TUBERCULOSIS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 135, 31 July 1911, Page 8

TUBERCULOSIS.

WHAT SV DNEY AUTHORITIES ' SAY. Sydney medical authorities gci?orally recognise the impai tance ot the report of the recent Tuberculosis Commission held in England. The conclusion reached, that tuberculosis may ho transmitted from animals to human beings, and especially to children, and that cows’ milk is a huge source of infection, are recognised, though the president of the Now South Wales Board of Health emphasises the fact that Juimau beings are mainly infected by other human beings. The Commission’s report, it is evident, contains nothing that is actually now, since preliminary reports have been published already. But it represents the final and matured opinion of men of standing, and it should remove any shreds of doubt among those who still believed that tuberculosis infection was never, or practically never, conveyed from an animal to man. Among the recommendations made lor the avoidance of the disease, it is suggested that dairymen’s licenses should be taken away if they do not keep their herds healthy, that suspected animals should ho isolated at once, that people buying valuable cattle should have them tested for tuberculosis, and, finally, that all milk should he boiled. MAIN CAUSE OF INFECTION. While dwelling on the great importance of the Royal Commission’s findings as to the communicability of tuberculosis from the cow to man, the president of the Board of Health, Dr. Ashburton Thompson, re-afilrms the fact that the main cause of tuberculosis infection in the human family is direct transmission from mankind to mankind. Tin’s form cl infection, ho says, is also most amenable to measures of control. The complete eradication of tuberculosis from herds would be so enormously costly that it is probably not within the roach of practical politics. But the powers of inspection in New South Wales, strengthened by the Pure Food Act, will bo steadily exercised, and termination of a dairyman’s license is suggested as a reserve weapon with which to keep the sale of affected milk within bounds. “The announcement of the conclusion at which the Royal Commission on tuberculosis has arrived is of great importance,” said Dr. Ashburton Thompson. “The Commision may he regarded as having elicited the very best exact evidence on the subject which is now available, cither in England or any other part of the world. It has not only exactly and carefully weighed the evidence of very celebrated pathologists, but it has, in the course of its sitting, extending over ten years, made the most elaborate investigation into the various branches of the subject which, perhaps, has ever before been made.

“The importance of the announcement lies in this: That hitherto the question of the share which communication of bovine tuberculosis to man takes in the prevalence of that disease has been very much a matter of opinion based on incomplete knowledge, and consequently it has been the subject of much difference of opinion. The late Professor Knock, in 1901, expressed the opinion that bovine tuberculosis was not communicable co man, but even at that date this pronouncement came as a surprise to the rest of the world, and was not accepted. There lias always been strong opinion, and one which was net without the support of observed facts, recorded by accredited persons of weight, that bovine tuberculosis is communicable to man; hut still the question of the extent to which it is responsible for the prevalence of tuberculosis remains doubtful, unless, indeed, the Commission should, in its last report—which, of course, have not yet had any opportunity of reading—have ascertained something deiluite on this point. “But the share in human infection taken by bovine tuberculosis, although possibly important, is without doubt not the main cause of it. The main cause, and that which offers the best prospect of success by measures of control, is direct transmission of the infection from man to man. This is perhaps fortunate. The eradication of tuberculosis from herds, and even the effectual prevention of the sale of milk of tuberculous animals, would cause the expenditure of such an enormous sum of money as must make any Government hesitate.

