Search results

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.

In the House of Lords on the 13th November last the Earl of MEATH asked whether it was a fact, as stated in the public Press, that the leaflet of the Board of Agriculture recommending the use of glucose, salicylic acid, and a coal‐tar product known as saccharin, or saxin, as sugar substitutes in jam had been condemned by the Kensington Public Health Committee on the ground of possible danger to health, and whether the Public Analyst told the Committee that glucose was liable to contamination with arsenic, that salicylic acid was a dangerous drug, which should only be administered under medical direction, and that the use of saccharin, except under medical supervision, had been recently prohibited in America, and was entirely prohibited in France in certain commodities, including preserves; and if the facts were as stated, what steps the Government proposed to take to warn the public against the use of these drugs in the preservation of food. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, is reported to have replied that the opinion of expert chemists had been taken on the matters raised in the question. They had reported “that glucose had long been used in the manufacture of jam and for other food purposes, that its value as a food was well recognised, that its manufacture in this country was in the hands of a few firms, and that samples were systematically tested for arsenic at Government Laboratories.” Continuing, his Grace observed that “samples of foreign glucose were also taken for examination on importation. In no case did the arsenic exceed one‐hundredth of a grain per pound of glucose, the point below which the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning had reported that no action should be taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. Manufacturers exercised great care to secure freedom from arsenic. Further, the Board of Agriculture had suggested that, as glucose was sold for human food, it came within the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, and was subject to public analytical examination. The public was therefore doubly safeguarded. The leaflet did not refer to the use of salicylic acid in jam making, but to its use for sterilising the paper covers on the pots. The Committee of the Local Government Board which was appointed in 1899 to inquire into the use of preservatives in food had placed a limit of one grain of the acid per pound in the case of solids and of one grain per pint in the case of liquids. The amount used for the paper covers of jam pots was not nearly one grain per pound of jam. The use of coal tar for sweetening was not advocated, and was not referred to in the leaflet. It had, however, been suggested that saccharin or saxin could be used in place of cane sugar where cane sugar was not obtainable. Saccharin underwent no change in and was not absorbed by the body. The Department had no precise knowledge of the reasons which had led to the alleged prohibition of the use of saccharin in America and France. It would appear, however, that the prohibition if it existed, was due to fiscal reasons.” After the delivery of this statement the Earl of MEATH is reported to have said it would relieve a great many minds to hear that in the opinion of eminent chemists there was no danger in using the substances in question. He hoped the public would no longer be afraid to use them.

The following is a partial abstract, with acknowledgments, of the latest report issued by the Ministry of Health. “This Report,” it is said, “should be of service to public analysts, analytical chemists and all those concerned with the determination of lead in food.” The condensed and valuable review describing methods for the determination of lead in foods, and a general method for the determination of small amounts of lead in food can hardly be abstracted, and we must refer readers to the report itself for the necessary details.

