View report page

39
and no food remained. During his enquiry the inspector was informed that 43 saddles of lamb were
served of which 20 were cooked at 4.30 p.m. and the remainder at 7 p.m. Both lots were stated to
have been kept on the hot plates until 8 p.m. and then removed to the service kitchen on the banquet
floor for plating and serving. Whilst the temperature of the hot plates was around 220°F there is
some doubt whether the temperature of the meat in the dishes stored upon them would have
reached the required minimum. The other possible cause was the stock pot which provided the
base for the sauce served with the meat. If either had been stored at a temperature below the
statutory level, large numbers of organisms could have been developed.
Of 570 persons who attended a banquet thirteen were reported later to have been ill, their
symptoms being vomiting and abdominal pain. One patient was admitted to Hospital for a short
while. The meal taken by those affected comprised fish with egg-based sauce, chicken supreme and
vegetables. The sauce gave rise to suspicion as being the vehicle of infection, and during his
enquiries the public health inspector was assured that it was only prepared approximately one hour
before serving and any remaining following the banquet was discarded. The clinical symptoms were
suggestive of Staphylococcus exterotoxin but there was no evidence of staphylococcus infection
amongst the kitchen staff. The large quantity of alcohol consumed during the function may have
accentuated the severity of the symptoms.
Staphylococcus aureus was isolated in an outbreak affecting six persons. None of the food from
the suspected meal was available but specimens of hollandaise sauce from a subsequent menu were
positive for this organism which was also isolated from swabs taken from food handlers. Advice was
given to the management on the difficulties associated with temperature control in the keeping
qualities of this particular sauce, and to the necessity, if prepared in bulk, of any sauce remaining at
the close of the meal being discarded. It should never be retained for longer than three hours.
Another incident related to three persons who became ill—two had eaten chicken pie, and one
shepherd's pie. Staphylococcus aureus organisms of a food poisoning type were found in a sample
of frozen chicken pie and were also isolated from swabs taken from the chef's hands. Of two stool
specimens examined, one was positive, but it was of a different phage type to that found in the food.
At the time of the investigation minor burns were noted on the chef's hands, together with a small
uncovered cut, but he alleged these had occurred after the investigation had commenced.
Nursing staff who used the staff restaurant at a London hospital suffered symptoms of temperature,
abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Investigation disclosed 48 cases of Salmonella enteritidis of which
27 were clinical cases and 21 were symptomless. These were discovered following the screening
of all the nursing staff. There was a considerable variation in the incubation period. A questionnaire
completed by staff members showed that whilst some cases followed a specific lunch, others also
occurred after meals consumed at the restaurant on different days and involving more than one kind
of dish. Many samples of food were examined but no positive results were obtained. The indications
were that poultry was the most likely source of the initial infection and as the chicken served had
been drawn on the premises it would seem that this could have given rise to a generalised infection.
Information concerning the outbreak was not received in the Department until 10 days after the
initial infection, and this delay prevented full evaluation of the circumstances of the case.
Seven persons after eating oysters suffered abdominal discomfort with vomiting and diarrhoea
which in most cases developed after an initial period of malaise, and in some continued for six days.
Samples of oysters taken from a subsequent delivery to the premises were bacteriologically
satisfactory. It was not possible positively to identify oysters with the upset suffered but they were
the only food consumed in common and could conceivably have been the cause.
Unsound or Unsaleable Food—Disposal
The past two decades have seen an increase in the amount of food, both imported and home
produced, which is marketed nationally with the result that there has been a corresponding increase
in the number of requests for surrender certificates for goods which are no longer marketable.
Under Section 73 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority may undertake the removal
of trade refuse from premises within their district, and having so undertaken shall, at the request of
the occupier remove such trade refuse. Westminster has entered into such an undertaking.
Schedule 11 (Part II (7)) of the London Government Act, 1963, states that any person who has
in his possession or under his control any article of food which is unsound, unwholesome or unfit
for human consumption, may, by notice to the local authority, specifying and identifying the
article, request its removal as if it were trade refuse.