Search results

The endeavour that is being made at the present time to rouse public interest in the extremely important question of the purity of the national milk supply is one that deserves unqualified praise. It is in no spirit of carping criticism that it is here pointed out that the partial and unofficial remedy by which it is proposed to diminish the risk to the consumer may in itself be indirectly a means of continuing what has become a grave public danger. No reasonable doubt can exist that pasteurization as a method of dealing with large quantities of milk in bulk and from all sources will be of considerable use. It will certainly tend, if carried into effect to the extent and in the way suggested, to greatly lessen the risk that consumers run at the present time. It will prevent a large amount of disease that arises from the consumption of impure milk. But such a method, however admirable and philanthropic in conception and sound in theory, is one that by no means answers all, or even a part of, the large number of important questions connected with the subject. The general public and honest milk dealers will, it is to be hoped, benefit by the new milk legislation that is proposed by the Local Government Board and by the London County Council. The public, however, is very apt to be caught by a phrase, and may, therefore, think that “milk pasteurization” is the beginning and the end of all that need or can be said on the subject. It is likely that the foundation of depots for the preparation and supply of pasteurized milk will blind its eyes to the fact that the evils which have rendered the establishment of such places necessary remain untouched. Indeed, the very fact that milk depots of this kind are at work may be used by interested persons as evidence that all hygienic requirements have been complied with, that for this reason veterinary considerations may be ruled “out of court,” and that the necessity for further legislation of a more fundamental and drastic kind no longer exists. The agitation that is taking place at the present moment is no new thing. For many years past the matter has engaged the most serious attention of those experts whose business it is to investigate and, as far as they are permitted, to control the quality of the milk supplies of both our town and country districts. For example, a perusal of the annual reports of the Local Government Board that have been issued since that Board was instituted in the early seventies, will satisfy any one, who takes the time and trouble to read them, that Public Analysts have from time to time animadverted in terms more or less strong on the poor quality of the milk supplied, and that even if the field of inquiry be limited to what may be called purely analytical standards the difficulties of the case are enormous, even if they be looked at from the best and the most hopeful point of view. At the present moment we are more concerned with the equally important hygienic aspect of the question. Local self‐government, while conferring a large amount of autonomy on administrative units, has naturally resulted in an almost entire absence of any definite national system that can deal with the important subject of food supply generally and milk supply in particular. At the present time it is left to the local authority to decide whether it will or will not apply for powers from the central authority—the Local Government Board—to put into force regulations under the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order, though in cases where this has been done the benefit to all concerned has been marked, and the necessity for such action demonstrated. The subject of the milk supply divides itself, roughly speaking, into three branches, which may be referred to under the headings of Production, Carriage, and Sale, though it is evident that no sharp line of demarcation can be drawn. With regard to all of these the law is either defective or nonexistent. Under the present “system” prosecutions are mostly instituted against persons of whom it is alleged that they have knowingly sold milk from which fat has been abstracted or to which water has been added, but even here “the difficulties connected with the administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts in the case of milk have been a constant subject of discussion between the officers of local authorities and the Board's Inspectors.” What these difficulties are are well known to all who are brought into contact with the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts, but any one can satisfy himself as to them by reference to, say, the last annual report of the Board of Agriculture in this respect, keeping in mind, at the same time, the fact that only one aspect of the case is there dealt with. Under the heading of Production brief reference may be made to the subject of the cow and her surroundings. Much evidence exists which shows the urgent need for expert and unbiassed hygienic and veterinary inspection of all dairy farms, cowsheds, and cows. In much that has been recently written on the subject of pure milk in the daily press, it is somewhat remarkable to note that while the dangers that arise from drinking raw milk derived from tuberculous cows has been rightly insisted on, comparatively little reference has been made to the importance of cow and cowshed inspection. It is unfortunately the case in too many instances that the owners of cows are content to house the animals in sheds under conditions that are usually, though wrongly, thought to be fit only for pigs. This, of course, leaves entirely out of the question the fact that the animals themselves may be tuberculous or otherwise diseased, and therefore a source of most serious danger to the public health. With regard to carriage of milk it may be pointed out that the modern city draws its supply of milk from all over the country, and that this means a rail journey of frequently some hours' duration. Our modes of transporting and handling milk have not, however, kept pace with modern requirements. The frequently Arcadian simplicity of the methods in vogue would appeal the more strongly to lovers of the picturesque if they did not lead so often to the introduction of filth of all kinds into the milk cans. Lastly, regarding the sale of milk from retailer to consumer, the public itself is largely to blame for the objectionable practice of adding colouring matter to the milk. A general impression is abroad among the poorer, and therefore it may be presumed the more ignorant, consumers, that milk is not genuine unless it be what is called “cream coloured.” Hence the introduction of annatto or some less innocent substance. For the frequent presence of such substances as formaldehyde, boracic acid, and other “preservatives” no excuse of any kind exists. Such practices are simply means but too often resorted to of masking incipient putrefaction induced by tardy and uncleanly methods. At the same time, these dangerous chemical preservatives make the “food” more difficult of digestion, with results to young children and persons in weak health that are too obvious to need comment. In addition to all this the milk may be subjected, of course, to adulteration of the usual kind. Hence the present position is that against defective methods of production and sale, out‐of‐date methods of transport, absence of any national and compulsory system of inspection and control, and a law that is either deficient or hopelessly tangled, a semi‐philanthropic method is proposed which, though probably sound and admirable in itself, is almost certain to be used by the unserupulous as a means of preventing the important problem of our milk supply being attacked in the only way in which there is reasonable hope of success—that is, by an appeal to the cow and its surroundings. Unless the method of pasteurization be recognised as a useful but still a subordinate means of dealing with an already contaminated substance, it is more than likely that tinkering and generally unsatisfactory legislation will be resorted to, and that as a result of this the state of the milk supply will remain very much as it is at present.

