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 Fulham]
This page requires JavaScript
73
BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF MILK
Under the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1936, there are six designations applicable to
graded milks, as follows:—
1. Tuberculin Tested Milk Certified;
2. Tuberculin Tested Milk ;
3. Tuberculin Tested Milk (Pasteurised) ;
4. Accredited Milk ;
5. Accredited Milk, Farm bottled ;
6. Pasteurised Milk.
Complete details of the standards, etc., laid down for these milks will be found in my Annual
Report for 1936.
During the year under review 110 samples of graded milk, 22 of ungraded milk and 4 of raw
milk were purchased by the Sampling Officer for bacteriological examination. Forty-three of the
samples were purchased from milk vendors in the streets in the early hours of the morning and 41
were taken at the early morning delivery to the hospitals, etc., in the Borough which are controlled
by the London County Council.
Of the total of 136 samples examined, 24 were especially tested by animal inoculation for
the presence of tubercle bacilli under Section 5 of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act, 1922.
One sample of raw milk so examined was reported to contain tubercle bacilli and the matter was
communicated to the Medical Officer of Health for the County in which the farm from which the
milk was obtained is situated. The herd was examined by a Veterinary Officer for the County and
samples of milk taken. One sample taken from a cow which had a mild attack of Mastitis, was
found to contain tubercle bacilli and the animal was slaughtered under the provisions of the
Tuberculosis Order.
The Chief Veterinary Officer for the County in which the farm is situated reported that " the
post-mortem examination revealed that she was affected with ' Advanced ' Tuberculosis including
lesions in the udder. This animal would be the cause of the tubercle infection of the milk sample
taken by the Fulham Borough Council."
The following table gives details of the various examinations carried out:—
TABLE 19
| Sample No. | Result of Analysis. | Action taken. | Result. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 247 | 6% deficient in fat | Prosecution | Summons dismissed, the Justices holding that the firm prosecuted (who bottled, sealed and supplied the milk to a subsidiary company) were not responsible as the milk had left their control and custody at time of sampling. |
| 547 | 3% added water (as shown by freezing point) | Vendor warned by letter. | |
TABLE 20 SAMPLES OF MILK ADULTERATED
| Year. | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1937 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. examined | 591 | 565 | 548 | 540 | 543 | 641 | 554 | 580 | 566 | 571 |
| No. adulterated | 15 | 28 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Percentage of adulteration | 2.5 | 4.7 | 0.7 | 0.55 | 0.74 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 1.06 | 0.35 |