Search results

This paper aims to present an account of the history and recent cultural revival of the Acadians, one people flourishing in two geographically distinct regions of North America.

The methodology is a comparison and contrast structure utilizing secondary historical research sources.

Two different environments have given rise to a similar pattern of development, suppression, and rejuvenation of Acadian and Cajun culture in which apparent differences between the groups hide deeper correspondences, while lesser‐known parallels are more striking than more obvious similarities.

While the particular case of Acadian and Cajun collaboration is unique, future research may compare this case to that of other cultural groups separated by geography and political systems.

This paper suggests that the Acadians and Cajuns are a unique case of two cultures with a single history achieving cultural autonomy first in tandem and finally in concert.

Official and therefore reliable information which relates to the canning industry in France is unfortunately almost impossible to obtain at the moment of writing. This is the more regrettable, as it is to France that the world is indebted for the inception of an industry whose influence has been as profound as it is widespread. The French manufacturers, however, do not seem to have availed themselves as fully as they might have done of the possibilities, or complied with the requirements of the modern developments of the industry. For example, until quite recently we understand that a prejudice existed against foodstuffs which had been preserved in tins instead of in bottles or jars. This prejudice is in process of being overcome to what will be undoubtedly the great benefit of the industry. Tins of course have been and are being widely used at the present time in the “putting up” of sardines to mention only one well‐known item of the French canning trade, but they could be used more than they are for many other things. When tins are used standardization of the sizes of containers becomes easier, with attendant advantages in the matter of packing and transport. Again, leaving quality out of the question, such standardization is to the benefit of retailer and consumer, for the one knows the weight and bulk of what he sells and the other of what he buys, to say nothing of the saving effected in time, labour, and material in the factory itself. As an illustration, though it may be an extreme one, of the want of standardization in this respect, it has been stated that no less than thirty‐one different sized containers are in use by one firm which “puts up” foie gras! The disadvantage, especially in the export trade, of such lack of uniformity is too obvious to need comment. In the United States, with its enormous home and export trade in canned foodstuffs of all kinds, the necessity for standardization has long been recognised and acted upon. The system of trade and Government control over output is in this respect complete. In France, on the other hand, it would seem to be only beginning. The matter, however, is engaging the attention of “Agnon,” that is to say the Association Française pour normalization, which has already taken action with regard to certain products, namely, mushrooms, legumes, and sardines—and it has under consideration a project whereby the containers of other foods may be standardized in shape and bulk. There has hitherto been to a certain extent an absence of the full measure of co‐operation among French “packing houses” to use the American term, but the Conseil National et Inter‐fédéral de la Conserve—of which our contemporary, “La Conserverie Française,” is the official organ—is taking steps by a somewhat belated but fully justified campaign of propaganda to give the necessary information relating to every aspect of the canned and bottled foodstuffs prepared by French manufacturing houses.

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 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.

The Report of the Food Investigation Board (the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) for the year 1934 is, as were its predecessors, a document of first‐rate interest and importance. The Board was established in 1917, and under its terms of reference it has “ to submit an annual programme of research and an annual report.” The revised terms of reference clearly indicate the wide interests, both scientific and industrial, with which the Board is concerned. Its duties are “ to advise generally on the conduct of research on the properties and behaviour of foodstuffs on the scientific problems, including physical and engineering problems, involved in their storage and transport.” The duties of the Board are obviously as far reaching as they could well be. By no means the least interesting feature of these reports taken as a whole is the close connection they show to exist between the laboratory and the market place. This fact alone—which emerges quite naturally as the work which has been done, or is being done, or that which it is proposed to do, is described — gives to these reports a claim on public interest which is almost unique in the annals of Government publications. The people of this country are, whether they generally realise it or not, more affected in their daily life by problems connected with the transport and preservation of foodstuffs than those of any other country. We are far from being self‐supporting. Half the meat we eat comes from overseas. Argentina supplies us with a very large proportion of our chilled beef. Australia and New Zealand have plenty of cattle that would furnish us with good beef, but the difficulty has been to ship it in a chilled as distinct from a frozen state to these shores, On the 18th July, 1933, a first consignment of chilled beef from New Zealand reached the London market. This beef had been stowed on board in an atmosphere containing 10 per cent. of carbon dioxide. It arrived in good condition. This preliminary consignment of chilled beef from the antipodes is very rightly referred to by the Board as “ an event which may well prove historic.” In 1934 four thousand four hundred tons of meat in gas (CO2) storage were sent from Australia and from New Zealand to this country. Thus a new and important chapter in Imperial economic relations has been opened, not inferior in importance to the original introduction of cold transport and of cold storage some fifty years ago. “ Given careful handling the use of gas storage eliminates mould and bacterial slime.” Slime is a thick growth of organisms of the Achromobacter group. It appears more quickly on meat which has a high initial bacterial count at the time of shipment, and the truth of this statement is borne out by the figures given in the Report. Achromobacter growth is inhibited at 0° C in the presence of carbon dioxide ; while Proteus and aerobacter are not thus inhibited, but their optima is 37° C. So that a low temperature and at atmosphere containing 10 per cent. of carbon dioxide suffices to eliminate these troublesome groups of micro organisms from meat during transport. The term “ careful handling ” may perhaps be extended to include good sanitary conditions in the slaughter houses. The Report for 1932 dwells on the need for a plentiful supply of hot water. The older method somewhat neglected this essential, and one bucket of water sufficed for several carcases. A bacterial count of the bacterial content of water which had been used for this purpose showed that with an insufficient supply of water the number of organisms per cubic centimetre varied from two to twenty‐five millions, with five thousand B. coli per ten cubic centimetres. With an abundant supply of water the corresponding figures were fifteen thousand and five ! As the life of meat in store depends on its freedom from bacteria the need for extreme cleanliness in the treatment of meat before it leaves the slaughter house need not be insisted on. The matter has of course received adequate attention in Australia and in New Zealand where beef is being prepared for shipment under the new conditions. Other problems still remain to be considered such as the best methods of stowage to prevent chafing ; degree of humidity in the hold during transport ; air circulation to ensure uniformity in the atmosphere of the hold ; and the maintenance of the correct temperature. If these conditions are complied with the “ bloom,” that is, the natural appearance of the meat, is retained. Otherwise the oxidation of hæmoglobin to methæmoglobin ensues and the “ bloom ” of the meat is lost. “ Bloom,” it is stated, does not affect the nutritive value of the meat, but the absence of “ bloom ” would presumably affect the price of the meat on the wholesale market as it ceases to be a factor when the meat has been cut up into joints. The successful transport of a cargo of chilled beef from Australia and New Zealand therefore depends on its being landed not only in a wholesome condition, but also in a condition that will enable it to compete on at least equal terms with its foreign competitors. This evidently implies the close and effective co‐operation of everybody concerned from the stockbreeder in Australia or in New Zealand to the retailer in London.

