View report page

56
sympathy of the Courts in those cases where legal proceedings have
been instituted for food offences and the offenders have not been
able to evade conviction on a legal technicality. In fact, the
decisions of the Courts in some cases where the offenders have
been found guilty suggest that, if anything, the Magistrates'
sympathies have been with the trader rather than the Council.
Whilst it is not possible here to give a detailed history of food
inspection in Hackney over the past years, it is hoped that the
following resume will give some indication at least of some of the
difficulties which have been experienced and the evolution which
has taken place.
On the 1st September, 1921, the Sale of Food Order, 1921
which (among other things) imposed on meat retailers the duty of
marking all imported meat exposed for sale, came into operation,
but it was soon found that very few retailers knew of its existence,
for the food inspectors reported many failures to comply with the
Order and it was necessary to warn offenders that proceedings
might follow if they did not comply with the provisions as to
efficient marking of all imported meat exposed for sale. During
that year a large number of stall butchers (mostly ex-service men)
started in business in the market thoroughfares, and considerable
time was devoted to inspecting the premises where they were
storing their meat and utensils. Many of them had the idea that
any yard or old shed was good enough for the purpose, and in one
case the inspector found meat stored in a very dirty stable opening
direct on to the street and in which two horses were kept.
At that time local authorities could only endeavour, very
inadequately, to protect the public against contamination of two
articles of food—meat and milk, and how limited these powers
were can be gauged by the fact that it was suggested that all milk
should be partially cooked or sterilised in order to kill disease
germs, milk containing cooked disease germs instead of clean
milk then being the highest attainable ideal, despite the fact that
the percentage of tuberculous milk detected in the London supply
varied from 3 to 10 per cent. of samples taken. At that time epidemics
of infectious disease due to milk were far from uncommon.
The byelaws and other legal powers relating to food then in
existence were directed to securing ordinary sanitation of the premises;
food obviously dangerous to the public could be seized,
but there were practically no powers to prevent the preparation
of food in such a manner that although after treatment it appeared
sound to ordinary inspection, if inspection came that way, it was
really dangerous to the public health.
There was no registration except of milk dealers, and although
ice-cream premises, fried fish premises, poultry slaughterers,
cattle slaughterers purveyors of milk, bakehouses, cowhouses,