Search results

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

Establishes our perspective for shared organizational learning processes, cycles, and systems. These learning phenomena are usually tacit, i.e. the organization is only dimly aware of them. These tacit phenomena drive both decision and action and, because they are tacit, they are self‐organizing and are normally not analysed. In order to develop effective learning systems, the organization must explicitly articulate and design these learning processes, cycles, and systems. The “learning unit” is introduced as the essential element where learning development must focus for improved organizational performance. Begins to develop the implications of this perspective for organization theory, organizational practice, and the art of management. Organizational learning can drive organizational transformation if these phenomena are properly planned, designed, and facilitated.

Explains a process the authors have enacted several times for facilitating organizational self‐reflection, which they call “reflective inquiry”. Shows how the process is based on the authors’ current understanding of the concept referred to as organizational learning. Finally, advocates future participatory action research whereby organizational learning theory is tested and modified through the design, enactment and observation of further processes; these processes, in turn, should be designed based on current understandings of organizational learning.

The research uncovers an increase in the disapproval of Congress and a drop in public trust in government associated with exposed congressional corruption in the post-Watergate era. The tools Congress holds to punish members caught up in scandal are discussed and the chapter considers five major scandals to rock Congress since the 1970s. Importantly, we uncover evidence that government institutions and actors are somewhat resilient and can bounce back after experiencing negative public sentiment for a period of time. Yet, it seems in the aftermath of exposed corruption, the corresponding drop in public support has policy implications. We determine that movement in public disapproval of Congress and overall trust in government help explain public law output and the ability of Congress to pass its contemporary legislative agenda.

A large part of the report of the Food Investigation Board for 1927 (H.M. Stationery Office, 4s. net) is devoted to describing the various directions in which fundamental problems are being studied scientifically, with the assurance that the results will furnish a surer basis for practice than any that could be obtained by methods other than scientific. Side by side with the laboratory experiments by which the fundamental properties of the materials under investigation are to be worked out, considerable advance is being made in the study of the problems in question on a larger scale. While in practice hundreds of tons of fruit are stored in ships' holds and commercial stores, it has not been possible hitherto to study storage problems in lots larger than a few hundredweights. The gap between experiment and practice, as the report points out, has been found too great. The difficulties introduced into storage by the element of scale are increased greatly when the materials stored, such as fruit, are self‐heating, and from small‐scale experiments little better than guesses could be made at the solution of the problems to be investigated. A research station is therefore being erected at East Malling to enable the storage of fruit to be studied scientifically on a semi‐commercial scale, and its equipment will include an experimental store capable of holding 100 tons of fruit. The station is being built next to the East Malling Horticultural Research Station, where for some years past successful work has been in progress upon the effect of grafting on the properties of pure strains of apples. The new station will now enable the influence of the stock on storage properties to be studied, and, taken in conjunction with earlier investigations of the Board on the effect of soil, climate and variety upon the keeping properties of apples, will furnish data not hitherto available as to the influence of stock, and complete a chapter in vegetable physiology of unusual scientific interest and commercial importance. Unfortunately, the necessary facilities have not yet been obtained for carrying out adequate work on the preservation of fish, and the Board, being unwilling to undertake investigations that were bound to be inadequate, has dissolved the Fish Preservation Committee. When the value and potential cheapness of fish as a food are remembered, it is much to be hoped that this unsatisfactory state of things will not be allowed to continue. In the meantime, the Board has set up a Food transport and Distribution Committee with the object of discovering whether and how scientific knowledge and inquiry can help to lessen waste, improve quality and utilise by‐products. The first subject the Committee took up was the transport of fish, and through experiments carried out at sea in an Aberdeen steam trawler reason has been found to think that the use of mechanical refrigeration might improve the value of the catch to an economic extent. Biological work carried on at the same time in the University of Aberdeen confirmed this conclusion, and it was decided that full‐size experiments and investigations in steam trawlers should be made from Aberdeen and Milford Haven in the spring and summer of this year.

The provisions of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, which came into force on July 1st, are based upon the recommendations of two committees which sat during 1923–25, the first of which suggested the general lines of the Act, while the second prepared the schedules of articles coming within its scope. Although the Act received Royal Assent in December, 1926, it has not been practicable to bring it into operation until the regulations governing such matters as methods of sampling and analysis, methods of marking parcels, and limits of variation, had been prepared and published. These regulations were published in draft form in February, 1928, and in their final form during May. The general purpose of the Act, like that of the Act of 1906 which it repeals, is to provide civil remedies in cases of misdescription of, and to prevent fraud in, fertilisers and feeding stuffs. Its scope is defined by means of schedules which may be extended or varied, whenever the need arises, by regulations. One of the principal objects in replacing the Act of 1906 by new legislation was to separate, as far as possible, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings, in order to encourage farmers to exercise their civil rights without involving their suppliers in police court proceedings. The “civil provisions” of the Act are those which enact that buyers of the fertilisers and feeding stuffs in common use shall be furnished with a warranty covering certain important points, and which, further, afford them the means of testing these warranties with a view to formulating a claim where they are not fulfilled. The first requirement of the Act is that every person who sells for use as a fertiliser or as a feeding stuff for cattle or poultry any article included in either the First or the Second Schedule to the Act shall give the purchaser a written statement (called the “ statutory statement”) showing :—