During the year 5,399 samples were taken under the Food and Drugs Act. Of these, 398 (7·4 per cent.) were against, as adulterated, below standard, or incorrectly labelled. The remainder, 1,173 samples, included water, 602, pasteurized milk 400—eight of these indicated a slight, technical error in preparation, and three “gross error.” Soot gauges 24. The total number of milk samples examined during the year was 2,844—excluding those just mentioned. Of these, 9·9 per cent. were found to be adulterated. This percentage of adulteration or for non‐compliance with the legal limit of 8·5 per cent. non‐fatty solids and 3 per cent. is the highest for six years. It is remarked that the freezing point test shows that the milks were naturally low in solids not fat. This would seem to be due to the cumulative effect during the last few years of feeding‐stuffs shortage, though the average annual composition of samples taken has varied but little during the war years and compares favourably with pre‐war milks. The Public Analyst points out that 9·9 per cent. does not mean that 9·9 per cent. of the Birmingham milk is adulterated, as more than one sample was taken from vendors whose milk was under suspicion. Tables given show that the average composition for all milks and farmers' milk were identical. The prosecutions call for no very extended comment. The milk cooler—that great source of surprises—was in each case found to be in working order. The cows were in “good heart.” In one case the cowman was fined £3 for adding water. The farmer, for not exercising due diligence under Section 83 of the Food and Drugs Act, was fined £20 on each of six summonses issued against him, £120 in all, with £1 costs. The farmer seems to have been, and probably still is, a hopeless case. He had been fined £30 and costs in 1940, and £580 with £46 costs in 1942. About £750 in all! We suppose he still carries on, but what about the consumers! Baking powder and self‐raising flour were reported against for carbon dioxide deficiency. This was apparently due to the use of old stock. The vendors were cautioned. Old stock—at least we suppose age to be the explanation—is also distinguished in other ways: cheese, infested with mites, unfit for consumption; cocoa, mouldy, and paper wrapper contained book lice; coffee, contained a mass of cobwebs; lentils, grubs and mite eggs; and so on. The immediate origin of another dealer's wrapping paper would seem to have been the coal scuttle since paper, lard and butter were speckled with coal particles. The Veterinary Inspector was requested to visit all the places of sale which would seem to be half‐way houses to the hospital for the consumer. An interesting point is raised in the matter of a sample labelled “lemon flavour.” This delicacy consisted of a 6 per cent. solution of citric acid, containing in suspension a small amount of starchy matter to make it look like lemon juice. It was flavoured with oil of lemon and contained 118 parts per million of sulphur dioxide. As the Preservatives Regulations forbid the introduction of sulphur dioxide into an article of this kind the firm was written, and replied that they considered the article to be “an unsweetened cordial, and that therefore sulphur dioxide was allowed up to 600 parts per million” (italics ours). The relevant Section referred to states: “Non‐alcoholic wines, cordials and fruit juices, sweetened and unsweetened, 350 (not 600) parts per million sulphur dioxide or 600 parts per million benzoic acid.” The Public Analyst points out that in the final report of the Departmental Committee on the use of preservatives in foods (1924) a comma appears after the word cordials in the above (italics ours) “making it clear that the words sweetened or unsweetened refer only to fruit juices, and that no such article as an unsweetened cordial is recognised. Such a description is a contradiction in terms, for the essential ingredient of a non‐alcoholic cordial is sugar.” The Ministry of Food was written and their attention called to the apparent omission of the comma in the published text of the Preservatives Regulations, and drawing attention to the fact that whether the omission were unintentional or deliberate the result was to permit the use of preservative in an instance where the committee of experts appointed do not choose to make such a recommendation. The Ministry in their reply did not reply to this question, but said the firm had no licence to manufacture the flavouring but asked for particulars of sale. The soot gauges show on the whole a steady decline in atmospheric smoke pollution. The average amount of insoluble matter expressed in tons per square mile per month. The Central Station figures are 13·5 in 1945. It was 37·6 in 1936. The West Heath Station 4·9 in 1945. It was 10·9 in 1938. Satisfactory as far as the reduction in atmospheric pollution goes. May it continue.

The ideas expressed in this work are based on those put into practice at the Okuma Corporation of Japan, one of the world′s leading machine tool manufacturers. In common with many other large organizations, Okuma Corporation has to meet the new challenges posed by globalization, keener domestic and international competition, shorter business cycles and an increasingly volatile environment. Intelligent corporate strategy (ICS), as practised at Okuma, is a unified theory of strategic corporate management based on five levels of win‐win relationships for profit/market share, namely: ,1. Loyalty from customers (value for money) – right focus., 2. Commitment from workers (meeting hierarchy of needs) – right attitude., 3. Co‐operation from suppliers (expanding and reliable business) – right connections., 4. Co‐operation from distributors (expanding and reliable business) – right channels., 5. Respect from competitors (setting standards for business excellence) – right strategies. The aim is to create values for all stakeholders. This holistic people‐oriented approach recognizes that, although the world is increasingly driven by high technology, it continues to be influenced and managed by people (customers, workers, suppliers, distributors, competitors). The philosophical core of ICS is action learning and teamwork based on principle‐centred relationships of sincerity, trust and integrity. In the real world, these are the roots of success in relationships and in the bottom‐line results of business. ICS is, in essence, relationship management for synergy. It is based on the premiss that domestic and international commerce is a positive sum game: in the long run everyone wins. Finally, ICS is a paradigm for manufacturing companies coping with change and uncertainty in their search for profit/market share. Time‐honoured values give definition to corporate character; circumstances change, values remain. Poor business operations generally result from human frailty. ICS is predicated on the belief that the quality of human relationships determines the bottom‐line results. ICS attempts to make manifest and explicit the intangible psychological factors for value‐added partnerships. ICS is a dynamic, living, and heuristic‐learning model. There is intelligence in the corporate strategy because it applies commonsense, wisdom, creative systems thinking and synergy to ensure longevity in its corporate life for sustainable competitive advantage.

