Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London, City of ]
This page requires JavaScript
95
“ these fish were attacked, points to a degree of infectiousness which requires some
“special explanation, and such explanation, the absence of gutting of these small
“ fish would possibly supply.
“It is clearly desirable in the interest of the public health, as it appears to be
“ admitted by many of those who are in a position to have an opinion, it is also in
“ the interest of the fish trader, that no plaice which has not been gutted should
“ be exposed for sale in the Market."
At the time that this matter was under the consideration of your Committee and
the Court of Common Council, it was resolved that your Medical Officer of Health
should arrange for the supervision of Billingsgate Market to be carried out by the
existing staff. It was at that time hoped that such arrangement could be carried out,
but it has, however, since been found that in consequence of the very large increase
of work thrown upon your meat Inspectors, it is not possible to spare an officer for this
purpose.
It is important that the supervision should be constant, and it is further necessary
that such officer should have expert knowledge of fish inspection, and the appointment
of a special officer to act in regard to fish is now under the consideration of the
Sanitary Committee.
SHELLFISH AND ENTERIC FEVER.
OYSTERS.
From time to time I have submitted samples of Oysters as sold in the City of
London for bacteriological examination, and the results obtained have demonstrated
how essential it is that a careful and constant supervision should be exercised over this
species of food, which is so peculiarly susceptible to the influence of sewage or other
contamination that may be present in its natural element.
A further investigation has been completed, and the following is Dr. Klein's
report upon the twelve samples submitted to him:—
Date.
Sample No.
Result.
13th February
1
No B. coli per 1/80 oyster.
No B. coli per 1/40 oyster.
No B. coli per 1/4 oyster.
B. enteritidis sporogenes per ¼ oyster.
Satisfactorily clean.
13th February
2
No B. coli per 1/80 oyster.
No B. coli per 1/40 oyster.
No B. coli per 1/4 oyster.
B. enteritidis sporogenes per ½ oyster.
Satisfactorily clean.
]5th February
3
B. coli per ¼ oyster.
No B. coli per 1/40 oyster.
No B. coli per 1/80 oyster.
Enteritidis spores per ½ oyster, not per 1/8 oyster.
Oysters passable.