Search results

The aim of this study is to identify and quantify sugar and polysaccharide contents in locally grown Hericium erinaceus.

The experiment is presented of chromatography methods to determine sugars in Malaysian–grown H. erinaceus. After the extraction, the crude polysaccharide solution was followed by hydrolysis with acid as well as enzymes reaction, respectively.

In thin–layer chromatography, two sample spots turned blue after treatment with sugar visualizing reagent. The HPLC analysis of the H. erinaceus hot water crude extract showed arabinose as the major component. All H. erinaceus water crude extract showed the components of arabinose, glucose and rhamnose when reacting with different enzymes. The ratio of arabinose and glucose was 2.3:1 after enzymatic reaction compared with 2.7:1 before the enzymatic reaction.

The H. erinaceus polysaccharides from the fruiting body can be further isolated and purified by means of GCMS. In this way, the contents of the polysaccharides isolated and types of the linkage can be determined thoroughly in a more detailed way. The purified polysaccharides also should be screened for the bioassay guide fractionation.

The H. erinaceus can also be analyzed for its various nutritional values. In this way, it is hoped that Malaysia can produce Hericium products locally for the benefit of the local consumers with a more competitive price.

This paper fulfils an identified information of sugar and polysaccharide content in Malaysian–grown H. erinaceus.

The findings of the Steering Group on Food Freshness in relation to the compulsory date marking of food contained in their Report, reviewed elsewhere in this issue, has brought within measurable distance the Regulations which were, in any case, promised for1975. The Group consider that the extension of voluntary open date marking systems will not be sufficiently rapid (or sufficiently comprehensive) to avoid the need or justify the delay in introducing legislation.

From earliest times the land and all it produced to feed and sustain those who dwelt on it was mankind's greatest asset. From the Biblical “land of milk and honey”, down through history to the “country of farmers” visualised by the American colonists when they severed the links with the mother country, those who had all their needs met by the land were blessed — they still are! The inevitable change brought about by the fast‐growing populations caused them to turn to industry; Britain introduced the “machine age” to the world; the USA the concept of mass production — and the troubles and problems of man increased to the present chaos of to‐day. There remained areas which depended on an agri‐economy — the granary countries, as the vast open spaces of pre‐War Russia; now the great plains of North America, to supply grain for the bread of the peoples of the dense industrial conurbations, which no longer produced anything like enough to feed themselves.

A laboratory experiment explores the perceived fairness of hiring decisions with regards to justifications that might reduce the negative reactions of job recipients. In particular, we examine the effects of no justification, and the affirmative action argument on the perceived fairness of the hiring of women and minorities. Results indicate that the hiring decision is perceived to be fairer when no justification is given than when affirmative action is used to justify the decision. The perception of decision was further moderated by proportional values with stronger effects for men than women.

The long controversy that has waxed furiously around the implementation of the EEC Directives on the inspection of poultry meat and hygiene standards to be observed in poultry slaughterhouses, cutting‐up premises, &c, appears to be resolved at last. (The Prayer lodged against the Regulations when they were formally laid before Parliament just before the summer recess, which meant they would have to be debated when the House reassembled, could have resulted in some delay to the early operative dates, but little chance of the main proposals being changed.) The controversy began as soon as the EEC draft directive was published and has continued from the Directive of 1971 with 1975 amendments. There has been long and painstaking study of problems by the Ministry with all interested parties; enforcement was not the least of these. The expansion and growth of the poultry meat industry in the past decade has been tremendous and the constitution of what is virtually a new service, within the framework of general food inspection, was inevitable. None will question the need for efficient inspection or improved and higher standards of hygiene, but the extent of the

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.

