London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
City of London 1911
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London, City of ]
This page requires JavaScript
98
“ (b) There were present cocci (Staphylococcus Aureus ?) to the amount
“ of several 68 hundred per winkle.
“ (c) There were present no microbes belonging to the Gaertner
“ Typhoid group.”
“From this analysis it follows that the winkles were distinctly unclean, but
“ no specific pathogenic microbes were discovered in them.”
It will be seen, therefore, that although there was no specific connection between
the winkles examined and the incidence of the case of enteric fever, the shellfish were
unquestionably polluted and unfit for human food.
In these circumstances I communicated with the dealer from whom the samples
had been purchased, and obtained from him an undertaking not to sell any more
winkles from the same source as those referred to in Dr. Klein's report.
This case affords another indication of the unsatisfactory manner in which the
shellfish industry of this country is conducted, and illustrates well the lack of powers
with which sanitary authorities are armed to fight this important question of shellfish
pollution. Although we were successful in stopping the sale of these winkles by one
dealer, there is no doubt that they are being sold, if not in London, elsewhere.
The time has undoubtedly arrived when some legislative measure should be placed
on the Statute Book prohibiting altogether the sale of shellfish from any polluted
source.
It is surely an anomaly that the protection afforded to consumers of meat and
other foods should be withheld from the consumer of shellfish, and until stringent
powers are granted with this object, the consumption of shellfish must be attended
with some amount of risk.
Continued from previous page...
| Date. | Sample No. | Result. |
|---|---|---|
| 15th February | 4 | No B. coli per ¼ oyster. No B. coli per 1/40 oyster. No B. coli per 1/80 oyster. B. enteritidis sporogenes per ½ oyster, not per ½ oyster. Satisfactorily clean. |
| 17th February | 5 | No B. coli per 1/3 oyster. No B. coli per 1/6 oyster. No B. coli per 1/60 oyster. B. enteritidis sporogenes per 1/6 and 1/3 oyster. Passable. |
| 17th February | 6 | No B. coli per 1/7 oyster. No B. coli per 1/14 oyster. No B. coli per 1/140 oyster. No B. enteritidis sporogenes per 1/7 or 1/14 oyster. Satisfactorily clean. |
| 20th February | 7 | B. coli per ¼ oyster. B. coli per 7/8 oyster. No B. coli per 1/40 oyster. B. enteritidis sporogenes per ¼ and 1/8,not per 1/16 oyster. Passable. |
| 20th February | 8 | B. coli per 1/8 oyster. No B. coli per 1/16 oyster. No B. coli per 1/80 oyster. No B. enteritidis sporogenes per 1/8 or 1/16 oyster. Satisfactorily clean. |
| 22nd February | 9 | B. coli per 1/3 oyster. No B. coli per 1/6 oyster. No B. coli per 1/30 oyster. B. enteritidis sporogenes per 1/6, not per 1/12 oyster. Passably clean. |
| 22nd February | 10 | No B. coli per 1/5 oyster. No B. coli per 1/10 oyster. No B. coli per 1/50 oyster. B. enteritidis per 1/10, not per 1 15 oyster. Satisfactorily clean. |
| 1st March | 11 | No B. coli per ¼ oyster. No B. coli per 1/8 oyster. No B. coli per 1/40 oyster. B. enteritidis sporogenes per ½, not per ¼ oyster. Satisfactorily clean. |
| 1st March | 12 | No B. coli per 1/6 oyster. No B. coli per 1/12 oyster. No B. coli per 1/60 oyster. No B. enteritidis sporogenes per ¼ or 1/8 oyster. Satisfactorily clean. (Signed) E. KLEIN. |