Search results

Explores the rationale and a method for psychographic segmentation of industrial marketers generally and in particular those performing the buying and selling functions. Discusses how buyers and sellers compare and what benefits might be obtained from a deeper understanding of each other′s personalities. Describes an empirical study in which industrial buyers and salespeople were segregated first into two groups and then into a four‐segment schema. Suggestions are given for real‐world applicability of the results of such investigations.

The long‐standing belief that industrial marketing is based primarily on price and technical specifications is becoming outmoded. Even product quality and supplier reputation are not sufficient criteria upon which purchasing decisions are made. This article describes a study that concludes that service factors and personal selling are of paramount importance in the marketing of industrial products. Like their counterparts in consumer marketing, producers of industrial goods are increasingly experiencing the need to develop stronger personal relation with their distributors.

The inaugural meeting of the newly established National Party was held in the Queen's Hall, Langham Place, on Thursday, October 25th, under the presidency of Admiral Lord Beresford. There was a large and distinguished audience numbering about 3,000 persons, among those on the platform being Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Brigadier‐General Page Croft, M.P., Mr. Havelock Wilson, Miss Constance Williams, the Hon. G. J. Jenkins (all of whom addressed the meeting), Earl Bathurst, Sir C. Allom, Major Alan Burgoyne, M.P., Colonel Cassal, Mr. G. K. Chesterton, Sir R. Cooper, M.P., Capt. Viscount Duncannon, M.P., Sir W. Earnshaw Cooper, Mr. H. A. Gwynne, Mr. Rowland Hunt, M.P., Lieut.‐Col. Lord Leconfield, Lord Leith of Fyvie, Admiral Sir H. Markham, The Earl of Northesk, Colonel R. H. Rawson, M.P., Lord Edward St. Maur, Admiral Sir Edward Seymour, Lord Stafford and others.

President, Charles S. Goldman, M.P.; Chairman, Charles Bathurst, M.P.; Vice‐Presidents: Christopher Addison, M.D., M.P., Waldorf Astor, M.P., Charles Bathurst, M.P., Hilaire Belloc, Ralph D. Blumenfeld, Lord Blyth, J.P., Colonel Charles E. Cassal, V.D., F.I.C., the Bishop of Chichester, Sir Arthur H. Church, K.C.V.O., M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sir Wm. Earnshaw Cooper, C.I.E., E. Crawshay‐Williams, M.P., Sir Anderson Critchett, Bart., C.V.O., F.R.C.S.E., William Ewart, M.D., F.R.C.P., Lieut.‐Colonel Sir Joseph Fayrer, Bart., M.A., M.D., Sir Alfred D. Fripp, K.C.V.O., C.B., M.B., M.S., Sir Harold Harmsworth, Bart., Arnold F. Hills, Sir Victor Horsley, M.D., F.R.C.S., F.R.S., O. Gutekunst, Sir H. Seymour King, K.C.I.E., M.A., the Duke of Manchester, P.C., Professor Sir Wm. Osler, Bart., M.D., F.R.S., Sir Gilbert Parker, D.C.L., M.P., Sir Wm. Ramsay, K.C.B., LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., Harrington Sainsbury, M.D., F.R.C.P., W. G. Savage, M.D., B.Sc., R. H. Scanes Spicer, M.D., M.R.C.S., the Hon. Lionel Walrond, M.P., Hugh Walsham, M.D., F.R.C.P., Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., Evelyn Wrench.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

This Order, which is made under Regulation 2 of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943 (S.R. & O. 1943 No. 1553; item No. 1605), and will come into force on January 1st, 1945, specifies the information which must be given on the labels of pre‐packed foods when sold by retail. These requirements also apply on sales otherwise by retail but alternatively the food must be sold unlabelled and the purchaser supplied with a statement giving the required information. Special requirements apply to the disclosure of the vitamin or mineral content of food for which claims are made in labels or advertisements. The Order also provides appropriate defences in cases of infringement, including a defence similar to that provided by the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, where some other person is responsible for the commission of the offence charged. Retail Labelling Requirements.—Subject to the exemptions specified in the First Schedule, pre‐packed food must not be sold (or displayed for sale) by retail unless the label bears a true statement as to the matters mentioned below. The label must be marked on the wrapper or container or securely attached to it. The statement must be clearly legible and placed in a prominent position on the label. If the food is pre‐packed in more than one wrapper or container, the label must be placed on the inner package. A second label must be placed on the outer wrapper or container if the first label is not clearly legible throughout it. (a) Name and Address of Packer or Labeller.—The statement must specify the name of either the packer or the labeller and one of his business addresses. The name and address of another trader may be substituted if the food is packed or labelled for him or on his instructions and he carries on business at any address in the United Kingdom. The above requirement may also be satisfied by placing a trade mark (but not a certification trade mark) prominently on the label. The trade mark must be one of those entered on the Trades Mark Register kept under the Trade Marks Act, 1938 (1 & 2 Geo. 6, c. 22), for that food and the words “Registered Trade Mark” must be associated with it on the label. Table A of the First Schedule provides that the following foods shall be wholly exempt from this requirement: beef or pork sausages or sausage meat and slicing sausage (other than canned); sugar; yeast; unfermented apple juice and soft drinks in solid, semi‐solid or powder form. (b) Names of Foods and Ingredients.