Search results

Mr. LEVENSTEIN, the President of the Society of Chemical Industry, in his address delivered at Liverpool recently, dealt very fully with the question of the commercial position of Great Britain as compared with other countries, more especially Germany, and emphasised the fact that if this country is to compete successfully with her contemporaries she must, to use the words of the Prince of Wales at the Gúildhall, “wake up.” After reviewing the chief factors making for Germany's advance in industry and commerce Mr. LEVENSTEIN says: “How are we to defend ourselves? Shall we rest content as we are or bestir ourselves and awake to the irresistible fact that continued apathy and indifference mean ruin to our national position?” This is strong language but not stronger than the occasion demands, for the statistics by which these observations are backed clearly indicate a marked decadence in the national prosperity notwithstanding the years of apparent “record” trade, which, however, cannot be regarded so favourably when subjected to detailed analysis and comparison. Mr. LEVENSTEIN'S suggestions to meet this situation are as follows: (1) The appointment of a competent and expert Minister of Commerce. (2) The nationalisation and extension of our canals and waterways. (3) A measure for greatly extending and improving our secondary education. (4) A sensible reform of our patent laws.

The President of the Board of Agriculture has introduced in the House of Commons his long‐promised Bill for preventing the sale of butter containing large amounts of water, and the proposed measure appears to have been received with general approval on both sides of the House.

The first statutory meeting of the Pure Food and Health Society of Great Britain was held on October 16 at the registered offices of the Society, 20, Hanover Square, W. LORD CAMOYS, Chairman of the Executive Committee, presided. In opening the meeting LORD CAMOYS said:—

In its passage through the Grand Committee the Food Bill is being amended in a number of important particulars, and it is in the highest degree satisfactory that so much interest has been taken in the measure by members on both sides of the House as to lead to full and free discussion. Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Strachey, and other members have rendered excellent service by the introduction of various amendments; and Sir Charles Cameron is especially to be congratulated upon the success which has attended his efforts to induce the Committee to accept a number of alterations the wisdom of which cannot be doubted. The provision whereby local authorities will be compelled to appoint Public Analysts, and compelled to put the Acts in force in a proper manner, and the requirement that analysts shall furnish proofs of competence of a satisfactory character to the Local Government Board, will, it cannot be doubted, be productive of good results. The fact that the Local Government Board is to be given joint authority with the Board of Agriculture in insuring that the Acts are enforced is also an amendment of considerable importance, while other amendments upon what may perhaps be regarded as secondary points unquestionably trend in the right direction. It is, however, a matter for regret that the Government have not seen their way to introduce a decisive provision with regard to the use of preservatives, or to accept an effective amendment on this point. Under existing circumstances it should be plain that the right course to follow in regard to preservatives is to insist on full and adequate disclosure of their presence and of the amounts in which they are present. It is also a matter for regret that the Government have declined to give effect to the recommendation of the Food Products Committee as to the formation of an independent and representative Court of Reference. It is true that the Board of Agriculture are to make regulations in reference to standards, after consultation with experts or such inquiry as they think fit, and that such inquiries as the Board may make will be in the nature of consultations of some kind with a committee to be appointed by the Board. There is little doubt, however, that such a committee would probably be controlled by the Somerset House Department; and as we have already pointed out, however conscientious the personnel of this Department may be—and its conscientiousness cannot be doubted—it is not desirable in the public interest that any single purely analytical institution should exercise a controlling influence in the administration of the Acts. What is required is a Court of Reference which shall be so constituted as to command the confidence of the traders who are affected by the law as well as of all those who are concerned in its application. Further comment upon the proposed legislation must be reserved until the amended Bill is laid before the House.

An appeal under the Food and Drugs Acts, reported in the present number of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, is an apt illustration of the old saying, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In commenting upon the case in question, the Pall Mall Gazette says: “The impression among the great unlearned that the watering of the morning's milk is a great joke is ineradicable; and there is also a common opinion among the Justice Shallows of the provincial bench that the grocer who tricks his customers into buying coffee which is 97 per cent. chicory is a clever practitioner, who ought to be allowed to make his way in the world untrammelled by legal obstructions. But the Queen's Bench have rapped the East Ham magistrates over the knuckles for convicting without fining a milkman who was prosecuted by the local authority, and the case has been sent back in order that these easygoing gentlemen may give logical effect to their convictions.”

