DEPARTMENT OF BACTERIOLOGY.

DR. A. R. WARD, DIRECTOR.

NOTES ON DIPHTHERIA.

In the face of threatened diphtheria epidemics it is the general practice to close the schools as a precautionary measure. This is too often done without a careful investigation of the real source of the' trouble. The following account of a small epidemic that has come to our attention during the past year serves well to illustrate the value of getting at the source of infection in an epidemic and the futility of blindly closing the schools.

Diphtheria was apparently introduced into the town in question by a visitor who had recently recovered from the disease elsewhere. One case was reported on November 14th shortly after the arrival of the visitor in the family. No more cases were reported for six weeks. From December 25, 1907, until January 25, 1908, cases were reported in fifteen families. Six of these families consumed milk from the RDairy. One family of these six families was reported on December 25th and the other five were reported during the five days, January 15th to 20th. Two other families gave a history of probable spread from the families on the milk route in question. Seven infected families in town gave no history of connection with the milk route.

The suspicions of the health officer were directed against the dairy by the number of infected families who were among its patrons and by the fact that few families consuming the milk escaped. A considerable portion of the milk was used by two cheap restaurants and if any cases were contracted from the milk in these establishments, it was not possible to trace them.

The only people handling the milk were a man, his wife and daughter. Cultures were made from the nose and throat of each one. The mother and daughter gave positive cultures from the throat, while the man gave negative results. Bacilli persisted in the throat of the woman for three weeks in spite of constant effort to clear up the infection. No history of previous clinical diphtheria could be established nor were clinical manifestations recognizable. The fact that the woman frequently milked the cows and delivered the milk, is of interest. Upon the discovery of the bacillus carriers at the dairy, the local authorities took measures to prevent any further contamination of the milk.

Almost at the first appearance of diphtheria in the town the schools had been closed in spite of the fact that there was no evidence pointing to their being a source of infection. The cases in town were either adults, children not attending school, or were among those attributable to the milk route.

The facts seemed to justify the opening of the school for those children who would pass an examination of the nose and throat for diphtheria bacilli. The examination of all children, several hundred, present on the first day that the schools were open, showed only about 4 per cent harboring diphtheria bacilli. This percentage of bacillus

carriers confirmed the conclusion that the school children were not primarily involved in the epidemic, for a normal community in the absence of a diphtheria epidemic will give a similar or very slightly lower percentage. Later in an uncontrolled epidemic, the percentage will rise to 15 or more and the exclusion of so large a number of children seriously demoralizes school work. Throughout the period that the school was under surveillance, many of the children who were refused admission because they showed diphtheria bacilli were found to come from families that had previously had cases of diphtheria.

By means of this bacteriological control of attendance, the schools. were kept open with perfect safety to the children attending, in the face of conditions that had led the local health authorities to feel it necessary to close them. The experience confirms our feeling that bacteriological examination of children kept in schools is a much safer means of preventing an epidemic than the practice of closing schools. A wholesale examination will reveal the bacillus carriers in most cases and make it possible to subject them to proper restraint and treatment. The fact that this class of mild cases is responsible for the spread of diphtheria is now well recognized. Closing the schools merely sends these bacillus carriers and mild, unrecognized cases out to convey infection wherever they chance to come in contact with susceptible children. This wholesale sort of examination of people concerned in an epidemic seems a very satisfactory way of finding and isolating the source of the trouble, and of stopping the epidemic with a minimum of inconvenience and loss of time to those who are not infected.

DEPARTMENT OF PURE FOODS AND DRUGS.

PROF. M. E. JAFFA, DIRECTOR.

FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTION.

It has previously been stated that the State Board of Health would adopt, as far as possible, an educational policy in connection with the enforcement of the pure food and drug laws. In this connection, therefore, it is thought advisable to issue what might be termed warnings from time to time, as occasion and circumstances warrant. The need of such a warning has been emphasized during the past month in reference to the collection of samples of macaroni, etc., for analysis at the State Laboratory. It would appear, from correspondence received at the Laboratory, that certain manufacturers are acting in ignorance of the necessity of properly labeling their products. This is particularly true in regard to weights. All manufacturers should bear in mind that this point is specifically covered by Subdivision 3, Section 6, of the Pure Food Act, which reads:

Food and liquor shall be deemed mislabeled or misbranded within the meaning of this act in any of the following cases:

Third. If in package form, and the contents are stated in terms of weight or measure, they are not plainly and correctly stated on the outside of the package.

In this connection, Regulation 28, Statement of Weights or Measures, may also be quoted:

A statement of the weight or measure of the food contained in a package is not required. If any such statement is printed, it shall be a plain and correct statement of the average net weight or volume, either on or immediately above or below the principal label, and of the size of letters specified in Regulation 17.

A reasonable variation from the stated weight for individual packages is permissible, provided this variation is as often above as below the weight or volume stated. This variation shall be determined from the changes in the humidity of the atmosphere, from the exposure of the package to evaporation or to absorption of water, and the reasonable variations which attend the filling and weighing or measuring of a package.

