44. Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in the County of Nottingham, during the year 1924, 43 samples of milk were analysed, of which 97.7 per cent. were adulterated; during the year 1925, 73 samples of which 60.2 per cent. were adulterated; and during the year 1926, 62 samples of which 54.8 per cent. were adulterated; what action, if any, has been taken to bring the attention of the competent authorities to this adulteration of the food of infants; and will he impress upon these authorities that for the sake of the health and welfare of their infant population they should institute a vigorous campaign against these food adulterators by analysing yearly a much larger number of samples?
§ Sir K. WOODAccording to my right hon. Friend's information, it is the practice of the inspectors in the County of Nottingham to take a large number of samples of milk informally, and to carry out rough sorting tests themselves with a view to ascertaining the places at which adulterated milk is being sold. Formal samples are then taken at those places for submission to the Public Analyst. As the published returns relate only to samples submitted to the Public Analysts, the natural result of this practice is that a very high proportion of the samples recorded in those returns are adulterated samples.
Dr. DAVIESIs it not a new departure that informal samples should be taken by local authorities, and, if so, is it not also the fact that the reports from all the other authorities in the country show very much less milk adulteration than the County of Nottingham?
§ Sir K. WOODThis particular authority has adopted a new method. The answer which I have given to the hon. Gentleman accounts for the situation set forth in this question.