—The statement must also specify the common or usual name (if any) of the food and of each ingredient, if the food is made of two or more ingredients. The ingredients must each be given a specific, not a generic, name and must be named in the order of the proportion in which they were used. The ingredient used in the greatest proportion (by weight) must be the first on the list. If the food contains an ingredient made from two or more constituents, the statement must specify those constituents and it will not be necessary to name the ingredient. [See also (vi) below.] It is not necessary to state that the food contains water. The following exemptions from this requirement are given in Table A of the First Schedule: (i) Spices and flavouring essences, whether pre‐packed for sale as such or forming an ingredient of another food, may be designated as spices, etc., without further specifying their common or usual name or their composition. This exemption also applies to colourings, except those pre‐packed for sale as such. (ii) In the case of speciality flour, whether pre‐packed for sale as such or forming an ingredient of another food there is no need to specify ingredients or constituents which are authorised ingredients of National or “M” flour. (iii) Preservatives, as defined in the Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations, are wholly exempt if the label complies with the requirements of those Regulations, whether the preservatives are pre‐packed for sale as such or form an ingredient of one of the foods specified in paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Regulations. (iv) It is not necessary to specify the ingredients used in the foods specified in Table C. The food must, however, be pre‐packed for sale as such and must comply with the composition requirements of the relevant Control Order listed in the Table. Table C specifies the following foods: Foods for which a standard is prescribed under a Food Standards Order; specified canned fruit; Christmas puddings; fish cakes; jam and marmalade; meat or fish paste; meat roll or galantine; canned ready or prepared meals; canned soup; beef or pork sausages or sausage meat and slicing sausage (not canned); standard saccharin tablets; and sweetening tablets. (v) There is no need to specify the ingredients of the following foods when pre‐packed for sale as such; biscuits, condensed milk as defined by the Public Health (Condensed Milk) Regulations, 1923 and 1927; curry powders; pickles and sauces (except salad cream, mayonnaise and sandwich spread). (vi) When a food mentioned in (iv) or (v) above or in Table B (see below) forms an ingredient of some other food, it may be designated by its common or usual name, without specifying the ingredients. (c) Minimum Quantity.—The statement must also specify the minimum quantity of food in the wrapper or container. This quantity must be expressed according to trade custom in terms of net weight, measure or number. In cases where Section 4 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1928, permits the weight of the wrapper or container to be included in the weight sold, the above provision may be complied with by specifying the minimum weight of the food with its wrapper or container. Table A of the First Schedule provides that the following foods shall be wholly exempt from this requirement: biscuits, when sold by the packet or piece at not more than 3d. per unit; condensed milk, as defined above; and dried milk, as defined by the Public Health (Dried Milk) Regulations 1923 and 1927, including sweetened or modified dried milk but not compounded dried milk. (d)Exemptions.— The above provisions do not apply to: (i) foods packed by a retailer for sale on the premises, but there must be no reference to the food on the wrapper or container or on any label printed on, attached to or given with it; (ii) food imported on Government account which is still in the original container or wrapper; (iii) food packed specially for consumption by H.M. Forces or the Forces of H.M. Allies or Co‐Belligerents; (iv) assortments of foods packed for sale as a meal and ready for consumption without cooking, heating, etc.; (v) food intended for export or for use as ships‘ stores; (vi) foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule when pre‐packed for sale as such. Table B specifies the following foods: bread (not including breadcrumbs); butter and milk blended butter; cakes; cheese (including processed cheese, blue vein, soft curd or cream cheese and cheese made from milk other than cow's milk); compound cooking fat; intoxicating liquor, i.e., spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry and sweets and other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquors which cannot be sold with‐out an excise licence; liquid milk; margarine (not including vegetarian butter); meat pies; National Flour and “M” flour; soft drinks if specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Soft Drinks Order, 1943; still spa water; sugar confectionery, chocolate and chocolate confectionery. (e) Small Packages.