a 
SEA-FISHERIES LABORATORY. 141 
Evidence justifying condemnation of shell-fish. 
It was elicited by Dr. Jenkins in examination of the 
report made by the Medical Officer of Health for Preston 
that the latter had no epidemiological evidence causing him 
to suspect these mussels (those from the Training Wall, and 
from Church Scar, which is near Ansdell). Large quantities 
of the same mussels, it was stated, were consumed in and 
near Lytham without ill-effects by 2,500 soldiers who had 
been there for some time, for instance. (It was not stated, 
however, that these men had been inoculated against enteric 
fever !) However, there was really no epidemiological evidence. 
The Local Government Board, in their letter covering the 
issue of the Regulations, deprecated sole reliance on bacteri- 
ological analyses in the procedure of the Enquiries. The 
local authorities were recommended to trust rather to 
epidemiological and topographical evidence. 
Yet the evidence considered at these Enquiries, and 
im the proceedings that led up to them, was almost’ entirely 
that of bacteriological analysis. In both, the proceedings 
were adjourned, and it was apparent that the evidence brought 
forward did not prove convincing to the Committees. Those 
taking part in future Enquiries of this kind should be strongly 
reminded that the Regulations require that the Medical 
Officer of Health should have grounds for belief that shell- 
fish are actually conveying disease, or are likely to do so. 
“ Likely,” it should be noted, is to be regarded as synonymous 
with “ probable.’ The proof of this probability, that suspected 
mussels do, convey disease in specified instances, should be 
required by those opposing or delaying the making of these 
Orders. 
Bacteriological Methods and Standards. 
This Preston Enquiry was also notable in that, for the 
first time, the questions of methods of analysis and standards 
of impurity arose legally in regard to shell-fish. 
