Search results

A pæan of joy and triumph which speaks for itself, and which is a very true indication of how the question of poisonous adulteration is viewed by certain sections of “the trade,” and by certain of the smaller and irresponsible trade organs, has appeared in print. It would seem that the thanks of “the trade” are due to the defendants in the case heard at the Liverpool Police Court for having obtained an official acknowledgment that the use of salicylic acid and of other preservatives, even in large amounts, in wines and suchlike articles, is not only allowable, but is really necessary for the proper keeping of the product. It must have been a charming change in the general proceedings at the Liverpool Court to listen to a “preservatives” case conducted before a magistrate who evidently realises that manufacturers, in these days, in order to make a “decent” profit, have to use the cheapest materials they can buy, and cannot afford to pick and choose; and that they have therefore “been compelled” to put preservatives into their articles so as to prevent their going bad. He was evidently not to be misled by the usual statement that such substances should not be used because they are injurious to health— as though that could be thought to have anything to do with the much more important fact that the public “really want” to have an article supplied to them which is cheap, and yet keeps well. Besides, many doctors and professors were brought forward to prove that they had never known a case of fatal poisoning due to the use of salicylic acid as a preservative. Unfortunately, it is only the big firms that can manage to bring forward such admirable and learned witnesses, and the smaller firms have to suffer persecution by faddists and others who attempt to obtain the public notice by pretending to be solicitous about the public health. Altogether the prosecution did not have a pleasant time, for the magistrate showed his appreciation of the evidence of one of the witnesses by humorously rallying him about his experiments with kittens, as though any‐one could presume to judge from experiments on brute beasts what would be the effect on human beings—the “lords of creation.” Everyone reading the evidence will be struck by the fact that the defendant stated that he had once tried to brew without preservatives, but with the only result that the entire lot “went bad.” All manufacturers of his own type will sympathise with him, since, of course, there is no practicable way of getting over this trouble except by the use of preservatives; although the above‐mentioned faddists are so unkind as to state that if everything is clean the article will keep. But this must surely be sheer theory, for it cannot be supposed that there can be any manufacturer of this class of article who would be foolish enough to think he could run his business at a profit, and yet go to all the expense of having the returned empties washed out before refilling, and of paying the heavy price asked for the best crude materials, when he has to compete with rival firms, who can use practically anything, and yet turn out an article equal in every way from a selling point of view, and one that will keep sufficiently, by the simple (and cheap) expedient of throwing theory on one side, and by pinning their faith to a preservative which has now received the approval of a magistrate. Manufacturers who use preservatives, whether they are makers of wines or are dairymen, and all similar tradesmen, should join together to protect their interests, for, as they must all admit, “the welfare of the trade” is the chief thing they have to consider, and any other interest must come second, if it is to come in at all. Now is the time for action, for the Commission appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives in foods has not yet given its decision, and there is still time for a properly‐conducted campaign, backed up by those “influential members of the trade” of whom we hear so much, and aided by such far‐reaching and brilliant magisterial decisions, to force these opinions prominently forward, in spite of the prejudice of the public; and to insure to the trades interested the unfettered use of preservatives,—which save “the trade” hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, by enabling the manufacturers to dispense with heavily‐priced apparatus, with extra workmen and with the use of expensive materials,—and which are urgently asked for by the public,—since we all prefer to have our foods drugged than to have them pure.

IN order to be able to discriminate with certainty between butter and such margarine as is sold in England, it is necessary to carry out two or three elaborate and delicate chemical processes. But there has always been a craving by the public for some simple method of determining the genuineness of butter by means of which the necessary trouble could be dispensed with. It has been suggested that such easy detection would be possible if all margarine bought and sold in England were to be manufactured with some distinctive colouring added—light‐blue, for instance—or were to contain a small amount of phenolphthalein, so that the addition of a drop of a solution of caustic potash to a suspected sample would cause it to become pink if it were margarine, while nothing would occur if it were genuine butter. These methods, which have been put forward seriously, will be found on consideration to be unnecessary, and, indeed, absurd.

