View report page

52
4. Whilst it is proposed that definite instrutions shall be given the Inspectors as to the
premises from which a certain number of purchases shall be made, a reasonable margin
of purchases will be left to the discretion of the Inspectors, particularly in regard to
the samples of milk, many of which it is desirable should be purchased from men on
their rounds in the streets.
5. The general principle will be recognised that, where a sample has proved on analysis to
be adulterated, a further sample is to be taken from the vendor thereof.
At present no decision has been arrived at for taking an increased number of samples as
suggested by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Boric Acid in Milk.—The Council received, and referred to the Public Health Committee
a letter from the Camberwell Borough Council, forwarding copy of a report made by their Medical
Officer of Health with reference to boric acid in food, intimating that they had requested the
Local Government Board to take such steps as might be neccssary in order that a limit should be
fixed to the amount of boric acid that might be mixed with food, and asking the Council to
take similar action.
A joint report dealing with the subject was submitted (14th June) by the Medical Officer of
Heath and the Public Analyst as follows:—
"With reference to the letter from the Town Clerk of the Borough of Camberwell, enclosing
a report of the Medical Officer of Health upon Food Preservatives, referred to us
for our observations, we beg to report on the subject as follows: —
"The report and recommendations of the Departmental Committee of the Local
Government Board have made it perfectly clear that the addition of Boric Acid and its
compounds, in any quantities, to milk at any rate, should not be allowed, and that, as regards
other foods, the practice, where not prohibited, should only be permitted on condition
that full disclosure is made, and that the amount of the adulterant should not exceed
specified percentages to be fixed by the Local Government Board, or the Board of Agriculture,
for the various foods.
"We do not agree with the suggestion contained in the letter from the Town Clerk
of Camberwell, that the Local Government Board should be asked to fix a limit of
permitted additions of Boric Acid to milk. We think that the recommendations of the
Departmental Committee should be supported, and that absolute prohibition should be
asked for; i.e., that the recommendations should be made legal regulations. The view we
take about the use of antiseptic chemicals in food is, that when the drug is present in sufficient
amount to exert its specific effect on the food (i.e., to ' preserve' it—apparently), the
chemical and physiological processes involved in digestion and assimilation are of necessity
injuriously affected."
The Committee endorsed the views expressed in the foregoing report and recommended
that a communication be addressed to the Camberwell Borough Council on the lines indicated; and
this was done.
VACCINATION.
The table at page 54 is. a return respecting vaccination in Kensington in 1903, for which
I am indebted to Mr. King, the vaccination officer. It shows that out of 3,596 infants, whose
births were returned in the "Birth List Sheets" (col. 2), during the year, 3,061 were successfully
vaccinated, and that 19 were returned as " insusceptible of vaccination." In 16 cases vaccination
was postponed by medical certificate; 279 infants died unvaccinated: in 12 cases infants were
removed to other districts, the vaccination officers of which were duly notified of the fict; whilst
some 183 cases, from " removal to places out of the parish, unknown, or which cannot be reached,
and cases not having been found," were unaccounted for. These cases are, with those of
"conscientious objectors" (25 against 40, 46 and 23 in the preceding three years respectively),
equivalent to a "loss" (i.e. cases not finally accounted for) of 5.8 per cent., as compared with the
number of births returned in the Birth List Sheets; the loss in the preceding ten years having been
7.7, 8.4, 9.0, 10.1, 10.7, 12.7, 8.1, 6.8, 7.6 and 6.1 per cent. Kensington, in this respect, always
compares favourably with the Metropolis, as a whole; for, according to the most recent return, it
appears that the '"loss" in the Metropolis in 1901, was 24.1 per cent., as compared with 5.8 per
cent. in Kensington. False registration, i.e., fictitious addresses entered in the birth list sheets,
largely accounts for the "loss;" the children cannot be traced.