In order that the term "package" as used in these acts shall not be misunderstood, it might not be out of place here to quote Section 7: "The term 'package' as used in this act shall be construed to include any phial, bottle, jar, demijohn, carton, bag, case, cạn, box, or barrel, or any receptacle, vessel or container of whatsoever material or nature which may be used by a manufacturer, producer, jobber, packer, or dealer, for inclosing any article of food."

Another note of warning is necessary in regard to the labeling of food materials colored with the permitted coal-tar dyes. All such goods should be labeled "artificially colored." At the same time it

must be remembered that in the use of these artificial coloring matters, Regulation 11, quoted below, must be strictly observed.

Regulation 11. Coloring, Powdering, Coating, and Staining.

Only harmless colors may be used in food products.

The reduction of a substance to a powder to conceal inferiority in character is prohibited.

The term "powdered" means the application of any powdered substance to the exterior portions of articles of food, or the reduction of a substance to a powder.

The term "coated" means the application of any substance to the exterior portions of a food product.

The term "stain" includes any change produced by the addition of any substance to the exterior portion of foods which in any way alters their natural tint.

In the use of these artificial coloring materials the following excerpts from the Pure Food Act must also be conformed to:

Section 6. Food and liquor shall be deemed mislabeled or misbranded within the meaning of this act in any of the following cases:

Second. If it be labeled or branded or colored so as to deceive or mislead, or tend to deceive or mislead, the purchaser, or if it be falsely labeled in any respect, or if it purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package.

Section 4. Food shall be deemed adulterated within the meaning of this act, in any of the following cases:

Fourth. If it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated or stained in any manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed.

It might be well again to emphasize to all concerned that none but the permitted colors as declared in Food Inspection Decision No. 76 will be allowed in food products.

Another warning seems to be called for in reference to the labeling of butter. There are some creameries in this State which are making butter from cream gathered at different points in their locality, and labeling that butter as having been made at other and distinct creameries. This practice is in direct violation of Subdivision Fifth, Section 6 of the Pure Food Act, which reads as follows:

Section 6. Food and liquor shall be deemed mislabeled or misbranded within the meaning of this act in any of the following cases:

Fifth. When any package bears the name of the manufacturers, jobbers or sellers, or the grade or class of the product, it must bear the name of the real manufacturers, jobbers or sellers and the true grade or class of the product, the same to be expressed in clear and distinct English words in legible type, provided, that an article of food shall not be deemed misbranded, if it be a well-known food product of a nature, quality and appearance, and so exposed to public inspection as not to deceive or mislead or tend to deceive or mislead a purchaser,

and not misbranded and not of the character included within the definitions 1 to 4 of this section.

Regulation 16 is also violated in this connection, the paragraph in question reading: Descriptive matter upon the label shall be free from any statement, design, or device regarding the article or the ingredients or substances contained therein, or quality thereof, or place of origin, which is false or misleading in any particular.

The law is further violated in respect to Regulation 17, Name and Address of Manufacturer, which reads:

The name of the manufacturer or producer, or the place where manufactured, except in the case of mixtures and compounds having a distinctive name, need not be given upon the label; but if given, must be the true name and the true place. The words "packed for

"distributed by to the label in case the name which appears upon the label is not that of the actual manufacturer or producer, or the name of the place not the actual place of manufacture or production.

or some equivalent phrase, shall be added

When a person, firm or corporation actually manufactures or produces an article of food or drug in two or more places, the actual place of manufacture or production of each particular package need not be stated on the label, except when, in the opinion of the Secretary of the State Board of Health, the mention of any such place, to the exclusion of the others, misleads the public.

During the past month two hundred eighty-seven samples of miscellaneous foods and food products have been received at the Laboratory for examination and analysis, making a total of six hundred thirty-eight. In view of the fact that many inquiries have been received at the Laboratory in regard to the preservation of eggs, the following method, used with success by Dr. Shutt of the Ottawa Experimental Farm, is given:

Experiments in egg preservation were begun at the Experimental Farm, Ottawa, in 1898, and have been continued every season since that date. In the course of these experiments, trials have been made with more than twenty-five different fluids and preparations that have been proposed or sold as egg preservatives. The work of these seven years has shown conclusively the superiority of lime-water over all the preservatives which we have tested.

THE PREPARATION OF LIME-WATER.

The solubility of lime at ordinary temperature is 1 part in 700 parts of water. Such a solution would be termed saturated lime-water. Translated into pounds and gallons, this means 1 lb. of lime is sufficient to saturate 70 gallons of water. However, owing to impurities in commercial lime, it is well to use more than is called for in this statement. It may not, however, be necessary, if good, freshly burnt quicklime can be obtained, to employ as much as was first recommended, namely, 2 to 3 lbs. to 5 gallons of water. With such lime as is here referred to, one could rest assured that 1 lb. to 5 gallons (50 lbs.) would be ample, and that the resulting lime-water would be thoroughly saturated. The method of preparation is simply to slake the lime with a small quantity of water and then stir the milk of lime so formed into 5 gallons of