AC. 4369 2nd PLON 75 123 CORPORATION OF LONDON PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH To 31st DECEMBER, 1967 To be presented, 28th November, 1968 January, 1968 To: THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COMMONERS OF THE CORPORATION OF LONDON. My Lord Mayor, Lady and Gentlemen, I have the honour to submit as Medical Officer of Health for the Port of London my Annual Report for the year ending 31st December, 1967. A letter from the Secretary, Ministry of Health, dated November 1963, indicated that the Medical Officer of Health should prepare his Annual Report in accordance with Form Port 20. Paragraph 5 of this Form requires that, so far as Sections 1, V, VI, VIII, XIV, XV and XVIare concerned information which has been given in an earlier year and has not since changed need not be repeated each year but only changes occuring during the year. A recapitulation of all information is required quinquennially from the year 1955 but for the intermediate years where there is no change "No Change" should be entered. This Report has been prepared in accordance with the above directive. Mr. T.L. Mackie, F.R.S.H., M.I.N.A., Chief Port Health Inspector and Supervisory Engineer of Launches, retired on 31st October 1967 after 34 years service. However he continued to serve the Port Health Authority on a part time appointment as Supervisory Engineer of Launches. I wish to record appreciation of the collaboration and assistance rendered by Her Majesty's Customs, the Pilots, the Immigration Officers, the Port of London Authority, the Shipping Federation, the staffs of the Shipping Companies and Merchants, the staffs of the Central Public Health Laboratory, the "Dreadnought" Seamen's Hospital and St. Andrew's Hospital, the Public Analyst, the Emergency Bed Service, the Regional Hospital Boards and Hospital Management Committees concerned, and all those who have so generously and willingly helped in every aspect of port health work throughout the year, particularly the Chairman, Members and staff of the Port and City of London Health Committee. I have the honour to be, Lady and Gentlemen, Your Obedient Servant, W.G. SWANN, M.D., B.Sc., Medical Officer of Health, Port and City of London. SECTION I - STAFF (As at 31st December, 1967) TABLE A Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any Other Appointment held MEDICAL STAFF W.G. SWANN, M.D.,B.Ch., B.A.O.,B.Sc.,D.P.H., D.Obst.,R.C.O.G.,D.P.A. Medical Officer of Health January, 1964 Medical Officer of Health and Principal School Medical Officer City of London. Medical Inspector of Aliens and C ommonwe alth Immigrants. D.T. JONES, B.Sc.,M.B., B.Ch., D.C.H.,D.P.H.,D.C.T. Deputy Medical Officer of Health March, 1958 (Deputy) ditto A. de THIERRY, M.A.,M.B., B.Chir., D.(Obst),R.C.O.G. Medical Officer March, 1967 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants. W.T. ROUGIER CHAPMAN, V.R.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Senior Assistant Port Medical Officer January, 1962 ditto G.W. ASTON, L.M.S.S.A. Assistant Port Medical Officer October, 1962 ditto R.G.S. WHITFIELD , D.S.C., B.A.,M.R.C.S.,L.R.C.P. Assistant Port Medical Officer (Part-time) December, 1966 ditto R.F. ARMSTRONG, L.R.C.P., L.R.C.S., Ed., L.R.F.P.S., Glas. ditto June, 1963 ditto R.M. BEST, M.D., B.S., (Lond.) ditto April, 1964 ditto W.D.L. SMITH, M.B., Ch.B., D.T.M.&H., D.P.H. ditto November, 1962 ditto K.C. MORRIS, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Boarding Medical Officer (Part-time) September, 1967 — H.M. WILLOUGHBY, V.R.D., & Bar., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.P.H..D.T.M., & H Consultant in Infectious Disease and Quarantine Procedures October, 1962 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants. J.A. JONES, M.B.,Ch.B., D.P.H. ditto October, 1962 ditto W.T.G. BOUL, M.B.E., M.D., Ch.B., D.P.H. ditto March, 1957 ditto Occasional Medical Inspectors of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants. DR. D.J. AVERY DR. J. OAKLEY DR. W. STOTT DR. M.J. CAT TON DR. R.D. SUMMERS DR. D.W. KEYS DR. R.N. HERSON DR. W.N. WHITESIDE DR. D. JENKINS DR. B. DALTON DR. H.G. MAURICE WILLIAMS, O.B.E. DR. G.J. LEYDEN DR. P. ROUGH DR. J.F. BUCKLEY DR. P.J.R. WALTERS PUBLIC ANALYST WILLIAMS, H.A., Ph.D., (Lond).; F.C.G.I., F.R.I.C., F.R.S.H. Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any other Appointment held ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF (Port and City of London) R.C. RATLIFF Chief Clerk March, 1930 – E.V. SMITH Deputy Chief Clerk October, 1938 – C.W.R. BETTS First Assistant Clerk April, 1926 – F.B. OSBORN Senior Assistant May, 1952 – R.H. COLLINS ditto January, 1963 – D.J. FLOOD ditto March, 1963 – A.J.G. MOORE ditto April, 1964 – Mrs. D. SHEPHERD First Class Assistant April, 1965 – F.E. BALL ditto April, 1961 – S.C. DARLINSON ditto April, 1964 – Miss M.L. GURNEY ditto May, 1939 – K.B. BROWN ditto April, 1964 – R.L. PEDWELL ditto July, 1966 – T.K. MORRIS ditto October, 1965 – Miss I.H. HAMBLIN General Grade Assistant October, 1957 – R.G. HEMING ditto August, 1965 – R.G. FARRELL ditto July, 1965 – Miss J.E. MILLER ditto April, 1963 – Mrs. B.A. KILBEY ditto January, 1967 – Miss B. SARBUTT Shorthand Typist January, 1965 – Miss J.E. NEWSON ditto June, 1966 – Miss S.C. DUNN ditto August, 1967 – C.E.W. EASTMAN Clerical Assistant (Royal Docks Office) July, 1965 – T.A. WOODS Messenger November, 1955 – H.C. HOLDAWAY Messenger/Driver May, 1966 – PORT HEALTH INSPECTORS A.H. MARSHALL,M.A.P.H.I. Chief Port Health Inspector March, 1953 – G. DRING, M.A.P.H.I. Deputy Chief Port Health Inspector May, 1936 – A.C. GOOD, J.P.,M.R.S.H., M.A.P.H.I. Divisional Port Health Inspector September, 1951 – T.C.H. ROGERSON, M.A.P.H.I. ditto October, 1951 – P.A. TRAYNIER, F.R.S.H., M.A.P.H.I. ditto October, 1950 – L.N. TOPE, M.A.P.H.I. ditto August, 1946 – W.M. WALKER, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector October, 1954 – W.C.B. GILHESPY,M.A.P.H.I. ditto January, 1960 – A.W. BUCHAN, M.A.P.H.I . ditto July, 1955 – J.A. STOKER, M.A.P.H.I. ditto June, 1963 – P.G. PRITCHARD, M.A.P.H.I. ditto June, 1965 – F. SPENCER, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector March, 1957 – R.W. GWYER, M.R.S.H., M.A.P.H.I. ditto March, 1960 – A. GAME, M.A.P.H.I. ditto August, 1961 – J.I. ECKERSALL, M.A.P.H.I. ditto June, 1966 – P. ROTHERAM, M.A.P.H.I. ditto June, 1967 – G.J. BULL, M.A.P.H.I. ditto June, 1967 – R. WALKER, M.A.P.H.I. ditto December, 1967 – H.T. YELLAND Meat Inspector April, 1964 – R.H. HEAD ditto April, 1964 – K.W. KING Technical Assistant April, 1966 – (Authorised) – STUDENT HEALTH INSPECTORS J.C. STRACHAN Student Health Inspector September, 1963 – W.R. LEECH ditto July, 1965 – J.D. EDWARDS ditto September, 1965 – A.E. TERRIBILE ditto August, 1966 – J.E. OAKLEY ditto June, 1967 – A.M. GIBBS-MURRAY ditto June, 1967 – C. FISH ditto June, 1967 – S.A. MONK ditto September, 1967 – TECHNICAL ASSISTANT/RODENT INSPECTORS W.G. STIMSON, L.M.R.S.H. Chief Technical Assistant February, 1946 – /Rodent Inspector – E.C. WATKINS Senior Technical Assistant June, 1929 – /Rodent Inspector – C. STOCKTON ditto June, 1940 – D.J. DAVIS ditto August, 1941 – G. LAMONT ditto March, 1945 – F.D. CARTMAN Technical Assistant/Rodent Inspector Class 1 September, 1943 – H.A. BAXTER ditto June, 1945 – G. CLARK ditto January, 1949 – A.L. SOUTHWOOD ditto January, 1949 – 3 Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Date of Appointment Any other Appointment held RODENT CONTROL SCHEME A.T. EVANS Technical Assistant/Rodent Inspector Class I January, 1953 – J.R.W. KENNEDY Technical Assistant/Rodent Inspector Class II December, 1963 – P.F. CARTER ditto March, 1966 – M. CARPEL ditto August, 1966 – H. BROWN ditto August, 1966 – W.T..S. PARKINSON ditto June, 1966 – J. RIXSON ditto September, 1966 – LAUNCHES T.L. MACKIE Supervisory Engineer of Launc hes November, 1968 – C.R. SIMONS Navigator (Senior) August, 1938 – W.G.A. KING Navigator (Dep. Senior) September, 1939 – H.J. MASON Navigator August, 1946 – M.J. EAST ditto September, 1954 – R.H. SIMMONS ditto November, 1960 – G. CUNNINGHAM ditto September, 1957 – K. GITTENS Engineer (Senior) January, 1955 – R.N. WALKER Engineer (Dep. Senior) April, 1964 – W. SIMMONS Engineer May, 1955 – B. JACOBS ditto April, 1956 – A.R. BURGE Shipkeeper August, 1945 – A.R.L. POTTER Deckhand July, 1945 – E. ALEWOOD ditto January, 1947 – A. RUSSELL ditto August, 1961 – P. RAYNER ditto November, 1960 – W.M. McKEE ditto January, 1967 – D. SIMMONS ditto December, 1963 – D.L. KIELL ditto February, 1965 – S. HOLMES Deckboy March, 1967 – G.F. CABLE ditto March, 1967 – R.J. SHAW ditto June, 1967 – T.E. ROBERTS ditto July, 1967 – G.P. WALLING ditto July, 1967 – C. RANDLE ditto January, 1966 – K.H. WILTON ditto August, 1966 – J.G. WRIGHT ditto April, 1966 – G. MILLS ditto October, 1967 – LAUNCHES - "FREDERICK WHITTINGHAM" 'ALFRED ROACH" "HUMPHREY MORRIS" "VICTOR ALLCARD" Date acquired 1934 1948 1962 1965 HULK - "HYGEIA" 1935 SECTION II AMOUNT OF SHIPPING ENTERING THE DISTRICT DURING THE YEAR TABLE B Ships from Number Net Tonnage Number Inspected Number of ships reported as having, or having had during the voyage, infectious disease on board. by the Port Medical Officer By the Port Health Inspector Foreign Ports 34,958 70,448,192 1,154 13,384 102 Coastwise 16,378 18,582,797 4 1,852 4 Total 51,336 89,030,989 1,158 15,236 106 SECTION III CHARACTER OF SHIPPING AND TRADE DURING THE YEAR TABLE C Passenger Traffic Number of Passengers — Inwards 83,430 Number of Passengers — Outwards 82.890 Cargo Traffic Principal Imports All types of produce and merchandise Principal Exports Principal Ports from which ships arrive. The Port of London trades with all parts of the world. SECTION IV INLAND BARGE TRAFFIC These barges are registered annually by the Port of London Authority. They vary in design and type from open and hatched all purpose general cargo barges, to specialised types for bulk sugar and refrigerated cargoes. An increasing number of the latter have refrigeration plant incorporated in the design. The amalgamation of barge fleets has further reduced the total number in the Port to approximately 5,000 barges with an aggregate tonnage of some 360,000 tons. The craft are employed in the transport of a wide variety of cargoes throughout the Port area and its environment by way of creeks and canals. SECTION V Water Supply (1) Source of Supply No change (2) Reports of tests for contamination No change (3) Precautions taken against contamination of hydrants and hosepipes No change (4) Number and sanitary conditions of water boats and powers of control by the Authority No change There were eight reports of contamination from hydrants during the year, two reports of contamination from stand pipes and fifteen reports of contamination from the ends of delivery hoses supplying ships. The contamination from watering points was discovered during the normal course of routine sampling and indicates the necessity to continue routine bacteriological sampling of the water supplies in the District. No single attributable cause for the contamination was discovered after investigation and it must be assumed that the contamination had been introduced through unhygienic handling of the watering equipment. Only one ship received "unfit" water. The owners were notified immediately the result of the analysis was received and were advised to contact the ship to require the Master to chlorinate all water storage tanks on board. Those ships which had received 'unsatisfactory' or 'suspicious' water supplies were also contacted by the owners on the advice of this Authority and advised to chlorinate the water storage tanks on board. 5 There were sixty one reports of contamination in the distribution supplies on board ships. These samples were drawn mainly from fresh water taps over galley and messroom sinks. The source of supply from these taps is from the 'domestic fresh water' storage contained in double bottom tanks and peak tanks. The presence of this potential danger on board stresses the necessity of ensuring that the standard of purity of 'domestic' water supplies should be as high as the 'potable' water supplies. Three samples drawn directly from ships storage tanks were found to be contaminated. In each case cleaning of the tanks followed by chlorination of the tanks and supply lines was carried out. More samples of fresh water were drawn from the water boats purveying fresh water in the District this year. Twenty samples from the tanks and fourteen from the delivery ends of supply hoses showed contamination. In each case standard procedure of tank cleaning and chlorination was carried out. The 84.99% of 'satisfactory', 'good' and 'Excellent' results in the fresh water supplies in the District as shown in Table 2 is a lower figure than that obtained in previous years. A major proportion of the 'unsatisfactory' and 'suspicious' samples were drawn following completion of works involving dock development and modernisation of berths to reassess the purity of the water supplies at these berths. Supply to shipping at these berths was prohibited until such time as a higher category was obtained. TABLE I FRESH WATER SUPPLY SAMPLES - SUMMARY 1967. HYDRANTS STAND PIPES DELIVERY HOSE ENDS TOTALS Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell. Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell. Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell. Royal Victoria Dock 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 Royal Albert Dock 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 8 0 17 King George V Dock 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 0 14 Tilbury Dock 0 2 5 3 27 4 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 60 West India Dock 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 7 26 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 44 Millwall Dock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Surrey Com. Dock 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 32 Regents Canal Dock 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 London Dock 0 0 0 2 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 River Districts 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 2 4 2 13 0 35 Isle of Grain Area 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 12 TOTALS 0 3 5 6 83 5 0 1 1 10 92 2 1 7 7 5 39 0 267 Water Boats TANKS STAND PIPES DELIVERY HOSE ENDS 0 9 11 1 48 4 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 3 9 2 51 0 146 GRAND TOTAL 413 Detail of grades used in the Port of London — Quality. Plate count per ml. Coliforms per 100 ml. Excellent. Nil Nil Good Less than 100 Nil Satisfactory Less than 300 Nil Suspicious More than 300 Less than 5 Unsatisfactory More than 300 More than 5 Unfit More than 5 and including faecal coli. 6 TABLE 2 FRESH WATER SUPPLY SAMPLE TOTALS & PERCENTAGES Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell Totals Hydrants 0 3 5 6 83 5 102 Stand Pipes 0 1 1 10 92 2 106 Delivery Hose Ends 1 7 7 5 39 0 59 Water Boats 2 12 23 3 102 4 146 Totals 3 23 36 24 316 11 413 Percentages .72 5.57 8.72 5.81 76.51 2.67 100 OTHER SAMPLES OF FRESH WATER Distribution aboard ships — Of 209 samples drawn in the crew and passenger accommodation and galleys on board ships:— 9 were excellent 114 were good 25 were satisfactory 22 were suspiciious 26 were unsatisfactory and 13 were unfit Storage aboard ships Of 13 samples drawn direct from ships storage tanks:— 9 were good 1 was suspicious 2 were unsatisfactory and 1 was unfit Port installations:- Of 129 samples drawn from dock offices, dock canteens, drinking fountains etc.:— 4 were excellent 116 were good 5 were satisfactory 3 were suspicious and 1 was unfit River Thames passenger launches — 32 samples were drawn under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1960 from licenced bar taps and storage tanks on board River Thames passenger launches:— 17 were good 6 were suspicious 2 were unsatisfactory and 7 were unfit SECTION VI PUBLIC HEALTH (SHIPS) REGULATIONS 1966 1. List of Infected Areas (Regulation6) — Arrangements for the preparation and amendment of the list, the form of the list, the persons to whom it is supplied, and the procedure for supplying it to those persons. NO CHANGE 2. Radio Message s (a) Arrangements for sending permission by radio for ships to enter the district. (Regulation 13) NO CHANGE. (b) Arrangements for receiving messages by radio from ships and for acting thereon. (Regulation 14 (1) (a) and 14 (2)). NO CHANGE. 7 3. Notifications otherwise than by radio (Regulation 14 (1) (b)). Arrangements for receiving notifications otherwise than by radio and for acting thereon. NO CHANGE. 4. Mooring Stations (Regulations 22 to 30) Situation of stations and any standing directions issued under these Regulations. NO CHANGE. 5. Arrangements for — (a) Hospital accommodation for infectious diseases (other than smallpox — see Section VII); NO CHANGE. (b) Surveillance and follow up of contacts; NO CHANGE. (c) Cleansing and disinfection of ships, persons, clothing and other articles; NO CHANGE. DENTON HOSPITAL Although Denton Hospital was taken over by the South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board under the National Health Service Act, 1946 the Port Health Authority continues to exercise, through the Senior and Assistant Port Medical Officers, the medical supervision of cases admitted to the hospital. The nursing and administrative control lies with the Dartford Hospital Management Committee. Consultant advice on difficult cases is available through the Physician -Superintendent of Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford. The number of cases admitted to Denton Hospital in 1967 was as follows:— Chickenpox 5 Measles 4 Rubella 1 Miscellaneous 1 Impetigo 1 Erysipelas 1 Mumps 1 TOTAL 14 SECTION VII - SMALLPOX 1. Name of Isolation Hospital to which smallpox cases are sent from the District. Long Reach Hospital is situated on the south bank of the River Thames about eight miles above Gravesend. The hospital consists of 10 ward blocks capable of accommodating 170 patients but, except in cases of emergency, only three ward blocks (2 of 20 beds and 1, a cubicle ward, of 10 beds, total 50 beds) are kept available for immediate use. The hospital includes residential quarters for the staff and laundry, although the administration and staffing is carried out from Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford. 2. Arrangements for transport of such cases to that Hospital by ambulance giving the name of the Authority responsible for the ambulance and the vaccinal state of the ambulance crews. A case or cases of smallpox would be removed from the vessel by this Authority's Ambulance launch and conveyed ashore via the pontoon at Denton and from thence conveyed by road ambulance direct to Long Reach Hospital. The Port Health Authority would be responsible for the vaccinal state of their Ambulance Launch crews, while the vaccinal state of the Road Ambulance personnel would be the concern of the ambulance authority, the Greater London Council. 3. Names of smallpox consultants available. Dr. W.T.G. Boul, M.B.E. Dr. H.S. Banks (Surrey) Dr. C.F.L. Hill (Bexley, Greenwich and West Kent) Dr. J.D. Kershaw Dr. A. Melvin Ramsey Dr. J.C. Blake (Outer Kent) Dr. E.H. Brown Dr. G.D.W McKendrick Dr. E. O'Sullivan 4. Facilities for laboratory diagnosis of smallpox Facilities are available at the Virus Laboratory at the Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale. Examination of International Certificates of Vaccination against smallpox. By the provision of the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1966, the Medical Officer may 8 require the production of international certificates of vaccination against smallpox by persons arriving from abroad and will require production of such certificates if so requested by the Minister of Health. The Minister has requested that all persons arriving on ships coming within 14 days from smallpox locally infected or endemic areas be in possession of such a certificate and this applies whether the persons have themselves come from these areas or not. Because of the difficulty of examining vaccination certificates of persons arriving in the Port of London where ships discharge their passengers at widely divergent points, shipping companies have been asked to arrange for lists of smallpox vaccination certificates of passengers and crew, counter-signed by the Master and by the ship's surgeon, if carried, to be produced on the arrival of the ship in the Port. SECTION VIII VENERAL DISEASE NO CHANGE. SECTION IX CASES OF NOTIFIABLE AND OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES ON SHIPS TABLE D Category: Cases landed from ships from foreign ports. No. of cases during the year. