[Report 1960] / Medical Officer of Health, Salop / Shropshire County Council.

  • Shropshire Council
Date:
1960
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1960] / Medical Officer of Health, Salop / Shropshire County Council. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    82/114 (page 80)
    INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION OF FOODS 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 with 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 contains other than a trace of water by the “Hortvet Freezing Test” method or has more than a minimum deficiency in 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, 1,213 milk samples were tested in the Department’s Laboratory; 52 of these were found to be below the legal standard and action was taken as follows: 22 were slightly deficient in fat and the vendors were notified. 1 was appreciably deficient in fat and “on delivery” samples were obtained from milk supplied to the vendor by three producers. 4 “on delivery” samples taken in this case were deficient in fat—2 from each of two producers. Only one sample was appreciably deficient in fat and “Appeal-to-cow” samples taken from the one supplier concerned showed that the cows were giving milk below the required standard. 1 was appreciably deficient and “on delivery” samples were taken from the vendor’s two suppliers. 15 of these “on delivery” samples were deficient in fat (8 slightly and 7 appreciably). “Appeal-to-cow” samples taken from the supplier whose milk was appreciably deficient showed that the cows were giving milk below the required standard. 1 was appreciably deficient in fat and subsequent “Appeal-to-cow” samples showed that the cows were giving milk below the required standard. The vendor was notified. 1 informal sample was found to contain an appreciable amount of added water. Formal follow-up samples were taken (included below) in consequence of which legal proceedings were instituted. 7 contained extraneous water. The comparative formal samples were forwarded to the Public Analyst and are reported upon below. Analyses by the County Analyst: Twenty-one samples were analysed, of which 12 were reported to be genuine and 9 to be adulterated or below standard. The following are particulars of the action taken: 1 sample was found to contain a small amount of added water and a warning letter was sent to the producer concerned. 6 samples were found to contain added water of varying amounts and legal proceedings were instituted against the three producers concerned as indicated in the table below: Table 105: Proceedings under the Food and Drugs Act Magistrates’ Court Analysis Result Fine Costs Whitchurch 5 % added water Case proved £ s. d. 5 0 0 £ s. d. 10 0 0 Wellington .. 5.9% added water ) 10% added water J Case proved (plea of guilty) .. o o o (N 7 0 0 Ellesmere 8.3 % added water i 7.1 % added water • 13.1 % added water ) Case proved (plea of guilty) .. 6 0 0 17 4 0 1 sample which was submitted following a complaint by a member of the public was found to contain solidified milk in the form of a coating at the inside base of the bottle to which dust had adhered. The milk in the bottle contained no dirt. As the milk had not been reported on analysis as non-genuine and the cleanliness of the bottle was the main point in question this matter was referred to the Local District Council who are the authority responsible for the enforcement of the Milk and Dairies (General) Regu¬ lations, 1959. It is understood that the Manager of the dairy premises concerned was interviewed by a Public Health Inspector of the local Council and certain recommendations were made to prevent the recurrence of this matter. The matter was later considered by the appropriate Committee of the authority who decided to take no further action. 1 sample which was also submitted following a complaint by a member of the public was found to contain two grey slugs. This matter was investigated by the Assistant County Sanitary Officer who interviewed the producer. The dairy premises were found to be satisfactory and it was not easy to see how the slugs could have gained access to the bottle. In view of the previous excellent record of this producer it was decided not to institute legal proceedings and a warning letter was, therefore, sent to him. The matter was also referred to the Divisional Milk Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.