London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Wandsworth 1909

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Wandsworth, Metropolitan Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

88
Report of the Medical Officer of Health.
derived his supplies. He at the same time informed me that
he had been in communication with Dr. Crookshank and that
he had Pasteurised all the milk which was sent out from the
two depots on the 15th February. I made full inquiries as to
the health of his employees, and particularly as to the health
of the foreman who was in charge of the drumming or mixing
ot the milk. He informed me that there was no illness among
any of his employees, and as the cases in Barnes were supplied
by different roundsmen I had no reason to suspect that
the milk was infected in this district. 1 advised the purveyor
to communicate with all the farms at once, as well as providing
me with their names and addresses. During this interview
he showed me a printed form of contract in which it is
definitely stated that if any cases of infectious disease occur
at any of the farms the consignee is to be at once informed,
and also that the consignor is to be remunerated at the same
rate even if no milk is sent.
"The next day, having received a list of seventeen farms
in six counties from him 1 communicated with all the Medical
Officers of Health of the County or district in which the farms
were situated.
"I again called on the purveyor on the evening of the
19th and saw telegrams which he had received from the
farms, all of which gave negative replies to the letter sent by
him asking if there was any illness at the farms. On Saturday
morning, the 20th February, the purveyor received a
letter from a farm near Highworth, Wiltshire, stating that a
case of Enteric Fever had occurred there, and that the officer
who called had stated that as the dairy was at a distance
from the farm there was no risk of infecting the milk, but
instructions were given to notify the dairyman in London.
These instructions, however, were not carried out. It is difficult
to understand why the farmer did not notify the purveyor,
as, if he had done so, the infected milk could have been
stopped on the 30th January.
"On Sunday, 21st February, I again saw the purveyor,
who had visited the farms in company with a bacteriologist,