212 
NATORE 
[DecEMBER 31, 1896 
(2) All cold meat contains numbers of organisms enough to 
frighten timid people. These are most numerous on the out- 
side of the meat, but the interior is by no means free from them. 
I have frequently examined cold meat, and a single platinum 
loop often carries away innumerable germs from the superficial 
parts, and yet, as a rule, no ill-results ensue from the consump- 
tion of cold meat as ordinarily prepared. It is the custom to 
declare with disgust the legions of micro-organisms found in 
potted meat or in cold meat-pies, suspected as the cause of food- 
poisoning, and yet we find that potted meat and sandwiches 
bought at the most fashionable restaurants of London possess 
a flora which almost rivals the most virulent potted meat or 
veal-pie, and which, if numbers were an absolute test, should 
prostrate any one partaking of them. An error which is often com- 
mitted, is that articles of food which bear the stamp of respect- 
ability, and which the better class consume, are not examined, 
so that we remain ignorant as to the numbers of organisms in- 
gested with food acknowledged to be sound. I have recently 
examined the sandwiches offered for sale at one of the best- 
known London restaurants, and I find that less than a millionth 
part of a sandwich examined generally contained innumerable 
micro-organisms. I have myself eaten four to six sandwiches 
at that restaurant every day for the last twelve months or so 
that I spent in town, and live to tell the tale, nor have I ever 
heard of any one coming to grief from the effects of those sand- 
wiches. Similarly potted meat, bought at the best sources, 
contains an extremely large number of micro-organisms, both 
aerobic and anaerobic. 
(3) If we fix our attention upon the food of those who care 
for ‘ good things,” we find that oysters and cold game are also 
thoroughly impregnated with bacteria, yet, in spite of a few 
accidents, and in spite of the aspersions cast upon oysters, no 
one, I think, would venture to declare these articles to be in- 
variably unsound food. Oysters are consumed by thousands of 
persons without bad effects, and they are often given to de- 
bilitated patients. We cannot, therefore, appeal to numbers 
as an absolute standard of good and bad food. However, we 
must insist upon this, that the oysters be cultivated and kept 
under conditions which exclude sewage contamination and filth. 
The layings should not be subjected to anything approaching 
risk of infection. Sewage always contains large numbers of 4. 
coli commune ; therefore, oysters, known to be fattened in 
sewage-polluted beds, which contain numerous BZ, colz commune, 
cannot possibly be said to be free from sewage contamination, 
if they have been properly and ably examined. If we are aware 
that direct contamination with human excreta has been avoided, 
we need not be alarmed at the presence of what might appear 
to be a large number of bacteria in oysters, so long as the latter 
are fresh, No one, after reading Dr. Thorne Thorne’s masterly 
introduction to the recent Local Government Board Report on 
oyster culture in relation to disease, can doubt that the oyster 
may be the cause of disease, and that this danger can be obviated 
by removing the chances of sewage pollution. The chief danger 
arises from the possible presence of the typhoid bacillus, or the 
vibrio of Asiatic cholera. Their presence we must fear, but to re- 
store a little confidence in the abused mollusc, I will quote some of 
Dr. Thorne Thorne’s own words: ‘‘ Only a few of the layings, 
fattening beds, or storage ponds round our coast can be regarded 
as theoretically free from every possible chance of sewage pol- 
lution, But, as regards the majority of them, any such pol- 
luting matter becomes mixed with so vast a bulk of water that 
it is difficult to see how the layings can be subjected to anything 
approaching substantial risk or deleterious influence.’”’ Still, 
as the reports show, there are exceptions to this comforting rule, 
and this should not be. 
(4) What I have said about bacteria in normal food will 
become still clearer if I quote a few figures obtained by Mr. 
Stephens, when working in my laboratory on the bacteriology 
of zce creams. It has become the custom of using strong 
expressions against the ice creams sold by the Italian street 
vendor. It is indeed disgusting to see the same grimy glass used 
by a row of dirty Eoys, it being periodically washed in filthy 
water and wiped with an equally filthy rag; but in many 
quarters these ice creams have been condemned on account of 
their rich flora. Now I may remind ladies fond of ices, that the 
ices bought at the fashionable confectioners in London, as a rule 
contain as many bacteria as, if not a larger number than, the 
Italian’s ice creams, on which they would look with disgust, if 
they regard them at all, 
In several samples of street-ices Mr. Stephens found from 
No. 1418, VOL. 35 
2 to 5 millions of bacteria per c.c., while strawberry ice creams 
bought at well-known West End confectioners at times contained 
from 10 to 14 million germs per c.c. The average number for the 
two kinds of ices was 7 millions per c.c. 
