TY  - JOUR
AB  - Of milk alone no less than 36,000 samples were purchased during 1904, almost as many as the total for all articles 10 years ago. Of these 4,031 (or 11.1 per cent.) were returned as adulterated. In the previous year 10.4 per cent. were condemned. The difference is not of necessity due to any increase in adulteration, as the figures are admittedly inaccurate owing to the differences of procedure on the part of Public Analysts in making out their reports. In support of this view it is mentioned that in 14 Metropolitan Districts where 6,270 milks were examined, 4.9 per cent. were reported as containing percentages of added water under 5 per cent., while in 15 other districts, where 3,205 samples were submitted, only 0.56 per cent. were returned as being adulterated to this extent. The explanation is that in the former case the Public Analyst adhered more or less rigidly to the standard fixed by the “Sale of Milk Regulations,” while in the latter, in most instances, where the amount of adulteration was under 5 per cent., the samples were reported as genuine. Here the Report takes what is a more or less new and certainly welcome departure, in definitely expressing an opinion for the guidance of those in doubt, and stating that so long as the “Sale of Milk Regulations” remains in force, “Public Analysts have no warrant for the adoption of a still lower standard.”
VL  - 8
IS  - 3
SN  - 0007-070X
DO  - 10.1108/eb010933
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1108/eb010933
PY  - 1906
Y1  - 1906/01/01
TI  - British Food Journal Volume 8 Issue 3 1906
T2  - British Food Journal
PB  - MCB UP Ltd
SP  - 41
EP  - 60
Y2  - 2024/09/19
ER  -