Search results

The Food Bill has emerged from the Grand Committee on Trade, and will shortly be submitted, as amended, to the House of Commons. Whatever further amendments may be introduced, the Bill, when passed into law, will but afford one more example of the impotence of repressive legislation in regard to the production and distribution of adulterated and inferior products. We do not say that the making of such laws and their enforcement are not of the highest importance in the interests of the community; their administration—feeble and inadequate as it must necessarily be—produces a valuable deterrent effect, and tends to educate public opinion and to improve commercial morality. But we say that by the very nature of those laws their working can result only in the exposure of a small portion of that which is bad without affording any indications as to that which is good, and that it is by the Control System alone that the problem can be solved. This fact has been recognised abroad, and is rapidly being recognised here. The system of Permanent Analytical Control was under discussion at the International Congress of Applied Chemistry, held at Brussels in 1894, and at the International Congress of Hygiene at Budapest in 1895, and the facts and explanations put forward have resulted in the introduction of the system into various countries. The establishment of this system in any country must be regarded as the most practical and effective method of ensuring the supply of good and genuine articles, and affords the only means through which public confidence can be ensured.

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.

The decision of the Wolverhampton Stipendiary in the case of “Skim‐milk Cheese” is, at any rate, clearly put. It is a trial case, and, like most trial cases, the reasons for the judgment have to be based upon first principles of common‐sense, occasionally aided, but more often complicated, by already existing laws, which apply more or less to the case under discussion. The weak point in this particular case is the law which has just come into force, in which cheese is defined as the substance “usually known as cheese” by the public and any others interested in cheese. This reliance upon the popular fancy reads almost like our Government's war policy and “the man in the street,” and is a shining example of a trustful belief in the average common‐sense. Unfortunately, the general public have no direct voice in a police court, and so the “usually known as cheese” phrase is translated according to the fancy and taste of the officials and defending solicitors who may happen to be concerned with any particular case. Not having the general public to consult, the officials in this case had a war of dictionaries which would have gladdened the heart of Dr. JOHNSON; and the outcome of much travail was the following definition: cheese is “ coagulated milk or curd pressed into a solid mass.” So far so good, but immediately a second definition question cropped up—namely, What is “milk?”—and it is at this point that the mistake occurred. There is no legal definition of new milk, but it has been decided, and is accepted without dispute, that the single word “milk” means an article of well‐recognised general properties, and which has a lower limit of composition below which it ceases to be correctly described by the one word “milk,” and has to be called “skim‐milk,” “separated milk,” “ milk and water,” or other distinguishing names. The lower limits of fat and solids‐not‐fat are recognised universally by reputable public analysts, but there has been no upper limit of fat fixed. Therefore, by the very definition quoted by the stipendiary, an article made from “skim‐milk” is not cheese, for “skim‐milk” is not “milk.” The argument that Stilton cheese is not cheese because there is too much fat would not hold, for there is no legal upper limit for fat; but if it did hold, it does not matter, for it can be, and is, sold as “Stilton” cheese, without any hardship to anyone. The last suggestion made by the stipendiary would, if carried out, afford some protection to the general public against their being cheated when they buy cheese. This suggestion is that the Board of Agriculture, who by the Act of 1899 have the legal power, should determine a lower limit of fat which can be present in cheese made from milk; but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it is by the adoption of the Control system that such questions can alone be settled to the advantage of the producer of genuine articles and to that of the public.

Attention was called in the March number of this Journal to the promotion of a Bill for the reconstitution of the Local Government Board, and the opinion was expressed that the renovated Department should contain among its staff “experts of the first rank in all the branches of science from which the knowledge essential for efficient administration can be drawn.”

In a circular letter, addressed to local authorities by the Board of Agriculture on December 28, 1901, with reference to the Milk Regulations, the Board suggested that in the absence of any special circumstances indicating the commission of fraud, the local authority might in the first instance call the attention of the vendor to the adverse report of the analyst, and afford him an opportunity of submitting any explanation he might desire to offer on the subject. The Board further expressed the opinion that if the explanation were one which the local authority “felt able” to accept, they might, in the exercise of their discretion, refrain from the institution of proceedings, or withdraw any summons which it might have been necessary to take out in order to avoid the failure of proceedings, at the same time making arrangements for the taking of further samples of the milk supplied, in order that a satisfactory conclusion as to its character might be arrived at. The issue of this letter was obviously a retrograde step, which could only be taken to indicate that the Board were “wobbling” over the milk standards—standards laid down by themselves on the strength of the overwhelming evidence in favour of the institution of those standards as absolute minima, which was laid before the Board's Departmental Milk Committee in 1900. If any proof were wanting that this is a correct view of the case, that proof would be afforded by the issue, on March 27 last, of a further circular letter from the Board, in which the views expressed in the former letter are reiterated, and the study of which can only produce amazement, not unmingled with disgust, among those who have had any experience worthy of the name as regards the working of the Adulteration Acts in this country. Presumably the Regulations were laid down upon due and proper cause shown. By issuing the documents referred to the Board have called the validity of their own Regulations in question, and have suggested that public authorities should base no action upon those Regulations in the absence of other evidence, the nature of which is not stated, indicating “the commission of fraud.” The action of the Board amounts to a smack in the face for the producer of honest and genuine milk such as the purchaser is entitled to get, and can only tend to the introduction of additional loopholes of escape for the dishonest and incompetent.

58. In addition to Government control the co‐operative societies have their own organisations for controlling the health of the cattle and improving the cleanliness and quality of the milk produced by their members. These organisations co‐operate closely with the Government Keuringsdienst van Waren (Food Control Service) and welcome the Government's efforts; they say, however, that they can do far more than the Government officials could do unaided since they are in very intimate touch with the farmers, and have behind them the power to pay the farmer a lower price for his milk or to refuse it entirely, or expel him from the Society; these possibilities have greater compelling force than the necessarily more formal official methods of procedure and the threat of legal proceedings.

The Annual General Meeting of the Pure Food and Health Society of Great Britain was held at 20, Hanover Square, W., on February 27, the President, Sir PHILIP SASSOON, Bart, M.P., in the chair. The Secretary, Mr. A. E. MOORE, read the following report of the Executive Committee:—

Since the publication of the report of the Lancet Commission on Brandy and the prosecutions that followed, much attention has been given to the subject, and although no great additions to our knowledge of the composition of this spirit have recently been made, practical use is now being made of information which has been at our disposal for five years or more, which has already had far‐reaching effects upon the trade.

THE progress in the practice of aero‐engine carburation up to the year 1914, and the improvement in performance which resulted have been briefly traced in the April issue. The Great War (1914–1918) created an unprecedented demand for aircraft for the special purposes of warfare, and it will be appreciated that this demand resulted in rapid development on certain lines dictated by the urgency of the situation.

The latest information from the magazine chemist is extremely valuable. He has dealt with milk‐adulteration and how it is done. His advice, if followed, might, however, speedily bring the manipulating dealer before a magistrate, since the learned writer's recipe is to take a milk having a specific gravity of 1030, and skim it until the gravity is raised to 1036; then add 20 per cent. of water, so that the gravity may be reduced to 1030, and the thing is done. The advice to serve as “fresh from the cow,” preferably in a well‐battered milk‐measure, might perhaps have been added to this analytical gem.