“We received a memorandum from the Manufactured Foods Division of the Ministry of Food requesting our advice on a proposal to make an Order prescribing maximum limits for the fluorine content of calcium acid phosphate (A.C.P.) sold for use in food, and certain articles containing it. The memorandum stated that two processes are used for the manufacture of A.C.P. In the first process elementary phosphorus is used as the raw material and the product is of a high degree of purity. Something like 80 per cent. of the total output in the country is made in this way. In the alternative process the raw material is rock phosphate and the product is contaminated with compounds of fluorine. We were informed that manufacturers using this process claim that they have been selling A.C.P. containing as much as 3,000 p.p.m. of fluorine for many years without exception being taken by Food and Drugs Authorities. During the last few years these manufacturers have had to use such rock phosphates as have been available and no doubt the resulting A.C.P. has often been more heavily contaminated than it was before the war. We were also informed that the possibility of harmful contamination of foods with fluorine has been giving concern to Public Health Authorities. From 1942, Food and Drugs Authorities brought proceedings in certain cases under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, in respect of baking powder or articles containing it contaminated with fluorine, but they failed in some of them to obtain conviction. In August, 1943, the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists, which had been giving consideration to this question, issued a statement recommending that no action should be taken under the Food and Drugs Act where the following proportions of fluorine, however combined, were not exceeded: In acid phosphates, 200 parts per million; in baking powder, 70 parts per million; in golden raising powder, 50 parts per million; in self‐raising flour, cake mixtures and like compositions, 5 parts per million. Nevertheless, in the absence of a legal standard it is difficult to convince a Court that where any of these proportions is exceeded an offence has been committed. In at least one case subsequently a Food and Drugs Authority failed to secure a conviction and in general Authorities appear to have been reluctant to take action. In view of this unsatisfactory situation, several Authorities have proposed that limits should be defined by Regulation. Manufacturers have also urged that steps should be taken to clarify the position, and at our invitation the manufacturers submitted a report of work carried out on their behalf by H.E. Archer, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., F.R.I.C, and B. Leech, M,A., F.R.I.C. In this report it was suggested that: (i) In the combination in which it occurs in food products after aerating ingredients have interacted, fluorine is insoluble in normal gastric juice even when the acidity approaches the upper limit of normality. Further, phosphates present in a food after interaction of the aerating ingredients buffer the gastric juice at a pH on the alkaline side of neutrality so that any fluorine present is insoluble and unabsorbable. (ii) Within the limits of experimental error, any fluorine ingested in the form of baking powder containing contaminated A.C.P. after interaction of the aerating ingredients is excreted completely in the faeces. The report was discussed at a meeting between the manufacturers representatives and the committee. We pointed out that since the experiments described related to only one adult, who was on a high milk diet, the results could not be accepted as evidence of what might take place in the case of other persons, especially children, taking a more varied diet. Dr. Archer, however, indicated that the case for the harmlessness of fluorine rested not merely on the experiments described in the report, which he recognised as being chiefly of a confirmatory nature, but also on the fact that mottling of teeth is rarely or never found except where the water supply is known to be contaminated. He asserted that this condition was a highly sensitive indicator of fluorine absorption, and since A.C.P. contaminated with fluorine was extensively used, the absence of mottling of teeth showed that fluorine was not absorbed from A.C.P. It was further asserted that even if widespread mottling had occurred, the condition was to be regarded merely as a cosmetic disability and not as evidence of the toxicity of fluorine. Reference was made to work by Roholm stated to show that cryolite workers enjoyed excellent health and that comparatively large amounts had to be ingested daily for many years before any symptoms developed. It was stated further that investigations in this country had failed to reveal any radiological evidence of skeletal changes in either adults or children with mottled teeth, except in under‐nourished children from bad homes. The manufacturers' case therefore was the fluorine was not absorbed from A.C.P., and even if absorbed was harmless. On the other hand, our attention was drawn to various statements in medical literature suggesting that mottling of teeth is more common than usually supposed. Moreover, with other toxic elements, for example lead, almost complete excretion in the faeces does not necessarily justify the assumption that oral ingestion is harmless. We felt that the arguments advanced by the manufacturers could not