Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Report for the year 1908 of the Medical Officer of Health
This page requires JavaScript
86
and 8 on milk-rounds. A small proportion only of the milk consumed
in Hampstead enters the borough by rail, and therefore the
samples were not limited to those at railway stations. In nearly
every case, however, the source of the supply was ascertained. Of
the total 76 samples, 17, or 22.4 per cent., were found to contain
virulent tubercle bacilli; 6 of these being taken at railway stations
3 at hospitals, 7 at milkshops, and one on a milk-round. In the
case of each of the tuberculous samples the source of supply was
ascertained, and the counties from which the tuberculous milk was
supplied were as follows:—Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex,
Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Somersetshire,
Staffordshire and Wiltshire.
The Borough Council have no power to stop the supply of
tuberculous milk, but under the London County Council (General
Powers) Act, 1907, the County Council are empowered to prohibit
the supply of such milk within the County. Accordingly upon
receipt of a report from the Lister Institute that a sample had been
found to contain tubercle bacilli, I at once communicated the facts
to the Medical Officer of Health of the County of London, and the
officers of the County Council visited the farms from which the milk
came and examined the cows. The number of such farms was 13,
and five cows were discovered to be yielding tuberculous milk. Of
these cows, two were stated to be slaughtered, and the other three
put out of milk.
The situation with regard to tuberculous milk has been considerably
altered by the issue in the present year of the third interim
report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis. Hitherto
it has been generally held that a tuberculous cow will not give
tuberculous milk unless the udder is affected with the disease.
The experiments of the Royal Commission have now proved that
this view is mistaken. Cows suffering from tuberculosis, but showno
sign of disease of the udder, may yield milk containing tubercle
bacilli in abundance, the bacilli being derived from the cow's
excreta and from the matter discharged from the mouth and nostrils
The conclusions of the Royal Commission on this point are contained
in the following extracts from their third interim report:—