This Society, originally known as “The National Pure Food Association,” has been reconstituted under the above title. The objects of the Society are to assist as far as possible in checking the widespread evils of food adulteration, for this purpose to bring about a public realisation of the admittedly serious character of food frauds, and, under expert advice, to co‐operate with constituted authority in effecting their repression. The policy of the Society is directed by a representative Council, and, the Society being thus established on an authoritative basis, cannot fail to become a powerful and valuable organisation if adequately and generously supported by the public. The governing body of the Society is constituted as follows:—

The Food and Drugs Bill introduced by the Government affords an excellent illustration of the fact that repressive legislative enactments in regard to adulteration must always be of such a nature that, while they give a certain degree and a certain kind of protection to the public, they can never be expected to supply a sufficiently real and effective insurance against adulteration and against the palming off of inferior goods, nor an adequate and satisfactory protection to the producer and vendor of superior articles. In this country, at any rate, legislation on the adulteration question has always been, and probably will always be of a somewhat weak and patchy character, with the defects inevitably resulting from more or less futile attempts to conciliate a variety of conflicting interests. The Bill as it stands, for instance, fails to deal in any way satisfactorily with the subject of preservatives, and, if passed in its present form, will give the force of law to the standards of Somerset House—standards which must of necessity be low and the general acceptance of which must tend to reduce the quality of foods and drugs to the same dead‐level of extreme inferiority. The ludicrous laissez faire report of the Beer Materials Committee—whose authors see no reason to interfere with the unrestricted sale of the products of the “ free mash tun,” or, more properly speaking, of the free adulteration tun—affords a further instance of what is to be expected at present and for many years to come as the result of governmental travail and official meditations. Public feeling is developing in reference to these matters. There is a growing demand for some system of effective insurance, official or non‐official, based on common‐sense and common honesty ; and it is on account of the plain necessity that the quibbles and futilities attaching to repressive legislation shall by some means be brushed aside that we have come to believe in the power and the value of the system of Control, and that we advocate its general acceptance. The attitude and the policy of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ADULTERATION, of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and of the BRITISH ANALYTICAL CONTROL, are in all respects identical with regard to adulteration questions; and in answer to the observations and suggestions which have been put forward since the introduction of the Control System in England, it may be well once more to state that nothing will meet with the approbation or support of the Control which is not pure, genuine, and good in the strictest sense of these terms. Those applicants and critics whom it may concern may with advantage take notice of the fact that under no circumstances will approval be given to such articles as substitute beers, separated milks, coppered vegetables, dyed sugars, foods treated with chemical preservatives, or, in fact, to any food or drug which cannot be regarded as in every respect free from any adulterant, and free from any suspicion of sophistication or inferiority. The supply of such articles as those referred to, which is left more or less unfettered by the cumbrous machinery of the law, as well as the sale of those adulterated goods with which the law can more easily deal, can only be adequately held in check by the application of a strong system of Control to justify approbation, providing, as this does, the only effective form of insurance which up to the present has been devised.

In the second part of this report the action of nitrogen peroxide on flour is discussed at some length in an account of a series of researches that have been carried out by DR. MONIER‐WILLIAMS. His conclusions may be briefly stated as follows. The maximum bleaching effect is obtained when each kilogram of flour is treated with from 30 to 100 cubic centimetres of nitrogen peroxide. The bleaching effect becomes more pronounced after keeping for several days. The amount of nitrous acid or nitrites that are present in bleached flour corresponds to about 30 per cent. of the total nitrogen absorbed, the proportion of nitrites present remaining nearly constant after the lapse of several days in the more slightly bleached samples. After the lapse of a short time it is still possible to extract about 60 per cent. of the nitrogen absorbed by the flour by means of cold water, but after several days the nitrogen that can be extracted by this means decreases. This may perhaps be attributed to the “absorption” of nitrous acid by the glutenin and gliadin. In highly bleached flour (300 cubic centimetres of nitrogen peroxide per kilogram of flour) a considerable increase in the amounts of soluble proteins and soluble carbohydrates takes place. In highly bleached flour, after some time, about 6 or 7 per cent. of the nitrogen introduced as nitrogen by the nitrogen peroxide is absorbed by the oil, which acquires the characteristics of an oxidised oil. No evidence is forthcoming as to the formation of diazo compounds nor the production of free nitrogen. Bleaching was found to exercise an inhibitory action on the salivary digestion of flour.