Our attention has been called to a question raised in a contemporary as to the disposal of the flesh of bovines which have been compulsorily slaughtered as the result of having obviously contracted tuberculosis. We say “compulsory” as the slaughter is carried out by order of the Ministry of Agriculture and “obvious” as tuberculous infection is in many cases not readily detectable. It should be pointed out that the flesh of an infected bovine may be used for food according to the degree and nature of the infection, but the use of the flesh for such a purpose is only permissible at the discretion of the official veterinary expert acting on behalf of the Ministry in the interests of public health. Admittedly the regulations as at present laid down and under which the Ministry of Agriculture act are by no means ideal, and we have no doubt that the officials of the Ministry would be the last persons to say that they were. Like all such regulations, they are of the nature of a compromise, by which statement we do not mean that the monetary interests of the trades in milk and beef are placed before those of public health. Far from it. The ideal condition aimed at is of course to have all milk and all beef free from the slightest taint and risk of tubercular infection. It is, however, no use to disguise the fact that the attainment of such an ideal is and of necessity must be a long way from accomplishment. It is only within this century that bovine tuberculosis has received serious attention in this country, and bovine tuberculosis is an evil legacy from a long past. It is no doubt in part at least attributable to long continued bad housing and feeding that went on unchecked from year to year. It is well known that in the neighbourhood of large towns where open pasture was not readily attainable cows were sometimes kept in what were little better than cellars, from which they seldom emerged. A cow was looked upon as a sort of machine for yielding milk, and no regard was paid to the way in which the machine was run so long as it delivered the goods, no matter of what quality the goods might be. The conditions for the development of tuberculosis were thus almost as good as if they had been deliberately devised for that very purpose, with results that we have now every reason to deplore. It is only twenty years since Prof. MacFadyean stated that 20 per cent. of the adult cattle in the country were tuberculous, and on the authority of the veterinary surgeon to the King at the same time 36 out of a herd of 40 cows that had belonged to Queen Victoria were tuberculous. If these were the conditions but twenty years ago throughout the country, and if nine out of every ten animals which were kept under the best conditions and received every care were tuberculous, the difficulty and extraordinary complexity of the problem confronting the Ministries concerned at the present day in their attempts to check the evil may be perhaps imagined. Checked it may be but eradication is not in sight. For if the drastic expedient were resorted to of slaughtering every tuberculous bovine in the country the result would be a milk famine. Prices would rise so that for the poor milk would be unobtainable. Many in the trade would be ruined, and perhaps the supply of milk would have to be obtained by importations of milk from abroad produced under conditions over which we could exercise no control. This hypothetical aspect of affairs, however, need not be further discussed.—The administration of the Tuberculosis Order, 1925 (Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1925), by the Ministry of Agriculture is therefore one of great difficulty. The “waste of years” cannot be “refunded in a day.” The matter calls for constant expert veterinary supervision.—Under Section 3 (1) of the Order the disease is notifiable to the Local Authority. Veterinary inspection follows, and if the animal is found to be suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, tuberculous emaciation, or a chronic cough or yielding tuberculous milk the Local Authority shall order the animal to be slaughtered, though if the owner objects to this the special authority of the Minister has to be obtained. It does not follow that the flesh of a tuberculous animal is unfit to be used as human food. Under 5A.1 of the Order if it is intended to use the flesh for this purpose the Local Authority must notify the Sanitary Authority of the time and place of slaughter. After this neither the carcase nor any part of it may be removed from the slaughter house unless by leave of the Medical Officer of Health or by other competent officer of the Authority.—Removal before such leave is an offence under the Act.—It may be observed here that no animal whose value is stated to be over fifty pounds may be slaughtered under the Order except by Ministerial sanction.—Compensation is payable to the owner of an animal, which has been slaughtered under the Order, by the Local Authority. All this is clear and fair, but as illustrating one of the difficulties of administering the Order, it may be pointed out that these perfectly fair and reasonable regulations made in the interests of public health were found to be indirectly in conflict with public ignorance and prejudice. In this way. In certain industrial districts in the country lean meat was demanded by some of the working class families. The reason being that more nourishment could be got out of lean than out of fat. There is something to be said for this. But where did the lean meat come from? An emaciated beast without a bit of fat on it might well be suffering from tuberculosis. It would pay an unscrupulous owner of such a beast very much better to sell it direct to a dealer in such meat—no information being given and no questions being asked—rather than go to the trouble of observing the Act and receiving a possibly smaller amount of money which would have been paid him under the Order. Thus quite a flourishing trade in such diseased meat was in fair way to grow up, and until the evil was traced to its source and the original owner prosecuted for non‐notification it could not be stopped. Again, the owner of an animal that has been slaughtered under the Order is entitled to recover its full market value and twenty shillings over if it is found that no tubercle exists; if tuberculosis, but not of an advanced state is found, then three‐fourths of the market value or forty‐five shillings, whichever sum is the greater less one‐half the costs of valuation; if advanced tuberculosis is present then one‐fourth the market value or the sum of forty‐five shillings as before under Section 9 i., ii., and iii. of the Order. The result of this was that certain people established a somewhat paying business in buying obviously tuberculous cows from a cowkeeper for a mere song, the cowkeeper being quite willing to get rid of them in this way and thus save himself trouble and the small amount of publicity he would have incurred had he observed the terms of the Order. The buyer would then notify the authority that he had a tuberculous cow and obtain compensation which yielded him a profit. The report for 1928 shows that nearly 17,000 animals were slaughtered under the Order during the year, and nearly 200 were in such a condition that they died before they could be slaughtered! It may also be observed that the powers conferred by Act of Parliament on the responsible Ministries were not readily obtained. Trade interests were alleged, and effective legislation had to be built up in the face of this. Tuberculosis is unhappily somewhat firmly established in our herds of cattle and it will still require long and patient work, expert knowledge and, as it will have been seen, the methods of police detectives before the menace is removed, if it ever can be.

