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

View report page

London County Council 1904

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]

This page requires JavaScript

Continued from previous page...

Metropolitan borough.Number of places.Number of inspections, 1904.Number of notices, 1904.Number of prosecutions 1904.
On Register at end of 1903.Added in 1904.Removed in 1904.On Register at end of 1904.
Hampstead11062114354402
St. Pancras466895
Islington67430-7041,112985
Stoke Newington51
Hackney43023334201,00591
Holborn10718141711,16012-.
Finsbury26115627034858-
London, City of5532930552
Shoreditch30027332943,19941
Bethnal Green34431233521,701193
Stepney1,0178
Poplar253831,284
Southwark84379594-
Bermondsey28618330144415-
Lambeth4685473
Battersea225432224658379-
Wandsworth2863131286590482
Camberwell57435275821,339231
Deptford1894645190395
Gre nwich16129-190275-1
Lewisham148484415237130-
Woolwich15454121961969

The tables are, in respect of some districts, imperfect, but they serve to make apparent the amount
of work which devolves upon sanitary authorities and the extent to which inspection of milk premises
is carried out in London. It is much to be hoped that in future years a complete statement for the
whole of London will be possible.
In many of the reports of medical officers of health, the desire is expressed for amended regulations
for the control of milk premises, and the Lambeth Borough Council, during the year, communicated
with other London sanitary authorities with a view to representation to the Local Government Board
of the need for an amended Dairies and Cowsheds Order. This subject is remaining in abeyance until
the Royal Commission, appointed to report on the relation of bovine to human tuberculosis, has finally
reported*
Among the suggestions made in connection with the amendment of the Order is the
proposal that all milkshop premises should be annually licensed, or that no milkshop should be
registered if the sanitary authority were of opinion that it was not fit for the storage and sale of milk.
Concerning the action taken under existing powers may be mentioned the following.
Dr. Newman, referring to the results of the issue of a circular to milk vendors in the
beginning of the year, states: "That circular, which appeared in my report for 1903
(p. 177), laid emphasis upon the importance of cleanliness of milkshop furniture and fittings,
the cleansing of milk vessels, the covering of milk pans, the storage of milk, and the freedom
of milk from infection. I am glad to report that in all these respects there has been marked
improvement, though there is much still to be done. Almost all milk dealers in Finsbury now cover,
their milk pans and take increased precautions as to storage. In many of the little general shops which
deal in milk there is still much dirt and mismanagement, and it is to be feared that persons obtaining
milk at these shops cannot often receive a pure and clean article. A continual and steady enforcement
of the law is, in my opinion, the effectual and equitable system of reform." In Hackney, Dr. Warry
states, it was found that " in some cowsheds the cows were groomed and their udders cleaned before
milking, but in the majority of cases this was not done. It was also observed that in some instances
the cleanliness of the milker left much to be desired. In certain dairies and milkshops the milk was
exposed on counters, etc., quite uncovered, and consequently exposed to pollution from falling particles
and from air.borne matters and germs." A circular, which Dr. Warry says has had good effect, was
issued to milk.vendors, recommending the grooming of the cow at least once a day, and the cleansing
of the udder before each milking; also pointing out the need of cleanliness of the milker, the wearing
of clean overalls and head covering, and urging the covering and straining of the milk and the maintenance
of cleanliness in the cowshed. In Islington also, special action was taken to secure the cleanliness
of the udders of cows in cowsheds.
* The interim report of this Commission, published in 1904, states that they have made use of material taken
from more than twenty cases of tuberculous disease in human beings, and that in the case of seven of the above
"strains" the introduction of the human tuberculous material into cattle gave rise at once to acute tuberculosis; that
other "strains" gave rise to tuberculous disease of less extent, but that tuberculous material taken from
the bovine animal thus affected and introduced successively into other bovine animals or into guinea pigs from
which bovine animals were subsequently inoculated, " has up to the present in the case of five of these remaining
'strains,' ultimately given rise in the bovine animal to general tuberculosis of an intense character."