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.

In connection with the suggestion recently made in the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL to the effect that a National Pure Food Association should be established it is of importance to call attention to the fact that a society describing itself as the “League for the Defence of Human Life” has been recently formed in Paris with the object of preventing the frauds practised by dishonest traders upon their customers. One of the obligations entered into by the members of the League is to discover and prosecute persons engaged in the sale of adulterated or injurious articles of food and drink. Judging from the recent reports of the proceedings of certain Parisian tradesmen it would appear that a society of this description has much scope for its operations in the French Metropolis, and, as we have suggested, a society with similar objects might with advantage be formed in this country, with branches in all the principal cities and towns. With the legal machinery placed at the disposal of local authorities, cumbrous, inadequate and weak as it is, much more might be done in the way of repression if only the responsible authorities could be brought better to appreciate their duty.

Month after month we bring forward additional evidence of the injury resulting from the use of chemical “preservatives” in food, while the Authorities feebly hesitate to give specific legal effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which made such a complete inquiry into this question. The evidence upon which those recommendations were based has been fully corroborated by a number of different observers. FERE and others have shown that, as regards boric acid and borax, even when administered in the smallest medicinal doses, there is always the risk that these drugs may aggravate, or even produce, renal diseases. These observations have been confirmed by the work of Dr. CHARLES HARRINGTON, an account of which has been recently published. Twelve cats were fed on the same food; six were treated with borax, one had no preservative, and five were given a preservative which had no apparent effect. The experiment extended over a period of 133 days, the quantity of borax given averaging about 0.5 grms, per diem. Three of the borated cats soon became ill, and one died at the end of six weeks. On the termination of the experiment the cats were all killed, and upon examination it was found that the organs of the six cats which had not taken borax were in perfectly sound and healthy condition, while the others, with one exception, were all suffering from nephritis. Of course, instances are recorded in which patients have been treated with borax and boracic acid with apparently no injurious result, but as a general rule these experiments have been of too short duration to allow of the desired information being arrived at, and the results must therefore be regarded as inconclusive and unreliable. It is perfectly evident that the kidneys may be for a short time quite capable of eliminating many objectionable substances, but the long‐continued use of such bodies, as Dr. HARRINGTON'S researches clearly indicate, sets up an inflammatory condition of the kidneys which, of course, interferes with the effective performance of their proper functions, and lays the foundations for complications of the most serious nature.

The Society of the White Cross of Geneva appears to have been founded with the object of organising on an international basis the attempts that are being made at the present time in civilised countries to bring under control, and if possible to stamp out, certain abuses, frauds, and other injurious factors more or less existent in modern civilised life. Among the subjects to be dealt with are mentioned “les empoisonnements alimentaires,” and adulteration generally, and the principal part of the business of the International Congress which met at Geneva last year and whose second sitting has just ended in Paris, appears to have related to food questions. The objects aimed at by the society are, no doubt, excellent, but they are hardly likely to be attained if the procedure followed in certain respects at the Geneva and Paris Congresses is adopted in the future. Many of the questions brought before these Congresses were of a highly technical nature, and, for this reason, it was not only very desirable, but absolutely necessary that the matters under discussion should have been dealt with, so far as time allowed, by a thoroughly representative international body composed exclusively of scientific and legal experts of recognised position in their respective countries—that is to say, if the conclusions arrived at were to be taken as representing a serious expression of authoritative opinion. It does not appear that the conclusions and resolutions of these Congresses were arrived at by meetings constituted on these lines, and it is probably for this reason that very little, if any, impression has been produced by the gatherings referred to. The initial mistake appears to have been the admission of a number of people who were obviously only interested in the commercial aspects of the subjects dealt with, and who were sufficiently numerous and persistent to influence the meetings in directions favourable to what were declared to be the “requirements” of trade.

The question has been recently raised as to how far the operation of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts of 1875, 1879, and 1899, and the Margarine Act, 1887, is affected by the Act 29 Charles II., cap. 7, “for the better observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday.” At first sight it would seem a palpable absurdity to suppose that a man could escape the penalties of one offence because he has committed another breach of the law at the same time, and in this respect law and common‐sense are, broadly speaking, in agreement; yet there are one or two cases in which at least some show of argument can be brought forward in favour of the opposite contention.