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Amoebiasis – 1 1 Chickenpox 14 6 10 Dysentery – 6 5 Food poisoning (or suspected) 6 1 1 Gastro-enteritis 1 2 3 Infective hepatitis 5 3 6 Influenza – 2 2 German Measles 9 2 4 Malaria – 3 2 Measles 24 – 9 Miscellaneous 2 3 5 Mumps 8 2 7 Pneumonia 5 – 5 Pyrexia of unknown origin – 3 1 Scabies – 5 4 Tuberculosis — pulmonary 1 9 10 — non pulmonary – 1 1 Typhoid or paratyphoid fever – 1 1 TOTALS 75 50 77 Cases from ships arriving coastwise. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Tuberculosis — pulmonary – 2 2 — non pulmonary – – – Gastro enteritis – 1 1 Scabies – 1 1 TOTALS – 4 4 Category: Cases which have occurred on ships from foreign ports but have been disposed of before arrival. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Chickenpox 3 1 4 Dysentery – 2 2 Gastro Enteritis 392 – 3 Glandular fever – 2 2 Influenza – 7 1 Malaria 5 10 5 Measles 56 – 3 Mumps 2 2 4 Tuberculosis — pulmonary – 1 1 " — non pulmonary – – – TOTAL 458 25 25 9 Cases landed from river craft. Disease Passengers Crew No .of ships concerned Food poisoning (or suspected) — 4 1 SECTION X OBSERVATIONS ON THE OCCURRENCE OF MALARIA ON SHIPS Three cases of Malaria were reported in seamen admitted to hospital after the arrival of their ships during the year under review. No cases occurred in 1966. SECTION XI MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SHIPS INFECTED OR SUSPECTED OF PLAGUE No ships infected with or suspected of plague arrived during the year. SECTION XII MEASURES AGAINST RODENTS IN SHIPS FROM FOREIGN PORTS (i) Procedure for inspection of ships for rats. The Port Health Authority employs an experienced and competent team of seventeen Rodent Inspectors, who exercise control measures on all ships and shore premises within the Port area under the supervision of the Port Health Inspectors. The Rodent Inspector's first duty is to visit all ships arriving in his district as soon as possible after arrival and search for evidence of rodents. Priority is given to ships which have arrived from plague endemic areas. Further visits to these ships are made during the discharge of cargo to ascertain the degree of infestation on board, if any, and to ensure that reasonable measures are adopted to reduce the number of rodents on board to a negligible number and prevent any rodents escaping ashore. His second duty is the inspection of ships in his area for the specific purpose of issuing Deratting or Deratting Exemption Certificates or Rodent Control Certificates. The Rodent Inspector's third duty is the inspection of shore premises and lighters for signs of rodent infestation. The Port Health Authority has continued to operate a Rodent Control Scheme, inaugurated twenty six years ago, covering all the docks and including all the premises of the Port of London Authority on behalf of that Authority and premises of tenants of the Authority on behalf of the occupiers. (ii) Arrangements for the bacteriological examination of rodents, with special reference to rodent plague, including the number of rodents sent for examination during the year. All dead rats to be examined for evidence of plague, are promptly despatched in suitable sealed containers to the Central Public Health Laboratory at Colindale. The robust rectangular metal boxes which have been used for a number of years to deliver such specimens have been replaced by a cylindrical pattern made of aluminium, with a scew cap. Specimen rats are placed in polythene bags already dusted with gammaxene to kill any parasites, labelled and placed inside the cylinder for delivery by hand. During the year 53 rats were sent to the laboratory at Colindale and were examined for plague with negative results. (iii) Arrangements in the district for deratting ships, the methods used, and if done by a commercial contractor, the name of the contractor. (a) The burning of sulphur at the rate of 31bs. per 1,000 cubic feet of space for a minimum period of 6 hours. This method is seldom used now in the Port of London. (b) The generation of hydrocyanic acid gas by various methods. For the destruction of rats a minimum concentration of H.C.N, at the rate of 2 ozs. per 1,000 cubic feet of space is required with a minimum of two hours exposure. (c) Sodium-fluoroacetate ("1080") and "Warfarin". The employment of "1080" as a rodenticide has been regularly used throughout the docks for some time with highly satisfactory results. The prohibition on the use of "1080" and "1081" except in ships and sewers, 10 which was imposed in June 1965, has continued in force. A substantial number of shi ps have been deratted by "1080" in preference to the use of cyanide resulting in a considerable saving of time and cost to the ship owner. (d) Trapping. This method is seldom used except as an expedient to eliminate isolated rats and/or to secure specimens for the laboratory. (e) Methyl Bromide. This is a very effective and lethal fumigant which has been used over a number of years in the Port as an insecticide, particularly in the dried fruit industry. It has considerable penetration powers and is not difficult to disperse after an operation. It is also possible to use this gas as a rodenticide and where there is an infestation of rodents and insects the combined problem can be solved with one operation, The following are the names of the firms approved for carrying out the deratting of ships:— London Fumigation Co. Ltd. Contra-Ffe 6t Service Ltd. Rentokil Laboratories Ltd. (iv) Progress in the Rat Proofing of Ships. No Change. RODENT CONTROL MEASURES CARRIED OUT ON LIGHTERS The application of the principal measure of rodent control on lighters, i.e. inspection for evidence, has been pursued throughout the year. Of the total number inspected, 56 lighters required deratting and from these a total of 277 rats were recovered. These figures are an increase on last year, but are mainly accounted for by the unusual incidents of a refuse lighter becoming infested with brown rats. After fumigation with S02, a total of 86 brown rats were recovered, which included many young in nests. Rat proofing of lighters, first introduced in 1959, has continued to be standard practice in the industry and plays a very important part in maintaining the current rodent population at a minimal level. The methods of deratting employed throughout the year were:— 1. Sulphur dioxide gas 2. Methyl Bromide vapour 3. Sodium mono-fluoroacetate baiting. The method of treatment is determined by the circumstances and degree of infestation at the time of inspection. Throughout the year, 473 lighters were fumigated with Methyl Bromide for insect control of the cargo, at a dosage rate between 20 and 30 ounces per 1,000 cubic feet, dependent on the specie of insect pest, with a twenty four hour exposure time. This dosage and period is more than sufficient to destroy any rats that may be present in the lighter at the time of fumigation. During the year, fifteen of the rats recovered from treated lighters were sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, for routine bacteriological examination. Pasteurella pestis was not isolated from any specimen. SUMMARY Number of lighters inspected 3,153 Number of lighters without evidence 2,903 Number with negligible evidence 194 Number of lighters treated for rats 56 Number of dead rats recovered 277 Number of rats sent for bacteriological examination. All results were negative for P. pestis. 15 11 TABLE SHOWING FIGURES AND STATISTICS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS Year No., of Lighters Inspected % of Lighters without any Evidence % of Lighters with negligible or old Evidence No Action Taken % of Lighters Treated for Rats No- of Dead Rats recovered after Treatment Average No. of Rats recovered per Lighter Treated 1958 2,714 87.9% 8.5% 3.6% 797 8.1 1959 2.217 81.0% 13.2% 5.8% 723 5.7 1960 7,207 86.3% 12.4% 1.3% 552 5.9 1961 6,366 84.9% 13.5% 1.6% 848 8.1 1962 3,793 86.8% 11.7% 1.5% 483 8.5 1963 5,408 89.0% 9.4% 1.6% 732 8.4 1964 2,062 91.7% 6.0% 2.3% 195 4.0 1965 4,565 79.0% 19.5% 1.5% 377 5.4 1966 3,294 90.1% 8.5% 1.4% 172 3.7 1967 3,153 92.1% 6.1% 1.8% 277 4.9 Average 1958-1967 4,078 86.9% 10.9% 2.2% 516 6,2 TABLE E Rodents destroyed (bodies recovered) during the year in ships and in shore premises. (1) On Vessels Number of. Jan Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 55 47 37 54 35 17 36 28 13 39 56 44 461 Brown Rats – 1 – 1 – 87 – – – – – – 89 Rats Examined 5 4 4 1 – – 4 5 4 7 7 4 45 Rats infected with Plague – – – – – – – – – – – – – (2) In Docks, Quays, Wharves and Warehouses Number of Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 9 20 6 9 21 245 88 78 62 125 102 58 823 Brown Rats 76 61 59 121 62 56 101 83 54 62 123 16 874 Rats Examined 1 – – – 5 – – – – 1 1 – 8 Rats Infected with Plague – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1,831 mice were also destroyed; 168 in ships and 1,663 in shore premises. TABLE F Derailing Certificates and Deratting Exemption Certificates Issued during the Year for Ships from Foreign Ports. NO. OF DERATTING CERTIFICATES ISSUED Number of Deratting Exemption Certificates Issued Total Certificates Issued After Fumigation with After Trapping After Poisoning After Trapping and Poisoning Total HCN Other Fumigants 1. 2. 3. 4. 4(a) 5 6. 7. Nil Methyl Bromide 1 Nil "1080" 30 Warfarin 3 Nil 34 1,065 1,099 12 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS (APPLICATION TO SHIPPING) ORDER 1951-56 During the year 10 Rodent Control Certificates were issued to coastwise ships as provided for by the terms of the Prevention of Damage (Application to Shipping) Order 1951-56 SECTION XIII INSPECTION OF SHIPS FOR NUIS\NCES TABLE G Inspection and Notices No. of Vessels Number of vessels visited by Port Health Inspectors 15,239 Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were found, and details reported to the Master, Owners and/or Ministry of Transport ort 297 Number of Statutory Notices served Nil Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were remedied 295 Summary of Structural and other Defects Inspection and Notices No. of Vessels Leaking hawse or chain pipes 1 Inadequate ventilation – Defective Lighting 1 Defective or Insufficient Heating 1 Condensation – Leakimg Decks 2 Leaking Ports and Decklights etc. – Leaking Sideplates 1 Defective or obstructed floor drainage 4 Water Lodging on top of Peak Tanks – Defective Bulkheads 5 Defective Floors 15 Defective Doors 2 Defective Bunks – Defective Chain Pipes 1 Defective Clothes Lockers 1 Defective Food Lockers 7 Defective Food Storage 28 Defective Cooking Arrangements 20 Defective or Uncleanly Drinking Water Storage 6 Water Closets — Obsolete – Water Closets - Foul or choked 16 Water Closets — Defective 21 Water Closets — Inadequate Flush 9 Wash Basins — Defective 16 Wash Basins — Foul 5 Neglected Paintwork or distemper 26 Misappropriation of crew space 4 Verminous Quarters 58 Miscellaneous 47 Absence of Washroom – TOTAL 297 SECTION XIV PUBLIC HEALTH (SHELLFISH) REGULATIONS 1934 Oyster Industry The cultivation of native oysters continued to a limited extent and layings were visited from time to time. Fattening of imported Portuguese oysters in the River Roach and Barling Hall Creek for re-export to France as carried out in the years 1964 and 1965 was recommenced in 1967. To enable the Medical Officer of Health to sign a "Certificate of Purity", required by the French Authorities to accompany each consignment, a routine sampling procedure was commenced in October, samples being examined at Chelmsford Public Health Laboratory Up to the end of the year, examinations were carried out on eight occasions and in every case the oysters were reported on as "Satisfying the standards laid down by the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers." 13 Seven certificates were issued to cover consignments for exportation. Cockle Industry The cockle industry at Leigh proceeded satisfactorily throughout the year. Routine visits were made from time to time to the eight approved establishments and conditions were found to be of a satisfactory standard. Routine sampling of the cockles after cleansing was carried out by the Southend Public Health Department. No sickness was reported, which could be attributed to the consumption of cockles from these establishments. For the first time "Certificates of Purity" were requested for consignments of cockles exported to France, the cockles being collected from Barling Hall Creek, which is not included in the "prescribed area". Export parcels were sampled on three occasions, the cockles being examined at Chelmsford Public Health Laboratory. On each sampling the cockles were reported as "bacteriologically satisfactory" and certificates were issued accordingly. SECTION XV MEDICAL INSPECTION OF ALIENS AND COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS 1. List of Medical Inspectors holding warrants of appointment at the 31st December, 1967:— Dr. W.G. Swann, Dr. D.T. Jones, Dr. W.T. Rougier Chapman, Dr. G.W. Aston Dr. R.F. Armstrong, Dr. R.M. Best, Dr. W.D.L. Smith, Dr. H.M. Willoughby, Dr.J.A. Jones, Dr. W.T.G. Boul, Dr. D.J. Avery, Dr. W. Stott, Dr. M.J. Catton, Dr. R.D. Summers, Dr. D. Jenkins, Dr. D.W. Keys, Dr. R.G.S. Whitfield, Dr. A.E.L. De Thierry, Dr. J. Oakley, Dr. R.N. Herson, Dr. B. Dalton, Dr.G.B. Stuart, Dr. W.N. Whiteside, Dr. H.C. Maurice-Williams, Dr. G.J. Leyden, Dr. D.P. Rough, Dr. J.F. Buckley, Dr. D.J.R. Walters. 2. List of other staff engaged on the work:— Clerical staff at the central office. 3. Organisation of the work:— Alien and Commonwealth Immigrants are examined by one of the above panel of doctors, at the request of an Immigration Officer. The majority of ships carrying immigrants are dealt with by the Boarding Medical Officers but a part-time Medical Inspector may be called in to deal with a particular ship. Since the inception of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act the larger passenger ships have been boarded at Ports of call prior to their arrival in London as noted below. 4. Alien Arrivals (a) Total number of arriving ships carrying aliens 2,589 (b) Total number of aliens — (i) arriving at the port 35,669 (ii)medically examined 33 (c) Certificates issued 2 Commonwealth Immigrant Arrivals Commonwealth citizens subject to control 9,090 Commonwealth citizens examined 818 Certificates issued 2 Ships were boarded by members of the panel of doctors at the following ports:— Gibraltar 1 Lisbon 4 Cherbourg 1 Rotterdam 5 Brixham 2 London 109 122 5 Medical examination of alien and Commonwealth immigrants is carried out on board ship. 14 SECTION XVI MISCELLANEOUS Arrangements for the burial on shore of persons who have died on board ship from infectious disease. The body of any person dying on board ship, or in Denton Hospital, from infectious disease would normally be removed from the ship or Denton Hospital for burial by a Private Undertaker acting on the instructions of the shipping company or the next-of-kin, the local police being kept informed. In the event of the death being one of smallpox, special instructions as to precautions to be taken would be given to the undertaker by the Port Health Authority. CLEAN AIR ACT, 1956 THE DARK SMOKE (PERMITTED PERIODS) (VESSELS) REGULATIONS 1958 The steady improvement noted in the years following the introduction of the Regulations has continued over the last year. Although the annual introduction of new diesel propelled tonnage, together with the disappearance of the older vessel of a type most likely to present problems, is a continuing factor, one must not lose sight of the now widespread awareness of shipping companies and ships' personnel of the necessity to control smoke emissions, which in part can be attributed to the many informal visits made by Inspectors to vessels where offences could occur. On only one occasion during the year was it found necessary to institute legal proceedings. This was in relation to a passenger paddle steamer which emitted, over a period of two days, Black and Dark smoke far in excess of the permitted periods prescribed by the Regulations. The Owners were fined £100 on each of the two summonses, together with costs. CANAL BOATS There has been no change during the year in the legislation relating to canal boats. The number and frequency of canal boats visiting Regents Canal Dock varies considerably from year to year and is dependent on the economic movement of suitable goods. Twenty four canal boats were inspected during the year. Twenty one boats were found to be clean and of a satisfactory standard. Two boats were found to have defective flues to their stores and one boat was found to have defective and leaking sides to the cabin. Letters were sent to the owners requiring the repair of the defects. LOADING AND TRANSPORT OF REFUSE BY LIGHTERS Routine visits to loading wharves and regular inspections of the lighters engaged in this trade have been maintained during the year. There has been no change in the number of wharves and docks used for the loading of refuse. One of the wharves lies outside the District but the laden refuse lighters pass through the District. Spillage of refuse has, as in previous years, been a problem. Improvements which the Greater London Council intend carrying out at some of the wharves, will result in the refuse being loaded into lighters by mechanical means only. This should greatly reduce the amount of spillage. No prosecutions were instituted underthe Authority's Byelaws during the year. Minor infringer ments were dealt with immediately and directly by personal representation. HOUSEBOATS Benfleet and Canvey Island The houseboat moorings at Benfleet Creek West were further restricted during 1967 due to the encroachment of the adjacent refuse tip. Some houseboats were forced by circumstances, to shift moorings eastwards to already conjested moorings. Representations were made to the Benfleet Urban District Council who subsequently refused consents to moor in sixteen cases. Notices were served on the owners of nine of the houseboats to remove them within one year, and on the owners of the other seven houseboats to remove them within two years. 