View report page

111
that is wrapped previous to delivery is sold at the same price as
unwrapped bread and, apart from this, the very slight increase in
cost, if it did exist, would be counter-balanced by the knowledge that
the bread was protected from contamination.
Closely associated with these instances is the lack of adequate
protection afforded to the public against the person who buys up
inferior tinned foods in large quantities and then puts up the
defence, when dangerous tins are traced to him, that his supply had
not yet been sorted and that he did not intend to sell his unsound
food. References have been made to this matter in previous reports,
notably the Annual Report for the year 1935.
Considerable difficulty is experienced in dealing with numerous
matters such as the foregoing and it is necessary to emphasise that
legislative support in the control of food supplies leaves much to be
desired and it is only by frequent reiteration of the obvious limitations
in this respect together with representations to the appropriate
quarters when new legislation is in course of preparation that the
desired powers will eventually be obtained.
Unsatisfactory Results from Police Court Proceedings in
connection with Food Inspection.—On Tuesday, 25th January,
1938, five summonses against four different defendants were heard
at the Police Court for the following offences:—
(1) Exposing for sale two unsound turkeys.
(2) Depositing for the purpose of sale ten unsound turkeys.
(3) Exposing for sale 475 boxes of dates which were unsound.
(4) Exposing for sale imported chilled meat, improperly
marked.
(5) Failure to observe due cleanliness in regard to a butcher's
shop.
The first three are offences under the Public Health (London)
Act, 1936, and the maximum penalty for a first offence of this nature
is £50 or six months' imprisonment.
The fourth offence is against an Order made under the
Merchandise Marks Act, with a maximum penalty of £5.
The last offence is against the Public Health (Meat) Regulations
for which a penalty of £100 may be imposed.
The first two offences, being committed by one defendant, were
heard together and, although the facts were admitted that the
turkeys were unfit for food, that they were exposed for sale and
that the defendant had been convicted on a previous occasion for a
similar offence, and on another for marking imported meat