be dismissed without further investigation and that their validity could be assessed only by persons having the requisite physiological and toxicological knowledge. The following questions were accordingly addressed to the Medical Research Council: (1) Is there any authoritative evidence that injury to human health has resulted from the absorption over lengthy periods of small amounts of fluorine from food other than water? (2) Is it true that widespread mottling of teeth in the community does not occur? (3) If the answer to question (2) above is in the affirmative, can the absence of widespread mottling be accepted as evidence that absorption does not occur at all or not to any harmful extent? (4) Having regard to the available evidence, including that advanced in the report prepared by Dr. Archer and Mr. Leech, is it in the opinion of the council desirable that an Order should be made limiting the amount of fluorine in calcium acid phosphate? (5) If the answer to question (4) is in the affirmative, what limit should be imposed? The following specific answers were given to these questions: (1) Answer is no, because so far no one would have recognised the effects of such ingestion; analysts have only been interested in fluorine determinations in recent years and pathologists have not clearly established the criteria of milder forms of chronic fluorosis. (2) Answer is no: in any case mottling of enamel is not the most suitable indication of fluorine ingestion except by the water supply. (3) Animal experiments have shown that fluorine is ingested by pigs, rabbits, rats, cattle, sheep and dogs from food, pasture and rock phosphates. Widespread fluorosis occurs in cattle and humans in Algeria, one of the regions from which much rock phosphate is obtained. The ingestion of fluorine from rock phosphates, besides producing the well‐known bone changes, produces in different species different effects, including pathological changes in the mucous membrane of the alimentary canal, and nephrosis. (4) Yes, an Order should be made. (5) The limit for calcium acid phosphate should be 300 p.p.m. In recommending that the limit be somewhat higher than was suggested by the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists, the Council stated that in their view a limit of 300 p.p.m. would still be safe having regard to the proportion of A.C.P. which is used in foods containing it. In amplification of these answers the Council informed us that in their opinion it is essential that a limit be set for the amount of fluorine permissible in any material used in food production and suggested that the safest procedure would be to prohibit the use of A.C.P. made from rock phosphate for food purposes. The view was expressed that since the effects of fluorine are cumulative, absorption from the alimentary canal could only be proved or disproved by determining the urinary excretion of fluorine during administration over a period. The argument that the absence of mottling of teeth showed that absorption does not occur was criticised on various grounds. In addition, it was suggested that Roholm's monograph on fluorine poisoning, the recent work of Ockerse in South Africa and Shortt in India, and reports from industries using fluorine compounds, all tended to show that fluorine was a potentially toxic contaminant. In view of the possible effect such an Order would have on certain manufacturers we felt it desirable to acquaint ourselves more fully with the grounds underlying the Council's recommendation, and Dr. Margaret Murray, who had advised the Council on the matter, kindly attended a meeting of the Committee to provide further information. Dr. Murray suggested that it was not justifiable to base any opinion on a short term experiment, since, for example, in the parts of India where fluorosis is endemic, the effects may not become evident for 25 to 30 years. She considered that the balance found by Dr. Archer and Mr. Leech in the intake and excretion of fluorine by their patient must have been largely fortuitous because, apart from the difficulty of accurately determining small quantities in the excreta, fluorine is cumulative and the fluorine excreted on one particular day is not necessarily that ingested the previous day. She agreed that small amounts, in drinking water, had a beneficial effect in tending to prevent caries, but was nevertheless of the opinion that this did not justify the ingestion of fluorine in larger quantities, or from other sources. The further evidence provided by Dr. Murray may be summed up by saying that fluorine, if absorbed in small quantities over a sufficient period of time, can produce gross lesions of bone; there is abundant evidence from animal experiments and analyses of human bones that fluorine can be cumulatively absorbed; and there is radiological evidence that a mild spondylitis occurs in some children living in areas where the drinking water contains fluorine, although it is possible that the affection occurs only in those children whose nutritional state is poor. We record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by the Medical Research Council and by Dr. Murray. In view of the unquestionable harmfulness of large amounts of fluorine, and of the cumulative effect of small doses, we feel that the risk to the public health from the repeated ingestion of small amounts of fluorine is too serious to be ignored, and that an Order should be made prescribing maximum limits for the contamination.”

