[Report 1971] / Medical Officer of Health, Oxford City.

  • Oxford (England). City Council. no2012034102.
Date:
1971
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1971] / Medical Officer of Health, Oxford City. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    192/216 (page 172)
    premises reach a good standard before they actually come into use. However, in spite of attention and continuous advice given to the food trade on food hygiene standards, two prosecutions had to be taken during the year. They involved an Indian restaurant and a self-service shop which were found to contravene seriously many of the Regulations. Every effort was made to obtain improvement informally before these two defaulters had to be reported to the Health Committee because of non-compliance. The proprietor of the Indian restaurant was charged with 8 offences under Regulations 7, 21 and 25 concerning lack of cleanliness, structural defects, and insufficient washing facilities. Total fines of £80 were imposed with a £5 Advocates’ Fee. The self-service shop was found to be in such a dirty condition during a routine visit, that the Proprietor was charged with 12 offences under Regulations 7, 18 and 25 concerning lack of cleanliness and unsatisfactory washing facilities, which resulted in fines totalling no less than £350 with a £10 Advocates’ Fee. Another prosecution involving a recently opened Coffee Shop and Snack Bar occurred as a result of a member of the public noticing the storage of food in a sanitary convenience. Investigation found contraven¬ tions considered serious enough to warrant satutory action. The pro¬ prietor was prosecuted for 4 offences under Regulation 16 concerning a dirty sanitary convenience which was also used for storing food. Fines totalling £190 were imposed by the Magistrates. Investigations were carried out concerning 6 cases of illness having typical symptoms of food poisoning but in only one instance was food poisoning actually confirmed. In January 12 undergraduates at Keble College suffered from vomiting and diarrhoea and 2 members of the kitchen staff had been away the previous day having complained of nausea, headache and diarrhoea. Patients were questioned and College kitchens, serveries, beer cellar and tea room were inspected but no common pattern of food consumption emerged. Attempt was made to obtain stool speci¬ mens without success and one heated meat pie and a discarded meat pie from the beer cellar were sent for Faboratory analysis but did not reveal anything of significance. The advice given as a result of the investigation was gratefully acknowledged as useful and likely to reduce the pos¬ sibility of further similar illness. A housewife had sickness and diarrhoea about three hours after eating some cooked ham for lunch. Samples sent to the Public Health Faboratory did not reveal anything significant. Another local resident was ill with sickness and headache lasting for 24 hours and complained that a meat pastie was probably involved. Investigation proved negative. A frozen chicken from a large supermarket was believed to be involved in another case of suspected food poisoning but investigation revealed nothing of significance. A doctor complained that he had been ill after eating cold ham and a pork pie. No food poisoning organisms were isolated from samples of similar food taken from the premises involved.