Search results

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

The great difficulties which attach to the fixing of legal standards of composition for food products have now to be grappled with by the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to consider and determine what regulations should be made by the Board, under Section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, with respect to the composition of butter. As we predicted in regard to the labours of the Milk and Cream Standards Committee, so we predict now that the Butter Committee will be unable to do more than to recommend standards and limits, which, while they will make for the protection of the public against the sale of grossly adulterated articles, will certainly not in any way insure the sale of butter of really satisfactory, or even of fair, composition. Standards and limits established by law for the purposes of the administration of criminal Acts of Parliament must of necessity be such as to legalise the sale of products of a most inferior character, to which the term “genuine” may still by law be applied as well as to legalise the sale of adulterated and sophisticated products so prepared as to come within the four corners of the law. It is, of course, an obvious necessity that official standards and limits should be established, and the Board of Agriculture are to be congratulated upon the manner in which they are endeavouring to deal with these extremely knotty problems; but it is important that misconception on the part of the public and the trade with respect to the effect of the regulations to be made should be as far as possible prevented. All that can be hoped for is that the conclusions at which the Committee may find themselves compelled to arrive will not be such as to place too high and too obvious a premium upon the sale of those inferior and scientifically‐adulterated products which are placed in such enormous quantities on the food market.

The Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring matters in the preservation and colouring of food, have now issued their report, and the large amount of evidence which is recorded therein will be found to be of the greatest interest to those concerned in striving to obtain a pure and unsophisticated food‐supply. It is of course much to be regretted that the Committee could not see their way to recommend the prohibition of all chemical preservatives in articles of food and drink; but, apart from this want of strength, they have made certain recommendations which, if they become law, will greatly improve the character of certain classes of food. It is satisfactory to note that formaldehyde and its preparations may be absolutely prohibited in foods and drinks; but, on the other hand, it is suggested that salicylic acid may be allowed in certain proportions in food, although in all cases its presence is to be declared. The entire prohibition of preservatives in milk would be a step in the right direction, although it is difficult to see why, in view of this recommendation, boric acid should be allowed to the extent of 0·25 per cent. in cream, more especially as by another recommendation all dietetic preparations intended for the use of invalids or infants are to be entirely free from preservative chemicals; but it will be a severe shock to tho3e traders who are in the habit of using these substances to be informed that they must declare the fact of the admixture by a label attached to the containing vessel. The use of boric acid and borax only is to be permitted in butter and margarine, in proportions not exceeding 0·5 per cent. expressed as boric acid, without notification. It is suggested that the use of salts of copper in the so‐called greening of vegetables should not be allowed, but upon this recommendation the members of the Committee were not unanimous, as in a note attached to the report one member states that he does not agree with the entire exclusion of added copper to food, for the strange reason that certain foods may naturally contain traces of copper. With equal truth it can be said that certain foods may naturally contain traces of arsenic. Is the addition of arsenic therefore to be permitted? The Committee are to be congratulated upon the result of their labours, and when these recommendations become law Great Britain may be regarded as having come a little more into line— although with some apparent reluctance—with those countries who regard the purity of their food‐supplies as a matter of national importance.

If additional evidence were needed of the connection between food supply and the spread of infectious disease, it would be found in a report recently presented to the Finsbury Borough Council by its Medical Officer of Health, Dr. GEORGE NEWMAN. It appears that in the early part of May a number of cases of scarlet fever were notified to Dr. NEWMAN, and upon inquiry being made it was ascertained that nearly the whole of these cases had partaken of milk from a particular dairy. A most pains‐taking investigation was at once instituted, and the source of the supply was traced to a farm in the Midlands, where two or three persons were found recovering from scarlet fever. The wholesale man in London, to whom the milk was consigned, at first denied that any of this particular supply had been sent to shops in the Finsbury district, but it was eventually discovered that one, or possibly two, churns had been delivered one morning, with the result that a number of persons contracted the disease. One of the most interesting points in Dr. NEWMAN'S report is that three of these cases, occurring in one family, received milk from a person who was not a customer of the wholesale dealer mentioned above. It transpired on the examination of this last retailer's servants that on the particular morning on which the infected churn of milk had been sent into Finsbury, one of them, running short, had borrowed a quart from another milkman, and had immediately delivered it at the house in which these three cases subsequently developed. The quantity he happened to borrow was a portion of the contents of the infected churn.

