- Email: [email protected]
The Appointment of Competent Inspectors of Meat
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
to their prevention; but to teach that under the influence of some mysterious agency harmless micro-organisms "constant in the surroundings of animals" become converted into disease-producing agents, is a sure method of paralysing prophylactic effort.
THE APPOINTMENT OF COMPETENT INSPECTORS OF MEAT. To the proceedings of Section III. of the International Congress of Hygiene and Demography held in London in August last, a paper was contributed on "The Inspection of Meat with regard to the Prevention oCDisease" by Dr Francis Vacher, Medical Officer of Health for Birkenhead. In that paper the author laments the absence of any organised system of meat inspection in this country, and advocates legislation to compel all sanitary authorities to provide and maintain public abattoirs, to close private slaughter-houses, to license and keep a register of butchers and their premises, and to appoint competent inspectors of meat. Regarding the necessity for immediate reform on these lines there can hardly be two opinions among those who have given any attention to the subject, but there is likely to be less unanimity concerning one important detail discussed in Dr Vacher's paper. By whom is the inspection of meat in public abattoirs to be carried out? Dr Vacher's views on that point are stated in the following paragraph. "All the qualities required in a perfect inspector of meat, it is impossible to find combined in one person, and it follows that in no district should the inspection of meat be intrusted to one person, as it is often at present. Connected with every public abattoir should be a primary inspector or sub-inspector. There is no objection to the superintendent of the abattoir being appointed to this post, provided he is qualified. The best man for the place is, in my opinion, a man brought up as a butcher, who is a fair judge of meat, familiar with the appearances of healthy viscera, and not without some knowledge of the tricks of the trade. To every public abattoir should also be appointed a veterinary surgeon, who might be entitled "veterinary inspector." He would act in conjunction with the primary inspector, and advise him as to the interpretation of morbid appearances, etc. The veterinary surgeon appointed under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in any district, would be probably best suited for this office. Above these officers, and acting in all cases as the chief inspector must be the medical officer of health. However capable the veterinary inspector and the primary inspector, the responsibility of deciding what shall pass and what shall be seized must always rest with the medical officer of health. The question to be decided on behalf of the public is not one of pathology. It is not: Is this tuberculosis generalised or localised? It is : -
25-1-
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
Is this meat fit for food of man or not? This question the medical officer of health answers after examining the carcase and viscera and hearing the veterinary inspector and primary inspector. The medical officer of health cannot put this burden on anyone else's shoulders, and he should clearly understand this and qualify himself to give a right answer in all such cases. This is but one of many duties the medical officer of health is called upon to perform, and however able, one cannot expect him necessarily to be a pathological expert and bacteriologist. Every public abattoir requires a further officer, a pathological expert, who would be consulted when necessary, and examine and report on specimens sent to him. The best man for this appointment will ordinarily be the professor of pathology in the nearest medical school. It may seem extraordinary that four regularly appointed officers are required for meat inspection at every public abattoir, but if the work is to be efficiently done none less will suffice." N ow, the merit of any system of meat inspection must depend (I) upon its efficiency, and (2) upon its simplicity, and whatever claims Dr Vacher's scheme may have to the first of these, it certainly cannot be said to be very simple. Would it not be possible to devise a scheme that would ~nsure just as great a degree of efficiency and at the same time be much less complicated? We think it would; indeed we venture to go further, and to say that an inspecting staff with a much simpler constitution would be much more likely to meet the requirements of efficient inspection. The fallacy in Dr Vacher's train of argument arises from his having mixed up two matters that ought to be kept perfectly distinct. Legislation dealing with the sale of meat has, (I) to authoritatively specify what animal diseases and what abnormal conditions render animal flesh unfit for human food, and (2) to provide a machinery to prevent the sale of such flesh-in other words, to organise a system of meat inspection. Dr Vacher appears to think that only the latter is required, and he would charge the inspecting staff, or rather one member of it, with the duty of determining what, in our view, no single human being ought to have left to his decision. Take, for example, the disease cited-tuberculosis. Under Dr Vacher's system it would be the duty of the" primary inspector" when he discovers what he takes to be tuberculous lesions in a carcase to bring them under the notice of the veterinary inspector, and then the medical officer of health, after "hearing the veterinary inspector and the primary inspector," would have to answer the question, Is this meat fit human food? Anyone can see what the result of such a system as that would be. If the decision of such an important point were left to individual medical officers of hearth, we should have tuberculous carcases condemned in one locality and freely passed for consumption in the immediately adjoining one, and the same would happen in the case of every other animal disease.
