View report page

131
CONTAMINATED SHELLFISH AND ENTERIC FEVER.
In previous Annual Reports cases have been recorded of Enteric Fever
attributed to the consumption of polluted Shellfish, yet in spite of the
publicity thus given to the facts, together with the energetic action of many
interested in the public welfare, little has been done to remedy what is a
potential source of danger to the community.
Dr. Bulstrode, in a report presented to the Local Government Board in 1896,
showed conclusively that, at that time, shellfish were cultivated in layings, the
greater part of which were specially liable to sewage pollution, and although
isolated attempts have since been made to improve matters, no effective
alteration in the right direction is likely to result until legislative powers are
obtained to protect this class of food and its consumers.
In 1899, subsequent to Dr. Bulstrode's report, a Bill was introduced in the
House of Lords, but in view of the unworkable nature of some of its provisions,
the Government of the day were unable to afford it the support it deserved, and
unfortunately what would have proved to be a useful measure had to be
dropped.
It may here be desirable to give a short précis of the Bill, which was
entitled "An Act for the Protection of Public Health against Danger arising
from the Consumption of Oysters," proposed to deal with the question by
giving powers:—
(i.) To enter upon any oyster laying and take samples.
(ii.) To prohibit the sale of any oysters from any layings found to be
fouled by sewage, giving the owner ten days' notice and according him a
hearing, with the right to appeal to the Local Government Board within
twenty-one days. The penalty for selling after prohibition being fixed
at £5.
(iii.) To empower the Local Government Board to act in default of the
Authority.
(iv.) To His Majesty in Council to prohibit the importation of oysters
from foreign layings, known to be unsound.
As originally drafted, the Authority under the Bill was the County Council,
but this was subsequently altered to the Sea Fisheries Committee. There
were obvious objections to the relegation of such important sanitary duties to
a body having no Sanitary Officers or no Sanitary Authority, and your Medical
Officer, who was then acting for the Port Sanitary Authority, gave evidence
before the Select Committee against the proposals. Unfortunately, however
the views then expressed did not appear to have been shared by the Select
Committee.