The institution of food and cookery exhibitions and the dissemination of practical knowledge with respect to cookery by means of lectures and demonstrations are excellent things in their way. But while it is important that better and more scientific attention should be generally given to the preparation of food for the table, it must be admitted to be at least equally important to insure that the food before it comes into the hands of the expert cook shall be free from adulteration, and as far as possible from impurity,—that it should be, in fact, of the quality expected. Protection up to a certain point and in certain directions is afforded to the consumer by penal enactments, and hitherto the general public have been disposed to believe that those enactments are in their nature and in their application such as to guarantee a fairly general supply of articles of tolerable quality. The adulteration laws, however, while absolutely necessary for the purpose of holding many forms of fraud in check, and particularly for keeping them within certain bounds, cannot afford any guarantees of superior, or even of good, quality. Except in rare instances, even those who control the supply of articles of food to large public and private establishments fail to take steps to assure themselves that the nature and quality of the goods supplied to them are what they are represented to be. The sophisticator and adulterator are always with us. The temptations to undersell and to misrepresent seem to be so strong that firms and individuals from whom far better things might reasonably be expected fall away from the right path with deplorable facility, and seek to save themselves, should they by chance be brought to book, by forms of quibbling and wriggling which are in themselves sufficient to show the moral rottenness which can be brought about by an insatiable lust for gain. There is, unfortunately, cheating to be met with at every turn, and it behoves at least those who control the purchase and the cooking of food on the large scale to do what they can to insure the supply to them of articles which have not been tampered with, and which are in all respects of proper quality, both by insisting on being furnished with sufficiently authoritative guarantees by the vendors, and by themselves causing the application of reasonably frequent scientific checks upon the quality of the goods.

One of the commonest excuses put forward in defence of the practice of treating milk, butter, meat, and other foods with ‘preservative’ drugs no longer possesses even the appearance of validity. Several of the large railway companies are adding refrigerator vans in considerable numbers to their rolling‐stock, and this fact should make it no longer possible for defendants to plead that the necessity of sending food‐products a long distance by rail involves the necessity of mixing preservative chemicals with them. Although the excuse referred to will not bear examination, it is a very specious one, and in those instances where evidence has not been brought forward to refute it, it has produced some effect on the minds of magistrates and others. It cannot be too often pointed out that such substances as boracic acid, salicylic acid, and formaldehyde are dangerous drugs, and that their unacknowledged presence in articles of food constitutes a serious danger to the public. Such substances are not foods, and are not natural constituents of any food. In most instances they are purposely introduced into food‐products to avoid the expense attending the proper production, preparation, and distribution of the food, or to conceal the inferior quality of an article by masking the signs of commencing decomposition or incipient putrefaction, and thus to enable a dishonest producer or vendor to palm off as fresh and wholesome an article which may be not only of bad quality, but absolutely dangerous to the consumer. The use of these substances, in any quantity whatsoever, and the sale of articles containing them, without the fullest and clearest disclosure of their presence, is as gross and as dangerous a form of adulteration as any which has at any time been exposed. In no single instance can it be shown that these drugs are, to quote the words of the Act of 1875, matters or ingredients “required for the preparation or production of a food as an article of commerce,” nor, of course, can it be contended that such substances are “extraneous matters with which the food is unavoidably mixed during the process of collection or preparation.” In reality, even under our inadequate and unsatisfactory adulteration laws, through which the proverbial coach‐and‐four can be so easily driven in so many directions, there ought to be no loophole of escape for the deliberate and dishonest drugger of foods. While the presence of preservative chemicals in any quantity whatever in articles of food constitutes adulteration, wherever the quantity is sufficient to allow the production of the specific “preservative” effect of the substance added, that fact alone is enough to make the food so drugged a food which must be regarded as injurious to the health of the consumer—in view of the inhibitory effect which, by its very nature, the antiseptic must produce on the process of digestion. To our knowledge the food market in this country is flooded with all sorts of inferior food‐products which are rarely dealt with under the Adulteration Acts, and which are loaded with so‐called preservatives. There will be no adequate protection for the public against the consumption of this injurious rubbish until the consumer sees the advantage of insisting upon an authoritative and permanent guarantee of quality with his goods, and until manufacturers of the better class at length find it to be a necessity for their continued prosperity that they should supply, apart entirely from their own statements, an independent and powerful guarantee of this kind.