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
255
The only way to avoid such an incongruous state of affairs is to have the diseased conditions that render the carcases of animals unfit for food defined as far as possible by statute, and to advise the legislature on this point must be left to the combined wisdom of the medical profession. Any argument which urges the difficulty of this owing to the present uncertain state of our knowledge regarding the degree of risk attending the consumption of certain kinds of flesh, may be applied with tenfold force against the plan advocated by Dr Vacher; for if the combined knowledge of the whole medical profession cannot define the conditions under which animal flesh is dangerous, it would be manifestly absurd to lay the burden of deciding on individual medical officers of health. Fortunately no such complicated system of meat inspection as that sketched in the paragraph quoted is required. As we said on a former occasion, meat inspection is, for the most part, neither more nor less than the post-mortem diagnosis of disease, and it follows naturally that the veterinary surgeon is by his training marked out as the most competent person to undertake the duty.
ASEPSIS IN VETERINARY SURGERY. IN every civilised country human surgeons now recognise that suppuration is caused by micro-organisms, and among them the aphorism, "Without micro-organisms no suppuration," obtains universal assent. Moreover, the recognition of the law, and the consequent desire to exclude pyogenic organisms from wounds, have revolutionised human surgery. The same cannot be said of veterinary surgery, in Great Britain at least. We have good grounds for believing that there are many veterinary surgeons practising in this country who do not know that the formation of pus is due to the growth and multiplication of bacteria, and many others who, although aware of the fact, have scarcely made any alteration in their surgical methods since the time when the presence of" good, healthy, or laudable pus" was regarded as evidence of a benignant form of inflammation, and promise of a fortunate issue. The total neglect or perfunctory carrying out of aseptic methods in surgical operations on the lower animals is probably ascribable to two things, viz.-(r) the difficulty of carrying out a strictly aseptic line of treatment; and (2) the notion that without any such treatment nature generally conducts the healing processes in animal wounds to a favourable issu·e, and that the trouble involved would be altogether out of proportion to the benefits obtained. That it is much more difficult in veterinary than in human surgery to render surgical and accidental wounds germ-free, and to maintain R
to their prevention; but to teach that under the influence of some mysterious agency harmless micro-organisms "constant in the surroundings of animals" become converted into disease-producing agents, is a sure method of paralysing prophylactic effort.
THE APPOINTMENT OF COMPETENT INSPECTORS OF MEAT. To the proceedings of Section III. of the International Congress of Hygiene and Demography held in London in August last, a paper was contributed on "The Inspection of Meat with regard to the Prevention oCDisease" by Dr Francis Vacher, Medical Officer of Health for Birkenhead. In that paper the author laments the absence of any organised system of meat inspection in this country, and advocates legislation to compel all sanitary authorities to provide and maintain public abattoirs, to close private slaughter-houses, to license and keep a register of butchers and their premises, and to appoint competent inspectors of meat. Regarding the necessity for immediate reform on these lines there can hardly be two opinions among those who have given any attention to the subject, but there is likely to be less unanimity concerning one important detail discussed in Dr Vacher's paper. By whom is the inspection of meat in public abattoirs to be carried out? Dr Vacher's views on that point are stated in the following paragraph. "All the qualities required in a perfect inspector of meat, it is impossible to find combined in one person, and it follows that in no district should the inspection of meat be intrusted to one person, as it is often at present. Connected with every public abattoir should be a primary inspector or sub-inspector. There is no objection to the superintendent of the abattoir being appointed to this post, provided he is qualified. The best man for the place is, in my opinion, a man brought up as a butcher, who is a fair judge of meat, familiar with the appearances of healthy viscera, and not without some knowledge of the tricks of the trade. To every public abattoir should also be appointed a veterinary surgeon, who might be entitled "veterinary inspector." He would act in conjunction with the primary inspector, and advise him as to the interpretation of morbid appearances, etc. The veterinary surgeon appointed under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in any district, would be probably best suited for this office. Above these officers, and acting in all cases as the chief inspector must be the medical officer of health. However capable the veterinary inspector and the primary inspector, the responsibility of deciding what shall pass and what shall be seized must always rest with the medical officer of health. The question to be decided on behalf of the public is not one of pathology. It is not: Is this tuberculosis generalised or localised? It is : -
25-1-
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
