[Report 1964] / Medical Officer of Health, Salop / Shropshire County Council.
- Shropshire (England). County Council.
- Date:
- 1964
Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Credit: [Report 1964] / Medical Officer of Health, Salop / Shropshire County Council. Source: Wellcome Collection.
77/116 (page 67)
![INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION OF FOODS Mr. D. Coups, County Public Health Inspector, reports as follows: Qualitative Sampling of Milk and Other Foods.—Under Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, a person who sells to the prejudice of a purchaser any food or drug which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded is guilty of an offence; and under Section 91 of the Act, an Authorised Officer of a Food and Drugs Authority may procure samples of foods and drugs for analysis, with a view to ensuring compliance with Section 2. Except in the Borough of Shrewsbury, which is an independent Food and Drugs Authority, the County Council are the responsible authority within the County. Milk.— Testing of Milk Samples.—Following approval by the County Council early in 1958 of the policy of testing milk samples within the Health Department, the following procedure with regard to milk sampling is adopted by the Department’s Sampling Officers. In the course of routine sampling, two samples of the same grade of milk are obtained from the retailer. One is divided formally into three parts, and sealed and labelled in accordance wtih the procedure laid down under the Act; the other is treated as an “informal” or “comparative” sample, and is tested in the Health Department Laboratory, for Fat and Solids-not-Fat content. If this latter sample is shown to contain water, other than a trace, by the “Hortvet Freezing Test” method or has more than a minimum deficiency of milk fat, the corresponding formal sample is forwarded to the Public Analyst for analysis, together with any other samples obtained from the same retailer which may be necessary to provide evidence if legal proceedings are instituted. Individual samples received on complaint from members of the public are also submitted direct to the Analyst where it is not possible to obtain a corresponding sample. During the year, 1,215 samples of milk were tested within the Department’s Laboratory; 30 of these were found to be below legal standards and action was taken as follows: 19 were slightly deficient in fat and vendors were notified. 2 were slightly deficient in solids-not-fat and the vendors were notified. 1 was deficient in fat, but the producer concerned ceased production and a formal sample could not, therefore, be obtained. 1 was deficient in fat and Appeal-to-Cow samples were obtained. 1 Appeal-to-Cow sample relative to the above was found to be deficient in fat and a letter was sent to the producer concerned. 6 were found to contain extraneous water and the comparative formal samples were forwarded to the County Analyst and are reported on below. Analyses by the County Analyst: Thirty-one samples were analysed, of which ten were reported as being adulterated or below standard and were dealt with as follows: 3 were found to contain formaldehyde preservative and legal proceedings were instituted against the producer as indicated in the following table. 6 were found to contain extraneous water and legal proceedings were instituted against the producer as indicated in the following table. 1 sample of milk submitted as the result of a complaint was found to be contaminated with dirt and legal proceedings were instituted against the processor as indicated in the following table. Other Cases: Following a complaint that milk from a vending machine was sour, legal proceedings were instituted and the results are given in the table following: Table 105 : Proceedings under the Food and Drugs Act Magistrates’ Court Analysis Result Fine Costs Mid-Shropshire (1) Milk to which a preser¬ vative had been added: 44 p.p.m. 41 p.p.m. 86 p.p.m. (2) Milk not of the substance demanded by the pur¬ chaser. Case proved (plea of guilty) Case proved (plea of guilty) £10 0 0 £10 0 0 ] 1 £3 5 0 1 Oswestry Milk contaminated with dirt consisting of grit, yeasts, mould, insect fragments, vegetable fibres and dried milk residue. Case proved (plea of guilty) £20 0 0 £8 11 0 Mid-Shropshire Milk to which an addition of water had been made to the extent of: (1)8.0% (2) 4.8% (3) 8.0% (4) 6.5% (5) 3.2% (6) 3.2% Case proved (plea of guilty) £15 0 0 on each of six charges. £90 total. £43 14 0 1 j Oswesty Did unlawfully sell to the prejudice of the purchaser milk which was not of the quality demanded. Case proved (plea of guilty) £10 0 0 £5 5 0 i 1](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30087028_0077.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