The question whether grape juice may or may not be preserved with sulphur dioxide is one which arises occasionally as a result of a certain ambiguity in the wording of the First Schedule of the Regulations. It is not a matter of opinion, as some would hold, but a matter of law, and, as such, should be fully appreciated by the legal advisers of local authorities, if not by Public Analysts. Item 4 of the First Schedule of the Regulations states that “Unfermented grape juice and non‐alcoholic wine made from such grape juice if labelled in accordance with the rule contained in the Second Schedule to these Regulations” may contain 2,000 parts of benzoic acid per million of grape juice and does not admit of the presence of the addition of any sulphur dioxide. The Second Schedule prescribes that, if the proportion of benzoic acid present in grape juice exceeds 600 parts per million, it shall be labelled with a declaration to that effect and also with the words “and is not intended for use as a beverage.” Item 5 of the First Schedule of the Regulations states that “Other non‐alcoholic wines, cordials and fruit juices, sweetened or unsweetened” may contain either 350 parts of sulphur dioxide per million parts of preparation or 600 parts per million of benzoic acid. Normally one would infer from this that grape juice to be used as a beverage falls under Item 5 of the Regulations, but that, if for some special reason it is not to be so used, it is permitted to contain up to 2,000 parts per million of benzoic acid provided that it is labelled to the effect that it is not to be used as a beverage. It should be noted that Item 4 does not read that grape juice and non‐alcoholic wine made from it may contain 600 parts per million of benzoic acid, but that, if labelled in accordance with the rules contained in the Second Schedule, it may contain 2,000 parts of this preservative. If grape juice were only allowed to contain benzoic acid as a preservative and if sulphur dioxide were prohibited under all circumstances one would have thought that Item 4 of the First Schedule would have been drawn up to indicate this, but no such indication is given at all. At the time that the Preservatives Regulations were issued it was fully recognised that sulphur dioxide was employed as a preservative in grape must. Whilst the Departmental Committee was considering the matter of preservatives and colouring matters the Ministry of Health issued a Report on Public Health Subjects, No. 24, entitled “Report on the Composition of Commoner British Wines and Cordials (Alcoholic and Non‐alcoholic),” by Dr. G. C. Hancock, C.B.E., one of the Medical Officers of the Ministry, together with a Report by the Government Chemist on the Examination of Samples. In the introduction Dr. G. Newman, the Chief Medical Officer to the Minister of Health, writes : “The most important of these materials are preservatives, and Dr. Hancock mentions the considerations which underlie the use of these substances in the manufacture of British wines and cordials. As, however, the question of preservatives and colouring matters in foods is being considered by a Departmental Committee of the Ministry he has made no specific recommendations relating to the use of these substances.” On page 4 at the end of the sixth paragraph Dr. Hancock refers to grape juice or must and says : “It is sent here in a highly concentrated form and is usually ‘sulphured,’ i.e., treated with sulphur dioxide in order to inhibit fermentation during transit.” Among other information placed at the disposal of the Departmental Committee was Dr. Hancock's report and in the Final Report of the Committee, also issued in 1924, paragraph 57 states: “Sulphurous acid and sulphites are extensively used in beer and alcoholic wines, to some smaller extent in non‐alcoholic beverages, and in preserving fruits and fruit juices, dried fruits, gelatine and sausages. … In the case of beer, wines, fruit and fruit juices the introduction comes partly from the treatment of the vessels of preparation and storage, partly from the materials used and partly from the actual addition of preservative in the course of manufacture or treatment for storage.” When considering the question of alcoholic wines, Foreign and British in detail, the Committee stated their opinion in the following words (para. 144): “Foreign and British wines are by no means closely related products. The former are the naturally fermented produce of the grape, while the latter are rarely derived from fresh fruit and are far more commonly prepared from a basis of dried fruits, rhubarb or imported grape must, fermented after the addition of sugar and flavouring materials, such as dried ginger‐root, orange peel, alcoholic essences or foreign wines. Considered from the point of view of preservatives, however, they have two features in common, (a) that the alcoholic content is very similar in each, (b) that sulphur dioxide is the preservative which is usually favoured (in addition to the alcohol present) to prevent secondary and other undesirable fermentations and sourness.” Instead of making any suggestion that the use of sulphur dioxide should be prohibited in grape must, the Committee draw their conclusion in paragraph 147 in the following words : “Our conclusion is that while