The English public appears at this moment to be under the spell of a bacillic spectre which disturbs severely the piece of mind of the well-to-do. With the advent of the epidemic of grip1 the doctors relied upon oysters and champagne as a mitigating remedy. Just at that time it was reported that typhoid fever was a possible sequence to indulgence in the first.2 In consequence the bivalve was avoided, with a corresponding increase in the dose of champagne. Following close on the heels of this theory came the discovery that death lurked in watercress. Dr. Verdon, the medical officer of the health board of Lambeth, stated officially, after an inspection of the various watercress farms about London, that the plant was contaminated with sewage water and consequently dangerous to the health of the people of London, who consumed all the Lambeth crop. On top of this it was announced that bread was positively dangerous unless baked at a temperature of 100 deg. centigrade. As no one could be positive that this particular degree of heat was employed in the brand which he consumed, all bread was looked upon with suspicion. To add to this burden of uncertainty, bacteriologists uttered a note of warning against the contaminating possibilities of the common house fly. It was clearly demonstrated by these investigators, that, in default of any other explanation, the fly must be held responsible for the spread of disease. There is at least one advantage in the acute interest of people in the bacillic theory, and that is the closer attention which is now given to care in the preparation of food. This is very much in evidence in the kitchens of hotels. There are many of these in New York, where every person who has anything to do with the cooking, preparing, or serving of aliments is required before he enters the kitchen to wash his hands thoroughly with antiseptic soap and to dry them on a separate towel. Care is taken that this process shall be repeated at intervals during the day, clean towels being provided for each ablution.
1This may be what is now more commonly called “grippe” or “flu.” According to the 1911 Encyclopedia, 1895 was a bad year for influenza.
2Do you think they’re conflating typhoid with oyster because Typhoid Mary worked in Oyster Bay? Well, no. Mary’s problems began more than a decade later, in 1906.
While this article has a scoffing tone, it does explain the issue (the importance of good sanitation) without taking the alarmist attitude so prevalent in today’s “health reporting.” It’s straightforward, and without exclaimation points. Perhaps the reporting in London that made the people “scared” was more strident?