Search results

Dr. F. J. H. COUTTS'S report to the Local Government Board on an inquiry as to condensed milks, with special reference to their use as infants' foods, has been issued as No 56 of the new series of reports on public health and medical subjects.

I felt myself the recipient of a great honour when asked to read a paper on this subject before your Society. One difficulty, however, at once confronted me, and that was that what your society might regard as an act of sophistication of food, I might believe to be only a perfectly legitimate manufacturing improvement. I had no wish to masquerade before you as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and therefore stated my position to your secretary. As a result of some correspondence, I think that he, as your representative, and I, both felt that granted such differences of opinion, they themselves constituted one of the strongest arguments in favour of the formation of a Court of Reference. There are, no doubt, many processes which are considered by their inventors and users as of advantage in the manufacture of food, whereas others regard them with the greatest distrust and aversion. In most cases I believe the members of both these classes to be high‐minded and honourable men. That being so, it is submitted that the best method of arriving at the real facts is the establishment of an impartial, broad‐minded, and capable Court of Reference, to which such matters should be submitted for examination and decision.

From a recently published letter addressed to a well‐known firm of whisky manufacturers by Mr. JOHN LETHIBY, Assistant Secretary to the Local Government Board, it is plain that the Board decline to entertain the suggestion that the Government should take steps to compel manufacturers of whisky to apply correct descriptions to their products. The adoption of this attitude by the Board might have been anticipated, but the grounds upon which the Board appear to have taken it up are not in reality such as will afford an adequate defence of their position, as the negative evidence given before the Select Committee on Food Products Adulteration and yielded by the reports of Public Analysts is beside the mark. The introduction of a governmental control of the nature suggested is not only undesirable but impracticable. It is undesirable because such a control must be compulsory and is bound to be unfair. It would be relegated to a Government Department, and of necessity, therefore, in the result it would be in the hands of an individual—the head of the Department—and subject entirely to the ideas and the unavoidable prejudices of one person. It is impracticable because no Government or Government Department could afford to take up a position involving the recommendation of particular products and the condemnation of others. No Government could take upon itself the onus of deciding questions of quality as distinguished from questions merely involving nature and substance. A system of control, in order to be effective and valuable alike to the public and the honest manufacturer, must be voluntary in its nature in so far as the manufacturer is concerned, and must be carried out by an independent and authoritative body entirely free from governmental trammels, and possessing full liberty to give or withhold its approbation or guarantee.

IN the October number of THE BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, while disclaiming any intention of supporting or opposing any political party or any section of politicians, we stated our opinion that the fiscal policy which has been outlined before the country by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN is eminently one which requires to be put to the test of experiment and which cannot be profitably argued about upon theoretical bases. In connection with the allegation that by following the policy of leaving our doors open to those who shut their own doors in our faces, we are able to obtain goods at less expense than would be the case under other conditions, we pointed out that it would be well for the public to consider whether that which is so cheap may not also, to a great extent, be particularly nasty. The desirability of considering the nature and quality of so‐called “ cheap ” foods, supplied to us by various countriies without restriction, does not, as yet, appear to have entered the heads of those who have made matter for political controversy out of what is, in reality, a scientific question. The facts are not sufficiently known, or, in consequence of the proverbial carelessness of our generation, are not clearly appreciated. And yet, as it seems to us, some of those facts are of paramount importance to those who desire to study the subject in a calm and scientific manner and outside the region of political turmoil. What do we get from the various countries whose producers and merchants are free to “dump” their goods in this country without the restrictive influence of duty payments? Great Britain has made it known to all the world that “Rubbish may be Shot Here,” and we venture to say that the fullest advantage has been taken, and is taken, of the permission. From America, France, Germany, Italy, Holland, and Belgium, in fact from every producing country—including now even Russia and Siberia, we get inferior or scientifically‐adulterated articles which are sold to the public “ cheap.” Milk and butter scientifically adulterated, or produced under improper conditions in such a way that their composition becomes the same as physically‐adulterated products, condensed “milk” minus cream, cheese practically devoid of fat, or “ filled ” (as it is called) with margarine, all reach us in enormous quantities from most of our near and dear neighbours. Butter and certain wines and beers, loaded with injurious ‘ preservative” chemicals and the sale of which is prohibited in the country of production, are sent to the easily‐entered British “dumping‐ground” for the delectation of its confiding inhabitants. “Tinned” foods prepared from raw materials of inferior character or of more than questionable origin, are copiously unloaded on our shores to feed our complaisant population,—instead of being consigned to the refuse destructors which should be their proper destination; while, every now and then, when something worse than usual has been supplied, representative specimens of this delectable class of preparation are proved to have caused outbreaks of violent illness—those so‐called ptomaine poisonings which, of late years, have increased in number and in virulence to so distinctly alarming an extent. Flour made from diseased or damaged grain, or itself “ sick ” or damaged, and so “ processed ” as to mask its real condition; flour, again, adulterated with other and inferior meals, are “ goods ” supplied to us in ample amount for the benefit of those whose mainstay is some form of bread or flour‐food. The list might be continued literally ad nauseam.