If street-ices are to be condemned therefore—and there are 
many reasons why they must be condemned—we are not justified 
in condemning them on account of the number of bacteria con- 
tained in them, for in this respect they are no worse than the 
best ices sold in the West End of London, which afford great 
and generally harmless pleasure to many ; but we must condemn 
them on account of the circumstances under which the bacteria 
have found their way into the Italian ice creams. 
I could multiply instances to prove that most of us consume 
enormous numbers of bacteria. I have examined cakes and 
many other delicacies, and must come to the conclusion that the 
better-class people ingest as many, if not more, bacteria than 
those who from poverty are tempted to procure cheap and stale 
food. I must, however, content myself with the above state- 
ments, which prove the difficulty of deciding from a purely 
quantitative bacteriological examination of food articles whether, 
other things being absent, we are justified to express a categorical 
opinion as to their quality, safety, or nutrient value. In examining 
drinking water, the number of bacteria present in I c.c. is no 
doubt a measure of the adequacy of the filters, but one may 
wonder why 100 germs per c.c. should generally be considered 
the maximum number of bacteria which good potable water is 
allowed to contain. This or any other number absolutely 
measures the quality of the filter, but not the safety of the water. 
We must now pass on to the second point, z.e. the species otf 
micro-organisms present in sound food. Here again we find the 
results of bacteriological examination often unsatisfactory. We 
have but few, if any, organisms, so far as our present knowledge 
reaches, which are absolutely characteristic of unsound food, 
and which are invariably associated with it. In ordinary food I 
have always found numerous pathogenic or suspected organisms. 
The B. colt commune, Proteus forms, staphylococc?, streptococct, 
organisms resembling the diphtheria bacillus, they may all be 
found in food which is considered to be above suspicion as well 
as in food which, by a process of exclusion, reasonably or 
unreasonably has laid itself open to doubt as to its integrity. I 
have frequently examined meat, suspected and unsuspected, and 
feel convinced of this, that in most cases from a qualitative 
examination we can only proceed to argue with caution, unless 
we succeed in separating the bacillus of tuberculosis, of anthrax, 
or of typhoid fever, the vibrio of Asiatic cholera, or probably one 
or other bacillus of enteritis. Various forms of B. colé commune 
and various forms of Pyotews are common in articles of food, and 
were separated often in numbers in many of the sandwiches and 
other food aiticles examined. When they have been found in 
suspected articles in large numbers, they have frequently been 
considered as being adequately confirmatory of the suspicions 
aroused by the circumstances of the case. They are certainly 
evidence of staleness, and may become condemnatory evidence. 
For instance, water rich in &. co/z derived from a river into 
which sewage flows, or into which excreta are drained, must be 
condemned, because this is clear evidence of sewage or fecal 
contamination and of incomplete filtration. It has been thought 
that food containing large numbers of the Proteus vulgards 
cannot be eaten with impunity. That is true in some and it 
may be in many cases, and is a good fost hoc argument, but it 
cannot be made an absolute standard. In many sandwiches ex- 
amined I have found large numbers of Proteus, and yet they proved 
harmless. This organism fev se does not justify a verdict against 
the food. In milk the Proteus is extremely common, in most 
sampies, at least, examined and consumed by myself without 
bad results. Nowa writer in the Arztésh Medical Journal of 
1895, having made the same observation, argues thus :—‘* Forms 
of Proteus are found in putrefying organic matter of all 
descriptions, and their distribution is wide. Their presence in 
milk must mean one of two things, either direct contamination 
with putrefying matter, or needless exposure to an atmosphere 
containing particles of decomposing matter.” Thus this ob- 
server writes. Profews is so common in food, because it is 
found everywhere in dust, and bacteriologically speaking all 
dust-laden air must contain particles of decomposing matter ; 
hence the presence of Proteus may not mean more than ordinary 
exposure, not even needless exposure. It is difficult to see how 
one is to avoid the Proteus. Matter decomposes because the 
putrefying germs are present everywhere in dust, and putrefied 
matter rising as dust increases the stock of such germs in the 
