Search results

MR. JONATHAN HUTCHINSON, the eminent consultant, has just put forward a statement of the utmost importance with respect to the probable existence of a direct connection between the consumption of arsenic‐contaminated food and the occurrence of cancer. He points out that certain modern “improvements” in processes of production have led to the contamination of various food‐products with small amounts of arsenic, and observes that “if, as seems proved, the continuous use of arsenic in small medicinal doses can predispose the skin to multiple cancer there seems no reason for doubting that it may do the same for the other tissues, and for the mucous membranes and the viscera,” while there must necessarily also be “the constitutional tendency, the appropriate age, and, in some cases, the local irritation.” Mr. HUTCHINSON refers to the recent successful tracing of the Manchester outbreak of “peripheral neuritis” to the use of arsenic‐contaminated beer as an example of what may be caused by the habitual ingestion of minute doses of arsenic. It is a remarkable fact that the increase in the occurrence of cancer may be looked upon as almost synchronising with the increasingly extensive adoption of those “improved” modern methods of manufacture, not only of beer but of other food‐products, which open the door to arsenic‐contamination; together with the great increase in the use of arsenic in medical prescriptions.

In the very able and striking address which he recently delivered before the Society of Arts, Sir WILLIAM PREECE insisted that commercial success—whether of a man, of a body of men, or of a nation—is referable to the working of distinct laws, the recognition and study of which may justly be said to constitute a “science of business.” In terms rendered the more severe by their dispassionate and moderate character, Sir WILLIAM referred to the lamentable ignorance displayed by the legislature, by the manufacturer, and by the general public, of what may bo regarded as the most elementary facts and methods upon which such a science must be based. He pointed to the loose and bungling character of our commercial legislation; to the lack of co‐operation and combination; to the nonexistence of a properly organised and effective consular service whereby full information could be supplied and the interests of British trade, both home and colonial, might be studied and advanced; and finally to the lethargy of British producers and manufacturers themselves, who allow foreign competitors to drive them out of even their own home markets without making an effort to discard the old‐fashioned and worn‐out methods which have given those competitors the advantage. Of late years the warning voice has been raised from time to time, but it has been as a voice crying in the wilderness. The remarkable speech delivered at the Guildhall by H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES is fresh in the recollection of those who are not too drowsy or too indifferent to appreciate the vital nature and the magnitude of the evil. In 1891 Lord PLAYFAIR stated that if the Americans were right in principle in the management of some of their commercial concerns, “the whole policy of the United Kingdom was founded on a gigantic error, and must lead to our ruin as a commercial nation.” Sir WILLIAM PREECE is amply justified in attaching severe blame to the British manufacturer and producer. They have allowed “the Americans and the Germans to oust them out of their own markets, not by any superiority in the quality of their goods, but by lower prices, by superior knowledge of the demands of the markets, by the establishment of new markets, by better direct communication with foreign countries, by superior methods in business ways, by establishing regular intelligence departments, and, above all, by possessing and exercising superior commercial technical knowledge,” “and,” continued Sir.WILLIAM, “they must lay aside the commercial habits of their fathers.” With regard to food‐products, for instance, can it be truly said that any adequate steps are taken to secure any satisfactory and permanent improvement of the national food supply with respect to purity and good quality? Has anything been done, with governmental or legislative assistance, to make a systematic study of, and provide authoritative information upon such questions as the sources from which food stuffs are obtained, the adequacy or inadequacy of supplies, the true value of home‐produce and the advantages of utilising colonial products as far as possible? The answers to these questions can only be emphatically in the negative. There is no civilised country in the world in which the producer and vendor of adulterated, impoverished, and inferior articles of food can cany on their nefarious practices with more impunity, in certain respects, than in the United Kingdom, although, originally, we led the way in framing legislative enactments on these all‐important matters. At every port of entry today we might most appropriately set up the old waste‐land notice that “rubbish may be shot here.” As we offer all the necessary facilities, and as they are being taken advantage of more and more, wo might also freely advise that “rubbish should bo manufactured here” as well, What steps do British producers and manufacturers of articles of food take to move with the times, to set their houses in order, to protect themselves, and to enable the public to differentiate between the good and the bad? In the vast majority of instances the attitude they adopt is still one of unmasterly inactivity, except in the direction of unscientific and clumsy advertisement. On this they spend enormous sums without proportionate returns, and in following this course they constantly lay themselves open to condemnatory criticism by the publication of unauthorised and exaggerated statements which, in spit© of CARLYLE'S dictum “mostly fools,” are now merely received by the general public with a shrug of the shoulders. The time has come when, in order not only to develop their trade but in order to keep it, British manufacturers must give evidence of an independent and authoritative character to justify the faith that is presumably in them in recommending their goods to the public. Those who refuse to entertain new ideas and who are content to rest in a semi‐comatose condition on the achievements of the past,—relying merely on the possession of the hitherto reputable “name of the firm,”—by the operation of an inexorable law must inevitably drop out of the race.

