260 BACTERIA IN OTHER FOODS 



in all cases.* The Massachusetts State Board of Health have 

 recently arrived at similar results, and conclude that the presence 

 of B. coli in shell-fish is abnormal and due to contamination either 

 by sewage or by uncleanly handling. The presence of B. coli is 

 therefore looked upon as " invariable aid " in determining the occur- 

 rence of pollution.^ 



4. That oysters from sources exposed to risk of sewage contami- 

 nation did contain colon bacilli and other sewage bacteria. 



5. That in one case Eberth's typhoid bacillus was found in the 

 body and liquor of the oyster. Nor do typhoid bacilli lose activity 

 or virulence by passing through an oyster. 



In 1902 Dr Klein had occasion to examine a number of oysters 

 in connection with the Winchester outbreak of typhoid fever, to 

 which reference has already been made. In all 18 oysters were 

 examined with the following results : (a) Every one of the 18 con- 

 tained B. coli, (b) 3 out of the 18 contained a bacillus belonging to 

 the Gsertner-typhoid group, and (c) 3 out of 15 contained the spores 

 of B. enteritidis sporogenes. All these oysters came from the 

 Emsworth layings, and all showed contamination with excremen- 

 titious matter. At the end of 1902 and beginning of 1903, Dr Klein 

 examined 25 different sets of oysters, only 7 sets of which showed 

 no signs of pollution.^ 



Boyce examined 140 samples of shell-fish at Liverpool in 1902, 

 and found B. coli present in 104, and B. enteritidis sporogenes in 10 

 cases. The former was more frequently present in oysters and 

 mussels, and the latter in cockles. 



In 1903 Mr Foulerton examined a number of oysters derived 

 from suspicious oyster-beds, with the object of detecting the presence 

 or absence of bacteria characteristic of sewage. The two sewage 

 organisms which he selected as " indication " bacteria were B. coli 

 and B. enteritidis sporogenes, and his results were as follows : Out of 

 65 oysters examined, in 48 neither bacillus was found; in 5, B. 

 enteritidis sporogenes was present alone; in 8, B. coli was present 

 alone ; and in 4, both organisms were present. Foulerton attaches 

 most importance, as indication of recent sewage contamination, to the 

 presence of B. coli, and he therefore concludes that out of 65 oysters 

 12 or 19 '4 per c.ent. showed evidence of recent sewage pollution. || 

 In a second series of 27 oysters B. coli was found in 4 instances, or 

 a percentage of 14*7. 



* Brit. Med. Jour., 1903, i., p. 419. 



t Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the State Board of Health of Massachusetts, 

 1903, pp. 260-264, and 280. 



t Report of Medical Officer of Health, City of London, 1902, pp. 150-157. 



Report on Health of Liverpool, 1902, p.' 173. 



II The Pollution of Tidal Fishing Waters by Sewage, 1903. A special report by 

 A. G. R. Foulerton, F.R.C.S., D.P.H., pp. 42-49. 