Although there are contradictory reports in regard to the tinned meat scandal in America, there is not the least doubt that an appalling condition of things prevails, and to the ordinary person who knows little or nothing of the extent to which food adulteration and other such malpractices exist in this country as well as elsewhere, such revelations as those which have recently been made by the daily press must come as a shock. To those whose duty it is to acquaint themselves with the nature and quality of the food supply of the people, the revelations are not so startling. The layman would hardly believe that the cases of obscure poisoning which repeatedly occur, sometimes resulting in death, and sometimes producing more or less severe attacks of illness, are largely due to the use of bad tinned foods. According to various reports from reliable sources, some of the practices in vogue at the Chicago packing houses are too disgusting to be given publicity to, but the malpractices which have been revealed in connection with the manufacture of tinned meat products, such as the use of diseased carcases, filthy offal and sweepings, putrid and decomposed meat artificially coloured and preserved with boric acid or some other chemical preservative, of potted ham made from mouldy flesh, of sausages made from the sweepings of the packing houses where it is the habit of the employees to expectorate freely on the floor, will tend to make people refuse to purchase any kind of tinned food, and unfortunately the manufacturer of good and wholesome products is sure to suffer. As might have been anticipated, denials as to the allegations made have been put forward and circulated, no doubt at the instance of persons more or less interested in the maintenance of the practices referred to. It has been alleged that protection is afforded to the consumer by certain labels, which read, “Quality Guaranteed, Government Inspected,” but it appears from recent official reports that this statement in reality means nothing at all, and affords no guarantee whatever—which is precisely what we should have expected. The absurdity and criminality of permitting the admixture of chemical preservatives with articles of food are well illustrated by these exposures, and we have more justification than ever in asking that our own Government authorities will make up their minds to take the action which has so long and so forcibly been urged upon them with respect to this form of adulteration.

The causes that have produced the revolting state of affairs in the matter of the “canned” food and meat scandals in the United States are of interest chiefly to the student of social pathology. The fact of the existence of the abuses referred to, however, appeals to us in this country in a different and more practical way, and demands careful consideration.

At the seventeenth ordinary meeting of the Royal Society of Arts, on Wednesday, April 17, 1912, DR. RUDOLF MESSEL, President of the Society of Chemical Industry, in the chair, a paper on “Municipal Chemistry” was read by MR. J. H. COSTE, F.I.C. The following résumé of the points of interest to readers of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL is published by kind permission of the author and of the Royal Society of Arts:—

At the present time when all kinds of adulterants are being employed by many bakers in the manufacture of bread, and the food rations, and bread rations in particular, are considerably reduced, it is of the utmost importance that the public should take what steps they can to obtain a bread which contains a relatively high percentage of assimilable proteins. Many of the “ war breads ” which have been manufactured of late cannot be characterised as satisfactory and desirable products especially in view of the cases of acute indigestion which have been directly attributed to the use of such bread. One of the “ Die Hard ” fallacies, which continues to be promulgated by some members of the Scientific and Medical professions with obstinate regularity, is that the protein content of a food is an absolute indication as to its nutritive value. Nothing could be much more misleading or erroneous. It is quite possible for a food to contain a high percentage of substances described as proteins and yet to possess very little or no nutritive value for the average person inasmuch as many of the substances described as proteins may be entirely indigestible or nearly so. The nutritive value of any food to any given person is largely dependent upon the idiosyncrasies of the person, the amount of available protein present in the food, and certain other factors.