in general preservatives should be unnecessary in alcoholic wines of ordinary strength, there may be circumstances which render the entire elimination of preservatives impracticable for the present. We think, however, that no other preservatives than sulphur dioxide should be permitted, and that this substance should not be present in amounts exceeding 3 grains of sulphur dioxide free and combined per pint (343 milligrams per litre).” This recommendation was adopted in the Draft Statutory Order issued in February, 1925, but, when the final Order was published, the quantity of sulphur dioxide permitted had been increased to 450 parts per million, making the law in this country agree with that already adopted in France. The recommendation made by the Departmental Committee was put forward after the Committee had commented on the fact that British wines are largely prepared from “imported grape must.” It seems remarkable that the Committee should have expressed the opinion that sulphur dioxide is used for sulphuring the casks, that sulphur dioxide is permitted in the completed wine, if it is not allowed to be present at intermediate stages, and that a Regulation was made by which benzoic acid only could be present in the unfermented grape juice, if this is not permitted to be present in the fermented alcoholic wine. When benzoic acid has once been added it cannot be eliminated and, as recognised by the Departmental Committee, benzoic acid is undesirable from the fermentation aspect. Had there been any intention to prohibit the presence of sulphur dioxide in unfermented grape juice, the Regulations would have rung the death‐knell to the manufacture of British wines, which have been produced in increasing volume during the last twenty years. Further, if there had been any intention to prohibit the addition of sulphur dioxide to grape juice, one cannot but express surprise that the importation of such juice has not been suppressed long ago by the Customs Authorities, since Section 8 (1) of the Regulations lays the responsibility for the control of Imported Articles of Food on the Officers of Customs and Excise and, through them, on the Government Chemist. The failure of the Government Chemist to condemn grape must containing sulphur dioxide cannot be due to his ignorance of its presence because the chemical analyses for Dr. Hancock's Report were carried out by the Government Chemist, and on page 58 of the Report No. 24, to which reference has already been made, analyses are given of two French musts containing 360 and 302 parts of sulphur dioxide per million respectively and of an American concentrated must containing 63 parts of sulphur dioxide per million. If we now look at paragraph 153 of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee we find that the matter of preservatives in certain non‐alcoholic beverages is dealt with in the following words: “We consider that sweetened and unsweetened fruit juices, syrups, cordials, non‐alcoholic wines and articles of similar composition such as certain well‐known proprietary cordials, are peculiarly liable to develop moulds and to ferment, owing to liability to exposure on the consumer's premises between the first opening and final consumption, and we think that on this account they may under present trade conditions need the addition of a small proportion of preservative. We therefore suggest that the presence either of benzoic acid up to 5 grains or of sulphur dioxide up to 3 grains per pint might be considered.” These recommendations were adopted in the Draft Rule and Order, issued in February, 1925, and there was no reference in this Draft indicating that grape juice was to be treated in any manner distinct from other fruit juices. The introduction of Item 4 in S.R. & O. 1925, 775, came as a complete surprise to everyone and the general surprise felt was mentioned by Mr. C. A. Mitchell (now Dr. Mitchell) in a paper read before the Medico‐Legal Society on Tuesday, April 20th, 1926, with the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Aitken in the chair. Mr. Mitchell made the following statement: “The fourth item in the Schedule is one at which one can only stare and wonder how it ever came there. According to this regulation unfermented grape juice and non‐alcoholic wine made from it, may contain the enormous quantity of 17 grains of benzoic acid per pint, provided that it is labelled in accordance with Schedule II. I am fairly familiar with the cases which have been brought into Court during the last 20 years, but I cannot recall an instance of a non‐alcoholic wine (labelled or unlabelled) containing an amount of preservative equivalent to this quantity of benzoic acid.” Mr. Mitchell then proceeds to explain that the most probable reason for the introduction of this item into the rule is that it is intended to apply to non‐alcoholic sacramental wine, which is not to be used as a beverage, but which is taken a little at a time and is expected to keep for long periods, when the bottle has once been opened. This is, in fact, the position so far as I am aware and there was never any intention of any restriction on the use of sulphur dioxide in the ordinary way as a preservative in unfermented grape juice so long as the amount present did not exceed 350 parts per million.