Three events of significance to this country took place in 1899 – the British Food Journal was launched, Australia retained the Ashes, and the Boer War hostilities commenced. If challenged on the order of their importance, cricketers and Empire‐builders may be excused their preference. However, looking at it purely from the standpoint of pro bono publico, the dispassionate observer must surely opt for the birth of a certain publication as being ultimately the most beneficial of the three.

That ice‐creams prepared with dirty materials and under dirty conditions will themselves be dirty is a proposition which, to the merely ordinary mind, appears to be sufficiently obvious without the institution of a series of elaborate and highly “scientific” experiments to attempt to prove it. But, to the mind of the bacteriological medicine‐man, it is by microbic culture alone that anything that is dirty can be scientifically proved to be so. Not long ago, it having been observed that the itinerant vendor of ice‐creams was in the habit of rinsing his glasses, and, some say, of washing himself—although this is doubtful—in a pail of water attached to his barrow, samples of the liquor contained by such pails were duly obtained, and were solemnly submitted to a well‐known bacteriologist for bacteriological examination. After the interval necessary for the carrying out of the bacterial rites required, the eminent expert's report was published, and it may be admitted that after a cautious study of the same the conclusion seems justifiable that the pail waters were dirty, although it may well be doubted that an allegation to this effect, based on the report, would have stood the test of cross‐examination. It is true that our old and valued friend the Bacillus coli communis was reported as present, but his reputation as an awful example and as a producer of evil has been so much damaged that no one but a dangerous bacteriologist would think of hanging a dog—or even an ice‐cream vendor—on the evidence afforded by his presence. A further illustration of bacteriological trop de zèle is afforded by the recent prosecutions of some vendors of ice‐cream, whose commodities were reported to contain “millions of microbes,” including, of course, the in‐evitable and ubiquitous Bacillus coli very “communis.” To institute a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act upon the evidence yielded by a bacteriological examination of ice‐cream is a proceeding which is foredoomed, and rightly foredoomed, to failure. The only conceivable ground upon which such a prosecution could be undertaken is the allegation that the “millions of microbes ” make the ice‐cream injurious to health. Inas‐much as not one of these millions can be proved beyond the possibility of doubt to be injurious, in the present state of knowledge; and as millions of microbes exist in everything everywhere, the breakdown of such a case must be a foregone conclusion. Moreover, a glance at the Act will show that, under existing circumstances at any rate, samples cannot be submitted to public analysts for bacteriological examination—with which, in fact, the Act has nothing to do—even if such examinations yielded results upon which it would be possible to found action. In order to prevent the sale of foul and unwholesome or actual disease‐creating ice‐cream, the proper course is to control the premises where such articles are prepared; while, at the same time, the sale of such materials should also be checked by the methods employed under the Public Health Act in dealing with decomposed and polluted articles of food. In this, no doubt, the aid of the public analyst may sometimes be sought as one of the scientific advisers of the authority taking action, but not officially in his capacity as public analyst under the Adulteration Act. And in those cases in which such advice is sought it may be hoped that it will be based, as indeed it can be based, upon something more practical, tangible and certain than the nebulous results of a bacteriological test.

The following definitions and standards for food products have been adopted as a guide for the officials of this Department in enforcing the Food and Drugs Act. These are standards of identity and are not to be confused with standards of quality or grade; they are so framed as to exclude substances not mentioned in the definition and in each instance imply that the product is clean and sound. These definitions and standards include those published in S. R. A., F. D. 2, revision 4, and those adopted October 28, 1936.

It appears that of late the consumption of bread has fallen in this country; and I find that a scheme of advertising the necessity for eating more bread has been decided upon by the Association of Millers, and is now in operation.