At a recent inquest upon the body of a woman who was alleged to have died as the result of taking certain drugs for an improper purpose, one of the witnesses described himself as “an analyst and manufacturing chemist,” but when asked by the coroner what qualifications he had, he replied : “I have no qualifications whatever. What I know I learned from my father, who was a well‐known ‘F.C.S.’” Comment on the “F.C.S.” is needless.

The Sanitary Committee of a certain County Council, strong with the strength of recent creation, have lately been animated by a desire to distinguish themselves in some way, and, proceeding along the lines of least resistance, they appear to have selected the Public Analyst as the most suitable object for attack. The charge against this unfortunate official was not that he is incompetent, or that he had been in any way negligent of his duties as prescribed by Act of Parliament, but simply and solely that he has the temerity to reside in London, which city is distant by a certain number of miles from the much favoured district controlled by the County Council aforesaid. The committee were favoured in their deliberations by the assistance of no less an authority than the “Principal” of a local “Technical School”;—and who could be more capable than he to express an opinion upon so simple a matter? This eminent exponent of scientific truths, after due and proper consideration, is reported to have delivered himself of the opinion that “scientifically it would be desirable that the analyst should reside in the district, as the delay occasioned by the sending of samples of water to London is liable to produce a misleading effect upon an analysis.” Apparently appalled by the contemplation of such possibilities, and strengthened by another expression of opinion to the effect that there were as “good men” in the district as in London, the committee resolved to recommend the County Council to determine the existing arrangement with the Public Analyst, and to appoint a “local analyst for all purposes.” Thus, the only objection which could be urged to the employment of a Public Analyst resident in London was the ridiculous one that the composition of a sample of water was likely to seriously alter during the period of its transit to London, and this contention becomes still more absurd when it is remembered that the examination of water samples is no part of the official duty of a Public Analyst. The employment of local scientific talent may be very proper when the object to be attained is simply the more or less imperfect instruction of the rising generation in the rudiments of what passes in this country for “technical education”; but the work of the Public Analyst is serious and responsible, and cannot be lightly undertaken by every person who may be acquainted with some of the uses of a test‐tube. The worthy members of this committee may find to their cost, as other committees have found before them, that persons possessing the requisite knowledge and experience are not necessarily indigenous to their district. Supposing that the County Council adopts the recommendation, the aspirations of the committee may even then be strangled in their infancy, as the Local Government Board will want to know all about the matter, and the committee will have to give serious and valid reasons in support of their case.

The Board of Agriculture, by virtue of the powers conferred upon them by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, have made regulations whereby it may be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that milk containing less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat, or less than 3 per cent of fat, is adulterated within the meaning of the Act. The suggested limit for fat in milk recommended by the special committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture was 3·per cent., and it will therefore be observed that the new regulations have fixed a standard for milk‐fat which is even lower than the low limit recommended by the committee. There are even rumours that a further lowering of this standard is to bo urged upon the authorities. Although from the point of view of Public Analysts and the officials responsible for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Acts it is satisfactory that an official standard for the composition of milk has at last been set up, it is idle to suppose that the fixing of such a limit will materially improve the character of the milk‐supply as a whole. It should be remembered that milk which contains only 3 per cent of fat, although under the new regulations legally “genuine,” is, as a matter of fact, of the poorest quality, and is only produced by a cow when in bad condition, or by a particular breed of cow which is remarkable more for the quantity than for the quality of the fluid yielded. Producers and vendors of milk of good quality have been placed in a very unfortunate position by the new regulations, as the tendency of the trade will be to lower all milk to the official limits, with the result that those dealers who are still desirous of maintaining a high standard of quality will have to compete in the matter of price with less conscientious traders, who, taking advantage of the protection afforded by the regulations, will be enabled to sell to the public “genuine” milk, from which all “superfluous” fat has been removed. Gradation of quality in an article of food cannot, of course, be provided for by official regulation, and for the purpose of legal classification it is only possible to differentiate between legally “genuine” and adulterated articles. Therefore, in a legal sense, and also in a popular sense, a milk containing 4 per cent. of fat is no more “ genuine ” than one containing 3 per cent., although the former is, of course, a superior article. Competition in the dairy trade, which has of late years become very keen, will, as the result of the fixing of this standard, become more acute than before, and to keep their position it will be necessary for those milk‐vendors who are desirous of maintaining their reputation as vendors of milk of good quality to give to their customers some guarantee that their product is indeed superior to the legalised article. Any statements of the traders themselves upon this point will naturally be received by customers with reserve, as proceeding from an interested source, and the guarantee, to be effective, must therefore be given by an authority whose statements are above suspicion. It is hero that the system of Control will be found to be a necessity both to the milk dealer and milk consumer.