The final report of the Butter Regulations Committee has now been published and it is earnestly to be hoped that Regulations based on the Committee's Recommendations will at once be framed and issued by the Board of Agriculture. It will be remembered that in an Interim Report the Committee recommended the adoption of a limit of 16 per cent. for the proportion of water in butter, and that, acting on this recommendation, the Board of Agriculture drew up and issued the “Sale of Butter Regulations, 1902,” under the powers conferred on the Board by Section 4 of the Food Act of 1899. In the present Report the Committee deal with the other matters referred to them, namely, as to what Regulations, if any, might with advantage be made for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of butter, or what addition of extraneous matter other than water, should raise a presumption until the contrary is proved that the butter is not “genuine.” The Committee are to be congratulated on the result of their labours—labours which have obviously been both arduous and lengthy. The questions which have had to be dealt with are intricate and difficult, and they are, moreover, of a highly technical nature. The Committee have evidently worked with the earnest desire to arrive at conclusions which, when applied, would afford as great a measure of protection—as it is possible to give by means of legislative enactments—to the consumer and to the honest producer. The thorough investigation which has been made could result only in the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived, namely, that, in regard to the administration of the Food Acts, (1) an analytical limit should be imposed which limit should determine what degree of deficiency in those constituents which specially characterise butter should raise a presumption that the butter is not “genuine”; (2) that the use of 10 per cent. of a chemically‐recognisable oil in the manufacture of margarine be made compulsory; (3) that steps should be taken to obtain international co‐operation; and finally, that the System of Control, as explained by various witnesses, commends itself to the Committee.

THE summer is not a good time for writing editorials. In the first place it has been too warm, but more particularly, no matter how hot the topic at the time of writing, it will be cold as mutton before it eventually reaches its readers. Secondly our thoughts seem to have been devoted to anything except libraries: a little light reading perhaps, or a gentle discussion of next season's lecture programme? So now, not an editorial proper (or improper), but some editorial miscellany, beginning with the late but unregretted printing dispute. The LIBRARY WORLD has not been affected as much as some periodicals, and this issue makes its appearance only some three weeks later than planned. We have occasionally encountered comments which suggest that our journal is not anticipated each month with undue pleasure, and is quickly placed on the Chief Librarian's desk, from which honourable position its subsequent circulation is frequently delayed. Many libraries do not appear to have a professional journal circulation scheme, and this is a regrettable state of affairs. It is important that the younger members of the profession should be well informed about library affairs, and only the regular perusal of periodicals can achieve this. May we recommend that Chiefs institute and maintain a circulation programme in their libraries; we hear that it is much appreciated in those libraries which already do so.

So far as the law is concerned, the Medical Officer of Health has only the slenderest connection with the execution of the Adulteration Acts. He is simply a person who may, in common with the Sanitary Inspector and the police constable, purchase samples under the Acts and submit them to the Public Analyst. Having done this, he is entitled to receive a certificate of analysis just like any other purchaser who may submit a sample under the provisions of the Acts, and there the matter ends.

Outlines the Libertarian framework of rights and obligations in abortion. Argues that abortion is homicide based upon the scientific and philosophic evidence available and disputes further points believed by abortion proponents.

Raises some questions on moral and legal rights to health care, referring to various claims contained within the report of the UK’s Commission on Social Justice – “Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal” (1994). Explores the relationship between needs and rights – rights of action and rights of recipience, moral rights and legal rights. Proceeds to delve into the role the state plays in providing services such as health care and whether or not people have a moral right to good health and good health care. Questions if the state should provide health care and, if so, should it be provided as a legal right to citizens? Concludes that the Commission on Social Justice fails to defend the National Health Service on the grounds of justice and moral rights.

Discusses US use of drug testing in the workplace, screening employees for smoking, AIDS, genetic traits and reproductive hazards. Attributes this to the costs employers face in insurance, litigation and compensation. Points out that the purpose of drug testing is to circumvent management responsibility for: accidents in the workplace, stress, bad management practices, and disregarding health and safety initiatives. Acknowledges that the tests are harmful and indefensible. Reports that 81 per cent of members of the American Management Association in 1996 conducted drug testing. Claims that screening is the alternative to monitoring – that is screening out individuals who are seen as high risk in some way – yet that misses the point – the focus should be on making hazardous working conditions safe. Indicates that companies may use drug testing as a means of deterring drug users from gravitating towards their organization. Mentions that workplace‐induced stress can lead to substance abuse and that, therefore it is management driven, rather than being a problem the worker brings to the workplace. Quotes a number of company physicians who object to policing drug use. Indicates that drug testing has diverted attention away from health and safety issues and hazardous working conditions.