Search results

Small cells, or microcells, are often seen as a way to substantially enhance the capacity of cellular networks. Previous assumptions have been that by deploying a dense layer of small cells within a macrocell, capacity can be improved by an order of magnitude or more. However, there are complexities such as the need to share frequencies between macrocell and small cells, varying patterns of users, the balance between indoor and outdoor subscribers and the different options available within 4G for balancing loading. The purpose of this study is to understand the impact these real-world constraints have on the capacity enhancements that small cells can provide.

This paper describes a model that simulates the impact of small cell deployments in macrocells in a typical 4G network.

It shows that, in some cases, small cells can actually reduce capacity, while in the best case, maximum capacity gains are less than 100 per cent.

It shows that, in some cases, small cells can actually reduce capacity contrary to perceived wisdom.

In a recent poll commissioned by Rockwell, sponsors of opinion polls on the US civilian space programme for the last 16 years, an increasing percentage of Americans was shown to support the US space station.

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.

Academic librarians are frequently called upon to provide instruction in relatively unfamiliar disciplines. This article presents introductory information for librarians providing bibliographic instruction (BI) in the field of psychology. Its primary purpose is to identify key readings from the library science and psychology literature that provide a basis for informed delivery of psychology BI. These works are fully identified in the list of references at the end of this article. Because the primary purpose of discipline‐specific bibliographic instruction is to teach the skills necessary for retrieval of the products of scholarship in that discipline, we begin with a discussion of scholarly communication and documentation, which describes how scholars and researchers within psychology communicate research findings and theoretical developments in the discipline. The major emphasis of this article is on formal, group instruction rather than individualized instruction, although much of the information will be applicable to both types.

Over the past decade telecommunications media and technology (TMT) has driven a new era that has evolved into the digital age. There is a growing consensus in developed countries that TMT is the most important driver of economic and social development for a society. Its genesis began in the USA and its cultural preference for market‐based development set the framework for national policy and development. Recently the formation of convergence regulators amongst many of the leading nations has begun another episode. This article aims to explore and build upon a research study of the senior executives of six of the leading convergence regulators in Asia and Europe. The article aims to analyse by way of a numeric comparison expert views of the key convergence issues three and five years out.

A generic conceptual model was constructed of the foundation, social and economic dividend issues. By examining the relative progress of nations developments of these issues and their different approaches, new insights are developed into different regulatory approaches.

The concept of proactive regulation with competition (PRC) would appear to have benefits for a number of these nations. It is hoped that these research outcomes and hypotheses will generate further research and analysis amongst the world's leading regulators in order to work through the best regulatory approaches for the current challenges.

The paper presents original research regarding regulatory challenges.

There has been much discussion about W‐LAN hotspots and the role they might play in communication systems. Over the last year, the number of hotspots around the world has grown rapidly. However, subscriber numbers have remained low and the industry continues to lose money. Some are now starting to accept that the current business model is not viable. This paper discusses the problems with the current deployment of hotspots and suggests that only when they become part of a wider integrated communications network will there be sufficient revenue potential to justify the current and planned deployment of W‐LAN hotspots.

In a communication to the Evening Standard, SIR JAMES CANTLIE observes that the new wave of influenza coincides with the break in the weather, and is of considerable virulence. The utmost personal precautions are necessary. The disease attacks the low‐toned and the worried people most quickly.

