View report page

1928]
68
the mother's milk. The shop where the purchase was made was apparently
clean. The information came too late to get any of the particular ham. The
yard, in which there was a large gas copper used for cooking the ham, was open
to criticism inasmuch as the dustbins a few feet away were without covers, and an
intimation regarding these had been served a month previously. They were stated
to be still on order. A store in the shed behind where the cooked hams were on
shelves, was also open to criticism, as the condition of the shelves and shed required
attention, cobwebs being abundantly present.
In the second household affected, an inmate of which was stated to have had
so-called ham, purchased from a branch shop of the same firm, on investigation
the food was alleged to have been pork boiled in pickle. The "ham" was stated
to have had a sticky feel on cutting and to have tasted bitter. Two of the inmates
threw their portions away after tasting it, but the affected person finished hers.
Visitation of this branch shop did not reveal any condition to be criticised, as at
the first, nor could a specimen of the pork be obtained. The question was taken
up with the Managers of the shops in regard to the presence of rats or mice and
the use of poisons. It was stated that these premises, together with the other
branches of the firm, had all been cleared by a professional rat-catcher a year ago,
and that this rat-catcher had used Virus. The Manager was asked, if he had any
mice what he would do, and he promptly replied that he would put down Virus.
He, however, had only very recently come to the shop, and therefore no history
could be obtained as to what was done just previously to his coming. The firm
were warned that Virus should not be used where there are food stuffs, as there
is a danger of the Virus being carried by the rats, and they in their turn infecting
the food stuffs. The particulars were forwarded to the Ministry of Health together
with material for exmination from the patients. In the first case, where
several were affected, the bacillus Enteritidis (Gaertner) was found, and blood
taken from the patients confirmed this as the source of infection, as it gave the
necessary agglutination reaction against this bacillus.
In the case of the second patient, the examination and reaction revealed
another food poisoning bacillus, bacillus Aertrycke.
A Medical Inspector of the Ministry of Health visited the various premises
with the Medical Officer of Health. The conditions in the one had by that time
been put right.
The evidence in these cases, while not absolutely conclusive as to the source
of infection from contamination, point rather to bacilli which may be used as rat
virus having got access to the food.
Shops, etc., Inspection of.—The 726 shops and places where foodstuffs
are sold may be approximated for the year as follows:—
Butchers, provision dealers, etc., shops, 250; meat, provisions, rabbits, tinned
foods, etc., stalls, 26; food preparation establishments, 12; fish shops, 112; fish
stalls, 11; fruit shops, 220; and about 95 fruit, etc., stalls and barrows, including
stalls in the Metropolitan Cattle Market inspected on Tuesdays and Fridays. To
these 23,434 visits were paid, apportioned as follows:—
Butchers, Provision Dealers, etc., Shops 8,040 visits
Food Preparation Establishments 142 „
Butcher, Provision, etc., Stalls 2,057 „
Fish Shops 1.511 „
Fish Stalls 730 „
Fruit Shops 2,879 „
Fruit Stalls 8,075 „
Total 23,434 „