The question whether grape juice may or may not be preserved with sulphur dioxide is one which arises occasionally as a result of a certain ambiguity in the wording of the First Schedule of the Regulations. It is not a matter of opinion, as some would hold, but a matter of law, and, as such, should be fully appreciated by the legal advisers of local authorities, if not by Public Analysts. Item 4 of the First Schedule of the Regulations states that “Unfermented grape juice and non‐alcoholic wine made from such grape juice if labelled in accordance with the rule contained in the Second Schedule to these Regulations” may contain 2,000 parts of benzoic acid per million of grape juice and does not admit of the presence of the addition of any sulphur dioxide. The Second Schedule prescribes that, if the proportion of benzoic acid present in grape juice exceeds 600 parts per million, it shall be labelled with a declaration to that effect and also with the words “and is not intended for use as a beverage.” Item 5 of the First Schedule of the Regulations states that “Other non‐alcoholic wines, cordials and fruit juices, sweetened or unsweetened” may contain either 350 parts of sulphur dioxide per million parts of preparation or 600 parts per million of benzoic acid. Normally one would infer from this that grape juice to be used as a beverage falls under Item 5 of the Regulations, but that, if for some special reason it is not to be so used, it is permitted to contain up to 2,000 parts per million of benzoic acid provided that it is labelled to the effect that it is not to be used as a beverage. It should be noted that Item 4 does not read that grape juice and non‐alcoholic wine made from it may contain 600 parts per million of benzoic acid, but that, if labelled in accordance with the rules contained in the Second Schedule, it may contain 2,000 parts of this preservative. If grape juice were only allowed to contain benzoic acid as a preservative and if sulphur dioxide were prohibited under all circumstances one would have thought that Item 4 of the First Schedule would have been drawn up to indicate this, but no such indication is given at all. At the time that the Preservatives Regulations were issued it was fully recognised that sulphur dioxide was employed as a preservative in grape must. Whilst the Departmental Committee was considering the matter of preservatives and colouring matters the Ministry of Health issued a Report on Public Health Subjects, No. 24, entitled “Report on the Composition of Commoner British Wines and Cordials (Alcoholic and Non‐alcoholic),” by Dr. G. C. Hancock, C.B.E., one of the Medical Officers of the Ministry, together with a Report by the Government Chemist on the Examination of Samples. In the introduction Dr. G. Newman, the Chief Medical Officer to the Minister of Health, writes : “The most important of these materials are preservatives, and Dr. Hancock mentions the considerations which underlie the use of these substances in the manufacture of British wines and cordials. As, however, the question of preservatives and colouring matters in foods is being considered by a Departmental Committee of the Ministry he has made no specific recommendations relating to the use of these substances.” On page 4 at the end of the sixth paragraph Dr. Hancock refers to grape juice or must and says : “It is sent here in a highly concentrated form and is usually ‘sulphured,’ i.e., treated with sulphur dioxide in order to inhibit fermentation during transit.” Among other information placed at the disposal of the Departmental Committee was Dr. Hancock's report and in the Final Report of the Committee, also issued in 1924, paragraph 57 states: “Sulphurous acid and sulphites are extensively used in beer and alcoholic wines, to some smaller extent in non‐alcoholic beverages, and in preserving fruits and fruit juices, dried fruits, gelatine and sausages. … In the case of beer, wines, fruit and fruit juices the introduction comes partly from the treatment of the vessels of preparation and storage, partly from the materials used and partly from the actual addition of preservative in the course of manufacture or treatment for storage.” When considering the question of alcoholic wines, Foreign and British in detail, the Committee stated their opinion in the following words (para. 144): “Foreign and British wines are by no means closely related products. The former are the naturally fermented produce of the grape, while the latter are rarely derived from fresh fruit and are far more commonly prepared from a basis of dried fruits, rhubarb or imported grape must, fermented after the addition of sugar and flavouring materials, such as dried ginger‐root, orange peel, alcoholic essences or foreign wines. Considered from the point of view of preservatives, however, they have two features in common, (a) that the alcoholic content is very similar in each, (b) that sulphur dioxide is the preservative which is usually favoured (in addition to the alcohol present) to prevent secondary and other undesirable fermentations and sourness.” Instead of making any suggestion that the use of sulphur dioxide should be prohibited in grape must, the Committee draw their conclusion in paragraph 147 in the following words : “Our conclusion is that while