The outbreak of typhoid fever which had been traced to a “carrier” of the fever germs may be given as a reason for the following note on the regulations relating to the manufacture of ice cream. This brief re‐statement of the regulations will serve to indicate the nature of the control exercised by the health authorities over a widely spread trade. It need hardly be pointed out that cream in the usually accepted sense of that term or its substitute containing a certain proportion of milk powder or skim milk is peculiarly liable to act as an agent in the dissemination of certain types of disease. “New regulations, the “Ice Cream (Heat Treatment) Regulations, 1946,” at present in draft, but operative from May 1st, 1947, deal with the sterilisation of the raw material and the retail sale in the finished and frozen state. Registration of premises, inspection by the local authority, combined with the goodwill of the trade, are obvious safeguards. The term “ice cream” possibly suggests to the average consumer a frozen mixture of cream—as that word is usually understood to mean—flavoured with the fresh juice or fresh‐fruit pulp of the name fruit. Such a mixture, if made from wholesome materials under hygienic conditions, would be a good, palatable luxury, and from the nature of the case seasonal. Most of us at some December midnight have had something called strawberry ice. The name stands, but the composition is rather a matter for speculation by the uninitiated. The term “cream” has been for many years applied to substances which though wholesome in themselves are not cream—vegetable fats, milk powder and the like—but they form the basis, so to speak, either in whole or in part of ice cream. There is in fact no official standard to define what is meant by ice cream, and the definition which we have ventured to offer must obviously be extended to apply to a large number of substances that do not of necessity consist either partly, still less wholly, of cream or of any substance whose origin is to be found in fruit of any kind. Ice cream, in fact, is a substance whose composition it seems may vary within wide and undefined limits. Thus the Ice Cream (Prohibition of the Manufacture and Sales) Order, 1942, says “‘Ice cream’ includes water ices.” The Ice Cream Transport Order (No. 305, March 22nd, 1945), prohibiting the export of ice cream to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, says: “Ice cream includes water ices and any article, whether frozen or chilled, and under whatever description it is sold, which is sufficiently similar to ice cream as to constitute a substitute for ice cream.” The statements just quoted seem to imply that ice cream may be made of almost anything as long as price, temperature and taste suit the requirements of the consumer. However, our concern is less to do with its composition as with regulations that have to do with the hygienic requirements of its manufacture. It may be pointed out that as things stand at present registration relates to premises and not to persons employed therein. Anyone can be employed in an ice cream factory, as he can be employed in any other kind of food factory. The matter of engaging him is left to the heads of the factory. They, as commonsense business people, with the interests of their business at heart, are not likely to engage anyone who is at sight obviously unfitted for the job. On the other hand, habits and health, especially the latter, become of peculiar importance when such a substance as ice cream is the object of manufacture. To make regulations as to the registration and inspection of premises, is one thing. It is not too easy to enforce such regulations. In the case of persons it is more delicate and difficult. If the offence be of habit it can be readily detected and dealt with. If of health, it becomes a matter for the Medical Officer of Health and his professional colleagues. Under Section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which came into force on October 1st, 1939, all premises in which ice cream is sold, manufactured, or stored must be registered with the local authority. The purpose for which registration is sought—sale, storage, or manufacture—must be stated, and also the nature of other business, if any, that may be carried on on the premises. If the premises appear to the local authority to be unsuitable, registration may be refused, or, if previously granted, may be cancelled. Notice of the refusal to register, or to cancel registration, must be served on the applicant or tenant of the premises by the local authority, giving reasons for the act, and the applicant or tenant may then, if he wishes, request the local authority to show cause, for the reasons given by them, why they should refuse to register or wish to cancel registration.” It need hardly be pointed out that the sole reason for registration is to enable the local authority to satisfy themselves that hygienic conditions are complied with, such as cleanliness, light, ventilation, adequate water supply and sanitation in general. Though the conditions may be complied with there is still the more serious danger that may arise from “milk‐borne diseases,” a danger that is admittedly peculiarly acute when such a substance as ice cream is the subject of manufacture or storage. The Medical Officer of Health must therefore be informed by the manufacturer if any milk‐borne disease has occurred among persons living or working in or about the premises. We may hazard the guess that it may not always be easy for the manufacturer to obtain such certain knowledge. “Milk‐borne disease” means enteric fever (including typhoid or paratyphoid), dysentery, diphtheria, scarlet fever, acute inflammation of the throat, gastro‐enteritis, and undulant fever—a formidable list—and any other disease that may be declared milk‐borne by the Minister of Health. With the best will in the world on the part of everybody concerned the enforcement of this Order, and there can be obviously no half measures in doing so, presents difficulties that can only be adequately appreciated and discussed by medical practitioners who are conversant with the nature of the disease in general and with the particular conditions that led to its occurrence. Apart, however, from its purely medical aspect, and if we consider the manufacturer we find that if he has done his duty in this respect he may have his business brought to a standstill, or at least a part or even the whole of his stock destroyed. The Medical Officer of Health is very rightly empowered, in the interests of public health, which override all other considerations, to prohibit the use for human consumption of any substance likely to convey milk‐borne disease and to order either its removal or its destruction. Compensation can be paid to the manufacturer if the Medical Officer of Health, after further enquiry, be satisfied that the suspected substance is not injurious. His notice for destruction or removal must then be withdrawn. On the other hand, compensation will not be paid if the suspected substance was actually injurious, or was made on the premises while the order of the Medical Officer was still in force. If a person feels aggrieved by the decision of the local authority he may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. Any change in the occupation of registered premises must be notified to the local authority by the ingoing tenant if he intends to use such premises for the purpose for which they were registered. If at the commencement of the Act of 1938 a local Act was in force dealing with the conditions for registration of premises it may remain in force unless the Minister, at the request of the local authority, declares the 1938 Act, 14 (1), to be in place of it. The use of unregistered premises renders the offender liable to a fine not exceeding £20, and for a second offence a maximum penalty of £100 and for three months imprisonment. Every street seller of ice cream must have his name and address on the barrow or container. It may be added that hotels, clubs and inns are exempt from registration, and theatres, music halls and the like are also exempt unless they manufacture ice cream on the premises. The Order of 1942 prohibited the manufacture of ice cream in catering establishments or in institutions, meaning by these terms premises previously authorised to do so by licence from the Ministry of Food or by a Food Control Committee. Institutions or households were exempt from this Order if the ice cream manufactured was to be consumed on the premises. This Order was rescinded by an Order of November 16th, 1944, and manufacture was resumed from that date. This was certainly not due to any marked increase in the milk supply. The trade demand was and is at least in part met by a permitted substitute.

We are pleased to publish in this issue an article by Mr. H. H. Bagnall, the recently retired City Analyst of Birmingham, who has for many years been a dominant figure in the world of public analysts. His annual reports have always attracted wide publicity, both for their originality in exposing “ tricks of the trade ” and for his comments, sometimes caustic, sometimes racy, on those who perpetuate such tricks. In his article, he looks backwards through the years to describe in his own inimitable style a few of the important cases he has figured in and we agree with him, that many others in the field of food administration and approaching the end of their public careers, could well emulate this example.