Search results

Fatigue, occurring in an average healthy individual, under ordinary conditions of life, and while foodstuffs of a very usual character are being ingested, is an indication of an inability on the part of the organism to meet, with sufficient rapidity, the demands of the body created by wear and tear. It is an association of defective oxidation and the undue accumulation of waste products in the tissues and blood, and is in a very large percentage of cases caused solely by a deficiency in the average dietary of to‐day of one or more of those mineral elements which are essential to life. That mineral substances are indispensable to life has been fully demonstrated, for it has been shown that animals fed upon proteins, carbohydrates, and fats, which have been rendered as ash‐free as possible, perish even more rapidly than if they are deprived of food altogether.

The aim of this chapter is to examine the profile of high-performing small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Traditional Manufacturing Sectors (TMSs). The authors main contribution is to provide recommendations and benchmarks for prescribing a more robust model of internationalisation in these industries by specifying the types of internationalisation and innovation that better reinforce competitiveness. Our results, based on a sample of 132 SMEs, show that high-performing SMEs make more intense use of advanced operation modes that imply a closer interaction with the host country to access knowledge diversity, skills and work available in those markets. Moreover, compared to low-performing SMEs, and independently of their size and experience, these firms use a wide set of networking and marketing capabilities and develop innovations based on organisational changes that help to create new business models. After a number of years of forced adjustment and adaptation to a globalised context, the new model of high-performing SME in TMS could help to improve the global positioning of these firms in the long term.

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.

The first statutory meeting of the Pure Food and Health Society of Great Britain was held on October 16 at the registered offices of the Society, 20, Hanover Square, W. LORD CAMOYS, Chairman of the Executive Committee, presided. In opening the meeting LORD CAMOYS said:—

With reference to the report of the Annual General Meeting of the Pure Food and Health Society of Great Britain, which was published in the February issue of THE BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and to the speech delivered by MR. GOSLIN upon the proper handling and purveying of meat, an article which has subsequently appeared in The Standard is of considerable interest. It is pointed out that no one who gives the matter serious consideration can approve of the present methods. “Many years ago Oxford made its protest against carcasses or joints being exposed in open‐fronted shops. It is just possible that when the powers that were objected to and forbade this proceeding they thought more of the æsthetics than the science of it, but they most certainly did a good thing when they took flesh foods away from the contamination of street dust and the variations of temperature that are dependent on every gust of wind or every moment of sunlight or shadow.”

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 Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring matters in the preservation and colouring of food, have now issued their report, and the large amount of evidence which is recorded therein will be found to be of the greatest interest to those concerned in striving to obtain a pure and unsophisticated food‐supply. It is of course much to be regretted that the Committee could not see their way to recommend the prohibition of all chemical preservatives in articles of food and drink; but, apart from this want of strength, they have made certain recommendations which, if they become law, will greatly improve the character of certain classes of food. It is satisfactory to note that formaldehyde and its preparations may be absolutely prohibited in foods and drinks; but, on the other hand, it is suggested that salicylic acid may be allowed in certain proportions in food, although in all cases its presence is to be declared. The entire prohibition of preservatives in milk would be a step in the right direction, although it is difficult to see why, in view of this recommendation, boric acid should be allowed to the extent of 0·25 per cent. in cream, more especially as by another recommendation all dietetic preparations intended for the use of invalids or infants are to be entirely free from preservative chemicals; but it will be a severe shock to tho3e traders who are in the habit of using these substances to be informed that they must declare the fact of the admixture by a label attached to the containing vessel. The use of boric acid and borax only is to be permitted in butter and margarine, in proportions not exceeding 0·5 per cent. expressed as boric acid, without notification. It is suggested that the use of salts of copper in the so‐called greening of vegetables should not be allowed, but upon this recommendation the members of the Committee were not unanimous, as in a note attached to the report one member states that he does not agree with the entire exclusion of added copper to food, for the strange reason that certain foods may naturally contain traces of copper. With equal truth it can be said that certain foods may naturally contain traces of arsenic. Is the addition of arsenic therefore to be permitted? The Committee are to be congratulated upon the result of their labours, and when these recommendations become law Great Britain may be regarded as having come a little more into line— although with some apparent reluctance—with those countries who regard the purity of their food‐supplies as a matter of national importance.

