SHELLFISH INFECTED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 20, 2 November 1943, Page 5

SHELLFISH INFECTED

WHAKATANE RIVER PIPIS STEPS TO PROHIBIT TAKING Following the tracing of a local case of typhoid fever recently to the eating of pipls taken from the Whakatane River the Health Inspector's contention that the taking of such fish should in future be prohibited 1 by notice has been substantiated' by the Medical Officer of Health (Internal Affairs Department) and the Whakar tane County Council has decided to forward' a copy of his, letter on to the Harbour Board as the main controlling body concerned 1 . The letter .stated that in the ease in question the evidence that the typhoid fever was contracted from shellfish from the. Whakatane- river was presumptive, since the patient gave history of eating pipis from the river upon an occasion before falling ill which would correspond with, the .in-cubation period of the disease. Although the evidence was only presumptive however there seemed no other likely source of infection and it is known that the shellfish, in the Whakatane River are sewage polluted from the fact that the drainage of many premises goes directly into the river. It. is seldom possible, in a ease of this sort actually, to secure conclusive proof of infection of the particular shellfish since even in the same beds not all shellfish may be infected, nor may an infection be constant and continuing. Infected shellfish, however, are a very well known cause of typhoid fever; they have been incriminated time after time in epidemics and there is no doubt that it. is now, and has probably been for a number of years, a most unsafe proceeding to take shellfish from the Whakatane River. The likelihood of infection of course increases as the years go on owing to the increasing pollution of the river and at. any time a particularly virulent infection of the shellfish beds may take place owing to the discharge of infected material from a patient or carrier, lit is just possible. that in such a case an infected jjerson might take action against I the authority controlling the river for damages, contending that owing to the pollution of the river and also the fact that no warning of danger was displayed the authority had failed in its duty of protecting the public. Under the circumstances therefore I have no alternative but to advise- you that the taking of the shellfish from the river should be prohibited 1 since it is not possible to ensure that the present shellfish beds will remain free from pollution if indeed they are not already so polluted. By displaying the appropriate warning the council should absolve itself of responsibility should an action be raised against it in respect to typhoid contracted through eating shellfish from the river.