—If the wrapper or container holds less than ½ oz. or ½ fluid oz. and, owing to insufficient space it is not reasonably practicable for all the above particulars to be given on the label, it will only be necessary to give those particulars which it is reasonably practicable to specify. The particulars required in (b) must be specified first and those required in (c) must be specified next, in order of priority. The foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule (see above) are exempt from this provision when pre‐packed for sale as such. Labelling Requirement on Other Sales.—On sales of pre‐packed food otherwise than by retail, the seller must either: (a) deliver the food labelled in the manner prescribed for retail sales; or (b) deliver the food unlabelled and furnish the purchaser an invoice or other document within 14 days of delivery. The invoice, etc., must contain a statement of any particulars that may be necessary to enable a retail trader to comply with provisions (b) and (c) of the retail labelling requirements (see above). Pre‐packed food will be regarded as unlabelled only if there is no reference to it on the wrapper or container or on any label printed on or attached to it. The food will not, however, be regarded as labelled merely because the wrapper or container has been marked at packing with reasonable words or marks of identification. This provision, however, does not apply to foods exempted from the retail labelling requirements, including foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule (see (d) above). Defacement of Labels.—Statements on labels placed on a wrapper or container under the above provisions must not be removed, altered or defaced. It will, however, be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that the food was in his possession otherwise than for sale; and (b) that there was no intent to deceive. Claims for Vitamins and Minerals in Food.—(a) General Claims: No one, except under certain conditions, may (i) sell any food with a label making a general claim that vitamins or minerals are present in it; (ii) stock pre‐packed food with a similar label; or (iii) publish, or be a party to publishing, an advertisement making a general claim as above. The above provisions apply whether the label is attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not. The conditions referred to above are as follows: (i) If a claim that vitamins are present is made, the food must contain one or more of the substances specified in Part I of the Second Schedule, i.e. Vitamins A, B1, B2 (Riboflavin), C and D; Carotene; or Nicotinic Acid, Nicotinic Acid Amide and the active derivatives. (ii) If a claim that minerals are present is made, the food must contain one or more of the substances specified in Part II of the Second Schedule, i.e., Calcium, Iodine, Iron or Phosphorus. (iii) The label or advertisement must specify the minimum quantity of each substance in each oz. or fluid oz., expressed in the appropriate units specified in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule. (b) Particular Claims.— The Order also provides that no one shall: (i) sell any food with a label which claims or in any way suggests that a particular substance specified in the Second Schedule is present in it; (ii) stock pre‐packed food with a similar label; or (iii) publish, or be a party to publishing, an advertisement making a particular claim or suggestion as above. These claims or suggestions may, however, still be made if the label or advertisement specifies the minimum quantity of each substance contained in each oz. or fluid oz., expressed in the appropriate units specified in the Second Schedule. The above provisions apply whether the label is attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not. (c) Exemptions.—These provisions do not apply to: (i) fruit or vegetables, excluding those which have been canned or bottled or those preserved otherwise than by freezing, gas or cold storage or other storage methods; (ii) food served by a caterer as a meal or part of a meal; (iii) food imported on Government account which is still in the original wrapper or container. In case (iii), however, the provisions relating to advertisements are still applicable. (d) Defences.—In proceedings relating to the publication of an advertisement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove that his business is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received it for publication in the ordinary course of business. In similar proceedings against the manufacturers, producers or importers of the advertised food the onus of proving that he did not publish, and was not a party to publishing, the advertisement is on the defendant. In proceedings for a failure to specify the required particulars in an advertisement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove that he took all reasonable steps, by pre‐packing, to see that it would not be sold without an appropriate label. Deficiencies of Weight or Measure.