Merchants and manufacturers have it in their power to minimise in some degree the extent to which we are becoming indebted to foreign countries in respect of the large excess of imports over exports, by obtaining, as far as possible, their imported supplies of food products and raw materials for industries from countries within the Empire. Take, for example, meat and cheese. The prevailing high prices are no doubt encouraging the home production of these commodities. Nevertheless a large quantity must necessarily be imported. In 1914 meat to the value of 62 million pounds was imported, and cheese to the value of 8 million pounds. Of the imports of meat 26 per cent. came from within the Empire, and of cheese 82 per cent. Clearly it is better under existing circumstances that we should buy meat from Australia and New Zealand than from Argentina, and cheese from Canada and New Zealand rather than from Holland and the United States. Many other examples may be mentioned of products which can equally as well be obtained within the Empire as from foreign countries, such as maize from South Africa, where a large increase of production is expected this year; oats from Canada rather than from Argentina and the United States; barley from Canada; peas from New Zealand; butter from Australia and New Zealand; canned salmon, of which 2½ million pounds' worth was imported in 1914, from Canada rather than from the United States; apples from Canada and Australia; wine from Australia; tea from India and Ceylon rather than from China and Java; cocoa from the Gold Coast and the West Indies; copra from Malaya, India and Australia; rubber from Malaya and Ceylon; fibres from New Zealand, Mauritius, Ceylon, etc.; wood pulp from Canada and Newfoundland; wool from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Falkland Islands rather than from Argentina, Chile and other foreign sources; tanning materials from India, Natal, Australia and British East Africa; dyewoods from the West Indies; timber from Canada; hardwoods from India, West Africa, the West Indies and Australia; copper and copper ore from Australia and South Africa; tin and tin ore from Malaya, Nigeria, South Africa and Australia; manganese from India; plumbago from Ceylon; hides from India, Africa and Australia, and so forth. It has been stated that the result of the war may ultimately depend largely on financial strength. In that case the country which is to the greatest extent self‐supporting as regards supplies of the necessaries of life and materials for the manufacture of munitions of war will be in a position to carry on the longest. Undoubtedly the British Empire contains within itself the power to produce all such materials, and the Dominions, Colonies and Dependencies are in fact already supplying a large proportion of the food products and raw materials for industries, which are imported into the United Kingdom. There are a few notable exceptions, e.g., for our supplies of cotton and sugar we have always been largely dependent on foreign countries, but Uganda and the Soudan are capable of producing in the future very large quantities of cotton of the quality required by Lancashire spinners, and sugar production in our Colonies could, with proper encouragement, be expanded so as to meet the whole of the requirements of the Mother Country. If the British capital and energy which have in the past gone every year to the development of enterprises in foreign countries had been devoted for a tew years exclusively to exploiting the resources of the Dominions and Colonies, the British Empire would, by this time, have become practically self‐supporting, and the bulk of our imported foodstuffs and raw products required for our manufacturing industries would now be obtained from within the Empire and paid for by increased quantities of our own manufactures. It may be hoped that one of the lessons which we shall learn from the war will be definitely to encourage the development of the vast resources of our overseas Empire. — The Chamber of Commerce Journal.

The High Court judgments in the two appeal cases relating to the sale of cream containing boric acid will be read with considerable satisfaction by those who consider that the protection of the health of the people is a matter of greater importance than the protection of the interests of a trade. In one case the Westminster City Council appealed against the decision of a Metropolitan Police magistrate who had dismissed a summons taken out by the Council under the third Section of the Act of 1875 for the sale of “preserved cream” containing 23·8 grains of boric acid per pound, and in the other the vendors of a sample of “preserved cream” containing 19·7 grains of boric acid per pound, appealed against their conviction under the same Section of the Act by the Kensington justices. In the first case the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the magistrate with a direction to convict; and in the second the appeal was dismissed, the Divisional Court, consisting of Justices Ridley, Bray and Avory being unanimous in both cases.