View report page

11
In this case the pudding was made during the afternoon and evening of the day
on which it was sold. After it was ready it was kept warm and was from time to
time stirred with hot water and it has been suggested that the contamination took
place at about 7.30 or 8 p.m. by the shopkeeper's daughter who is known to have
taken up some of the pudding with her fingers and who is believed to have been a
dysentery carrier at that time. Since, however, the pudding was sold to and eaten
by the patients in less than two hours after this, it is difficult to believe on bacteriological
grounds that the contaminating organism produced large amounts of toxin
in the short space of up to three hours before it was eaten, or, if the toxin production
is considered as continuing in the stomach, within 4—5 hours after contamination,
when the first symptoms of poisoning occurred. Such an hypothesis merits experimental
test, but without it, other possibilities more in keeping with bacteriological
knowledge may be sought. It is known that previous pease-puddings had been
prepared, and although Friday's preparation was stated to have been sold out,
if some remains of it had been contaminated on that day, there would be time for
multiplication and great toxin production to have occurred by Saturday evening.
The addition of this to the new pudding just before sale would explain the circumstances
more clearly than the hypothesis that the significant contamination occurred
by fingers at about the same time.
References.
1 Fyfe, G. M. (1927.) J. Hyg., 26, 271.
2 Kinloch, J. P. (1922-3.) J. Hyg., 21, 451.
3 Lorenz, F. H. (1920.) Z. Hyg. Infektkr, 90, 423.
4 Louste, A., and Godlowski, H. (1919.) Soe. Med. d. hôp. de Paris, 43, 1022.
6 Savage, W. G., and Bruce White, P. (1925.) Sp. Hep. Ser., Med. Res. Coun. No. 92.
7 Sowden, G. (1933.) Brit. Med. J., ii, 712 and 836.
8 Stanley, L. L., Garfinkle, F. K., and Goddard, W. P. (1930.) J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 94, 857.