—In proceedings for infringement of the labelling requirements relating to the weight or measures of pre‐packed articles of food, the Court must disregard inconsiderable variations in the weight or measure of single articles and take into account (a) the average weight or measure of a reasonable number of other articles of the same kind (if any) sold or stocked by the defendant on the same occasion and (b) all the circumstances of the case. In similar proceedings relating to weight, measure or number, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that the offence was due to a bona fide mistake or accident or to other causes beyond his control and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent it; or (b) that the alleged deficiency was due to unavoidable evaporation, although due care had been taken to avoid it. Proceedings for a deficiency in the weight or measure of any pre‐packed food or in the number of articles in a wrapper or container may be instituted, in England, by the local Weights and Measures Authority, and, in Northern Ireland, by the Ministry of Commerce. Inaccurate Statements, etc.—In prosecutions relating to the inaccuracy or omission of a particular required to be shown on a label or statement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that he bought the food in the wrapper or container in which it was sold from a person carrying on business at an address in the United Kingdom, and that the wrapper or container had remained unopened; (b) that the particular in question was shown on (or omitted from) the label or statement at the time of purchase; and (c) that he had no reason to believe that there was any infringement. The defendant, within fourteen days of the service of the summons (or in Scotland, the complaint), must send the prosecutor a copy of the label or statement with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it and giving the name and address of the person from whom he received it. A similar notification must be sent to the person who gave him the label or statement and he is entitled to appear in Court and give evidence. A defendant who is an employee may also rely on the above defence. Act or Default of Another.—A defendant who is prosecuted under the Order may allege that the offence was due to the act or default of another person. He is entitled to make this person a party to the proceedings but must first lay an information and give at least three clear days' notice to the prosecution. If the original defendant's allegation is proved, the second defendant may be convicted of the offence. The original defendant will then be entitled to an acquittal if he can prove that he used all due diligence to comply with the provisions in question. Both the prosecution and the second defendant will have the right to cross‐examine the original defendant and his witnesses and to call rebutting evidence. The Court may make any order it thinks fit for payment of costs by one party to another. If the Minister or other enforcing authority is reasonably satisfied that an offence for which one defendant might be prosecuted is due to the act or default of a second defendant and that the first defendant could establish the above defence, he may prosecute the second defendant without taking a preliminary prosecution against the first. The second defendant may then be convicted of the offence with which the first defendant might have been charged and may be awarded similar punishment. Special provision is made for a similar procedure under the Law of Scotland. Analysts' Certificates.—In proceedings for infringement, the production by one of the parties of a certificate from a Public Analyst or the Government Chemist will be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in it, unless the other party requires that the Analyst shall be called as a witness. A copy of the Analyst's certificate supplied by one party to the other is admissible in evidence without further proof. If the prosecution intends to produce a certificate, a copy must be served with the summons (or, in Scotland, the complaint). A defendant who intends to produce a certificate or require the Analyst to give evidence must give the other party at least three clear days' notice of his intention. The Court is entitled to adjourn the hearing on such terms as it thinks proper if there is any failure to comply with these requirements. In Northern Ireland, “Government Chemist” means the Government Chemist for Northern Ireland. Other Provisions.—The Order also contains various provisions for securing its application under the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions of the Order are subject to any directions, licences or authorisations given by the Minister. Holders of licences or authorisations must comply with every condition imposed. The Order will come into force on January 1st, 1945. Definitions.—“Food” means any article used as food or drink for human consumption and includes any substance intended for use in the composition or preparation of food, any flavouring, sweetening matter or condiment and any colouring matter intended for use in food. An article is not to be deemed not to be food merely because it can also be used as a medicine. Save as otherwise provided, the description or definition of food given in an Order of the Minister will apply for the purposes of this Order. If described or defined in more than one Order, the description or definition given in a Price Control Order will be applicable. “Pre‐packed” means packed or made up in advance ready for retail sale in a wrapper or container. Wrapped or packed food found on premises where that food is packed, kept or stored for sale will be deemed to be pre‐packed unless the contrary is proved. The contrary cannot, however, be proved merely by showing that the food had