This paper introduces a systems‐based framework to facilitate structured analysis of complex issues. The framework was created out of a management development effort with the primary emphasis on development of systems problem‐solving skills through analysis of complex operational issues. Drawing from systems science, the strength of the approach rests inthe holistic analysis of structure, relationships, and emergent dynamics of problematic situations. The fundamental systems principles underpinning the approach are developed to provide an essential “systems background” as a foundation for the framework. The utility of the framework is discussed with respect toresults from an application in an organizational setting. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications and limitations of the framework for development of systemic thinking and complex problem analysis.

In his letter which appeared in the April number of this Journal, Mr. Edward Hinks, B.Sc., F.I.C., criticises our remarks on the jam standards set up by the Food Manufacturers Federation in conjunction with the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists, and the tone of his letter seems to indicate that he has not appreciated the position we take with regard to standards, a position which is consistent with the policy we have always followed, namely, to deprecate the making of a standard which lowers or tends to lower the quality of any product, and especially to deprecate it when the label does not adequately disclose any additions which have been made to the article in question. Whatever Dr. Johnson may have thought about jam in 1755, his definition undoubtedly agrees with what the British public considers jam should be to‐day, and that is, that it should be made from the fruit from which the jam derives its name and sugar—and nothing else.— It is hardly necessary to add that beet sugar—sucrose derived from beet, could be used as well as cane sugar —sucrose derived from cane.—Any extraneous addition should be properly described on the label. With regard to the standards which have been put forward by the Jam Section of the Food Manufacturers Federation in consort with the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists, we certainly take exception to the proportion of fruit permitted, which in many cases is so low, that pectin, derived from apple or some other source, has to be added to make a jam of saleable consistency. This addition means a shorter boil and a lower fruit content, a distinct gain to the manufacturer in the cheapening of the production of his article. How it can be contended that the public will get a good article if the manufacturers make jam according to these standards we cannot understand. In our opinion the public will get a poor jam, and may and probably will, in fact purchase a product containing added fruit juices, citric and tartaric acids and foreign colouring matter, and further they will have no opportunity of learning that these additions have been made, because no declaration need be made on the label. On the contrary such jam may be labelled “Full Fruit Standard.” Why no disclosure is to be made of such additions to First Quality Jam while the disclosure of the presence of added fruit juice is insisted on in Second Quality Jam—which doubtless no manufacturer will be too anxious to make —is difficult to understand. It appears to us that the Federation has had its own way too much in the fixing of these standards and that in its anxiety to reach agreement the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists, or its representative committee has allowed itself to be led much too easily. Again the country of origin of the fruit may perhaps not be regarded as relevant but what an excellent thing it would have been to have insisted that first quality jam should be made from home‐grown fruit. It is true that analysis cannot prove the country of origin of the fruit any more than, with our present knowledge, it can show that any jam contains for instance 42 per cent. of a particular fruit, but on the other hand there are methods of ascertaining whether imported fruit is used in a jam factory. As to the spirit in which we approach this matter we have felt it our duty to criticise, somewhat severely, standards which as it seems to us, give to a certain class of manufacturer permission to do the very thing he wants to do in the way of making extraneous additions to jams without imposing the necessity of declaration on the label. Such standards accordingly afford practically no protection to the unfortunate public, but tend ultimately to lower the general quality of the jam made in this country.