The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1891.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 9429, 2 June 1891, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1891.

The subject of food inspection is very properly receiving a considerable amount of attention in various parts of the Colony; and there are’ indications that the conferences just held may bring about a more satisfactory state of things than at present prevails. The truth is that the apathy of the past, in connection with the sale of perishable provisions, and the inspection of slaughter-houses and dairies, has been due rather to want of knowledge than to actual indifference. But there has been an awakening, the effect of which is being felt in New Zealand as in other parts of the world. Many men have been devoting themselves to the study of disease, and to the preventive and remedial measures which may, with the best hope of success, be adopted. An important and interesting paper bearing on this question was read, some time ago, before the British Homoeopathic Society, by Mr J. S. Hurndall, a distinguished member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ; and from a copy of this valuable addition to the literature of the subject, placed at our disposal by Dr Irving, we gather that the primary contention is this: That the proper inspection of meat is a question that has not yet received that consideration and attention from sanitarians that its importance demands. Professor Walley, Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, Edinburgh, in dealing with the subject of diseases in 'cattle, asks, Is the inspection of meat, as a rule, in proper hands ? The absolute necessity for systematic inspection he takes for granted, and then goes on to sayln the great majority of instances, inspectors of meat only look at the bare carcase, and that, too, after it has been dressed and hung up for a period of twentyfour or forty-eight hours. If the flesh is tolerably firm, dry, devoid of unpleasant odour or flavour, is not much altered in its normal colour, and the carcase sets, it is passed as marketable and fit for human food. If the reverse of these conditions obtains, it is rejected; though in some districts food is condemned which would be passed in others.”

From these and other facta it is argued that inspectors should be men who are well qualified for the position men who have a knowledge of bovine diseases, and who can tell, for instance, whether a colour other than normal is due to disease, or to some peculiarity in the feeding of the animal. But there is this further contention: that to give reasonable assurance for the due fulfilment of an inspector’s duties, all private slaughter-houses should be abolished in large towns and districts, and the slaughtering should be done at public abattoirs. Obviously the conditions to be obtained in the working details of a central establishment of this kind must be infinitely better from the sanitary standpoint than are likely to obtain in a number of scattered places, visited but now and then by an inspector. Of course there are slaughter-houses wherein the provisions for thorough cleanliness are the best the owner can provide; but there are others upon which as little expenditure is incurred as may be possible, and the owners of which are utterly indifferent to, or entirely ignorant of, hygienic conditions. Although various bovine diseases are referred to in Mr Hurndall’s paper, only one is dealt with in detail, and that is tuberculosis. “There is very little doubt,” says the author, addressing a London audience of medical men, “that tons upon tons of flesh belonging to animals which are the subjects of a tubercular predisposition are consumed, and that without any apparent injury to the consumers; but inasmuch as it has been proved that phthisis may be introduced into the human system by consuming tubercular flesh, the risk is far too serious to be incurred with impunity, and therefore, no carcase affected with tubercular lesions should be passed for human food,” Into the illustrative proofs which Mr Hurndall gives, we need not enter. Let it suffice to quote a significant statement from the report of a Committee of one of the branches of the British Medical Association: —“In man, 10 to 14 per cent of all deaths are due to tuberculosis; 150,000, it has been said, die annually in the British Isles of consumption.” In England, as here, the inspection of dairies is not so simple a matter as it may appear to be. There is at the present time in force a Dairies, Cowsheds and Milk-shops Order, which is supposed to be enforced by district local authorities; it is, however, practically, and to all intents and purposes, a dead letter. Typical cases are cited to show that certain diseases and notably tuberculosis are directly transmissible from the cow to man through the agency of the milk, and then the requirements are forcibly stated. These may be summed up in tho one word inspection. Inspection of the animals themselves, so that none but healthy ones may be drawn upon for a food supply of such universal importance, and inspection of the dairy and its surroundings, so that scrupulous cleanliness may lie everywhere observed. To quote Mr Hurndall, milk, in addition to conveying the germs of certain diseases from the animal to man, is also a very ready recipient and mechanical conveyer of the germs of numerous other contagious or infections diseases. It may also become contaminated with all sorts of offensive and hurtful matter, through absence of proper cleanliness on the part of the milkers; in consequence of objectionable surroundings in filthy sheds ; for want of properly cleaning the cans in which the milk is delivered, and suitable methods of conveyance to preserve it from dirt in transit. How may consumers best protect themselves ? With regard to meat, the answer is by thoroughly cooking it. If there were any suspicion that the milk supply was impure, boiling it—not a mere

“ scalding ” —would be the proper plan to adopt. jßut the first, the chief requirement's inspection. This, to be of use, must be intelligent, systematic and thorough.