not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of the Order. “Pre‐pack” is to be correspondingly interpreted. “Retail Sale” means any sale to a person buying otherwise than for resale but does not include a sale to a caterer for his catering business or a sale to a manufacturer for his manufacturing business. “Advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and any public announcement made orally or by a means of producing or transmitting light or sound. References to a label marked on a wrapper or container include references to any legible marking, however effected. “Food Imported on Government Account” means food imported into the United Kingdom for defence purposes, which was the property of, or consigned directly to, His Majesty or a Government Department, or their agents. “Public Analyst” has the same meaning as in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, [and the corresponding Acts in force for Scotland and Northern Ireland.] References to Orders or Regulations refer to those Orders or Regulations as subsequently amended or replaced.

Washington.—The Government of the United States at the Copenhagen Conference of the Food and Agricultural Organisation last September firmly supported the twin objectives of Sir John Orr's World Food Hoard proposals of raising the diets of all nations to a health standard and of stabilising agricultural prices at levels fair alike to both producers and consumers. Sir John's specific proposal for a World Food Board was not considered at Copenhagen. Instead, the U.S., the United Kingdom and all other nations represented at Copenhagen unanimously agreed to refer the whole question to a 17‐nation Preparatory Commission which met in Washington from October 28th to January 24th. The Commission was specifically instructed by the terms of reference to consider Sir John's proposal and any other alternative proposals which might be offered. The preparatory commission in its recommendations followed the instructions in the terms of reference and its final recommendations as made public on January 24th containing little of the specific machinery of the original proposals of Sir John's. But the twin objectives of Sir John's proposals were retained in the final recommendations. Had a show down come to Sir John's proposals at Copenhagen, the U.S. would have opposed it. Of this there can be no doubt. As early as August 9th, a month before the Copenhagen Conference, the U.S. Department of State issued a public statement on the Orr proposals. Any doubt as to the U.S. position was dispelled by Under Secretary of Agriculture Norris E. Dodd, who was chief American delegate at both Copenhagen and Washington. In his opening speech before the preparatory commission in Washington on October 28th, Mr. Dodd gave four reasons why the U.S. opposed the Orr proposal. He said: “First, we consider it doubtful whether a World Food Board or any similar device would, by itself, be adequate to deal with the effect that widespread government intervention threatens to have upon the agricultural demand and supply situation over the world once the present emergency has come to an end. Second, we consider it doubtful whether any combination of buffer‐stock and surplus‐disposal operations which contemplates the establishment of a two‐price system can be operated successfully without quantitative controls of supply. In our view such controls are not adequately provided for. Third, there is the fact that price, production and distribution problems differ greatly between different commodities and at different times. An over‐all body such as the proposed World Food Board would not suffice for dealing effectively with these so different and rapidly changing problems, which ought to be dealt with by special negotiations, commodity by commodity. Fourth, Governments are not likely to place the large funds needed for financing such a plan in the hands of an international agency over whose operations and price policy they would have little or no control. In view of these considerations, we believe that it is fortunate that the Copenhagen Conference has given this Commission a free hand to consider alternative machinery for achieving the basic objectives which we all support.” The original Orr proposals called for an internationally‐managed and internationally‐financed World Food Board. It would have bought and sold exportable surpluses at agreed minimum and maximum prices, thus providing a buffer‐stock against fluctuation in price and supply. Excess supplies under the Orr plan were to be sold cheaply to feed chronically malnourished people. FAO would work with such nations and with other international argencics to build producing and buying power so as to remove the underlying causes of poor diets. A statement by Under Secretary of Agriculture Mr. Norris E. Dodd, made on January 24th in connection with the report of the FAO Preparatory Commission on the food proposals, said, in part: “The principal ideas which the U.S. has advanced in the Commission are: (1) That the problems of better diets and price stabilisation mustbe approached in connection with the general expansion of production, employment, trade and consumption, as envisaged in the proposals for an International Trade Organisation, which we consider as complementary to the FAO programme. (2) That particular problems of price stabilisation can best be met through separate but co‐ordinated international agreements