View report page

64
should be made safe by wrapping previous to delivery and when
these bye-laws were in course of preparation this request was again
put forward, but it was decided not to provide for this compulsory
wrapping on the grounds that it might be expected to raise the
cost of bread to the consumer and be a hardship on poor persons.
In my view such presumptions were not justified as in some cases
bread wrapped previous to delivery was sold at the same price as
unwrapped bread and, apart from this, the very slight increase
in cost, if it did occur, would be counter-balanced by the knowledge
that the bread was protected from contamination.
Another difficulty encountered resulted from the lack of adequate
protection afforded to the public against the person who
bought up inferior tinned foods in large quantities and then put
up the defence, when dangerous tins were traced to him, that his
supply had not yet been sorted and that he did not intend to sell
his unsound food. References to this matter have been made in
several Reports, notably my Annual Report for the year 1835.
Considerable difficulty was experienced in dealing with numerous
matters such as the foregoing and it was necessary to emphasise
that legislative support in the control of food supplies left much to
be desired. 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.
The unsympathetic treatment which local authorities often
received in their efforts to protect the public is perhaps best
illustrated by the following extract from my Annual Report for
1938:—
"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 were offences under the Public Health (London)
Act, 1936, the maximum penalty for a first offence of this nature
being £50 or six months' imprisonment.
The first two offences, being committed by one defendant,
were heard together and, although the facts were admitted that the