The case of food poisoning which affected some 150 persons at Derby appears to be undoubtedly a genuine case of ptomaine poisoning. During the last few years many isolated deaths have occurred, after the consumption of some particular kind of food, which have been attributed to ptomaine poisoning, but the evidence put forward in support of this view has not unfrequently been open to grave doubt. At Derby, however, the nature of the outbreak and the symptoms presented by the patients were characteristic, and if further proof were needed it would be contributed by the interim report of Dr. SHERIDAN DELEPINE, of Manchester, who made an examination of the suspected pies and their ingredients. Most people are fully acquainted with the history of this out break, which was not confined to Derby but extended to various parts of the country, in every case the persons attacked having consumed portions of the infected pork pies. Dr. DELEPINE has issued an interim report in which he states that he has isolated a bacillus belonging to the colon group which is, in his opinion, undoubtedly responsible for the pathogenic properties of the pies. The evidence as to the relation of the bacillus to the epidemic is, says Dr. DELEPINE, absolutely clear. The bacillus in question has been isolated from a pork pie, from a pork bone pie, from the blood, spleen and intestines of one of the persons who died, and from the blood, spleen, bile and intestines of several animals which have died in two or three days from the effects of feeding on a pork pie. The bacilli obtained from all these sources were identical in appearance. Animals inoculated with this bacillus have died, and in their blood the same bacillus has been again found; and four specimens of blood obtained from patients who had been ill after eating a portion of a pork pie have given, on examination, a clear serum reaction, but the blood of normal persons and also of patients affected with typhoid fever has given no similar clear serum reaction. Dr. DELEPINE has also been able to ascertain the presence of the same bacillus in a pork pie which Dr. ROBERTSON, of Sheffield, had sent him. This statement appears to leave no room for doubt as to the dangerous nature of the pies, and Dr. DELEPINE's complete report will be awaited with considerable interest.

Dealing with the subject of the artificial bleaching of flour, The Lancet observes that the public criterion of quality in respect of foods and beverages shows some interesting anomalies. Appreciation is often based, for example, on appearance, on how things look, and it is in this direction that conclusions often and obviously become illogical. In some instances the article demanded must be spotlessly white, while in others, if naturally white, it must be artificially coloured. The white loaf is a popular fancy, but white milk is suspected, and yet natural flour may be of a rich golden colour, while rich milk may have only a shade of brownish colour which is supposed to connote cream. The result is that in the one case flour is often deprived of its colour by a process of chemical bleaching, and that in the other an artificial colouring is added. Natural colour is objected to on the one hand, and on the other an artificial addition is demanded. It may be urged that both expedients are justifiable inasmuch as they meet a popular fancy, and that this counts in the enjoyment and even digestibility of the foods. If artificial means are employed to adjust the appearance of food to a popular standard, the proceeding can clearly only be allowed when it has been proved beyond all doubt that the products are not dietetically impaired or that they do not masquerade as something which they are not.

The attention of the Board is drawn from time to time to advertisements in trade papers and circulars of preservative substances sold under proprietary names. These consist for the most part of well‐known preservatives or mixtures of preservatives which are easily detected by the analyst in food substances to which they have been added. A new preservative, sold under the name of “Mystin,” for preserving milk and cream has recently been advertised as possessing the advantage that its presence cannot be detected by analysis. Samples have been sent to farmers and milk vendors accompanied by a trade circular from which the following extracts have been taken:—

MR. JONATHAN HUTCHINSON, the eminent consultant, has just put forward a statement of the utmost importance with respect to the probable existence of a direct connection between the consumption of arsenic‐contaminated food and the occurrence of cancer. He points out that certain modern “improvements” in processes of production have led to the contamination of various food‐products with small amounts of arsenic, and observes that “if, as seems proved, the continuous use of arsenic in small medicinal doses can predispose the skin to multiple cancer there seems no reason for doubting that it may do the same for the other tissues, and for the mucous membranes and the viscera,” while there must necessarily also be “the constitutional tendency, the appropriate age, and, in some cases, the local irritation.” Mr. HUTCHINSON refers to the recent successful tracing of the Manchester outbreak of “peripheral neuritis” to the use of arsenic‐contaminated beer as an example of what may be caused by the habitual ingestion of minute doses of arsenic. It is a remarkable fact that the increase in the occurrence of cancer may be looked upon as almost synchronising with the increasingly extensive adoption of those “improved” modern methods of manufacture, not only of beer but of other food‐products, which open the door to arsenic‐contamination; together with the great increase in the use of arsenic in medical prescriptions.

In connection with the suggestion recently made in the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL to the effect that a National Pure Food Association should be established it is of importance to call attention to the fact that a society describing itself as the “League for the Defence of Human Life” has been recently formed in Paris with the object of preventing the frauds practised by dishonest traders upon their customers. One of the obligations entered into by the members of the League is to discover and prosecute persons engaged in the sale of adulterated or injurious articles of food and drink. Judging from the recent reports of the proceedings of certain Parisian tradesmen it would appear that a society of this description has much scope for its operations in the French Metropolis, and, as we have suggested, a society with similar objects might with advantage be formed in this country, with branches in all the principal cities and towns. With the legal machinery placed at the disposal of local authorities, cumbrous, inadequate and weak as it is, much more might be done in the way of repression if only the responsible authorities could be brought better to appreciate their duty.