15 Two temporary consents were granted during the year by Benfleet Urban District Council with the concurrence of the Corporation of London as Port Health Authority of the Port of London. One of these was for use as a yacht club, subject to the boat not being used for permanent habitation. Upper River Area. There are approximatley 131 houseboats in the upper reaches of the River. All are in good condition. DANGEROUS DRUGS During the year thirteen certificates authorising the purchase of scheduled Dangerous Drugs were issued under the Dangerous Drugs (No. 2) Regulations, 1964, Regulation 13 (2) of which is as follows:— (a) The master of a foreign ship which is in a port in Great Britain shall be authorised to procure such quantity of drugs and preparations as may be certified by the medical officer of health of the port health authority within whose jurisdiction the ship is or, in his absence, by the assistant medical officer of health, to be necessary for the equipment of the ship until it reaches its home port. (b) A person who supplies a drug or preparation in accordance with a certificate given under this paragraph shall retain the certificate and mark it with the date on which the drug or preparation was supplied and keep it on his premises so as to be at all times available for inspection. FCOD HYGIENE (DOCKS CARRIERS ETC.) REGULATIONS 1960 Food handling in the docks in general has continued to maintain a high standard. Most food hygiene problems centre around the discharge and distribution of meat. Improvement has been most noticeable in the new road vehicles now being introduced by road hauliers. This has been a long term programme of replacement which is now bearing fruit. Hygiene of food handling often entails expenditure on equipment or requires a different approach to traditional methods of work and for these reasons resistance to change is probably the biggest obstacle to overcome. The co-operation between Inspectors and the Industry, in improving matters generally, continues and is achieving good results. As new methods of packaging and handling of meats develop so the traditional problems disappear or assume a different form. Mechanical discharge of a meat ship, as at 'B' berth, Royal Victoria Dock, the containerisation of meat now beginning to appear in the docks and the packing of cuts of meat in cartons, boxes and plastic materials are examples of the changes in the meat industry which have in general resulted in greater protection of the meat and an incidental improvement in hygiene. FOOD HYGIENE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS, 1960/62. The launches employed in the passenger carrying services on the river are surveyed annually. The Board of Trade carry out this survey during the early part of the year, when repair work, renewal of fittings, cleaning and painting of the launches are also attended to. Fresh water storage tanks are cleaned and, together with the distribution systems, chlorinated prior to use. Regular inspections of the launches were carried out during the season. Food Hygiene standards on board and in the catering establishments supplying food to the launches, continued to be highly satisfactory. On two occasions unfit results were obtained on water samples drawn from launches. In both cases the source of contamination was traced and eliminated. The traditional service provided by the three larger vessels to the continent and coastal resorts has been discontinued, but the service to the estuary towns by a thirty-five year old paddler steamer has been maintained. The standard of hygiene on board remained satisfactory and there was an improvement in both equipment and amenities. 61 routine inspections under the regulations were carried out during the year. Minor infringements were corrected at the time of the visit. 16 SEABORNE CONTAINER TRAFFIC The "containerisation" of cargoes carried by vessels was further increased during 1967. The "Container Revolution" as it has been termed resulted in purpose-built ships being constructed, and container terminals being planned, equipped with special lifting gear for speedy discharge and loading operations. The whole essence of the operation is the speedy delivery of cargoes from their place of origin to consumer, port health control of food imports, as the food containers arrive in the port, forming an important and necessary link in the chain, if the health of the community is to be safeguarded. From a practical point of view, food examination of containered foods presents various difficulties. Each container to be examined has to be opened, and some of its contents have to be unloaded to permit inspection to be carried out. This process of routine inspection is very much slower than that involved in cargoes discharged from conventional ships. With conventional cargo carriage, food inspection commences as the vessels' hatches are removed and is continued as discharge proceeds, with further opportunity for examination when the goods are stowed in the receiving shed. Containered food only becomes visually available for inspection on specific request, and a great deal of time is wasted waiting for goods to be produced. In the future it will be essential for shipping companies or container operators which will not necessarily be the same organisation, to not only advise the Port Health Authority as early as possible of food imports expected but to give as much information as possible before the ship arrives to facilitate speedy control measures. This information should include a full description of the goods including Brand name, if any, their country of origin and in the case of meat or meat products the Establishment Number. This information will assist in deciding in advance which containers will require attention. This container revolution is rapidly gaining momentum and in various parts of the port conventional berths have been or are being adapted to handle this type of traffic. The major developments now under construction at Tilbury Dock are in the main based on container handling and a dramatic increase is expected in this field in 1968. It has been reliably estimated that one container berth will handle up to ten times the tonnage of a conventional berth. This fact will be of extreme importance when port health control is planned in the future. FOOD INSPECTION . The total amount of foodstuffs detained for examination and either condemned as unfit for human consumption and destroyed or otherwise disposed of under guarantee and supervision was 2,259 tons, 2 cwts. 0 qtrs. 3 lbs. The following is a summary showing methods of disposal:— Weight Comparable Weight 1966 Tons Cwts. Qtrs. Lbs. Torts Cwts. Qtrs. Lbs Burnt 44 19 0 21 38 16 2 15 Buried 1,763 4 0 13 2,685 15 0 8 Contractor 28 7 3 15 54 16 2 17 * Other Districts 78 7 3 1 753 13 2 4 * Animal Feeding 59 0 1 27 476 13 3 7 Re-exported 285 2 2 10 213 19 0 19 Totals 2,259 2 0 3 4,223 14 3 14 Items marked * were released with the agreement of and under the supervision of local Medical Officers of Health. Of the 2,259 tons listed above, the principal items and methods of disposal consisted of:— Burnt Tons Cwts. 8,248 tins, 530 ctns, 224 jars, fruit, fish, meat, vegetables, pulps and juices - burst, blown, leaky or broken 14 16 8 bags Rice — rodent di maged 7 4 bags Rice — mouldy 18 18 bags Whey Powder - wet damaged 4 2 casks Onions in Brine — wasty 2 30 ctns.'Tomato Paste — excessive tin content 14 8 baskets Tomatoes — rotten and wasty 1 50 ctns. Fresh Pineapples — wasty 10 19 cases Oranges — dock water damaged 6 96 boxes Oranges — mouldy and wasty 1 17 83 cases Marrows — wasty .. 12 17 Burnt (continued) Tons Cwts. 27 cases Pears — dock water damaged 10 252 crates Yams — wasty 13 10 25 bags Dried Peas — rodent damaged 1 5 11 crates Garlic — wasty 2 21 bags Onions — dock water damaged 9 2 casks Ginger — heads out, contents contaminated by extraneous matter 2 1 cask Ginger — heads out, contents contaminated by dock water 2 1 barrel Gherkins — heads out, contents contaminated by dock water 5 7 bags Tea — sweepings 2 1 chest Tea — wet damaged 1 230 ctns. Pizza Crust — mould growth 17 6 bags coconuts — mouldy 6 5 bags Desiccated coconut — dock water damaged 5 14 ctns. Currants — wet stained 9 44 ctns. Raisins — wet and mildewed 10 4 ctns. Patras — dock water damaged 1 31 ctns. Currants — mouldy 7 2 ctns. Cocoa Butter — dock water damaged 1 2 bags Peppers — dock water damaged 3 42 ctns. Honey — stained and damaged 5 9 boxes Lard — broken and dirty 4 11 ctns. Macaroni — rodent damaged 2 25 ctns. Mushrooms — maggotty 14 13 crates Eggs — unwholesome 6 4 ctns. Egg Albumen — dirty 2 150 ctns. Egg Noodles — Salmonella contaminated 1 5 2 ctns. Ice Cream Cones — dock water damaged 1 Quantity Offals — loose collected and dirty 2 22 bags Ox Livers — blood stained and dirty 16 Buried 12,007 tins, 2,561 ctns, 1,267 jars, fruit, fish, meat, vegetables, pulps and juices — burst, blown, leaky or broken 89 19 41 casks Onions in Brine — wasty 7 12 2,709 bags Onions - wasty 64 4 34 bags Onions — oil contaminated 17 100 sacks Carrots — decomposed 1 2 7 ctns. Carrots — wet damaged 1 120 bags Beans — damaged by broken soil pipe in ship's hold 6 0 160 ctns. French Beans — wasty 9 322 bags Pea Beans — damaged by water 16 0 Quantity Fresh Marrows — wasty 10 1,154 bags Potatoes — wasty 32 15 2,251 bags Potatoes — maggot infested 55 0 6 cases Muraba Carrot — contained prohibited preservative 3 159 ctns. Currants — wasty and infested 2 0 59 ctns. Sultanas — wet damaged 13 16 ctns. Sultanas - rodent infested 4 2 casks Apricot Pulp — heads out, contents contaminated with extraneous matter 5 8 barrels Apricot Pulp - excess preservative 2 3 5 barrels Plum Pulp — barrels broken contents contaminated 1 0 1 cask Strawberry Pulp — wasty 2 1 cask Orange Pulp — contaminated by dock water 3 9 casks Orange Juice — unsound 2 10 1 cask Lemon Peel — dock water damaged 5 30 bags Manioc Meal - sweepings 1 6 6 bags Rice - sweepings 3 43 bags Rice — oil contaminated 1 18 1 bag Flour - sweepings 1 5 bags Prunes — sweepings 3 11 cases Figs — wet damaged 2 22 boxes Figs — rodent damaged 5 17 boxes Oranges and Grapefruit — over ripe and wasty 7 1,448 cases Oranges - wasty 29 12 Quantity Apples — wasty 4 11 Quantity Banana Waste 1,078 7 4,600 bags Yams - wasty 327 2 14 boxes Melons — wasty 4 5 1,500 crates Plums — wasty 22 1 200 crates Pimentoes — wasty 1 4 52 ctns. Cucumbers — wasty 1 0 10 ctns. Garlic — wasty 4 12 bags Pumpkins - dock water damaged 7 8 bags Lentils — rodent damaged 5 1 cask Gherkins in Brine - cask burst, contents contaminated 4 18 Buried (continued) Tons Cwts. 3 barrels Mango Chutney — head out, contents contaminated 8 2 casks Mango Chutney — oil contaminated 2 15 cases Pickle — unsound 15 4 bags Cocoa Beans — rodent infested 3 2 ctns. Cocoa Butter — wet damaged 1 141 bottles Fend Compound — bottles broken 5 10 ctns. Egg Ravioli — No Official Certificates (destroyed at Merchant's request) 1 24 ctns. Macaroni — vermin infested and oil stained 5 4 cases Hen Eggs — Broken 1 56 bags Desiccated Coconut — wet damaged 17 1 case tea — wet stained and mouldy 1 38 ctns. Corned Beef — poor condition 10 5 ctns. Chucks and Blades — decomposed 2 8 Lamb Carcases — dock water damaged 2 Contractor 197 Beef Livers, 4 Beef Kidneys, 12 Beef Tenderloins, 1 Beef Crop, 1 Beef Cheek, 1 Beef Tongue, 2 Beef Hinds, 1,336 Lambs, 48 Lambs Legs, 55 Lamb Shoulders, 2 Sheep Legs, 1 Sheep Shoulder, 1 Sheep Liver, 7 Sheep Fore Parts, 16 Ewes, 4 Ewe Shoulders, 10 Ewe Legs, 238 Ox Livers, 2 Ox Hearts, 1 Ox Tongue, 1 bag Ox Kidney, 22 Ox parts, 3 ctns. Ox Skirts, 5 Briskets, 6 Wethers, 44 Silverside, 9 Rumps, 1 Thick Flank, 1 Pork Kidney, 1 Pork Liver, 3 ctns. Chicken Rolls, 1 ctn. Turkey Rolls, 70 ctns. Salami Sausages, Quantity Butter Trimmings, — diseases, dock water damaged, faecal contamination, dirty, loose collected, iced, bloodstained, sour, stale, bacterial contamination, oil stained, paint stained, brine stained, rodent damaged, soft, wet and decomposed, mouldy, mis-shapen, fire damaged 28 7 Other Districts 47 bags Flour — dirty and contaminated — for reconditioning 1 16 210 ctns. Raisins - infested - for processing 3 1 15 bags Sugar — sweepings — for refining 14 1 drum Honey — contaminated by extraneous matter — for refining 4 60 bags Coffee Beans — wet damaged - for reconditioning 3 11 7 bags Maple Peas — dock water damaged — for cleansing 3 272 ctns. Apples — brine stained — for cleansing 4 17 258 ctns. Oranges and Grapefruits - over ripe — for sorting 4 12 2 ctns. Carmine Powder — returned British export — salmonella inated — sterilized and processed 1 40 bags Rice — dirty and contaminated by bird droppings — cleansing 1 6 81 ctns. Powdered Egg — salmonella contaminated — for heat treatment 1 16 600 ctns. Egg Pasta — salmonella contaminated — goods destroyed 3 5 488 ctns. Corned Beef — poor condition — for manufacturing purposes 6 10 22 bags Offals — loose collected and dirty — for sterilisation for petfood 15 2 ctns. Beef Hearts — loose collected and dirty — for sterilisation for petfood 1 218 bags Bone in Hinds — soft and bloodstained — for sterilisation for petfood 15 3 690 ctns. Pork Lungs and 847 ctns. Beef Spleens — uncertificated for sterilisation for petfood 30 6 Animal Feeding 62 bags Pea Beans — sweepings 2 16 36 bags Pea Beans — dirty and contaminated 1 11 15 bags Cocoa Beans — stained and mildewed 1 3 569 ctns. Currants — wet stained and mouldy 7 2 93 bags Rice — wet and dirty 4 3 161 ctns. Milk Powder — dock water damaged 3 16 23 bags Flour — dirty and contaminated by bird droppings 1 8 598 bags Flour - rejected ship's stores 6 16 92 bags Masoodhall — wet damaged 4 12 280 bags Wheat Germ — rodent damaged 17 13 30 bags Wheat Germ — wet damaged 1 12 71 bags Maize Flour — rodent damaged 4 18 21 bags Sodium Caseinate — rodent damaged 9 34 ctns. Corned Beef — poor condition 9 6 bags Groundnuts — dock water damaged 4 Re-exported 2,500 ctns. Tomato Puree — excess tin content 51 1 3,000 ctns. Tomato Paste — excess copper content 26 5 400 ctns. Tomato Paste — excess lead content 13 7 4,000 bags Groundnuts — contained Aflatoxin 50 0 25 ctns. Hollandaise Sauce - contained a non-permitted preservative 1 19 Re-exported (continued) Tons Cwts 280 ctns. Soy Sauce — contained a non-permitted preservative 1 19 20 ctns. Peas in Honey Bean Jam — contained a non-permitted colour 6 10 ctns. Butterscotch Pudding — contained a non-permitted colour 2 222 ctns. Hard Candy — contained a non-permitted colour 1 19 30 ctns. Honey Butter — contained a non-permitted preservative 15 150 ctns. Log Cabin Syrup — contained a non-permitted preservative 1 12 53 bags Animal Blood Plasma — excess Lead content 2 2 20 ctns. Egg Farfals — bacterial contamination 9 590 ctns. Prawns — excess Plate count 9 10 26 chests Tea — excess Stalk 1 3 1,964 ctns. Corned Beef — after sorting 20 3 350 ctns. Pork Fat — Incorrect Official Certificates 13 18 1 cask Sausage Casings — Incorrect Official Certificates 2 4 ctns. Tinned Tripe — Incorrect Official Certificates 1 14 ctns. Canned Meats — Uncertificated 6 15 ctns. Sausages — Uncertificated 9 10 ctns. Salted Meats — Uncertificated 3 45 casks Sheep Casings — Uncertificated 5 5 17 casks Hog Casings — Uncertificated 3 14 7 ctns. Pork Livers — Uncertificated 3 80 ctns. Beef Tenderloins — Uncertificated 3 13 10 ctns. Tamales — Uncertificated 1 100 cases Stewed Sliced Pork — Uncertificated 3 4 55 ctns. French Foods — Uncertificated 1 6 100 cases Ox Tongues — Uncertificated 2 2 75 cases Fried Rice with Meat — Uncertificated 1 5 10 ctns Kibbeh — Uncertificated 1 7 ctns. Noodles and Pork — Uncertificated 1 105 ctns. Hams — Uncertificated 3 8 100 cases Corned Beef — Uncertificated 1 4 21 cases Salami Sausage — Uncertificated 6 25 ctns. Fill Mix — Uncertificated 6 Quantity Dutch Steam Lard — Uncertificated 60 0 The following figures have been given by the Port of London Authority and acknowledgement is made for their help. The figures are in respect of the year 1967 and are tonnages of foodstuffs landed on their quays and handled by them during the year. Butter, Cheese and Margarine 8,224 Canned Goods 107,985 Flour 4,217 Fruit, Dried 9,989 Fruit, Green and Vegetable 209,536 Grain and Seed 131,623 Meat Chilled and Frozen 363,482 Other Provisions 35,735 Sugar 562 Tea 16,954 888,307 Taking the total weight of items in the first table as 2,259 tons the amount dealt with expressed as a percentage of imports for the same period equals 0.25%. FOOD SAMPLING Tea During the year 217 samples of tea were drawn and examined. All were found to be satisfactory. Other Sampling — Public Analyst During the year 598 other samples were sent to the Public Analyst as follows:— Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Tinned Shrimps 6 0 Tinned Prawns 3 0 Prawns in Spice 1 0 Dried Prawns 1 0 Pilchards 3 0 Lumpfish Caviar 4 1 Contained prohibited colouring matter — letter to Merchant and local M.O.H. Tinned Sardines 2 0 20- Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Anchovies 1 0 Cod Roe 1 0 Cod Roe Paste 1 0 Tinned Crab Meat 4 0 Tuna Fish 4 0 (1) Incorrect Label. Letterto Merchant & Local M.O.H. Fish Balls 1 0 Fish in Oil 1 0 Herring Roes 1 0 Herring Fillets 0 3 Contained prohibited preservative Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Herrings with Onions 1 0 Herrings with Dill Sauce 1 0 Herrings with Tomato Sauce 1 0 Mackerel Fillets 2 0 Fillets of Sole 1 0 Curry Clams 1 0 Carp with Scallions 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Spiced Harslet 1 0 Beefburgers 2 0 Hamburger Patties 1 0 Tinned Steak 4 0 Tinned Sausages 3 0 (1) Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Frankfurters 1 0 Fish Sausage 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Hot Dogs 1 0 Meat Balls in Curry 1 0 Curry Beef 1 0 Beef with Rice 1 0 Beef Ragout 1 0 Corned Beef 2 1 Samples drawn at the request of Merchant in order to establish their fitness for human consumption prior to export. In view of result no Certificate of Health was issued. Chicken Fillets 1 0 Curry Chicken 1 0 Chicken Wings 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Chicken in Supreme Sauce 1 0 Quenelles of Poultry 1 0 Rooster in Wine 1 0 Foul Medamas 1 0 Ox Tongue 2 0 Jugged Hare 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Tinned Tripe 1 0 Ravioli 5 0 Chopped Ham with Pork 1 0 Cured Meats 5 0 Tortellini 1 0 Stewed Pork 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Braised Duck 1 0 Meat Balls and Vegetables 1 0 Tinned Kangaroo Meat. 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Handy Lunch 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Goulash 1 0 Smart Ham 1 0 Uncertificated - Re-export notice served. Baby Ham 1 0 Uncertificated — Re-export notice served. Smoked Meat 1 0 Uncertificated — Re-export notice served. Lard 30 0 (16) Incorrect Labels. Letter to Merchants and Local M.O.H.'s. 21 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Beef Jus 1 0 Pure Ghee 1 0 Butter 8 0 Butter Oil 2 0 Kosher Cooking Margarine 1 0 Cake Emulsifier 1 0 Sweet Fat 1 0 Goose Fat 1 0 Dehydrated Tomato 1 0 Dehydrated Onions 1 0 Dehydrated Potatoes 1 0 Dehydrated Vegetables 1 0 Preserved Vegetables 11 0 (1) Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Haricot Beans 1 0 Butter Beans 1 0 Chilli Beans 3 1 Contained prohibited preservative. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Gherkins 3 0 Tinned Cucumbers 1 0 Silverskin Onions 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Baby Beetroots 1 0 Whole Black Mangoes 1 0 Hagoromo 1 0 Vaalor (Vegetables) 1 0 Sieved Leeks 1 0 Spinach Powder 1 0 Tinned Celery Hearts 1 0 Tinned Green Beans 2 0 Tinned Peas 1 0 Tinned Mushrooms 2 0 (1) Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Tinned Artichoke Hearts 1 0 Tinned Asparagus 3 0 Tinned New Potatoes 2 0 Tinned Yams 1 0 Tomato Puree 46 10 (5) Excess mould and tin — Reexported. (4) Excess Lead — re-export notice served. (1) Excess Lead — held pending re-export. Tinned Tomatoes 2 0 Tomato Sauce 3 0 (1) Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Fresh Apples 1 0 Fresh Oranges 3 0 Fresh Grapes 1 0 Tinned Apples 2 0 (1) Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Tinned Fruit Salad 2 0 Tinned Blackcurrant 1 0 Tinned Amla 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Tinned Paw Paw 1 0 Tinned Harar 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Tinned Cherries 6 0 Tinned Fruit Cocktail 2 0 Cherry Syrup 1 0 Figs 1 0 Dried Fruit 4 0 Dried Apricots 2 0 (1) Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Apricot Paste 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Apricot Pulp 5 2 (1) Excess Sulphur Dioxide — Appropriate Authorities notified. Peach Pulp 1 0 (1) Excess Sulphur Dioxide — Re-export notice served. Blackcurrant Pulp 1 0 Orange Pulp 2 0 22 23 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Dried Pineapple 1 0 Apricot Halves 1 0 Mandarin Paste 1 0 Plum Preserve 1 0 Preserved Fruits 3 0 (2) Incorrect Labels. Letter to Merchants and Local M.O.H.'s. Prunes 1 0 Passion Fruit 1 0 Sultanas 1 0 Preserved Ginger 1 0 Tins Blowing — goods released for manufacturing purposes only Jack Fruit 1 0 Peeled Melons in Syrup 1 0 Peach Nectar 1 0 Grape Juice 3 0 Pineapple Juice 1 0 Strawberry Juice 1 0 Lime Juice 1 0 Fruit Juice 1 0 Frozen Orange Juice 1 0 Orange and Lemon Juice 2 0 Fruit Juice Powder 1 3 Contained a prohibited artificial sweetener — letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Orange Concentrate 1 0 Lemonade Mix 1 0 Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Incorrect Label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Orangeade Mix 1 0 Mineral Water 1 0 Drinking Chocolate 1 0 Apple Pop Ups 1 0 Raspberry Pop Ups 1 0 Strawberry Pop Ups 1 0 Blueberry Pop Ups 1 0 Chocolate Fudge 1 0 Sugared Candy 2 0 Chewine Gum 1 0 Confectionery 0 1 Contained prohibited colouring matter — consignment reexported. Contained prohibited colouring matter — letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Easter Egg Dyes 0 1 Fill Mix 1 0 Seasoned Coating Mix 1 0 Yellow Cake Mix 1 0 Blueberry Flavour Muffin Mix 0 1 Contained prohibited colouring matter - letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Pancake Mix 1 0 Instant Puddings 3 0 Butterscotch Pudding 0 1 Contained prohibited colouring — re-exported. Pie Fillings 2 0 Cherry Whip 1 0 Pineapple Cream 1 0 Cherry Flavouring 1 0 Pure Bee Honey 1 0 Egg Custard 1 0 Orange Cream Biscuits 1 0 French Biscuits 1 0 Cheese 3 0 Cheese Spread 1 0 Cheese Balls 1 0 Cheese Biscuits 1 0 Cheese Bread 1 0 Milk Powder 1 0 Chilli Powder 8 3 (1) Contained prohibited colouring matter — re-export notice served. (1) Contained prohibited colouring matter — Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Curry Powder 3 0 (1) Contained extraneous matter released for sieving and cleansing. Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Turmeric Powder 2 0 Paprika 2 0 Paprika Flakes 1 0 Ground Spices 2 0 Rice Powder 1 0 Ginger 1 0 Curry Gravy 1 0 Chilli Leaves 1 0 Tarragon Leaves 1 0 Nutmeg 1 0 Walnut Kernels 1 0 Mixed Nuts 6 0 Flaked Peanuts 1 0 Salted Peanuts 1 0 Groundnuts 56 5 (3) Contained Aflatoxin (Medium) consignment re-exported. (2) Contained Aflatoxin (Medium) consignment released following further sampling. Liver Paste 1 0 Pate de Foie Truffe 2 0 Soy Sauce 4 2 Contained a non permitted preservative — re-exported. Cocktail Sauces 12 0 Sweet and Sour Sauce 2 0 Worcester Sauce 1 0 Meat Sauce 1 0 Spaghetti Sauce 1 0 Enchlada Sauce 1 0 Shrimp Sauce 1 0 Incorrect label. Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Oyster Sauce 0 5 (2) Contained a prohibited preservative — letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. (3) Contained prohibited preservative — re-export notice served. Chilli Sauce 3 0 Mayonnaise 8 1 Contained prohibited preservative — letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Various Pickles 16 1 Contained prohibited preservative — letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Crispy Cube Relish 1 0 Pepper Corn Relish 1 0 Green Tomato Relish 1 0 Tangy Hot Ketchup 1 0 Soups 2 0 Mustard Powder 2 1 Deficient in Allyllsothiocyanate— Letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H Mustard Plant 1 0 Snails 2 0 Instant Fried Onion 1 0 Satkaro Slices 1 0 Gaffelbiter 1 0 Sauerkraut 1 0 Hamnos Bi Tahini 1 0 Baba Ghannouj 1 0 Tahini 1 0 Boiled Peas in Honey Bean Jam 0 1 Contained prohibited colouring matter — re-exported. Bouilla Baisse 1 0 Garnishing Paste 1 0 Incorrect Label - letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Gourmet Powder 1 0 Danish Delight 1 0 Meatless Wieners 1 0 Preserved Ducks Eggs 1 0 Fried Bean Curds 1 0 Chinese Pickled Beef Plant 1 0 Incorrect Label - letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Soft Bean Jelly 1 0 Bean Sprouts 1 0 24 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Bamboo Shoots 1 0 Noodles 5 0 (2) Incorrect Labels — letter to Merchants and Local M.O.H.'s. Egg Jam 1 0 Egg Farfals 0 1 Bacterially unsound. Goods Reexported. Oat Cereal 1 1 Contained prohibited colouring matter — letter to Merchant and Local M.O.H. Coffee 3 0 Instant Tea 2 0 Granular Citrate 1 0 Blood Plasma 0 1 Contained Lead — released for manufacturing purposes under supervision of Local M.O.H. Asbestos 1 0 Ice 1 0 Water 3 0 Bare Paint, Primer and Paint 0 2 Contained lead — tanks no longer approved to carry water for human consumption. Animal Feeding Staffs 24 0 Other Sampling - Bacteriological Horsemeat 1,514 305 Appropriate Consignments sterilized. Kangaroo 54 59 Appropriate Consignments sterilized. Mutton 544 56 Appropriate Consignments sterilized. Veal 110 2 Appropriate Consignments sterilized. Lamb 48 2 Appropriate Consignments sterilized. Buffalo Meat 7 3 Appropriate Consignments sterilized. Ox Meat 77 3 Appropriate Consignments sterilized. Beef 228 0 Cow Crops 50 0 Rabbit 83 0 Raw Crushed Meat and Bones 1 0 Cooked Meat and Bones 1 0 Chucks and Blades 10 0 Corned Beef 48 0 Solid Pack Beef 1 0 Sausages 10 0 Pork Brawn 1 0 Egg 840 18 (6) Previously released to other Authority. M.O.H. notified of result. (7) Released for heat treatment under supervision of local M.O.H. Frozen Egg 8 0 (5) Re-exported. Egg Noodles 53 12 (2) Bacterially unsound — goods re-exported. (5) Salmonella contaminated — goods surrendered for destruction. (5) Salmonella contaminated — goods awaiting disposal. Canadian Crab Livers 5 0 Whey Powder 1 0 Soy Sauce 1 0 Ox Tongue 6 0 Prawns 9 1 Unsatisfactory plate count - reexported. Shrimps 3 0 Frozen Poultry 1 0 Desiccated Coconut 49 0 Mussels 1 0 Smoked Oysters 1 0 Dried Oysters 1 0 25 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Fish Gravy 1 0 Pate 1 0 Cold Mutton 1 0 Black Pudding 1 0 Ice Cream 1 0 Milk Powder 4 0 Carmine Powder 0 1 Salmonella isolated. Goods released to Merchant for processing. Local M.O.H. informed. Tinned Kangaroo Meat 2 0 Tinned Tripe 1 0 Cooked Chicken Skins 1 0 Cheese 1 0 Custard Powder 1 0 Fried Rice Birds 1 0 Salted Ducks Eggs 1 0 Chinese Preserved Eggs 1 0 Macaroni 2 0 Soup Nuts 2 0 Jugged Hare 1 0 Mussels in Brine 1 0 Smoked Salmon 1 0 Minced Meat 1 0 Luncheon Meat 1 0 Water 4 0 Ice 1 0 Soup 1 0 Edible Birds Nest 1 0 Curried Beef 1 0 Rock Lobster Tails 1 0 Dried Mushrooms 1 0 Butter 6 0 Dr. H. Amphlett Williams, Ph.D (Lond.) A.C.G.F.C., F.R.I.C., F.R.S.H, Public Analyst for the City of London, has submitted the following:— THE DETECTION OF ROT IN TOMATO PRODUCTS In view of the increased attention now being focussed on fungal deterioration of food and of the obligations imposed upon Public Analysts under S.8. of the Food and Drugs Act, the Imported Food Regulations and under the. Food Standards (Tomato Ketchup) Order, it may be of interest to review the methods available for the detection of unsound, unclean or unwholesome tomatoes in samples of tomato products. The Howard Mould Count As a preliminary test a general microscopical examination of the product will normally be carried out. If the examination reveals much fungus, with hyphae present in every field, the analyst may be able to make an adverse report without further investigation. If only a few hyphae are to be seen they may be regarded as natural to the fruit and unobjectionable. But if there appears to be rather a high proportion of fungus present some criterion will be necessary by which to judge whether the product had been made from reasonably clean and wholesome tomatoes or from ones that were partly rotten. The Howard method,1 in which the percentage of fields containing mould is counted, was developed in 1908-11 in the u.s. Department of Agriculture for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act 1906. It became a legal Federal Government tolerance in 1916 at 66% fields positive, was reduced to 50% positive in 1931, and to 40% in 1940, where it has remained until the present time. In Canada and Australia the limit is 50% positive. In France there are two legal standards, a 60% maximum for Standard Quality and a 50% maximum for Extra Quality purees. The Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark do not have legal standards for Mould Counts although the test is commonly used as an indicator of the hygienic condition of tomato products; in Italy the imposition of a legal standard has been under consideration. In 1958 standards were provisionally approved by the International Permanent Committee on Canned Foods (the C.I.P.C.) for the physical and chemical properties of Standard Quality and Extra Quality Tomato Purees, which included Mould Count limits of 60% and 40% positive fields respectively. 26 In the case of Tomato Juice, the U.S.A. tolerance is 20% fields positive, the Canadian, 25%, and the French, for both "Standard" and "Extra" Quality, 30%. In the area controlled by the Port of London Health Authority merchants were advised in January 1963 by the Medical Officer of Health that many instances of excessive mould contamination of tomato concentrates had been reported by the Public Analyst and that after consultation with other analysts and with members of the trade it was proposed to adopt a maximum limit of 50% positive Howard Mould Count for the purposes of the Imported Food Regulations 1937 and 1948, but that in view of the difficulties which would be experienced by merchants in meeting such a standard at little or no notice consignments showing a Mould Count of 60% positive or less would be released for the time being, and in cases where samples showed over 60% positive a letter would be sent to the owner suggesting that such goods should not be imported into this country for sale for human consumption. Copies of the letter were sent to other Port Health Authorities in U.K., and on 6th September 1963 a further letter intimating the intention to apply an upper limit of 50% positive Howard Mould Count was sent to all known tomato product importers. During 1963 a few consignments of tomato puree showing Mould Counts in excess of 60% positive were detained by the Port of London Health Authority. From figures supplied by courtesy of Customs and Excise the tonnage of tomato puree held amounted to 0.6% of the total imported into the Port of London during the relevant months of December and January 1962/63. In some quarters objections were raised to the adoption by the Health Authority of a limit based on the Howard Mould test, and a conference was arranged by the Food Trade Review in London in April 1963 between the Port of London Health Authority and the trade, at which both sampling and testing procedures were debated at some length.2 Following this conference the validity of the Authority's detention notice on a certain consignment of puree showing 72% fields positive was challenged by a large firm of tomato merchants. Their action led to a summons under the Imported Food Regulations, reported elsewhere,3 in which evidence of the Howard Mould Count was accepted and the view that a puree made from unsound fruit must also be unsound even though sterilised was upheld by the Court. The limit of 50% positive is now generally accepted by the trade and is included in the recent Trade Specification for Tomato Puree, dated February 1967. It is indeed, understood that the leading British manufacturers have for many years insisted upon a considerably more stringent standard for their products. The test had been applied in this laboratory to retail samples of puree and sauces submitted under the Food and Drugs Act since 1948, but because of the difficulty of attaching the summons to the person responsible for the offence action has, until last year, been confined to representations to the dealers concerned. On April 1967, however, a prosecution against an importer under Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act in respect of tomato puree showing 75% fields positive was successfully undertaken at the Sourt Eastern Petty Sessions by the London Borough of Lewisham.4 Samples taken under Imported Food Regulations Results of Howard Mould Counts on samples of tomato puree, paste and concentrates submitted by the Port of London Health Authority are summarised in Table I. TABLE I Imports of Tomato Puree sampled by the Port of London Health Authority 1962-67. Year Consignments examined Percentage exceeding 50% H.M.C. Average H.M.C. of all consignments 1962 December 20 35 45 1963 Jan-June 94 30 39 July-Dec. 41 17 30 1964 54 7 25 1965 45 2 19 1966 48 10 20 1967 37 3 20 The above results have been collated from nearly 1,000 samples, and to avoid giving a false impression of the frequency of high mould counts due to repeat sampling following each bad report, only one mould count from each invoice being a mean when more than one sample was submitted, has been included in the table. In other words, if a ship delivered consignments of four different makes of puree at one landing and all were sampled, only four results would be shown above no matter how many samples were examined. 27 The annual imports of tomato puree into U.K. from Italy alone have been estimated at 35,000 tons,5 and whilst no quantitative conclusions are justified the results summarised in Table I appear to support the inference that prior to 1964 substantial quantities of tomato puree of a quality illegal in other countries were being dumped in the Port of London. Samples taken under the Food and Drugs Act. A short survey of tomato purees as sold by retail in the London area may be of interest. Table II shows the Howard Mould Count of ordinary random samples purchased by inspectors in 1965-67. To ascertain if any material difference occurred in the quality of puree filled into different sized cans and tubes the results have been classified according to size of container. TABLE II 1965 1966 1967 1965/67 No. of Samples H.M.C. Average No. of Samples H.M.C. Average No. of Samples H.M.C. Average Total Samples H.M.C. Average Cans,2¼-3½oz 11 16 18 22 14 16 43 19 Cans,5-8 oz. 6 16 6 21 3 13 15 17 Cans,11-30 oz. 2 25 1 10 1 20 4 20 Tubes, 31/3oz. 2 30 4 15 1 35 7 22 Tubes,5-6½oz. 5 16 8 28 10 14 23 19 Totals 26 21 37 19 33 16 92 19 As may be seen from the tables the counts on retail samples show much the same proportion of mould as in samples taken on importation; and although the best quality purees were formerly found in the 5 Kg. cans imported by the large manufacturers, the results show that small cans and tubes are now also filled with purees of equally low mould counts. Only two of the samples, an informal and a formal of the same brand, in 61/3 oz. tubes in 1966, exceeded 50% positive. These gave 80% positive and 75% positive respectively and were the subject of the Lewisham prosecution mentioned earlier. The Howard Technique The counts are carried out precisely as directed in the A.O.A.C., 10th Edn, No. 36.069. Fuller information about the test, including descriptions of the kinds of rot that affect tomatoes, is given in a booklet entitled "Mould Counting of Tomato Products".6 Howard cells are available from Watson & Sons Ltd.,Barnet, Herts or from Hawksley&Sons Ltd. of 17 New Cavendish Street, W.l. In U.S.A. special courses of instruction in mould counting are given at Technical Schools sponsored by State Canners Associations. No experienced microscopist should have much difficulty in carrying out the prescribed method, but in the absence of such instruction some minor points have arisen which call for special mention. (1) If a binocular microscope is used, or if it is not found possible to adjust the diameter of field to exactly 1.382 mm. diameter by means of the draw tube, a circular diaphragm can be cut from a piece of black card with a cork borer and file to give an ocular aperture corresponding to the specified width as measured on a ruled slide. This diaphragm can then be left in the microscope and saves repeated adjustments provided the same ocular and objective are always used. (2) Some moulds, particularly Colletotrichum. which causes Anthracnose rot, have extremely fine hyphae. Short lengths are easy to miss, sometimes resembling a crease in a cell wall, and it is essential to focus up and down carefully, on four quarters of each field, to make sure hyphae are not missed out; and to turn to a higher power when in doubt. Several workers add stains to facilitate recognition of hyphae and methylene blue, cotton blue and crystal violet have been used but since they also stain tomato tissue their value is questionable. (3) When a field is "borderline" the viewer will be in doubt whether to record it as positive or negative, and the question will arise whether to follow the traditional tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the product or to ignore the field altogether and pass on to the next one. Both practices are open to criticism, but in the writer's view the latter is to be preferred, because if a degree of tolerance is introduced into the actual counting variations will occur between laboratories and it is better to have only one, known, tolerance to apply for experimental error. On the other hand, at least when a count is near the critical 50% positive, the result will not be much affected by ignoring a few borderline fields. (4) Occasionally one may find a small colony of compact, short branched, mycelium, measuring in width less than a sixth of the diameter of the field. No directions are prescribed in the official method but it is suggested that the field should be regarded as positive, because if the hyphae were disentangled and straightened out they would measure more than the specified sixth. 