covering the specific commodities affected, within the general framework of principles for such agreements provided in the proposed ITO. (3) That under such commodity agreements the participating nations should consider methods of using excess supplies to support special food programmes to improve the diets of the most needy groups in connection with long‐term development plans designed to overcome the causes of malnutrition. (4) That the co‐ordination of national agricultural and nutritional programmes is so important the FAO should bring about annual consultation upon such programmes among the responsible national officials.” The principal U.S. proposals incorporated in the final report and recommendations of the FAO Preparatory Commission published on January 24th may be summarised as follows: The international commodity agreement approach to the stabilisation problem. The use of excess supplies under commodity agreements to support supplemental food programmes for vulnerable groups. Annual consultation of national agricultural and nutritional officials for the purpose of bringing about co‐ordination and integration of national programmes. Appointment of an interim co‐ordinating committee on international commodity agreements to bridge the gap between FAO and the projected International Trade Organisation. Acceptance in the final report of the American proposal for international commodity agreements may be construed as not merely an American victory since the commodity agreements would be negotiated within the framework of the proposed International Trade Organisation. Governments of 18 nations are represented on the ITO Preparatory Committee which met in London simultaneously with the FAO Preparatory Commission sessions in Washington. Here is the basic difference between the Orr World Food Hoard proposals and the final recommendation. Under a commodity agreement, such as provided for in the final report, each nation holds its own reserves, and finances its own operations. It provides for a co‐ordinated system of nationally managed and nationally financed buffer stocks of individual commodities. The Orr proposal envisaged an internationally managed and internationally financed World Food Board operating in many commodities. The U.S. position with reference to tieing in ITO with FAO was set out fully by Mr. Dodd in his October 28th speech before the FAO Preparatory Commission. Mr. Dodd said: “In putting forward its suggestions for an International Trade Organisation, the Government of the United States has had in mind the importance of securing— with the help of a reduction in trade barriers and other measures—a world‐wide expansion in employment, production, trade and consumption. We consider that action toward this end is of fundamental importance to the achievement of the objectives which this (Prepara‐tary) Commission is considering… It is the considered view of the United States Government that the ITO proposals provide a useful starling point for the deliberations of this Commission.” Previous U.S. experience in attempting to solve the riddle of farm surplus in the midst of hunger has been uneven and spotty. Perhaps the worst failure in this regard was the ill‐fated Federal Farm Board created in 1929 to arrest the drastic decline in farm prices. The Board advanced large sums to farmers' co‐operatives which extended loans to its member co‐operatives to induce farmers to withhold wheat and cotton from the market, without, however, controlling production. The Farm Board finally concluded that no such scheme could succeed without control over production, and production control therefore became a salient feature of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. This Act was amended in 1936 to meet the objections of the U.S. Supreme Court, which held it unconstitutional, but the essential requirement of control over production was retained and remains in effect to‐day. The Commodity Credit Corporation, a Government buying and selling agency created in 1933, has succeeded where the Farm Board failed, because the Government has exercised a degree of control over production. At Copenhagen last September, Mr. Dodd referred to the success of the Commodity Credit Corporation in these words: “Some people have expressed fear that stabilisation of farm prices would keep food prices above the reach of many consumers, but in the United States we have used the Commodity Credit Corporation effectively to protect farm prices, and food consumption, meantime, has increased. Furthermore, Commodity Credit stocks have served as reserves against years of bad weather and poor crops—reserves that were welcome indeed during the last war.” The Biblical idea of Joseph—of an ever‐normal granary—wherein surplus farm supplies are carried over from years of good harvest as a reserve against lean years of crop failure and hunger war and popularised in the United States by Mr. Henry A. Wallace during his service as Secretary of Agriculture, 1933–40. Sir John's World Food Board proposal also envisaged this evernormal granary concept, but failed of adoption because of the heavy expense involved, together with lack of adequate controls over production. It was this absence of production control in the Orr plan that led the U.S. to oppose the Orr plan, even though the country was in sympathy with its humanitarian objectives of raising living standards through expansion of consumption.