“It should be remembered, however, that the Commission bases its opinion on English conditions, and that in England there has not hitherto 1)0 any such systematic inspection of dairy herds as has been steadily carried out in New South Wales since the passage of the Dairies Supervision Act in 1886, and this Act has recently boon improved in the powers it confers by the Pure Food Act, 1908, which makes the finding of a diseased cow in a dairy herd prima facie evidence that its milk has been sold for food for man. The inspectors under the Board of Health are no longer obliged to stop at the slaughter of any such animal, as has hitherto boon the case; they can now prosecute the owner of the herd for the selling of diseased milk. Steady exercise of this power —and the Board has every intention that ii shall be steadily exercised—will in time cause dairymen to understand that in undertaking in soil milk in the public they undertake real and serious responsibility. They must discharge it by looking

tarofully to I ho health - of their herds; ii' tl;oy do not, they will certainly incur penalties. “Such penalty, in the first place, iv, ei' course, merely pecuniary, and would l)c of greater or loss amount, according to the view taken hy the Magistrate of the circumstances, lint proha My if the same dairyman wine convicted more than once, it might

be possible to decline to continue bis license. I don’t think, at all events, that the public would raise any strong objection to the throwing of such a man out of business.” VET ERIN ALIY VIEWS. Among veterinary pathologists and bacteriologists there has never been much doubt that human beings wore infected from animals. So the act-ing-director of the University Veterinary School (Dr. S. Dodd) explained yesterday. This Commission, lie says, lias proved its case up to the hilt. Dairies ought to bo inspected very strictly. If an animal is suspected, the stock inspector should have it isolated, and report the case, and’ it should ho examined by a qualified Government veterinary surgeon, who would decide what should he done. And people buying valuable cattle should have them tested for tuberculosis. “That,” said Dr. Dodd, “would he a start, at any rate. In a country which is not used to such things, you can’t live off a mase of regulations at a man. They would only puzzle him.” “Sir John McFadyon,” Dr. Dodd mentions, “who is the foremost of veterinary pathologists and bacteriologists in England, replied to Koch’s statement, and, so far as I recollect, denied its truth. Tuberculosis in cattle is extremely common in Europe; I suppose twenty per cent of European milk cattle are infested. And of these about three per cent, have tuberculosis of the udder. Undoubtedly in some parts they sell the milk from those cows. But the practice does not obtain to •anything like the extant it used to. Conditions are so much more stringent. And in England veterinary inspection is becoming more and more extended, hut there is certainly a percentage of infected cattle which goes into consumption. Some American pathologists, who experimented a little while ago, found tubercle bacilli in the slimes of separators. The percentage of infected cattle in this country is not nearly so great as it is in Europe. I suppose the conditions under which tJio animals live are healthier. All the same tuberculosis is plentiful enough in Australia. There is a good deal of it among some dairy cattle. I think much of it is duo to want of knowledge of the disease.”

As to whether tuberculosis in cattle can 1)8 cured, numbers of experiments have been made, says Dr. Dodd, but their results have not been sufficient to justify their use on a largo scale. “If a cow is passing tubercular milk,” ho said, “the calf will most probably be affected. In Denmark, in such cases, they take the calf away from its mother and feed it on milk which ,is known to contain no .tubercular bacilli. They might, for instance, sterilise its mother’s nplk and give it that. It is not absolutely to destroy a valuable cow because it has tuberculosis. But it would hgvo.fto ho kept away from healthy animals. And if a cow is badly infected the best plan is to destroy it. So that inspection of both the living animals and their meat when they arc dead is very necessary. , f .'-“Nine-tenths of ,thc farmers,” Dr. Dodd went on, “\vould not know tuberculosis when they saw it. But you can’t blame them for that. Tuberculosis is one of the most difficult diseases to diagnose in cattle—from mere examination ,that is—unless the animal is in the last stages. A cow may look perfectly healthy, and yet he found to be infected. The best w.ay is to use the tuberculin test, which is fairly easy. Just to show you that one can’t go by appearance, in a certain State a couple of years ago a Shorthorn hull took second prize in a largo show. When ho was killed, a little later, the meat had to 1)0 condemned for tuberculosis. I know of another case, in which a man bought a fine Jersey cow because ho was afraid of his family getting infected milk. Some time .afterwards he attended a lecture- on tuberculosis, and decided to have his cow tested. The tost showed that she had the disease, and her milk was found to contain tubercle bacilli. Of course, that’s an extreme case.”