UNWHOLESOME MEAT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11109, 30 October 1901, Page 6

UNWHOLESOME MEAT.

Tbe proceedings, in the Police Court yesterday, in a case where a Sydenham butcher was fined for having unwholesome meat intended for sale, reveal a disgusting state of affairs. Everyone is agreed as to the absolute necessity for a strict supervision of the meat sold for human consumption, and it was to secure this supervision that power to inspect butcher's meat was given under tbe Pubbc Health Act last year to the District Health Officer or any local authority's inspector. We beartily agree with tbe Magistrate that the police are to be commended for taking action, as they did, in the case dealt with yesterday. In view of the evidence adduced, it was clearly a case which called for prosecution. As bis .Worship pointed out, if there was reason for condemning and destroying tbe meat, the mere accident of its not having been sold should not prevent punishment. As this was the first case of its kind under the Public Healtb Act, it was perhaps not unnatural tbat tbe local au*s-oritks and the District Health Officer should have had some doubt ,as to who was responsible for enforcing tbe law. It seems to us, however, tbat the Health Officer should have taken proceedings. Section 87, sub-section l,*>of the Public Health Act, says:—-'Tf the "District Health Officer-is satisfied that " the' animal or article is utterly unfit for "human consumption and should be forth"with destroyed in order to prevent dis"ease, he may, cause it to be destroyed "accoraingly"; and sub-section 2 of the same section provides that "In" any other " case the. animal or articl- shall be kept "to abide the order of a' Stipendiary "Magistrate in summary proceedings under '•the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882," ■*which shall be taken forthwith against "the person in whose possession or on "whose premises it was when seized." Tbe Magistrate, if be considers the meat unfit for human consumption, may order it to be destroyed, and may impose on the defendant a penalty not exceeding £20. It might have been made a' little clearer as to who is to take proceedings, but the wording of the section seems to show tbat the onus of prosecution rests with the District Unless the unwholesome meat had to be destroyed forthwith to prevent disease, it was, we consider, the duty of the Healtb Officer to bring tbe meat under the notice of the' Magistrate. In any case, it must be evident that merely to order the destruction of the meat was a very inadequate punishment. The case was, one which called for prosecution, and in our opinion the offender, when he was brought before" the ".Court-by-the police, got off very lightly. The sale of diseased meat is such a menace to the health of the whole community that it should 'be r>uni_hed with the utmost severity. If an example were made of one or two offenders there would be far less

likelihood of tlie offence being repeated. In>the interests of the public health, and in fairness to the honest, tradesmen who deal only in wholesome meat, the provisions of the Publio Health Act "must be very rigorously, enforced/ Tbe case under notice, it may be added, furnishes another argument in favour-of the municipal abattoirs which it is proposed to establish. If all tbe meat sold for human consumption bad first to pass inspection at the public abattoirs; tbe risk of buying unsound meat even in the shape of "small goods" -would be very largely minimised.