In the House of Lords on the 13th November last the Earl of MEATH asked whether it was a fact, as stated in the public Press, that the leaflet of the Board of Agriculture recommending the use of glucose, salicylic acid, and a coal‐tar product known as saccharin, or saxin, as sugar substitutes in jam had been condemned by the Kensington Public Health Committee on the ground of possible danger to health, and whether the Public Analyst told the Committee that glucose was liable to contamination with arsenic, that salicylic acid was a dangerous drug, which should only be administered under medical direction, and that the use of saccharin, except under medical supervision, had been recently prohibited in America, and was entirely prohibited in France in certain commodities, including preserves; and if the facts were as stated, what steps the Government proposed to take to warn the public against the use of these drugs in the preservation of food. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, is reported to have replied that the opinion of expert chemists had been taken on the matters raised in the question. They had reported “that glucose had long been used in the manufacture of jam and for other food purposes, that its value as a food was well recognised, that its manufacture in this country was in the hands of a few firms, and that samples were systematically tested for arsenic at Government Laboratories.” Continuing, his Grace observed that “samples of foreign glucose were also taken for examination on importation. In no case did the arsenic exceed one‐hundredth of a grain per pound of glucose, the point below which the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning had reported that no action should be taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. Manufacturers exercised great care to secure freedom from arsenic. Further, the Board of Agriculture had suggested that, as glucose was sold for human food, it came within the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, and was subject to public analytical examination. The public was therefore doubly safeguarded. The leaflet did not refer to the use of salicylic acid in jam making, but to its use for sterilising the paper covers on the pots. The Committee of the Local Government Board which was appointed in 1899 to inquire into the use of preservatives in food had placed a limit of one grain of the acid per pound in the case of solids and of one grain per pint in the case of liquids. The amount used for the paper covers of jam pots was not nearly one grain per pound of jam. The use of coal tar for sweetening was not advocated, and was not referred to in the leaflet. It had, however, been suggested that saccharin or saxin could be used in place of cane sugar where cane sugar was not obtainable. Saccharin underwent no change in and was not absorbed by the body. The Department had no precise knowledge of the reasons which had led to the alleged prohibition of the use of saccharin in America and France. It would appear, however, that the prohibition if it existed, was due to fiscal reasons.” After the delivery of this statement the Earl of MEATH is reported to have said it would relieve a great many minds to hear that in the opinion of eminent chemists there was no danger in using the substances in question. He hoped the public would no longer be afraid to use them.

IN this number, as is our custom at this time of the year, we turn our attention to the coming Annual Meeting of the Library Association. The choice of Leeds as a venue for the Conference, coming as it does after Glasgow and Birmingham, is a proof to those who need it of the earnestness which actuates the Council, and the members, of the Library Association. We note that our colleagues the accountants, surveyors and others, have a weakness for Torquay, Southport and Scarborough for their serious annual deliberations; and such a choice has one advantage: it encourages members of committees to join their officers at the meetings. There are compensations, however, as any wise man will recognise. The library movement succeeds, in so far as it is able to convince the great centres of population of its value. Meeting in them has, therefore, a primary political value, if we may use that term in this connection ; and it has a secondary professional one in that in such great towns a really complete and active application of library work can be seen.

A resemblance not merely superficial exists between August, 1914, and November, 1931. A rapid orientation in our national outlook marks both dates. Imminence of national disaster was and is the cause in both cases. The analogy may perhaps be pressed a step further if the quickness and the certainty of national response be considered. The introduction by a National Government of universal military service in 1914 has an analogue in the introduction by a National Government of the Abnormal Imports Act of 1931. At this point the analogy would seem to end. The crisis of 1914 demanded the mobilisation of the man power of the country in many fields of activity to prevent the threat to our existence as a nation from being put into execution. In 1931 with a similar threat to our existence the strongest government of all time is content to avail itself of only part of the power that would willingly be placed at its disposal and to discourage the rest. Perhaps we may be permitted to express the hope that so far as duration may be concerned the analogy will also fail. We cannot afford to take four years over this matter. For some time past the nation has been “a beggar on horseback,” and during the last ten years it has made a considerable amount of progress in the direction towards which beggars in that position are popularly supposed to be riding. Progress in this direction has been much aided, if not accelerated, by means of a strong and increasingly developed inferiority complex whereby it appeared to us that anyone could do anything much better than we could do it ourselves, and we were, under its influence, rapidly becoming on the one hand merely agents for foreign manufacturers, the products of whose fields or factories were being distributed on the other hand to people whose purchasing power, owing to excessive taxation and other causes, was rapidly diminishing. In spite of the results of the general election we still seem to be in a large measure deficient in healthy optimism, that belief in our own powers which is usually a condition of success. It has apparently become necessary to assure an English audience that an English hen can lay as good an egg as a Russian or Chinese hen. May we add the further information that English bacon is the best in the world. That plums are grown best at Pershore and strawberries in Kent and Hampshire. That we thoroughly despise the fear that was publicly and gravely expressed by a public man that if we attempted to set our house in order by means of a protective tariff the dreadful foreigner would retaliate and even go to war with us over the matter.

THE re‐opening of air offensive action on both sides, which marked the later part of January, is likely to complicate life considerably for librarians. The lull that has been enjoyed during the Russian operations, and is probably owing to them, may prove to have been deceptive. We do not know yet how much further the destruction of buildings—and amongst them libraries—will go before a decision is reached. We suppose by now that every librarian has taken every precaution within his power to preserve his stock and his service : more than that it is hardly possible to do with the resources to which we are now restricted.