A pæan of joy and triumph which speaks for itself, and which is a very true indication of how the question of poisonous adulteration is viewed by certain sections of “the trade,” and by certain of the smaller and irresponsible trade organs, has appeared in print. It would seem that the thanks of “the trade” are due to the defendants in the case heard at the Liverpool Police Court for having obtained an official acknowledgment that the use of salicylic acid and of other preservatives, even in large amounts, in wines and suchlike articles, is not only allowable, but is really necessary for the proper keeping of the product. It must have been a charming change in the general proceedings at the Liverpool Court to listen to a “preservatives” case conducted before a magistrate who evidently realises that manufacturers, in these days, in order to make a “decent” profit, have to use the cheapest materials they can buy, and cannot afford to pick and choose; and that they have therefore “been compelled” to put preservatives into their articles so as to prevent their going bad. He was evidently not to be misled by the usual statement that such substances should not be used because they are injurious to health— as though that could be thought to have anything to do with the much more important fact that the public “really want” to have an article supplied to them which is cheap, and yet keeps well. Besides, many doctors and professors were brought forward to prove that they had never known a case of fatal poisoning due to the use of salicylic acid as a preservative. Unfortunately, it is only the big firms that can manage to bring forward such admirable and learned witnesses, and the smaller firms have to suffer persecution by faddists and others who attempt to obtain the public notice by pretending to be solicitous about the public health. Altogether the prosecution did not have a pleasant time, for the magistrate showed his appreciation of the evidence of one of the witnesses by humorously rallying him about his experiments with kittens, as though any‐one could presume to judge from experiments on brute beasts what would be the effect on human beings—the “lords of creation.” Everyone reading the evidence will be struck by the fact that the defendant stated that he had once tried to brew without preservatives, but with the only result that the entire lot “went bad.” All manufacturers of his own type will sympathise with him, since, of course, there is no practicable way of getting over this trouble except by the use of preservatives; although the above‐mentioned faddists are so unkind as to state that if everything is clean the article will keep. But this must surely be sheer theory, for it cannot be supposed that there can be any manufacturer of this class of article who would be foolish enough to think he could run his business at a profit, and yet go to all the expense of having the returned empties washed out before refilling, and of paying the heavy price asked for the best crude materials, when he has to compete with rival firms, who can use practically anything, and yet turn out an article equal in every way from a selling point of view, and one that will keep sufficiently, by the simple (and cheap) expedient of throwing theory on one side, and by pinning their faith to a preservative which has now received the approval of a magistrate. Manufacturers who use preservatives, whether they are makers of wines or are dairymen, and all similar tradesmen, should join together to protect their interests, for, as they must all admit, “the welfare of the trade” is the chief thing they have to consider, and any other interest must come second, if it is to come in at all. Now is the time for action, for the Commission appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives in foods has not yet given its decision, and there is still time for a properly‐conducted campaign, backed up by those “influential members of the trade” of whom we hear so much, and aided by such far‐reaching and brilliant magisterial decisions, to force these opinions prominently forward, in spite of the prejudice of the public; and to insure to the trades interested the unfettered use of preservatives,—which save “the trade” hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, by enabling the manufacturers to dispense with heavily‐priced apparatus, with extra workmen and with the use of expensive materials,—and which are urgently asked for by the public,—since we all prefer to have our foods drugged than to have them pure.