28 (5) Possibly the most important part of the procedure is to ensure that the aliquot spread out on the disc is really representative of the whole of the suspension. The writer personally has found difficulty in securing this by the method prescribed in the A.O.A.C., which is to take a portion of the suspension on a knife blade or scalpel and spread evenly over the disc to give uniform distribution; the difficulty lies in removing a small volume of a suspension containing solid fibrous matter and an aqueous liquid on a scalpel, and again in transferring a portion of this to a slide, without permitting any separation of liquid from the solid. The use of a dissecting needle to remove the sample portion from the scalpel to the mount has been suggested, but a simple and efficient method is to use a straight sided tube of 3-3.5mm. bore and, removing the finger from the top momentarily, allow a large drop to fall on to the disc; this drop carries down the cellular matter without separation of liquid, and it should then be spread evenly over the disc with a needle before the coverslip is placed in position. Interpretation of the Results The Trade Specification for Tomato Puree referred to above lays down a Sampling Procedure and a statistical method for Treatment of Results. A minimum of 10 cans is suggested from a consignment of 100 tons and the number of fields to be counted on each sample is 50. The True Mean Value for the consignment, with a 95% probability, is then calculated from the arithmetic mean and the standard error. In the writer's experience a count based upon only 50 fields may be very different from the mean of say 500 fields, and whilst the method of the Trade Specification is designed to provide the most reliable and economical means of ascertaining the Howard Mould Count of a sizeable consignment of puree, it cannot usually be adapted to the practice of a Public Analyst, Under the Food and Drugs Act the sale of any one article of unsound or defective quality constitutes a presumptive offence, and a Public Analyst may be required to issue a certificate on one small sample of puree. Generally speaking samples are taken informally in the first instance, an adverse report being followed up by a formal sample. Hence, before legal action was taken, more than one sample would have been examined, and in the case of 2-3 oz. cans, perhaps six might have been purchased and mixed together for the formal sample. In the case of a sample taken under the Imported Food Regulations being defective, a few more samples would normally be taken to see if the whole consignment is similar. If these showed significant differences, further samples would be drawn, but under present circumstances and within the limits of the financial and laboratory facilities available it would not be practicable for Public Health Authorities to carry out the regular sampling of consignments upon the scale recommended in the Trade Specification. There is however nothing to stop the importer taking as many samples as he wishes. and in the event of a disagreement between his analyst and the Port analyst a formal sample could be drawn in the presence of his representatives, mixed and divided into three or four parts to enable independent tests to be made if necessary. Post-sampling mould growth can be prevented by addition of formalin and refrigeration. The Public Analyst has therefore to take greater care to ensure the correctness of his count than is envisaged in the Trade method. This he can do by counting more than 50 fields and thus reducing the standard error of his mean. He will not usually be very concerned to determine the exact count when it is low, and in view of the number of other tests to be applied to manufactured tomato products, it may be suggested that for routine laboratory purposes one count, i.e. 25 fields, might be sufficient if the result is below 30% positive; 50 fields if above 30 and below 40% positive, 100 fields if above 40 and below 50% positive; but that if the count is 50% positive, or whatever the currently accepted limit may be, or over, counting should be continued until further counts of 25 fields do not significantly alter the mean of proceding counts. At least two suspensions of the puree should be made, by different operators, and it will be usually found sufficient if each operator counts one hundred fields on each suspension making 400 fields in all. Some purees yield very variable counts, however, and if such a sample is encountered still more counts may be necessary; occasionally as many as 800 fields. The above suggestions are based solely upon experience obtained in this laboratory; they are not part of the official procedure and it may well be that in other laboratories experience may indicate a preference for some ouner procedure or method of interpretation. Significance of the Howard Mould Count No attempt is made when counting to differentiate between the types of mould that may be present. Unless characteristic sporulation can be found this would indeed be impossible, because having been sterilised no cultures can be grown. The only value of the count is as a guide to the extent of fungal rot in the tomatoes used. Several investigators have studied the relationship between the amount of rot in the raw tomatoes and the Mould Count of the puree, and Howard's original data are of interest.7 His . averaged results from 179 determinations of visible cut-out rot and 235 mould counts from 17 factories, summarised by the writer, are shown in Table III. 29 TABLE III Percentage of Rot by Weight Mould Count of pulp 0.2 5 0.6 10 1 15 2 25 3 33 4 40 5 46 6 51 7 56 8 61 10 68 12 75 15 80 20 87 30 92 Unfortunately different types of mould have different effects on the mould count. This has been well shown by Eisenberg, who determined the mould counts of purees made from tomatoes affected by specific moulds.8 Reference should be made to his paper for fuller information, but briefly it may be inferred that although the averages of his counts accorded with Howard's data individual samples showed widely scattered results, sometimes exceeding ± 50% from the mean. Also of interest in this paper is the relative area of the rot; a cut-out rot of 10% by weight, with a mould count of about 68% positive, corresponding roughly to an area of visible rot of 1½ inches diameter in an average size tomato; but again, variations due to the kind of rot were very great. One of the difficulties in relating the mould count to the percentage of rot is that some portions of rot are soft and completely broken up in the extraction but others are relatively hard and may be discharged with the cores and skins. Hence the presence of high proportion of visible rot can result in a low mould count. After thorough studies by the U.S.A. Department of Agriculture it was concluded that in properly sorted stock the percentage of decay should not exceed one per cent.9 "Whatever the deficiencies of the Howard technique as a means of providing a true indication of the state of the fruit and manufacturing conditions, it is the best available for indicating contamination by mould and all that this implies" (J.C. Dakin10). The general inference, as originally expressed by Howard and Stephenson7, appears to be universally accepted, — "A low mould count does not necessarily indicate sound stock, but a high mould count always indicates bad stock or improper handling." This is the real value of the test to the Public Analyst. In addition to the variations between the kind of rot and the mould count, criticism has been made of the accuracy of the technique itself. Only small quantities of sample are taken for each count and as emphasized in the Trade Specification "it must be recognised that any mould present in tomato puree is very unlikely to be uniformly distributed throughout the consignment, or even throughout a given sample". H.R. Smith9 states that it is quite possible for properly qualified analysts to obtain satisfactory checks on the same sample and quotes a trial in which eight analysts representing different organisations found no significant difference between their counts; but a recent collaborative trial between eight analysts in independent laboratories in this country showed very wide differences. The procedure in the latter trial, however, specified 50 counts, and as already indicated it is the writer's opinion that far more counts are necessary to obtain a reliable figure. A further criticism of the Howard method is that, since it is based on the recognition of mould filaments, rots which are caused by bacteria, yeasts, viruses and physiological causes unaccompanied by mould are not detected8. All evidence of spoilage should, however, be taken into account in considering whether a product is sound or unsound; and a Mould Count of less than 50% positive if accompanied by excessive bacterial growth might afford evidence for condemnation. The taste, preferably after dilution in the case of a puree, may also be of evidential value; but not always, because the degree of mustiness depends upon the type of infection, a high mould count sometimes being found when the flavour is normal and vice versa. Furthermore, the mould count does not differentiate between bad stock and improper handling. Conditions in the factory may be conducive to deterioration even after the tomatoes have been sorted, cleaned and any visible rot cut out. Any accumulation of tomato slime, inadequate cleansing of equipment or delay before sterilisation might cause a high mould count. Although the final product might seem equally objectionable to a consumer whatever the origin of the mould, it would be useful for the purposes of the Food Standards (Tomato Ketchup) Order, 1949, to be able to ascertain if a sample of Ketchup has in fact been "made from clean and wholesome tomatoes, or from the tomato puree made from clean and wholesome tomatoes." In this connection the "Rot Fragment Count" may be of use. 30 Rot Fragments A method for the estimation of Rot Fragments in Tomato Products (Method M13D) published by the National Canners Association of U.S.A. in 1943, was introduced into the A.O.A.C. in 1945, omitted in 1950, reintroduced in 1955, and appears as an "Official, First Action" method No. 36.072 in the current 10th Edition, 1965. No British papers have come to light on the test and although some experimental work on the method has been published in U.S.A. no recommended limits for rot fragments in tomato products have been discovered. H.R. Smith has attempted to show the relationship between the percentage of visible rot and the rot fragment count of the puree, but the results varied too much to form a basis for quality assessment. The samples tested were, however, drawn from the trimmed tomato input and the cyclone juice output at six factories over several days under ordinary working conditions where accurate sampling was impossible; and further tests under laboratory controlled conditions would be desirable to show a truer relationship and the natural variation in the rot fragment count for a known percentage of rot. There are unfortunately two ambiguities in the A.O.A.C. directions which may affect the results considerably. A rot fragment is defined as "tomato tissue to which mould filaments are attached"; but in several of the photomicrographs of rot fragments illustrated in the A.O.A.C. no tomato tissue can be recognised, and the question arises whether mould colonies without obvious tomato tissue should be included. In McCormack's definition11 a rot fragment is a clump of opaque or semi-opaque material with a periphery of mould filaments, — which would apparently include colonies if they were dense but perhaps not if they were light and open. Since about half the clumps of fungus one finds do not show identifiable tomato tissue the question cannot be ignored and it is necessary to decide which to count. The second point is that the minimum size of rot fragment to be counted is not specified. This may be because the area or length of a fragment with a fluffy edge defies definition, or it may have been assumed that the size would be controlled by the method, all fragments of less than 0.25 mm. in width passing through the No.60 sieve. In practice however much fine material fails to pass through the sieve, being retained by the coarser material, and it becomes necessary to decide upon a minimum, however rough the definition may be. Conversely, Olsen and Stoner12 have found that a considerable number of rot fragments pass through the sieve, indeed, many more than are retained by it; the implication being that to obtain a correct count the sample should be diluted, stained and examined without being screened. To count unscreened aliquots, however, would take a great deal of time owing to the high dilution necessary (ten times as great as in the A.O.A.C. method), and it is suggested that their findings reflect the importance of defining the size of the fragments to be included. In the writer's laboratory, McCormack's definition of a rot fragment, which seems to accord best with the illustrations in the A.O.A.C. has been adopted; and all fragments exceeding 0.3 mm. in longest measurement, including about a third of the sparse peripheral filaments in the measurement in the case of dense colonies, have been counted. This is an arbitrary procedure, but in the absence of special instruction or more detailed directions in the method it is necessary for each analyst to decide upon his technique and to acquire his own experience before drawing any inference from a rot fragment count. For counting the fragments a stereo microscope has been found best, scanning the aliquot with the aid of a moving stage and cyclometer counter at a magnification of x 40. Ordinary cleaned slides are used, taking 0.15 to 0.2 ml. of the suspension, measured from an inverted straight sided graduated 1 ml. pipette, spread with a needle over an area of about 3x 1.5 cm. on the slide. As the method has only been used up to the present time as a general confirmation of the presence of rot, only two slides have been counted (about 0.3 ml. ex 10 ml. prepared from 2 g. puree, with glycerin as stabiliser), unless they showed a wide difference when four slides would have been counted. (The quantities taken were based on an earlier edition of the A.O.A.C., now modified). The method provides a very practical confirmation of the presence of rot in a puree or other tomato product. The appearance presented by pieces of tomato tissue with a periphery of mould is quite convincing and makes an effective subject for photography if permanent evidence is required. Slime from a tomato factory, and fungal development in a puree after the container has been opened, usually seem to consist of Oospora sp., a feathery growth with tapering filaments, which will be observed in the liquid phase, in-between particles of tomato tissue rather than emanating from them. In the case of an infected product due to a faulty closure or delay after sampling a copious surface growth develops first and is sufficiently obvious to render any further examination unnecessary. In case they might be of interest to other workers of limited experience the results obtained in this laboratory over the past five years, mostly on purees of high mould counts, have been collated and are shown against the respective mould counts in the accompanying figure. 31 Wide variations will be observed between rot fragment counts on samples of similar mould count. Such variations may be ascribed partly to experimental error, arising from the application of a high factor to a small count, and partly to variations of assessment by four different operators over the period. It will however also be observed if the results for all samples of similar mould count are averaged that a distinct relationship appears between the two methods. It is suggested therefore that if the procedure of the Rot Fragment Count were amplified so as to obtain more uniform counts the result might afford a useful confirmation of the Howard Mould Count; and that if the relationship showed any marked departure from normal, it would indicate conditions in the puree that might affect the conclusion to be drawn from the Mould Count. Fly Eggs, Maggots, Mites For further evidence of the use of damaged fruit the A.O.A.C. First Action method 36/073, is worthwhile and often provides interesting results. Coulter's modification13 provides a cleaner residue by digesting the tomato tissue with sodium phosphate. 100 g. of sample is suitably diluted and digested with trisodium phosphate added to give a pH of 7.5-8.5; boiled for 5-10 minutes, then washed first through a No.10 sieve if seeds are present and secondly through a No.80 sieve until there is no further reduction in the volume of the residue, which is then transferred to a cloth or filter for counting. 32 Other Tomato Products For tomato sauce it has been the practice in this laboratory to examine a portion of the sample direct in a Howard cell. Occasionally difficulty is encountered in identifying all the mould filaments, particularly in products containing gelatinised starch as a thickening or stabilizing agent, and in such cases it may be advantageous to hydrolise the starch before counting, e.g. by adding 1 ml. 1/1 NaOH (w/w) to 10 ml. sauce. In the 1965 Changes in Official Methods of Analysis of the A.O.A.C., to facilitate identification of hyphae, the catsup is directed to be mixed with an equal volume of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose solution before being mounted in the Howard cell. For predicting mould counts at various dilutions the Poisson distribution equation has been found to apply, using a graph to find the relation between the mould count and the number of countable elements per field14, but no directions are given in the official method for calculating the result back to the undiluted catsup, nor for relating it to the tomato content; and it is not clear what limit would be applicable. Tomato Juice is examined as received, without dilution or concentration. It will be noted that in this case the count will be based upon an average soluble tomato solids of 5.5%, as compared with 8.4% for purees, and that the U.S.A. limit is considerably lower than for purees. Dehydrated tomato powder may be diluted with water to give a refractive index of 1.34471.3460, or with a stabilizing solution to 8.4% tomato solids, and then counted. If difficulty arises with other products such as tomato soup, or beans, spaghetti or fish with tomato sauce, the operator may be referred to A.O.A.C. 36.075, duly noting that in such products the count is expressed on the original volume of the soup or sauce. Mycotoxins In view of the large number of highly toxic metabolites recently identified from fungi of relatively common genera it is evident that the occurrence of moulds in foods and feeding stuffs requires a new and much more serious appraisal. Instead of any question of poisoning being restricted to a few notorious fungi such as the Amanitas and Claviceps, many common saprophytes are now incriminated and the decomposition of food can no longer be regarded merely as a nuisance, unhygienic but basically harmless. It consequently becomes necessary to consider whether a mould count of less than 50% positive can be regarded as unimportant if the fungal species are unknown. Of the fifty odd species of fungi that thrive on cereals and other foods of vegetable origin and are known to produce toxins the following call for prior consideration. In most instances the mycotoxins have now been identified; they show wide differences of chemical constitution and physiological action, and in some instances their toxicity to animals far exceeds that of the traditional chemical poisons. The known pathogenic metabolites include Hepatotoxins (Ochratoxin from A. ochraceus; Islanditoxin and Luteoskyrin from P. islandicum; Rubratoxin from P. rubrum; Xanthocillin from P. notatum and A. chevalieri); Nephrotoxins (Citrinin and Citreomycetin from P. citrinum and other Penicillia); Neurotoxins (Patulin from P. urticae and other species of Penicillium and Aspergillus; Maltoryzine from A. oryzae microsporus; Citreoviridin from P. toxicarium and P. citreoviride); Haemotoxins (Fusariogenin and the Cladosporic acids from F. sporotrichioides and other species of Fusaria, and a toxin from Stachybotrys atra); Dermatoxins (Methoxy and Trimethylpsoralen from Sclerotinia sclerotiorum); Oestrogens (Zearalenone from Gibberella zeae, or Fusarium roseum; and a metabolite from Monascus papulospora); Carcinogens (Aflatoxin from A. flavus, Sterigmatocystin from A. versicolor and possibly Ochratoxin). Many of the mycotoxins mentioned above do not appear to be affected by boiling. Since the species of fungi present in a sterilised product cannot usually be identified any attempt to ascertain by analysis whether a puree containing fungus has become injurious to health (Section I of the Act) must depend upon identification of the mycotoxins. With recent advances this problem is not quite so intractable as might be thought. Most of the toxigenic fungi are highly coloured and many of the mycotoxins are intensely fluorescent under U-V light, including Aflatoxin B & G, Ochratoxin A, Xanthocillin, Zearalenone, Citreoviridin and Sterigmatocystin. Patulin gives a fluorescent compound if the lactone ring is ruptured, e.g. by exposing the chromatoplate to ammonia, and it is probable that the anthraquinone derivatives and some other toxins could also be recognised by U-V fluorescence after separation by chromatography. Screening methods for mycotoxins are at present under trial in U.S.A. and a method for the detection of aflatoxin, ochratoxin and zearalenone in various commodities has recently been published. The mycotoxins are extracted with chloroform and the extracts passed through a sillica gel column; after cleaning up with hexane and benzene the absorbed zearalenone is eluted with acetone: benzene, the aflatoxine with methanol: chloroform and the ochratoxins with acetic acid: benzene. Aliquots of each eluate are developed against standards on TLC plates and compared under U-V. 33 Several samples of tomato puree containing mould have been tested for aflatoxin, with negative results, but no information is available regarding tests for other mycotoxins. As regards the general question of the probability of toxigenic moulds occurring in rotting tomatoes it should be said at once that enquiries so far have elicited no specific grounds for apprehension. The principal moulds encountered in over-ripe tomatoes,6,19 mainly introduced by pest or air-borne infection are represented by species of Colletotrichum, Oospora, Mucor, Alternaria, Rhizopus, Botrytis and Phytophthora, which do not appear yet to have been incriminated. Nor have the fungal parasites to which the growing plant is subject20, and which are also liable to occur to some extent in the fruit, so far come under suspicion; the commonest being Fusarium oxysporum, Verticillium alboatrum and V. dahliae, which cause wilt; Pythium, Phytophthora, Collectotrichum, Thielaviopsis and Rhizoctonia species, which cause root and foot rots; Botrytis cineria and Didymella lycopersici, which cause stem rots, and Cladosporium fulvum, the common leaf mildew. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum does not usually affect tomatoes but could arise from intercropping plants; the fungus of "pink rot", it causes dermatitic lesions if handled and would consequently be undesirable in food. A potential danger might arise, however, from the use of fallen tomatoes; the ripe fruit providing an ideal medium for many soil organisms, especially such genera as Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, Cladosporium, to which many toxigenic species belong. A Legal Standard ? The question has been raised whether a maximum permissible Howard Mould Count for tomato products in United Kingdom should be prescribed by Regulation. In favour of such a standard it is argued that both the trade and the enforcing Authorities would know exactly where they stood in this respect; that the standard would be enforceable not only on retail sale but at Ports of entry throughout the country; this would eliminate the dodging from Port to Port believed to have occurred in the past; the analyst's task would be simplified — one official test for soundness, yea or nay, with perhaps a latitude of 5%; any injustice to the supplier would be unlikely since a high count always indicates bad stock or improper handling although a low count does not always indicate sound stock; and that limits for mould in tomato products have already been adopted in other countries and proved workable. Against a legal standard are some of the other points mentioned above, viz:— (1) Factors affecting the Count. Variations in samples and in the aliquots examined; in the training of the analyst; in factory methods, comminution, straining, etc.; and that the method lacks the precision desirable in any procedure intended for the enforcement of Food Standards Orders and Regulations. (2) Factors affecting its significance. The lack of a reasonably constant relationship between mould count and percentage of rot. The method takes no account of rot, disease or unwholesomeness caused by other factors. Its foundations are based upon American data, not necessarily applicable to European conditions where different fungal flora may predominate10. There would be no latitude for exceptional climatic influences. The mould count, if too high, could be reduced in the factory by finer straining and by addition of pulp from unripe tomatoes, with consequent reduction in the quality of the product. In certain growing districts where climate favours rapid fungal growth there might be a temptation either to pick the fruit before it was ripe or to apply excessive treatment by fungicides. Finally, under present law a Public Analyst may base his opinion as to the soundness of a sample of food upon any tests that may be desirable, and in the event of a prosecution it is open to the defence to challenge his certificate or testimony on any relevant grounds; if the legal test for soundness were based solely upon a Howard Mould Count the field of cross examination open to the defence would be restricted to one figure, the significance of which could not be questioned. The above arguments will be sufficient to show that whilst the test is of undoubted value as an indication of soundness, and suitable for incorporation in a trade specification or a Code of Practice, any proposal to lay down a legal standard for the Howard Mould Count to Tomato Products as a basis for criminal proceedings would require very careful consideration. REFERENCES 1. Howard, B.J., Tomato Ketchup under the Microscope, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry, Circular No. 68, 1911. 2. Report of Proceedings at London Tomato Puree Conference, Food Trade Review. 1963, 33, 48-65. 3. Law Report, J. Assoc. Public Anal., 1964, 2, 46. 4. Law Report, Brit. Food J., 1967, 69, 153. 5. Stations Sperimentale per l'Industria della Conserve Alimentari, Parma, Italy, Food Trade Review, 1963, 33, 57. 6. Mould Counting of Tomato Products, 1960, published by the Continental Can Co., Inc., of 100, East 42nd Street, New York, 17. 7. Howard, B.J., and Stephenson, C.H., Microscopical Studies on Tomato Products, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bull. No. 581, 1917. 34 8. Eisenberg, M.V., Observations on Factory Control of Rot, etc., in Tomato Products, Proc. N.C.A. Tech. Sessions, Jan. 19, 1952; Information letter No. 1371. 9. Smith; H.R., Relation of Visible Rot to Mould Counts, Proc. N.C.A. Tech. Sessions, Jan. 19 1952 1.c. 10. Dakin, J.C., The Validity of the Howard Mould Count, Food Trade Review, 1964, 34, No.6, 43. 11. McCormack, T.H., J.A.O.A.C., 1954 , 37, 1, 162 12. Olson, N.A., and Stoner, H.C., Tests of the Rot Clump Counting Method, Leaflet NCA SF 4-14-44, National Canners Association, 1133, 20th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 13. Coulter, E.W., J.AO.A.C., 1965, 48, 3, 547. 14. Wildman, J.D., J.A.O.A.C., 1967, 50, 3, 509. 15. Forgacs, J. & Carll, W.T., Advances Vet. Sci., 1962, 7, 273. 16. Townsend, R.J. et al., Recent Advances in Mycotoxicoses, Symposium Paper, London, 1965. 17. Feuell, A.J., Toxic Factors of Mould Origin, Canadian Med. Ass. J., 1966, 94, 574. 18. Eppley, R.M., J.A.O.A.C., 1968, 51, 1, 74. 19. Morgan, R.H., Food Trade Review, 1963, 33, 50. 20. Tomato Diseases, Guernsey Experimental Station leaflet. Detailed examination of imported offal (Bacteriological Sampling) INSPECTION OF IMPORTED MEATS The following tables give details of the meats which have been dealt with by the Authority during the year. TABLE I The Meat (Staining and Sterilization) Regulations, 1960. Investigation and Disposal of Pet Foods Approximate Weight Tons Inedible Meats & Offals 241,048 packages 6,026 Horsemeat 190,775 packages 4,770 Kangaroo Meat 8,186 packages 220 Buffalo Meat 1,792 packages 45 TOTAL 441,801 packages 11,061 35 TABLE II Imported Food Regulations, 1937/48 Examination for Fitness for Human Consumption COUNTRY Beef Livers Other Beef Offals B/in & B/L Beef COMMODITY Sheep & Lamb Offals B/L Veal Pork Offals Other meats etc. Sheep & Lambs B/L Mutton & Lamb ARGENTINE 5,494 154 185 9,733 193 4,850 — — — AUSTRALIA 593 50 235 265 2,615 — 52 — 70 (Rabbits) BRAZIL — 198 — — — — — — — CHILE — — — 200 — — — — — CHINA — — — — — — — — 10 (Rabbits) CANADA 11 92 — — — — — 44 — N. ZEALAND 332 20 10 3,213 40 — 151 — — S. AFRICA — — 15 — — — — — — SWAZILAND — — 81 — — — — — — SWEDEN — — 327 — — — — — U.S.A. — — — — — — — — 5 Chicken Skins TOTAL 6,430 514 853 13,411 2,848 4,850 203 44 85 APPROX. WEIGHT TONS 161 13 21 335 71 121 5 1 2 TOTAL WEIGHT (APPROX.) 730 TONS - TOTAL:- 29,238 Packages TABLE III Samples drawn for Bacteriological Examination COUNTRY Horse Meat Kangaroo Meat Buffalo Meat COMMODITY Beef Offals B/L Veal Sheep & Lamb Offals Other Samples Beef B/in & B/L Mutton L& Lamb ARGENTINE 973 — — 240 150 50 — 285 — AUSTRALIA 30 115 10 80 160 — 52 — 71 Rabbits BRAZIL 324 — — — — 10 — — — CANADA 20 — — — — — — — — CHINA — — — — — — — — 10 Rabbits N. ZEALAND — — — 10 20 — 60 — — PARAGUAY 288 — — — — — — — — S. AFRICA — — — 9 — — — — — SWAZILAND — — — 59 — — — — — SWEDEN — — — 10 — — — — — U.S.A. — — — — — — — — 5 Chicken Skins URUGUAY 190 — — — — — — — — TOTAL 1,825 115 10 408 330 60 112 285 86 In addition:- Hong Kong Cooked Prawns 10) TOTAL 3,246 Samples canada Crab Livers 5) &, 78 Samples Chinese Frozen Egg for Alpha Amylase Test. TABLE IV Damaged Meats Detained in Royal Docks and subsequently reconditioned by other Local Authorities or at Smithfield Market Sheep and Lambs Beef Qtrs. & Cuts B/L Beef Beef 8c Sheep Offals Pkgs. 37,270 15,956 10,047 8,215 APPROX. WEIGHT TONS 399 251 205 TOTAL APPROX. WEIGHT 1,438 TONS - TOTAL:- 71,488 Packages 36 TABLE V Damaged Meats etc., Detained in No. 6 Cold Store for Destruction or Reconditioning Sheep & Lambs B/L Mutton & Lambs Sheep & Lamb Offals B/in Beef & Cuts B/L Beef Beef Livers Other Beef Offals B/L Veal Meat Preparations Butter 5,769 380 53 1,823 269 62 60 109 63 33 Packages 90 9 1¼ 45 7 1½ 1½ 2¾ 1½ Weight Approx. ¾ tons. TOTAL WEIGHT APPROX. 160¼ TONS - TOTAL:- 8,621 Packages FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1926 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS REGULATIONS, 1960 Twenty-four samples of Feeding Stuffs were submitted to the Agricultural Analyst. No sample of Fertiliser was sent. In each case the sample was found to be within the limits of variation permissible under the Regulations. STUDENT AND VISITORS Student Public Health Inspectors Nine student public health inspectors were employed by the Authority. Two completed the four year course and obtained the Diploma of Public Health Inspector and were subsequently -appointed as Port Health Inspectors with the Authority. A considerable number of student public health inspectors from other local authorities received instruction in port health work Visitors Many doctors and public health inspectors from home and foreign government departments, local authorities and institutes of health education visited the port during the year. The overseas countries sending visitors included India, Hong Kong, Kenya, and Fiji ARTICLES The following articles written by the Medical Officer of Health have been published during the year. 1. MEDICINE IN THE PORT OF LONDON (Published in St. Bartholomew's Hospital Journal - Vol.LXXI No.6 - 1st June 1967) There are many varied opportunities open to the medical practitioner to practise his profession in unusual circumstances. An illustration which may not be generally well-known is the appointment as a Boarding Medical Officer of the Port of London Health Authority. The Corporation of the City of London was originally constituted the Sanitary Authority of the Port of London under the Public Health Act of 1872. By the Public Health (London) Act of 1936 the title was changed from the "Port Sanitary" to the "Port Health" Authority, and more recently under the London Government Act of 1963 the Common Council of the City of London is reaffirmed as the Port Health Authority for the Port of London. To complete this summary review of the Port Health Legislation the limits of jurisdiction of the Port Health Authority formerly extended from Teddington to The Nore, some 70 miles of the River Thames, including the creeks and five major Dock groups as well as part of the River Medway. The jurisdiction was extended in 1965 some 22 miles eastwards into the Thames Estuary to be co-terminous With the new limits of that of the Port of London Authority. One of the many duties of the Health Authority is the control of the importation of infectious diseases. This duty is carried out by a staff of Boarding Medical Officers appointed in the department of the Medical Officer of Health. The Port Health Authority maintains a hulk, the 37 "HYGEIA", at Gravesend as a quarantine station where accommodation is provided for the Boarding Medical Officer. There is a Boarding Medical Officer on duty around the clock, 24 hours every day. Any ship with an infectious disease or suspected infectious disease on board is subject to inspection. "Infectious disease' in this context has a wide connotation. In addition to the six "quarantinable" diseases (plague, cholera, yellow fever, smallpox, louse-borne typhus and relapsing fevers) it includes any other infectious or contagious disease other than venereal disease or tuberculosis. The Boarding Medical Officer has at his disposal a modern quarantine launch — the "HUMPHREY MORRIS" with a gross tonnage of 125 and a speed of almost 12 knots—one of the largest and best equipped medical launches. It has a consultation room, a small hospital with accommodation for two stretcher cases and three sitting patients. It is centrally heated and has very spacious and comfortable quarters for its crew of five. Radio-telephone equipment enables the Medical Officer to talk directly to vessels or the quarantine station on the "HYGEIA" as well as to the Thames Navigation Service at Gravesend. The "VICTOR ALLCARD" is also used as a second-in-line launch. This vessel has a gross tonnage of 38 and a speed of 10 knots. There is an ambulance room equipped to take two stretcher cases and six sitting patients. The Master of a ship due to arrive in the Port Health district having on board a case of infectious disease or a suspected case or having had a case within the previous four weeks or circumstances requiring the attention of a Medical Officer, flies the international three flag signal LIM indicating "I require a Medical Officer". Between sunset and sunrise the same signal LIM is flashed in Morse code by lamp or indicated by a red light over a white light shown at the peak. The Masters of any ships on arrival from a foreign port, other than most European ports which are excepted, are required to complete a Maritime Declaration of Health and have it countersigned by the Ship's Surgeon if there is one. The ship, if the paragraph above does not apply, will fly the international flag signal 'Q' and between sunset and sunrise flash the same signal 'Q' in Morse code by lamp or show a red light over a white light at the peak. The Declaration is a statutory form and contains six "Health Questions" which briefly are framed to elucidate whether there has been a case or suspected case of infectious, and in particular, quarantinable disease on board or if there are other circumstances giving rise to a like suspicion. If the six questions are answered in the negative and the ship has not called at an infected port or any port in Asia, Africa or Central or South America, then "free pratique" can be given by the Customs Officer if he boards first and the ship is allowed to proceed to berth. The passengers and crews on ships arriving within 14 days from an infected port of the Continents listed above are required to have a valid vaccination certificate against smallpox. The Port Health Authority usually has notice in advance, if the ship is equipped with a radio transmitter, of any circumstances requiring the attention of a Medical Officer, for the Master is required to send a message to "Portelth London" not more than 12 hours nor less than 4 hours before arrival, containing the relevant information of the Maritime Declaration of Health. This message is received by the North Foreland Radio Station and telephoned direct to the Boarding Medical Officer on the "HYGEIA". On arrival of a ship from a foreign port or an area infected with a quarantinable disease, no person other than a Pilot, a Customs Officer or an Immigration Officer is allowed to board or leave the ship until it is free from control of the regulations without the permission of the Medical Officer. The Master is required to take all steps necessary to comply with this provision. On boarding, the Medical Officer interviews the Master or Ship's Surgeon and examines any patient with infectious disease or suspected infectious disease. When the diagnosis is confirmed or if there is doubt, if need be, the patient is transferred by the "HUMPHREY MORRIS" or "VICTOR ALLCARD" to Denton Isolation Hospital near Gravesend. Cases of infectious disease can be isolated and treated here, even minor infections such as measles or whooping cough in children whose parents have no private home to go to and are proceeding to an hotel. But more important, doubtful cases can be fully examined in congenial surroundings rather than in the disadvantageous circumstances often found aboard, especially in crews' quarters. The Boarding Medical Officer is in clinical charge of any cases of infectious disease retained in Denton Hospital. The more serious major infections are transferred to appropriate Infectious Disease Hospitals. Chickenpox is a notifiable infectious disease in the Port Health District. This and any other skin rash which simulates smallpox is a major concern of the Boarding Medical Officer. If there is any doubt regarding the diagnosis clinically he errs on the side of safety and treats the case as one of suspected smallpox. He accordingly decides whether or not the ship should be required to go to a mooring station. Complete kits of protective clothing comprising cap, gown or combination overalls, mask, gloves, overshoes are available on the hulk "HYGEIA" and the launches "HUMPHREY MORRIS" and "VICTOR ALLCARD'. This is worn when attending a case or suspected case of smallpox. The Medical Officer of Health, if time permits, visits the patient and in any case notifies the Ministry of Health. If necessary, a Consultant from a panel 38 is called in to give an opinion and specimens for laboratory investigation are taken in all cases, including clinical smallpox, and sent to the Central Public Health Laboratory. Standard kits for this purpose are held on the "HYGEIA", the launches and at the Hospital. A decision as to the disposal of the patient is taken immediately as one normally cannot wait for results of laboratory tests though reliable reports within a few hours have been given by electron microscope examination in a recent outbreak of smallpox. When one is in the happy position of being able to decide with certainty on clinical grounds that smallpox can be excluded "free pratique" is given to the ship and the patient admitted to hospital or allowed to proceed and be treated by his own doctor as indicated by his clinical state. When smallpox cannot be excluded on clinical grounds, the Boarding Medical Officer decides whether the patient should be admitted to the smallpox hospital at Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent. It is for the Boarding Medical Officer to decide whether to keep a suspect case on board pending a Consultant opinion. A lot depends on the degree of doubt in a suspected case. This is also the crux in regard to admission to Denton Hospital in exceptional circumstances. If this is done any other patients there are removed beforehand and all occupants of the hospital protected by recent successful vaccination or re vaccination. The strictest hospital quarantine comparable to that of a smallpox hospital is maintained. The Boarding Medical Officer keeps in close touch with the Medical Officer of Health until a firm diagnosis has been established. A case of clinical smallpox is removed at once to Long Reach Hospital by ambulance. In these circumstances facilities are used at Denton Hospital for terminal disinfection of the patient's clothing and that of all who have been in contact with him since the onset of his illness and prior to his removal to Long Reach Hospital. Special care is taken to trace, collect and disinfect any of the patient's clothing or bed linen which has been sent to be laundered. Accommodation in the ship, quarters, launch, Denton Hospital, etc., occupied by the patient are also disinfected. Routine action is taken to check an outbreak of smallpox by the tracing, vaccination and surveillance of known and probable contacts. If the ship with the case is a passenger liner bound for Tilbury, this may involve up to 1,500 passengers and 650 members of crew. Careful enquiries elucidate