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
Stepney 1937
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Stepney]
This page requires JavaScript
| No on Register. | No of Inspections. | No of Notices Served. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dairy premises | 203 | 1,273 | 180 |
| Purveyors' bottled milk | 414 | 114 | |
| Itinerant vendors | 72 | — | 1 |
| Cowsheds | 17 | 128 | 19 |
10 samples of milk were submitted to the Bacteriologist for the detection
of tuberculosis (guinea pig inoculation). 7 of the samples were undesignated
milk and 3 were "Tuberculin Tested." In one of the latter, the two animals
inoculated both died of an intercurrent infection, therefore no report was
available. A further sample from the same source, together with the remaining
8 samples were satisfactory.
72 samples of milk were taken in course of delivery to various schools
in the Borough. 37 of the samples were submitted for chemical analysis,
34 for bacteriological examination and 1 for the detection of tuberculosis
(guinea pig inoculation). Of these, 1 sample examined by chemical analysis
proved to be unsatisfactory (C.136). Legal proceedings were taken in this
case. 4 samples examined bacteriologically proved to be unsatisfactory.
(For action taken see tables of samples submitted for bacteriological examination).
The remainder of the samples were satisfactory.
32 samples of milk were taken in course of delivery to various hospitals
and institutions in the Borough. Of these, 28 were submitted for chemical
analysis, 3 for bacteriological examination and 1 for the detection of tuberculosis
(guinea pig inoculation). All the samples proved to be satisfactory.
24 "appeal to cow" samples were taken from 3 cowsheds in the Borough.
18 of the samples were taken from 1 cowshed and of these, 6 were found to
be deficient in fat. The cowkeeper was advised to replace cows giving
inferior milk, and to alter his times of milking. These requirements were
carried out and no further trouble experienced. The remainder of the samples
were satisfactory.
The following samples were submitted for bacteriological examination: —
| Nature of sample. | No. of samples. | Number unsatisfactory and action taken. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milk (Pasteurised) | 40 | 4. | These were school samples taken from two different vendors. In one case the vendor was requested to carry out certain requirements; this was done and subsequent samples examined proved to be satisfactory. In the case of the other vendor, the M.O.H. of the borough concerned was notified. |
| Milk (Tuberculin Tested) | 3 | — | |
| Milk (Undesignated) | 5 | 2. | Taken from same vendor who was requested to improve method by which he cleansed his utensils. |
| Gherkins | 4 | — | |
| Roll | 1 | 1. | Examined as a result of a complaint that it contained foreign substance. This proved to be correct and the vendor was cautioned. |
| Cocoanut Candy | 1 | — | |
| Chocolate Wafers | 1 | — | |
| Milk Bottles | 2 | 2. | Taken from same vendor. Improvement in method of washing bottles brought about. |
| Pea Meal | 1 | — | Taken in connection with food poisoning inquiry. |
| Salmon and Shrimp Paste | — | do. | |
| Salmon and Anchovy Paste | 1 | — | do. |
| Miscellaneous | 14 | - | These consisted of Semolina, Rice, Soup mixture. Vermicelli, Confectionery, etc., damaged by river water. No evidence of contamination was found. |