We publish elsewhere a report of the judgment delivered by Mr. LOVELAND‐LOVELAND, K.C., Chairman of the County of London Sessions, in the case of the Kensington Borough Council versus Bugg. The termination of this case has been called a “compromise” by some of the trade journals, and it is well to point out that it was nothing of the kind. When a conviction is confirmed in a higher court, and when proceedings are stayed upon an undertaking being given by the defendants that they will do what they were proceeded against for not doing, the description of such circumstances by the term “compromise” is ridiculous—particularly when a judgment is accompanied by remarks so decisive and uncompromising as those which were made by the learned Chairman in reference to this case. The suggestion that the case should bo brought to a conclusion in the manner indicated came from the Bench, who were evidently perfectly satisfied as to the meaning which attaches to the word “Cornflour,” and the course suggested was obviously intended merely to save the time of the Court; while the fact that the defendants submitted to the terms imposed without oven attempting to bring forward such evidence as they might have been able to get to support their position, is in itself amply sufficient to show that their advisers had appreciated the weakness of their case. There has been the usual outery in the trade journals about the sufferings of the innocent tradesman, and about “interference with the liberties of manufacturers.” In the whole history of the administration of the Food Acts in this country there are hardly any instances of prosecutions for the sale of an article under a name which is properly applicable to another, in which such outcries have not been raised. Such outcries may, however, be taken as blessings in disguise, since they mainly serve to emphasise the facts and to educate the public. The term “Cornflour” is well known to have originated from the expression “Indian Corn Flour,” and it unquestionably has a specific meaning which is not applicable to either of the two words of which the term is made up. Originally, perhaps, the term “Indian Corn Flour” may have meant the actual meal of Indian Corn or Maize, but, by the usage of more than forty years the term “ Cornflour” means the prepared starch of Maize. No doubt it has been honestly thought by some that in view of this fact any starch might bo described as “Cornflour,” but such a position is quite untenable There is no argument which can bo adduced in support of the contention that rice starch may bo described as Cornflour, which cannot also be brought forward in support of a statement that any starch whatever may be sold as Cornflour. The absurdity of this position is so obvious that it is needless to discuss it. The starches obtained from different sources are different in physical characters, in structure, and in other respects. For these reasons they are differently acted upon by the digestive juices. Moreover different starch preparations exhibit differences which are due to the presence of minute amounts of special flavouring substances derived from the raw material; and these differences it is most important to consider since they often give to an article certain characters which are required by the purchaser. A number of instances in point could be brought forward. It is no more permissible to substitute rice starch for maize starch than it is to substitute potato starch for arrowroot starch, and, for reasons which are perfectly well known and always acted upon in the medical profession, a medical man who orders a patient to be fed on a particular starch food, such as cornflour, would strongly and rightly object—particularly in certain cases —to the substitution of another starch preparation for that which he had ordered. The matter has been settled in such a way and with so strong an expression of opinion on the part of the tribunal which dealt with it, that we think it unnecessary to discuss it further.

The action taken by the Council of the British Medical Association in promoting a Bill to reconstitute the Local Government Board will, it is to be hoped, receive the strong support of public authorities and of all who are in any way interested in the efficient administration of the laws which, directly or indirectly, have a bearing on the health and general well‐being of the people. In the memorandum which precedes the draft of the Bill in question it is pointed out that the present “Board” is not, and probably never was, intended to be a working body for the despatch of business, that it is believed never to have met that the work of this department of State is growing in variety and importance, and that such work can only be satisfactorily transacted with the aid of persons possessing high professional qualifications, who, instead of being, as at present, merely the servants of the “Board” tendering advice only on invitation, would be able to initiate action in any direction deemed desirable. The British Medical Association have approached the matter from a medical point of view—as might naturally have been expected—and this course of action makes a somewhat weak plank in the platform of the reformers. The fourth clause of the draft of the Bill proposes that there should be four “additional” members of the Board, and that, of such additional members, one should be a barrister or solicitor, one a qualified medical officer of health, one a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and one a person experienced in the administration of the Poor‐law Acts. The work of the Local Government Board, however, is not confined to dealing with medical, engineering, and Poor‐law questions, and the presence of one or more fully‐qualified scientific experts would be absolutely necessary to secure the efficient administration of the food laws and the proper and adequate consideration of matters relating to water supply and sewage disposal. The popular notion still exists that the “doctor” is a universal scientific genius, and that, as the possessor of scientific knowledge and acumen, the next best article is the proprietor of the shop in the window of which are exhibited some three or four bottles of brilliantly‐coloured liquids inscribed with mysterious symbols. The influence of these popular ideas is to be seen in the tendency often exhibited by public authorities and even occasionally by the legislature and by Government departments to expect and call upon medical men to perform duties which neither by training nor by experience they are qualified to undertake. Medical Officers of Health of standing, and medical men of intelligence and repute are the last persons to wish to arrogate to themselves the possession of universal knowledge and capacity, and it is unfair and ridiculous to thrust work upon them which can only be properly carried out by specialists. If the Local Government Board is to be reconstituted and made a thing of life—and in the public interest it is urgently necessary that this should be done—the new department should comprise experts of the first rank in all the branches of science from which the knowledge essential for efficient administration can be drawn.