Is this meat fit for food of man or not? This question the medical officer of health answers after examining the carcase and viscera and hearing the veterinary inspector and primary inspector. The medical officer of health cannot put this burden on anyone else's shoulders, and he should clearly understand this and qualify himself to give a right answer in all such cases. This is but one of many duties the medical officer of health is called upon to perform, and however able, one cannot expect him necessarily to be a pathological expert and bacteriologist. Every public abattoir requires a further officer, a pathological expert, who would be consulted when necessary, and examine and report on specimens sent to him. The best man for this appointment will ordinarily be the professor of pathology in the nearest medical school. It may seem extraordinary that four regularly appointed officers are required for meat inspection at every public abattoir, but if the work is to be efficiently done none less will suffice." N ow, the merit of any system of meat inspection must depend (I) upon its efficiency, and (2) upon its simplicity, and whatever claims Dr Vacher's scheme may have to the first of these, it certainly cannot be said to be very simple. Would it not be possible to devise a scheme that would ~nsure just as great a degree of efficiency and at the same time be much less complicated? We think it would; indeed we venture to go further, and to say that an inspecting staff with a much simpler constitution would be much more likely to meet the requirements of efficient inspection. The fallacy in Dr Vacher's train of argument arises from his having mixed up two matters that ought to be kept perfectly distinct. Legislation dealing with the sale of meat has, (I) to authoritatively specify what animal diseases and what abnormal conditions render animal flesh unfit for human food, and (2) to provide a machinery to prevent the sale of such flesh-in other words, to organise a system of meat inspection. Dr Vacher appears to think that only the latter is required, and he would charge the inspecting staff, or rather one member of it, with the duty of determining what, in our view, no single human being ought to have left to his decision. Take, for example, the disease cited-tuberculosis. Under Dr Vacher's system it would be the duty of the" primary inspector" when he discovers what he takes to be tuberculous lesions in a carcase to bring them under the notice of the veterinary inspector, and then the medical officer of health, after "hearing the veterinary inspector and the primary inspector," would have to answer the question, Is this meat fit human food? Anyone can see what the result of such a system as that would be. If the decision of such an important point were left to individual medical officers of hearth, we should have tuberculous carcases condemned in one locality and freely passed for consumption in the immediately adjoining one, and the same would happen in the case of every other animal disease.
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
255
The only way to avoid such an incongruous state of affairs is to have the diseased conditions that render the carcases of animals unfit for food defined as far as possible by statute, and to advise the legislature on this point must be left to the combined wisdom of the medical profession. Any argument which urges the difficulty of this owing to the present uncertain state of our knowledge regarding the degree of risk attending the consumption of certain kinds of flesh, may be applied with tenfold force against the plan advocated by Dr Vacher; for if the combined knowledge of the whole medical profession cannot define the conditions under which animal flesh is dangerous, it would be manifestly absurd to lay the burden of deciding on individual medical officers of health. Fortunately no such complicated system of meat inspection as that sketched in the paragraph quoted is required. As we said on a former occasion, meat inspection is, for the most part, neither more nor less than the post-mortem diagnosis of disease, and it follows naturally that the veterinary surgeon is by his training marked out as the most competent person to undertake the duty.
ASEPSIS IN VETERINARY SURGERY. IN every civilised country human surgeons now recognise that suppuration is caused by micro-organisms, and among them the aphorism, "Without micro-organisms no suppuration," obtains universal assent. Moreover, the recognition of the law, and the consequent desire to exclude pyogenic organisms from wounds, have revolutionised human surgery. The same cannot be said of veterinary surgery, in Great Britain at least. We have good grounds for believing that there are many veterinary surgeons practising in this country who do not know that the formation of pus is due to the growth and multiplication of bacteria, and many others who, although aware of the fact, have scarcely made any alteration in their surgical methods since the time when the presence of" good, healthy, or laudable pus" was regarded as evidence of a benignant form of inflammation, and promise of a fortunate issue. The total neglect or perfunctory carrying out of aseptic methods in surgical operations on the lower animals is probably ascribable to two things, viz.-(r) the difficulty of carrying out a strictly aseptic line of treatment; and (2) the notion that without any such treatment nature generally conducts the healing processes in animal wounds to a favourable issu·e, and that the trouble involved would be altogether out of proportion to the benefits obtained. That it is much more difficult in veterinary than in human surgery to render surgical and accidental wounds germ-free, and to maintain R