a full and accurate list of all persons, who from the time the patient was taken ill are known or are likely to have been in contact with the case, such as other passengers, members of the crew, persons who worked in close contact with him, anyone who entered his cabin or quarters before they were disinfected and persons who handled his personal belongings, clothing or bedding, and anyone who disembarks from the ship or who goes on board. This will clearly include Health Department staffs such as public health inspectors engaged in terminal disinfection as well as launch crew who were in contact with the patient. Any person who has been in contact with the body of a patient should he die of smallpox should not be forgotten. The names and addresses of all travellers who are proceeding beyond the Port Health District are transmitted on appropriate forms to the Health Department, Guildhall. Each form when completed gives addresses at which the person will stay the first night ashore anH during the next fourteen days. Each traveller is also given a reply paid postcard on which he is required to notify the Medical Officer of Health at Guildhall of any change of address within 14 days of disembarkation, in case he is unable to give all this information when he fills in the form. All these persons are checked by the Medical Officer and must be offered vaccination or revaccination immediately whether or not they hold valid International Vaccination Certificates, and if probable contacts, irrespective of age or contra-indications. They are placed under surveillance for 14 days from the date of last possible contact. This is usually the date of isolation of the patient. The Medical Officers of Health of districts to which each traveller is proceeding are notified accordingly. The intimate contacts of known or probable contacts of any person placed under surveillance should be vaccinated immediately in order to protect them before the onset of illness in the person under surveillance. Possible contacts such as persons who visited the ship or other place occupied by the patient without actual contact with the patient, i.e. his sick berth or personal effects, are offered vaccination irrespective of age if there is no specific contra-indication. These are not put under surveillance but advised to call in their own doctor if they feel unwell within a specified period. This is a short review of the main duties of a Boarding Medical Officer. In addition he undertakes medical emergencies and "first-aid" calls if his time allows. These include cases of cardiovascular disease such as coronary thrombosis and indeed any cause of acute collapse amongst members of crews or passengers on ships in the River. Various accidents calling for immediate first-aid for haemorrhage, respiratory failure or fractures are attended to. This "Good Samaritan" service is given as an ex gratia service and helps to maintain the excellent good relations which obtain between Port Health Authority's Officers and the other Port Services, as well as Masters and crews of the Shipping Companies. 39 2. MEAT INSPECTION IN THE PORT OF LONDON, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE USE OF IONIZING .RADIATION* (Published in The Medical Officer - Volume CXVIII No.19) 10th November 1967 The recent announcement that a new regulation has been introduced which controls the use of ionizing radiation for the treatment of food was headlined in the Press as "Irradiation of Food Now Banned". To those not familiar with developments in this field this appeared to mean the the end of a new technology, whereas in fact a step forward has been taken in that we now have the machinery to gain official approval for radiation processes as they are required. Official approval was seen to be necessary at an early stage of research into this subject. Industry would not be prepared to initiate something so new involving high capital investment without the blessing of central and local health authorities. It is also important from the public viewpoint in that this use of radiation is so easily confused in people's minds with the non-peaceful application of atomic energy and the problems of fall-out and possible radioactivity in foods. I have been personally interested in these developments and have been keeping in touch with developments in food irradiation, especially its use in the treatment of certain imported foods. With the introduction of atomic power and its development has come the facility to produce radioactive isotopes in extremely large quantities. Over the last four years in the United Kingdom alone many millions of curies of isotope cobalt 60, the same isotope that is being used in hospitals for therapy, have been produced in our atomic reactors for industrial use. This isotope is produced by bombarding the non-radioactive cobalt 59 with neutrons in the core of certain power reactors. After the inactive cobalt has been left in the neutron field for perhaps a year or more it is converted into the radioactive form cobalt 60. Depending on the time it is exposed to the neutrons the cobalt will have a certain number of curies per gram. The Choice of Cobalt 60 Cobalt 60 has been chosen as the most useful isotope for industrial processing because it has certain attractive properties: — (1) It emits gamma radiation of an energy which does not cause radioactivity to be induced in the material which is treated. Gamma radiation is electromagnetic radiation and is the same as X-rays. (2) Cobalt 60 has a half life of 5.3 years. In other words replacement of it can be done at convenient time intervals (there is about 1 per cent "throughput" per month radioactive power lost). (3) It is convenient to produce in large amounts according to demand, in the atomic reactors. Properties of Gamma Radiation of Particular Interest lor Food Treatment Apart from the fact that gamma radiation from this isotope produces no radioactive activity in the material treated, it has other properties which make it attractive for industrial processing. (a) It has a high penetrating power, in fact it would take a thickness of 12 in. of water before the absorbed radiation is reduced by half; so it is ideal for treating blocks of material even after they have been packaged. (b) This radiation has a lethal effect on micro-organisms, insects and parasites. The dose to bring about this lethal effect will vary with the species involved. We all appreciate this effect .on man, where the dose required in cancer therapy varies from the lethal dose. (c) It is most important that it produces this lethal effect without causing a rise of temperature in the material treated, which may be in a frozen state, or if it does it is not more than a few degrees centigrade. In other words we have a penetrating lethal cold process in an advanced stage of technological development ready to be applied if required. How has this Process been Applied so far? These properties have been used to advantage already in industry for the purpose of sterilizing medical supplies. Four large radiation plants are already operating in commercial hands in this country and others have been built abroad. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in introducing this process to industry, and many plants being built are British. In medical practice disposable equipment, made of heat-sensitive plastic material and cheap enough to be disposable after one use, has assisted in avoiding cross-infection problems in hospital. The dose of radiation used for the purpose of sterilizing this equipment is 2.5 megarad (that is 2.5 million rad). The lethal dose for man is regarded as about 600 rad, so this 40 gives an idea of the quantity of radiation recommended to eliminate a microbial population giving the high margin of safety which is desirable. This radiation process has been operated by industry now for several years. As many as 70 million plastic hypodermic syringes alone are radiation-sterilized each year in this country. The radiation plants operate within the factories, demonstrating that there has been no difficulty concerning the safety of operation of plants of this kind. In addition to the four commercial plants mentioned, at the well known Wantage Research Laboratory which houses the Isotope Research Division of Harwell a fully commercial plant was constructed in 1960 to demonstrate the process to industry, using a 350,000 curies cobalt 60 source. A plant in Australia to eliminate anthrax spores from imported hair has operated successfully since 1960. These plants are designed with the necessary safety features and operate by press-button control, not requiring a large number of expert staff. Operation and Construction of a Commercial Plant These plants have been constructed by engineering firms which have licensing agreements with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in regard to design and construction. The cobalt is supplied by the UKAEA through the Radiochemical Centre at Amersham. In essence the plant consists of a concrete shielding which encloses the chamber in which the isotope source is suspended. A conveyor-belt system carries the goods to be irradiated round the isotope source at a certain speed which ensures that the required dose is received. The isotope source can be lowered into a pond of water 20 feet deep (or into a slit in the ground where it is safe), so that personnel can enter the chamber when required for maintenance. In the operation of these plants small indicator discs are applied to each carton before entering the radiation plant. These discs are yellow in colour before irradiation and change to a red colour during the treatment. This is one of the methods used to distinguish between the untreated and treated cartons. The Application of this Process in the Treatment of Food The possibility of applying this radiation process to food has been studied for many years. A great deal of work was carried out in the USA by the US Army who saw the advantage of this process to meet certain army requirements. Work in the United Kingdom began as early as 1953 at the Low Temperature Research Station at Cambridge in relation to the preservation of meat. The subject was also taken up in 1958 at Wantage Research Laboratory, a UKAEA establishment, where a wide range of radiation facilities were established including the commercial scale radiation plant previously referred to. Other research establishments and some industrial concerns have been involved in various aspects of the subject. A wide variety of potential processes for radiation have been investigated. These include in descending order of dose required the following: — (1) Sterilization of fresh meat in order to allow storage at room temperature. The dosage required was about 5 megarad in order to deal effectively with the possible Clostridium botulinus hazard as dealt with efficiently in the canning process. Unfortunately at this dose of radiation flavour and odour changes occur which are generally regarded as objectionable. In fact the amount of chemical change is very small but our sensory perception is so discriminating that these changes can be detected subjectively. In addition even this high dosage of radiation will not inhibit enzyme activity so that autolysis will continue during room temperature storage, resulting in loss of texture. (2) To extend the refrigeration life (0° — 4°C.) of fresh meat and fish by eliminating those micro-organisms responsible for spoilage within this temperature range, the dose required is between 0.1 and 0.5 megarad, depending upon the particular commodity to be considered. With this treatment the effect on the quality of the food is small and the refrigeration life can be extended considerably. An extra few days can readily be achieved. This can assist in the problem of distribution through the wholesale and retail trade. These processes are of current interest, and possibilities in regard to fish treatment are being looked at by the White Fish Authority in collaboration with the Torry Research Station, Aberdeen, and the UKAEA. (3) Radiation is being looked at for its use in eliminating certain pathogens from food, in particular salmonellae. The range of dose needed is 0.1 to 1 megarad depending on the commodity in which salmonella is present, because research has demonstrated that the same serotype can vary in resistance according to the food environment in which it is present. (4) Moulds can be eliminated from fruit. The dose required is about 0.25 megarad without affecting the quality especially of soft fruit, e.g. strawberries and cherries. 41 (5) A dose as low as 20,000 rad will effectively deal with insects in cereals. The entomology of the process has been carefully examined. There are certain advantages over the addition of known toxic chemicals to cereals, in particular the penetrating effect of radiation. This method also avoids the residual toxic effects from the chemicals. (6) Dosages in the range of 10 to 20 thousand rads have been demonstrated to deal effectively with a range of different parasites in that these doses will prevent the maturation of the parasites when transferred to a suitable host (e.g. especially Cysticercus bovis and Trichinalis spiralis). (7) A dose of 10,000 rads has been found to be effective to prevent sprouting in stock potatoes. A detailed survey in the United Kingdom was carried out in 1962. This showed that the method was not economically competitive with the use of chemicals for this purpose because of the marketing conditions in this country. Potatoes being a seasonal product and requiring sale when the price is right, the use of a large source of radiation which must be kept occupied with a large throughput was not attractive. The same criticism holds for the treatment of soft fruit mentioned earlier. My main concern in the use of this process is in its application to imported meat and in particular frozen horsemeat which will be used as pet food. Elimination of Salmonellae The results of bacterial examination of meat indicate that salmonellosis is increasing and is becoming a growing and menacing public health problem, due to the widespread incidence of this infection in the animals used for human and animal food. One would like to think that only animals free from salmonellae would be used for the production of human and animal food. However, this is an ideal unattainable at present, so careful attention must be paid to hygiene at all stages, from production through the lines of distribution at every point until the food reaches the consumer. Ionizing radiations could be used to eliminate this infection first of all in animal feeds, to lessen the incidence of salmonellae infection in the animal. Secondly the radiation could be used to treat the meat at some stage during distribution. This could be applied to meat intended for human consumption, or to meat intended to be marketed in the raw state for pet food. The organism can be transmitted through pets to human beings, and there is also the possibility of cross infection of food intended for human consumption by pet food in the domestic kitchen. Interest has been taken in the incidence of salmonellosis in the Port of London for a number of years. Samples taken from Argentine meat during 1961, 1962, and 1963 showed 61 percent, 40 per cent, and 41 per cent positive for salmonella in each year respectively. A similar rate of contamination has continued since 1963. Most of this meat is sold raw for domestic pets. It is imported ostensibly as "pet food' but is claimed to be fit for human consumption, and accordingly when found to be infected with salmonella is regarded as unfit and so is subject to the Meat (Staining and Sterilization) Regulations, 1960, which require meat to be sterilized, i.e. "must be heated by boiling or by steam under pressure until every piece of meat is cooked throughout; or dry rendered, digested or solvent processed into technical tallow, greases, glues, feeding meals or fertilizers". The meat is normally subjected to boiling by the trade. We cannot ensure adequate control over the importation of frozen horsemeat containing salmonellae by the present method of examination which has the following disadvantages. The sampling procedures are open to criticism on statistical grounds. The time of public health inspectors and clerical staff is taken up dealing with detention, examination and release, involving much paper work and documentation. Special arrangements have been made with the Public Health Laboratory Service to deal with the greatly increased number of samples submitted for bacteriological examination. Detention of cartons in storage while awaiting results of these examinations lead to extra cost. In those instances where it is decided that the meat is not fit for human consumption and so requires to be boiled or otherwise treated under the Meat (Staining and Sterilization) Regulations, arrangements have to be made in many cases with the medical officers of health of the districts in which the treatment plant is situated. This involves correspondence to secure that the various MOsH will receive the meat into their areas and supervise the carrying out of the Regulations. This extended line of distribution opens the door for malpractice and the possibility of this material being diverted for human consumption. At present there are the additional costs of thawing and boiling, the obvious loss of water content making the end product less valuable to the importer, and the fact that raw horsemeat is more acceptable to the trade as being more marketable. The advantages of using ionizing radiation would be that this process could be applied to all the imported horsemeat Routine inspection would no longer be necessary and one would be assured that the complete public health danger concerning salmonella in this product would be overcome. It has the other advantages already mentioned that it could be applied to frozen meat in its original packing and used as a continuous process. 