It was only after considerable pressure had been brought to bear by the various health authorities of the country that the Government, in July, 1899, appointed a Departmental Committee to consider the subject of the use of preservatives and colouring matters in food, and it is now some months ago that the full report of the Committee was published, containing certain recommendations of the utmost importance for the consideration of the authorities. Up to the present time nothing further has been heard of the matter, and in answer to a question recently put to the President of the Local Government Board by the Mayor of Kensington, Sir SEYMOUR KING, as to whether the Board intends to take steps by the introduction of a Bill, or otherwise, for giving effect at an early date to the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee, the President stated that the report was “still under consideration,” and that he could make no statement at present as to the course which the Government would take.

OUR various accounts of the Portsmouth Conference, and the official record of it which is now in the hands of readers shows that it may be regarded as a successful one. It was specially notable for the absence of those bickerings and differences which must inevitably come to the surface at times. There may be something in the suggestion of one of our writers that the weather was a main factor. However that may be, there was uniform good temper, and we came away with the belief that a good week's work for librarianship had been done.

The annual report of the Ministry of Health for the year ended March 31st last states that, during that period, 120,617 samples were analysed under the Acts. This is the largest number ever recorded. A total of 7,044 samples were reported as adulterated or not up to standard, or 5.8 per cent., compared with 6.5 per cent. for the previous year. Of 62,507 samples of milk, 4,625 or 7.4 per cent. were not up to standard or adulterated. Eighty samples were contaminated by dirt, against 131 the previous year. Colouring matter was detected in 41 samples, one of which also contained 50 per cent. of added water. One sample of dried milk consisted of soya bean, cane sugar, milk sugar, and a vegetable oil. Eighty‐two of the butter samples consisted wholly or partly of foreign fats. One case was found of a grocer selling unlabelled margarine as “butter mixture.” When a purchaser complained of gritty bread, it was found to contain 0.12 per cent. of sand, thought to have been due to mill sweepings having been introduced into the flour. Custard powders were adulterated by the presence of acid dyes, while egg powders were found to contain no eggs. One egg powder sample consisted of 63 per cent. of flour, 20.6 per cent. of bicarbonate of soda, and 16.4 per cent. of tartaric acid, with a trace of colouring matter. Foreign fats, cornflour, or other starch, traces of lead, and oxide of iron were found in samples of chocolate. One case was reported of the use in chocolate rock of commercial burnt sienna containing an excessive quantity of arsenic. A number of samples of sponge cakes were found to contain boric acid, and traces of this preservative were also detected in samples of other foods, including ice‐cream, sponge sandwich, meat pie, fish paste, potted shrimps, and sausages. Powdered talc in small quantities still continues to be introduced into rice, and three cases are reported in which an article sold as sago was found on examination to be tapioca. Seven hundred and seventy‐three samples of sausages were examined, and 18.5 per cent. were found to be adulterated by the addition of preservative (usually boric acid). A consignment of tea containing iron filings was seized and destroyed. Eight grains of iron filings to the pound and 12 per cent. of dust were found in another lot of tea, while in a third sample the tea dust contained 8 per cent. of mineral matter. Adulterated samples of ground ginger and ground cinnamon were found to contain mineral matter, petroleum products were found in turpentine, and traces of lead and cornflour in cream of tartar.