View report page

83
poisonous products of such changes are produced at an early stage
in the process, and that there are a number of cases of food
poisoning on record caused by ptomaines produced in tinned foods,.
We are careful never to take to Court any food about which there
is any doubt as to its badness of quality. Such food is
"surrendered" and not seized. I recognise the exigencies and
difficulties of the food trade in London, and when there is doubt we
make it a practice to give the vendor the benefit of the doubt, and
destroy the food with his consent without prosecution. We destroy
tons of such food every year (see Medical Officer's Annual Report,
1901, pp. 99 and 100; and 1902, pp. 97 and 98). In this instance
I had no doubt at the time, and I have no doubt now, that the seven
tins of peas which we seized were unsound and unfit for food, and
no evidence was given in Court which altered my opinion. Prom
my experience as a bacteriologist, and being accustomed to compare
such articles, I affirm that the tins I saw in Court alleged to be
from the same consignment were not in the condition of the seven
tins seized, though I admit (as I admitted in Court) that some of
the tins produced in Court appeared to show some signs of early
fermentation. Unhappily, the seven tins we seized had been
destroyed by order of the Magistrate, in the usual way, after
standing for 24 hours for the defendants to examine, which they did
not do. No bacteriological examination had been made of these
seven tins for the simple reason that I was satisfied and the
Magistrate was satisfied that they were bad, and the vendor
admitted they were "not good enough for him." It is not true to
say that there was any kind of haste in destroying them, or that I
should have objected to an examination. One does not require to
examine by delicate bacteriological tests food which is obviously bad.*
† It will be remembered that the outbreak of cheese poisoning involved 17
pers ins, which occurred in this Borough in October, 1901, was caused by one
Dutch cheese out of a consignment, all of which appeared to be good. Even the
poisonous cheese appeared to be good, and was only in the early stages of
fermentation. Yet it actually produced serious disease in 17 people. If it had
shown external signs of its unsoundness I should have seized it and advised the
Council to prosecute. In this case the cheese was at once surrendered, the
vendor himself having been poisoned.
◦There is the further point that it would be unsatisfactory to seize foods on
the findings of a bacteriological examination. Such a course would be unjust to
the Trade.