There are very few individuals who have studied the question of weights and measures who do not most strongly favour the decimal system. The disadvantages of the weights and measures at present in use in the United Kingdom are indeed manifold. At the very commencement of life the schoolboy is expected to commit to memory the conglomerate mass of facts and figures which he usually refers to as “Tables,” and in this way the greater part of twelve months is absorbed. And when he has so learned them, what is the result? Immediately he leaves school he forgets the whole of them, unless he happens to enter a business‐house in which some of them are still in use; and it ought to be plain that the case would be very different were all our weights and measures divided or multiplied decimally. Instead of wasting twelve months, the pupil would almost be taught to understand the decimal system in two or three lessons, and so simple is the explanation that he would never be likely to forget it. There is perhaps no more interesting, ingenious and useful example of the decimal system than that in use in France. There the standard of length is the metre, the standard of capacity the cubic decimetre or the litre, while one cubic centimetre of distilled water weighs exactly one gramme, the standard of weight. Thus the measures of length, capacity and weight are most closely and usefully related. In the present English system there is absolutely no relationship between these weights and measures. Frequently a weight or measure bearing the same name has a different value for different bodies. Take, for instance, the stone; for dead meat its value is 8 pounds, for live meat 14 pounds; and other instances will occur to anyone who happens to remember his “Tables.” How much simpler for the business man to reckon in multiples of ten for everything than in the present confusing jumble. Mental arithmetic in matters of buying and selling would become much easier, undoubtedly more accurate, and the possibility of petty fraud be far more remote, because even the most dense could rapidly calculate by using the decimal system.

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

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.

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

The 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.

This paper aims to discuss the limitations surrounding the yoghurt industry and challenges to producing a bio-yoghurt tablet. The paper looks into challenge facing the yoghurt industry, such as manufacturing and distribution, its short shelf life, heat-sensitivity and relatively heavy weight. It further looks into the selection of strains, excipients and storage conditions with special consideration towards maintaining the viability of the probiotics inside bio-yoghurt tablets. The paper also discusses yoghurt standards and definitions across various countries and suggests a more uniform standard be embraced across countries for ease of categorization and production.

The paper is divided into a few major sections; each exploring various aspects of the yoghurt industry. Topics discussed include challenges in yoghurt production and storage; processes involved in bio-yoghurt tablet production, e.g. maximising viability, choice of excipients and more; market trends of yoghurt consumption and potential; and various food standards in countries around the world with a focus on yoghurt.

The review finds that yoghurt is a segment of the food industry with big growth potential. Most of the problems associated with yoghurt, i.e. poor shelf life, and heavy weight, can be circumvented by transforming it into a bio-yoghurt tablet. The paper further identifies food standard variations among different countries around the world which could impede yoghurt manufacture and acceptance.

This paper looks the various challenges surrounding the increased uptake of yoghurt, specifically in the Asian markets and suggests a viable option to overcome this problem, i.e. the use of a bio-yoghurt tablet. Should the worldwide bodies come together and agree to a universal standard involving yoghurt, the industry may see an even bigger expansion.

As our readers are well aware THE BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL has invariably supported any legitimate effort having for its object the improvement, in one form or another, of the national food supply, and so long as the methods adopted are fair and above‐board this journal will continue to support such efforts by whomsoever they may be made. Fair and proper methods, however, are not always adopted, and a circular has recently been forwarded to us which affords an illustration of the fact.

The food standards of the Indiana State Board of Health, which appear on another page, show that it is quite possible to lay down official definitions of various articles of food; and a study of these regulations may be of assistance to those authorities who are striving to arrive at some form of order out of the chaos which at present exists in this country in matters relating to food standards. With reference to milk, it will be seen that not only is the question of composition dealt with, but strict directions are given that milk derived from a cow which can in any way be considered as diseased is regarded as impure, and must therefore, says the Board, be considered as adulterated. In regard to butter and margarine, limits are given for the total amount of fat—which must consist entirely of milk‐fat in the case of the former substance—water, and salt; and not only are all preservatives forbidden, but the colouring matters are restricted, only certain vegetable colouring matters and some few coal‐tar colours being permitted. All cheese containing less than 10 per cent, of fat derived from milk must be plainly labelled as “ skim‐milk cheese”; and if it contains fat other than milk‐fat, it must be described as “ filled cheese.” Some exception is taken to the use of preservatives in cheese, inasmuch as it appears that cheese may contain a preservative if the name of such preservative is duly notified upon the label ; and the rules for the colouring of cheese are the same as those which apply to butter and margarine. All articles of food containing preservatives are considered as adulterated unless the package bears a label, printed in plain type and quite visible to the purchaser, stating that a preservative is present, and also giving the name of the preservative which has been used. Articles of confectionery must not contain any ingredient deleterious to health, such as terra alba, barytes, talc, or other mineral substance, nor may they contain poisonous colours or flavours.

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.