[Report 1941] / Medical Officer of Health, Cumberland County Council.

  • Cumberland (England). County Council.
Date:
1941
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1941] / Medical Officer of Health, Cumberland County Council. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    34/50 (page 34)
    INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION OF FOOD. Foods other than Milk. The report of the County Analyst is again not included, as the report has already been circulated to the County Council, Milk. The number of milk samples taken during the year under the joint scheme of the County Council and the Local Sanitary Authorities was 2,437. This figure is not far short of 1,000 over the number taken in 1939, and in view of shortage of staff and increased duties, the black-out and other difficulties, it is clear that the sanitary inspectors of the local sanitary authorities, who undertake the milk sampling under the scheme, are to be congratulated on the results they have achieved under the existing difficult conditions. The inter- pretation of the examination of milk samples for bacteriological purity continues to be a matter of difficulty. Periodically batches of samples are examined which practically all fail to pa.ss satisfactorily the methylene blue or the coliform test, or both. These come from all grades of herds and what has been said in previous reports about the need for a really satisfactory test, equitable in its application at all times of the year, still stands. As however, I am hoping to include a small inset on the problems of milk supplies in this report, T do not propose to examine the position in greater detail at this stage. Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915. Two reports of tuberculous milk produced in the County were received from outside sources. In one case a cow with tuberculosis of the udder was found on the premises of the origin of the milk, and the cow was slaughtered. The other sample was from milk from a large depot receiving and bulking milk from many farms. In view of the number of farms involved, it was not possible to carry out the u.sual examina- tion. In addition, eighteen samples taken in the County area were found to be tuberculous. Of these, one sample was of milk ])roduced outwith the Count\-. The attention of the Authority concerned was drawn to this case but no source of infection was found. Two samples included milk from the depot mentioned in the ]Meceding paragraph and were not inve.stigated for the reason given. Two samples contained milk from a common source which was found to be responsible