operating the Dairies,
Cowsheds and Milkshops Order, 1885, which required registration,
but gave no power to refuse to register or to remove from the
register, leads one to suppose that mere registration of food nanufacturers'
premises will not have a sufficiently far-reaching effect.
It is certainly true that even registration would be of value, since
often individuals or small firms carry on business without their
existence being known to the sanitary authority, and such firms
may use entirely unsuitable premises, both for storage and for food
manipulation, re-bottling, re-labelling, and so forth, to say nothing
of the methods employed at these premises, to which, very often,
the attention of the Public Health Department is first directed as
the result of complaint of accumulation of rubbish, foul odours,
rats, or other conditions causing annoyance to neighbours, or as
the result of information as to seizure of food from some distant
part of the country. The Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint
Committee have recently considered the storage of food on a recommendation
from a Borough Council, suggesting to the London County
Council that Section 8 of the London County Council (General
Powers) Act, 1908, should be extended so as to prohibit the storage
of food in a place in which an animal is kept, and have proposed