In its passage through the Grand Committee the Food Bill is being amended in a number of important particulars, and it is in the highest degree satisfactory that so much interest has been taken in the measure by members on both sides of the House as to lead to full and free discussion. Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Strachey, and other members have rendered excellent service by the introduction of various amendments; and Sir Charles Cameron is especially to be congratulated upon the success which has attended his efforts to induce the Committee to accept a number of alterations the wisdom of which cannot be doubted. The provision whereby local authorities will be compelled to appoint Public Analysts, and compelled to put the Acts in force in a proper manner, and the requirement that analysts shall furnish proofs of competence of a satisfactory character to the Local Government Board, will, it cannot be doubted, be productive of good results. The fact that the Local Government Board is to be given joint authority with the Board of Agriculture in insuring that the Acts are enforced is also an amendment of considerable importance, while other amendments upon what may perhaps be regarded as secondary points unquestionably trend in the right direction. It is, however, a matter for regret that the Government have not seen their way to introduce a decisive provision with regard to the use of preservatives, or to accept an effective amendment on this point. Under existing circumstances it should be plain that the right course to follow in regard to preservatives is to insist on full and adequate disclosure of their presence and of the amounts in which they are present. It is also a matter for regret that the Government have declined to give effect to the recommendation of the Food Products Committee as to the formation of an independent and representative Court of Reference. It is true that the Board of Agriculture are to make regulations in reference to standards, after consultation with experts or such inquiry as they think fit, and that such inquiries as the Board may make will be in the nature of consultations of some kind with a committee to be appointed by the Board. There is little doubt, however, that such a committee would probably be controlled by the Somerset House Department; and as we have already pointed out, however conscientious the personnel of this Department may be—and its conscientiousness cannot be doubted—it is not desirable in the public interest that any single purely analytical institution should exercise a controlling influence in the administration of the Acts. What is required is a Court of Reference which shall be so constituted as to command the confidence of the traders who are affected by the law as well as of all those who are concerned in its application. Further comment upon the proposed legislation must be reserved until the amended Bill is laid before the House.

A point repeatedly brought forward for the defence, or at all events for the purpose of mitigating the fine, in adulteration cases, is the statement that defendant's goods have been analysed on former occasions and have been found genuine. As illustrating the slight value of analyses of previous samples may be taken the average laudatory analyses on patent or proprietary foods, drinks, or medicine. The manufacturer calculates—and calculates rightly—that the general public will believe that the published analysis of a particular specimen which had been submitted to the analytical expert by the manufacturer himself, guarantees all the samples on the market to be equally pure. History has repeatedly proved that in 99 cases out of 100 the goods found on the market fall below the quality indicated by the published analyses. Not long ago a case bearing on this matter was tried in court, where samples of cocoa supplied by the wholesale firm were distributed; but, when the retailer tried to sell the bulk of the consignment, he had repeated complaints from his customers that the samples were a very much better article than what he was then supplying. He summoned the wholesale dealer and won his case. But what guarantee have the general public of the quality of any manufacturer's goods—unless the Control System as instituted in Great Britain is accepted and applied ? Inasmuch as any manufacturer who joins the firms under the British Analytical Control thereby undertakes to keep all his samples up to the requisite standard; as his goods thenceforth bear the Control stamp; and as any purchaser can at any time submit a sample bought on the open market to the analytical experts of the British Analytical Control, free of any charge, to ascertain if the sample is up to the published and requisite standard, it is plain that a condition of things is created which not only protects the public from being cheated, but also acts most beneficially for these firms which are not afraid to supply a genuine article. The public are much more willing to buy an absolutely guaranteed article, of which each sample must be kept up to the previous high quality, rather than one which was good while it was being introduced, but as soon as it became well known fell off in quality and continued to live on its reputation alone.

The necessity of standards of purity for certain kinds of agricultural produce being now recognised by the new Adulteration Act—4, (1)—no apology is needed for attempting to bring the application of the principle into actual practice. Some few standards have already been generally adopted, and the legalization of limits relating to many of those substances with which the Adulteration Acts deal would undoubtedly be welcomed.

The purity of the milk supply is intimately related to the health of the community. There are very definite reasons why milk stands apart from other foods in its peculiar liability to be associated with human disease. These reasons are briefly the following:—

Total quality management (TQM) has been a popular managerial topic since the 1980s. However, not too many organizations have successfully implemented it. This paper studies a successful TQM project implemented in a manufacturing company in the People's Republic of China. It reports the TQM implementation process, the benefits generated from the TQM project, the problems that arose from the adoption of TQM for the company, and the main factors for the eventual success of the project. This case study is a reference for managers and researchers who are interested in TQM or interested in the Chinese managerial environment in general.