in general preservatives should be unnecessary in alcoholic wines of ordinary strength, there may be circumstances which render the entire elimination of preservatives impracticable for the present. We think, however, that no other preservatives than sulphur dioxide should be permitted, and that this substance should not be present in amounts exceeding 3 grains of sulphur dioxide free and combined per pint (343 milligrams per litre).” This recommendation was adopted in the Draft Statutory Order issued in February, 1925, but, when the final Order was published, the quantity of sulphur dioxide permitted had been increased to 450 parts per million, making the law in this country agree with that already adopted in France. The recommendation made by the Departmental Committee was put forward after the Committee had commented on the fact that British wines are largely prepared from “imported grape must.” It seems remarkable that the Committee should have expressed the opinion that sulphur dioxide is used for sulphuring the casks, that sulphur dioxide is permitted in the completed wine, if it is not allowed to be present at intermediate stages, and that a Regulation was made by which benzoic acid only could be present in the unfermented grape juice, if this is not permitted to be present in the fermented alcoholic wine. When benzoic acid has once been added it cannot be eliminated and, as recognised by the Departmental Committee, benzoic acid is undesirable from the fermentation aspect. Had there been any intention to prohibit the presence of sulphur dioxide in unfermented grape juice, the Regulations would have rung the death‐knell to the manufacture of British wines, which have been produced in increasing volume during the last twenty years. Further, if there had been any intention to prohibit the addition of sulphur dioxide to grape juice, one cannot but express surprise that the importation of such juice has not been suppressed long ago by the Customs Authorities, since Section 8 (1) of the Regulations lays the responsibility for the control of Imported Articles of Food on the Officers of Customs and Excise and, through them, on the Government Chemist. The failure of the Government Chemist to condemn grape must containing sulphur dioxide cannot be due to his ignorance of its presence because the chemical analyses for Dr. Hancock's Report were carried out by the Government Chemist, and on page 58 of the Report No. 24, to which reference has already been made, analyses are given of two French musts containing 360 and 302 parts of sulphur dioxide per million respectively and of an American concentrated must containing 63 parts of sulphur dioxide per million. If we now look at paragraph 153 of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee we find that the matter of preservatives in certain non‐alcoholic beverages is dealt with in the following words: “We consider that sweetened and unsweetened fruit juices, syrups, cordials, non‐alcoholic wines and articles of similar composition such as certain well‐known proprietary cordials, are peculiarly liable to develop moulds and to ferment, owing to liability to exposure on the consumer's premises between the first opening and final consumption, and we think that on this account they may under present trade conditions need the addition of a small proportion of preservative. We therefore suggest that the presence either of benzoic acid up to 5 grains or of sulphur dioxide up to 3 grains per pint might be considered.” These recommendations were adopted in the Draft Rule and Order, issued in February, 1925, and there was no reference in this Draft indicating that grape juice was to be treated in any manner distinct from other fruit juices. The introduction of Item 4 in S.R. & O. 1925, 775, came as a complete surprise to everyone and the general surprise felt was mentioned by Mr. C. A. Mitchell (now Dr. Mitchell) in a paper read before the Medico‐Legal Society on Tuesday, April 20th, 1926, with the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Aitken in the chair. Mr. Mitchell made the following statement: “The fourth item in the Schedule is one at which one can only stare and wonder how it ever came there. According to this regulation unfermented grape juice and non‐alcoholic wine made from it, may contain the enormous quantity of 17 grains of benzoic acid per pint, provided that it is labelled in accordance with Schedule II. I am fairly familiar with the cases which have been brought into Court during the last 20 years, but I cannot recall an instance of a non‐alcoholic wine (labelled or unlabelled) containing an amount of preservative equivalent to this quantity of benzoic acid.” Mr. Mitchell then proceeds to explain that the most probable reason for the introduction of this item into the rule is that it is intended to apply to non‐alcoholic sacramental wine, which is not to be used as a beverage, but which is taken a little at a time and is expected to keep for long periods, when the bottle has once been opened. This is, in fact, the position so far as I am aware and there was never any intention of any restriction on the use of sulphur dioxide in the ordinary way as a preservative in unfermented grape juice so long as the amount present did not exceed 350 parts per million.