42 Research has been undertaken at Wantage Research Laboratory in co-operation with the Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, and the City Corporation. Evidence has been obtained that this process can be used effectively for this purpose. A dose of about 0.65 megarad will completely eliminate salmonella. In fact the meat in practice will receive 0.5 to 0.7 megarad allowing for the distribution of the dose throughout the blocks of meat. This dose has little effect on the quality of the meat. As long ago as 1962 some tons of meat were treated and distributed and no adverse reaction was obtained from the trade. Some simple tests with Alsation guard dogs demonstrated that no differentiation was made by the animals between treated and untreated meat. The kind of bacteriological research done included studies in which different serotypes of salmonella have been inoculated in large numbers into the meat and then irradiated at different doses, when the meat was in the frozen state. The number of organisms surviving were measured. The reduction in population in salmonellae achieved by the recommended dose is by a factor of about 10'. This means that if the salmonellae were 1 organism per gram originally, then the reduction would be one organism surviving in 1 million grams. The evidence is that the actual numbers of salmonellae involved in contaminated meat are probably less than one organism per gram, so that the recommended dose would give a high margin of safety with respect to survival and would certainly produce meat with a salmonella content well below currently accepted methods of detection. This laboratory work has been supported by the irradiation of samples of horse and kangaroo meat collected directly from the Port of London from shipments highly suspect of being heavily contaminated with salmonella. Control material has been demonstrated to be positive while in no instance has the irradiated meat been found to be positive. These tests have involved several hundreds of samples. The use of ionizing radiation has been suggested as an alternative to heat treatment, so we must give attention to this method to see if it is possible. It has been suggested that irradiation could be applied to all tne imported horsemeat, thus avoiding the necessity for inspection and the other disadvantages already outlined. Of course it could be so applied if it is an economic proposition and the trade accept the treatment as applied to all the meat apart from inspection by us. The trade would see the advantage offered by the fact that the meat remains in its present raw state and no doubt would support the idea. Another advantage would be that, with the treatment of all the meat at a centrally located plant, control could be more easily exercised by the Port Health Authority, thus avoiding the possibility that the meat could get into wrong hands. This method of treatment must also be considered from the point of view of legislative control. The Meat (Staining and Sterilization) Regulations define that meat which is found to be unfit for human consumption must be sterilized (see above). Thorough cooking is the treatment normally employed by the trade. If this new process is to be introduced then an amendment must be made to the alternative methods of treatment, but we must be satisfied that the irradiation process produces an effect equivalent to the heat process. The irradiation process has been designed specifically to eliminate salmonellae, with the bonus that it also kills some of the other microorganisms and that parasites are rendered innocuous. The dose required will deal effectively with the vegetative organisms, but will not have such a great effect on bacterial spores or viruses. How effective is the boiling process in regard to the elimination of micro-organisms? The regulations state that the meat must be "sterilized", but certain bacterial spores are known to survive the boiling process. In hospital practice a much more stringent standard of heat processing is demanded before things are described as "sterilized*. As this radiation process is described as being suitable to eliminate salmonellae and parasites, should we not allow it to be applied to meat or other commodities where the presence of salmonella and parasites is the reason for the meat being unfit? If we do allow it, we shall still be faced with the requirement to inspect the meat in regard to other reasons for unfitness, and the usual macroscopic examination for quality, chemical or other contamination, and other causes of unfitness could be carried out before or after irradiation. Would the application of this specific process leave us in the situation where we could allow the importation of frozen horsemeat and its distribution in the raw state after irradiation, being satisfied that the problem of cross-contamination from this meat of other foods with salmonellae is solved. This imported horsemeat is claimed by the trade to be earmarked as "pet meat", but some may find its way into the human food market. The boiling process does change the nature and substance of the meat, making it unsuitable for the human market, whereas the irradiation process leaves the meat in its original raw state. The question arises, therefore, whether distribution of irradiated meat could be controlled. Labelling of the packages is open to criticism in that the meat could be removed and the discs tampered with. The ideal would be to have a test which could be applied readily to the meat itself. Certain techniques are being tried by scientists interested in this method, and no doubt this is one of the important questions which will be asked when the process is scrutinized by the Ministry of Health Advisory Committee. The new Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations, 1967, which came into operation on 1st June, 1967, regulate the use of irradiation in such a way 43 that the details of each proposed application must be seen by an Advisory Ministry of Health Committee which has already been set up with Prof. F.G. Young as chairman. This Committee, on the recommendations contained in the Ministry of Health Working Party Report which recommended the original regulations, will consider the safety of the proposed process with respect to its effectiveness in producing the result claimed for it. The question of safety for consumption of irradiated food with respect to possible toxicity will also be examined. Approval by this Advisory Committee is the first hurdle to be overcome by the proposers of this process. On the question of safety for consumption, one can point to the fact that animal feeding studies, using various species, have been in progress for many years and a wide variety of irradiated foods has been tested. The US programme has been very wide and some work has also been done in the UK and other countries. Irradiated bacon, potatoes and wheat have been cleared for human consumption in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration, irradiated potatoes and onions in Canada, and several foods in the USSR, although industry has not yet adopted the processes. Irradiation of potatoes was tried in Canada on a commercial scale but came off rather badly due to poor potato harvesting conditions during the first year of operation. The next hurdle is the fitting in of a process with already existing legislation, particularly the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations and the Meat (Staining and Sterilization) Regulations. These, as I have indicated, are currently under discussion. I cannot give you all the answers, but I have put to you a description of the process with its advantages and disadvantages. It would be wrong to discard a new technology because it does not quite fit in with accepted definitions and traditional practices. On the other hand the introduction of an entirely new process warrants careful examination and the new regulations controlling irradiation are a necessary step, though we may not have been so particular in the past about other accepted procedures, e.g. the use of certain chemical treatments or traditional practices like smoking used in curing processes. I mentioned at the start that high capital investment is involved. The treatment of all horsemeat coming into the Port of London involves the processing of the order of 12,000 tons per year. To do this a large source of radio-isotope would be needed, perhaps 600,000 curies suitably housed and with automatic conveyor system incorporating all the already established safety mechanisms (? cost £250,000). To ensure a continuous throughput to the plant a large refrigerated store would be required to take care of the difficulties of irregular arrival of consignments. The total capital cost would be of the order of several hundred thousand pounds, but in fact the running cost, or in other words the cost per pound per treatment, is likely to be quite acceptable to the trade. This cost including repayment of the capital and interest on it according to normal accountancy procedures would be of the order of a few pence per pound. The introduction of the process enabling the trade in raw meat to continue could be of great value to the trade. We must give due consideration to the business aspects in making our rules and regulations. APPENDIX I MEDICAL INSPECTION — From 1st January to 31st December, 1967 GRAVESEND Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total No. of ships medically inspected 99 103 133 108 101 100 104 113 79 70 64 80 1,154 No. of Passengers 257 150 41 69 42 73 33 5 73 103 24 - 870 No. of Crew 247 170 133 268 169 276 12 59 3 58 - 1 1,396 No. of ships arriving from abroad 1,203 1,022 1,142 1,231 1,204 1 1,245 1,275 1,302 1,157 1,029 1,265 1,184 14,259 44 APPENDIX II INFECTIOUS DISEASES Disease (a) Cases reported on Ship's arrival 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Amoebiasis — — — — — — — — 4 1 Anthrax — — — — — — — — — — Cerebrospinal Fever (epidemic Cerebrospinal meningitis) — — — — — — — — — — Chickenpox — — — — — — — — 8 19 Cholera (including suspected) — — — — — — — — — — Continued Fever — _ — — _ _ — — — — Diphtheria 1 — 1 2 — — — _ _ _ Dysentery — — — — — — — — *1 2 Encephalitis (acute) — — — — — — — _ _ _ Enteric (Typhoid or Paratyphoid) Fever 7 5 1 — 2 2 — 6 8 _ Enteritis — — — — — _ _ _ 1 Erysipelas — — — — — — _ _ _ 1 Food Poisoning (or suspected) — — — — — — — — — 7 German Measles 25 2 8 12 14 6 14 3 _ 11 Infective Hepatitis — — — — — — — — 1 9 Leprosy — — — — — — — — 1 — Malaria (including suspected) — — — — — — — — *1 — Measles 71 63 109 35 60 68 43 22 15 26 Membranous Croup — — — — — — — — _ — Menir gococcal Infection — — — — — — — _ — — Mumps 4 — — — — — — — — — — Ophthalmia Neonatorum — — — — — — — — — — Plague (including suspected) — — — — — — — — — — Pneumonia, acute primary — — — — — — — — — — Pneumonia, acute influenzal — — — — — — — _ — — Polioencephalitis (acute) — — — — — — — — — — Poliomyelitis (acute) — — — — — — — — — — Puerperal Pyrexia - - - - - - - - - - Relapsing Fever — — — — - — — — — — Scarlet Fever (or Scarlatina) 1 4 1 — 1 — — — — — Smallpox (including suspected) - - 1 2 5 1 2 1 — - Tuberculosis — pulmonary 45 42 39 26 33 24 17 9 19 5 Tuberculosis — non pulmonary - — — — — — — — — 1 Typhus Fever — — — — — — — — — - Whooping Cough - - — - - - - - - Yellow Fever (including suspected) — - — 1 — — — — — — Other diseases (including chicken- pox up to and including 1965 only) 659 313 956 303 258 198 146 276 100 42 TOTALS 809 429 1116 381 373 299 222 317 159 124 (b) Total cases admitted to Hospital including those reported after arrival Amoebiasis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 2 Anthrax — - - - - - - - - - Cerebrospinal Fever (epidemic Cerebrospinal meningitis) — — — — — — - — — — Chickenpox — — — — — — — — 7 5 Cholera (including suspected) — — — — — - — — — — Continued Fever — — — — — - — — — — Diphtheria 1 — 1 — — — — — — — Dysentery (including suspected) 4 7 1 1 4 9 4 3 4 7 Encephalitis (Acute) — — — — — — — — — — Enteric (typhoid or paratyphoid) F ever 3 3 3 - 2 1 - 5 2 1 Enteritis — — — — — — — - 1 — Erysipelas - - — - — - - - - - Food Poisoning (or suspected) / — — — — — — — — — — German Measles — — — — — — — — 3 1 Infective Hepatitis - — - - - - - - 1 1 Leprosy — — — — - — — — — — Malaria (including suspected) — — — — - — — — 1 3 Measles 5 8 10 11 11 7 11 2 2 — Membranous Croup — - - — - - - — - — Meningococcal Infection — — — — — — — — — — Mumps 7 — 9 3 4 3 1 2 — — Ppthalmia Neonatorum — — — — — — — — — — Plague (including suspected) - - - - - - - — — — Pneumonia, acute primary — — — — — — — — — — Pneumonia, acute influenzal — — — — — — — — — — Polioencephalitis (acute) - - - - - - - - - - Poliomyelitis (acute) - - - - - - - — — — Puerperal Pyrexia — — — — — — — — — — Relapsing Fever — — — — — — — — — — Scarlet Fever — — — — 1 — — — 1 — Smallpox (including suspected) _ _ — _ 3 1 1 — — — Tuberculosis — pulmonary — - - - - - - - 15 11 Tuberculosis — non pulmonary — — — — — — — - — — Typhus Fever - - - - - - - - — — Whooping Cough — — — - — — — — — — Yellow Fever (including suspected) — — — — — — — — — — Other diseases (including chicken- pox up to and including 1965 only /) 114 75 86 65 86 86 72 44 — 5 TOTALS 134 93 110 80 111 107 89 56 42 36 *Same case — final diagnosis was multiple myelomatosis /Table amended 1966 45 APPENDIX III RETURN OF RATS CAUGHT AND DESTROYED DURING YEAR 1967 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total LONDON DOCK - Warehouses 8 3 16 9 16 231 88 45 27 38 9 15 505 Vessels — — — — — 1 — — — — - - 1 ST. KATHARINE DOCK - Warehouses Vessels - SURREY COMMERCIAL DOCK Warehouses 3 1 1 - - 1 3 4 — 2 1 — 16 Vessels — — 1 — — 2 — - — - - - 3 REGENT'S CANAL DOCK - Warehouses — — — — — — 1 — — — _ _ 1 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — EAST INDIA DOCK - Warehouses _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ 5 1 3 1 2 13 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — WEST INDIA DOCK - Warehouses 12 5 1 15 18 9 18 16 7 40 12 10 163 Vessels - 4 - - - 3 12 4 - - - - 23 MILLWALL DOCK - Warehouses 6 4 — 52 14 8 3 31 22 39 47 12 238 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — ROYAL VICTORIA DOCK - Warehouses 19 35 30 24 20 15 55 31 37 11 93 9 379 Vessels 4 13 - - 9 1 4 - - - 6 11 48 ROYAL ALBERT DOCK - Warehouses 17 29 3 20 6 23 4 26 15 35 25 16 219 Vessels - 6 - 11 5 2 3 — 1 2 — 4 34 KING GEORGE V DOCK - Warehouses 7 1 10 4 7 9 13 3 3 16 31 8 112 Vessels 1 - - - - 1 - - - 11 4 - 17 TILBURY DOCK - Warehouses 13 3 4 6 2 2 4 3 4 3 6 2 52 Vessels 6 24 11 36 2 — 2 17 4 17 9 4 132 RIVER Vessels 44 1 25 7 19 97 15 4 8 9 37 25 291 TOTALS 140 129 102 185 118 405 225 189 129 226 281 118 2,247 46 APPENDIX IV General Summary Analysis of the Sanitary Inspections etc. in the Port of London for the year ended 31st December, 1967. Type of Vessel/Premises Inspected Defective To be cleaned Foreign Going: Steam 13384 222 321 Sail 2 - - Coastwise: Steam 1852 11 9 Sail 1 - - Sub-Total 15239 233 330 Inland Navigation: Steam 204 15 1 Sail - - - Lighters 234 - 15 Canal Boats: 34 3 - Shore Premises: 8644 104 112 Sub-Total 9116 122 128 TOTAL 24355 355 458 Areas where Foreign Going and Coastwise vessels were inspected. Dock and River No. of Inspections London and St. Katharine 954 Regents Canal 250 Surrey Commercial 1070 East India 142 West India 1069 Millwall 649 Royal Albert 940 No. of vessels inspected in Launches Royal Victoria 839 King George V 557 1473 ("Victor Allcard Tilbury 1642 ("Humphrey Morris Upper River 1497 Middle River 1972 3469 ("Frederick Whittingham" Lower River 1473 4,942 ("Alfred Roach Medway 1439 Thameshaven 746 10,297 No. of vessels inspected in Docks etc. TOTAL 15239 1?I2.TJ Countries of Origin of Foreign Going and Coastwise vessels inspected. No. of Inspections Brought forward No. of Inspections 12085 Abyssinia 1 Israel 41 America 102 Italy 70 Argentina 13 Japan 48 Belgium 183 Kuwait 4 Brazil 14 Lebanon 2 Bulgaria 25 Liberia 269 Burma 5 Libya 1 Chile 2 Malta 1 China 16 Nigeria 33 Cuba 13 Pakistan 25 Cyprus 21 Panama 96 Czechoslavakia 1 Denmark 474 Poland 184 Eritrea 1 Portugal 22 Ethiopia 7 Romania 25 Egypt 23 South America 1 Finland 287 Somaliland 1 France 156 South Africa 8 Germany 2133 Spain 169 Ghana 64 Sudan 18 Great Britain 5739 Sweden and Norway 1820 Greece 352 Switzerland 9 Holland 2242 Turkey 34 Iceland 42 Uruguay . 3 India 153 U.S.S.R. 202 Indonesia 1 Venezuela 1 Iran 5 Yugoslavia 67 Iraq 10 12083 15239 During 1967 Port Health Inspectors referred 52 sick seamen to Hospital. 47 POWERS The Principal Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments affecting the work of the Port Health Authority of the Port of London are:— ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AND REMOVAL OF REFUSE London Government Act, 1963 Noise Abatement Act, 1960 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 ADMINISTRATION City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1965 Local Government Act, 1933 London Government Act, 1963 London Port Health Authority Order, 1965 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Officers Regulations, 1959 ALIENS Aliens Order, 1953 Ministry of Health Instructions to Medical Inspectors, 1955 CANAL BOATS Canal Boat Regulations, 1878 to 1931 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 Ministry of Health Instructions to Medical Inspectors, 1962 CONSTITUTION OF THE AUTHORITY City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1965 London Government Act, 1963 London Port Health Authority Order, 1965 Public Health Act, 1936 CREW ACCOMMODATION Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 DANGEROUS DRUGS Dangerous Drugs No. 2 Regulations, 1964 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926 Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations, 1960 Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Amendment) Regulations, 1964 FOOD Antioxidant in Food Regulations, 1958 and 1966 (1958 Regulations in force until 8th Sept. 1967). Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959 and 1960 Artificial Sweeteners in Food Regulations, 1967 Bread and Flour Regulations, 1963 Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1966 Emulsifiers and Stabilisers in Food Regulations, 1962 Fluorine in Food Regulations, 1959 Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations, 1963 Food and Drugs Act, 1955 Food and Drugs (Whalemeat) Regulations, 1949 and 1950 Food Hygiene (Docks, Carriers etc.) Regulations, 1960 Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1960 and 1962 Ice Cream (Heat Treatment etc.) Regulations, 1959 and 1963 Lead in Food Regulations, 1961 Liquid Egg (Pasteurisation) Regulations, 1963 London Government Act, 1963 Meat (Staining and Sterilisation) Regulations, 1960 Mineral Hydrocarbons in Food Regulations, 1966 Preservatives in Food Regulations, 1962 Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations, 1937 and 1948 Public Health (Imported Milk) Regulations, 1926 48 FUMIGATIONS Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Buildings) Regulations, 1951 Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Ships) Regulations, 1951 HOUSEBOATS City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1933, Part III, Sections 6 and 7 Essex County Council Act, 1952, Section 212 INFECTIOUS DISEASES London Government Act, 1963 Measles and Whooping Cough Regulations, 1940 and 1948 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 Public Health (acute Poliomyelitis, Acute Encephalitis and Meningococcal Infection) Regulations, 1949 Public Health (Infectious Disease) Regulations, 1953 and 1960 Public Health (Leprosy) Regulations, 1966 Public Health (Notification of Infectious Disease) Regulations, 1918 Public Health (Ophthalmia Neonatorum) Regulations, 1926 to 1937 Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1925 Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1966 Public Health (Smallpox Prevention) Regulations, 1917 Public Health (Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1952 Puerperal Pyrexia Regulations, 1951 Regulations as to the notification of plague as an infectious disease, 1900 Regulations for preventing Plague by the destruction of Rats etc., 1910 RATS AND MICE Poison Rules, 1966 Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949 Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) Order, 1951 Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) (Amendment No.2) Order, 1956 Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1966 SHELLFISH Medway (Shellfish) Regulations, 1935 Order dated 23rd April, 1936 made by the Port Health Authority under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 in respect of a "prescribed area" in Essex. Order dated 25th July, 1957 made by the Port Health Authority under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 in respect of a "prescribed area" in Kent. Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 and 1948 SMOKE ABATEMENT Clean Air Act, 1956 Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) Regulations, 1958 Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 Public Health Act, 1936 BYE-LAWS Bye-Laws have been made by the Port Health Authority: 1. For preventing nuisances arising from barges or vessels carrying offensive cargoes. 2. For removing to hospital any person suffering from dangerous infectious diseases, and for the keeping therein of such persons as long as may be deemed necessary. 3. With respect to houseboats used for human habitation within the limits of the Port of London. PUBLICATIONS OF THE PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY Corporation of London as the Port Health Authority of the Port of London: A Summary of Powers and Duties. Clean Food Handling. Social Services: Information as to National and Voluntary Organisations ready to assist the seafarer and his family. 49