Search results

The final report of the Butter Regulations Committee has now been published and it is earnestly to be hoped that Regulations based on the Committee's Recommendations will at once be framed and issued by the Board of Agriculture. It will be remembered that in an Interim Report the Committee recommended the adoption of a limit of 16 per cent. for the proportion of water in butter, and that, acting on this recommendation, the Board of Agriculture drew up and issued the “Sale of Butter Regulations, 1902,” under the powers conferred on the Board by Section 4 of the Food Act of 1899. In the present Report the Committee deal with the other matters referred to them, namely, as to what Regulations, if any, might with advantage be made for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of butter, or what addition of extraneous matter other than water, should raise a presumption until the contrary is proved that the butter is not “genuine.” The Committee are to be congratulated on the result of their labours—labours which have obviously been both arduous and lengthy. The questions which have had to be dealt with are intricate and difficult, and they are, moreover, of a highly technical nature. The Committee have evidently worked with the earnest desire to arrive at conclusions which, when applied, would afford as great a measure of protection—as it is possible to give by means of legislative enactments—to the consumer and to the honest producer. The thorough investigation which has been made could result only in the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived, namely, that, in regard to the administration of the Food Acts, (1) an analytical limit should be imposed which limit should determine what degree of deficiency in those constituents which specially characterise butter should raise a presumption that the butter is not “genuine”; (2) that the use of 10 per cent. of a chemically‐recognisable oil in the manufacture of margarine be made compulsory; (3) that steps should be taken to obtain international co‐operation; and finally, that the System of Control, as explained by various witnesses, commends itself to the Committee.

The danger attending the use of the insufficiently purified waters derived from the Thames and Lea should, we think, be constantly pressed upon the attention of the Legislature and of the public. We regard it as a duty to endeavour to prevent the continued neglect of the warnings which have been put forward from time to time by those who have made a careful and unbiassed study of the subject, and which have recently been again uttered and emphasised by SIR A. BINNIE, the late Engineer of the London County Council. In the public interest it is greatly to be regretted that the system of analytical control, which was maintained by certain London Borough Councils with regard to the water supplied within the areas under their jurisdiction, has been discontinued. The local checks referred to were of the greatest value to the inhabitants of the districts concerned by affording timely warning when water of dangerous character was being supplied, thus enabling some protective measures to be taken. They also served the useful purposes of keeping public attention fixed upon the matter.

That the health of the body is very closely connected with the nature and quantity of the food we take is a statement in the nature of a self‐evident proposition. When we desist from eating food, starvation sets in after a longer or shorter period, according to the individual; when we eat too much or drink too much, distressing symptoms as inevitably supervene. Moreover, the quantity of food or drink consumed is not the only factor. The quality also is a matter of supreme importance, as in cases of malnutrition, while the various forms of blood disease, more or less loosely classed together as anæmia, appear to be associated to some extent with the question of nourishment. Without going so far as extreme partisans do who would seek to prove that all diseases are ultimately due to the consumption of unsuitable food, as witness, for instance, the views of the more advanced vegetarians and fruitarians, who attribute cancer and other maladies to the eating of meat, it is obvious that a very close connection exists between the health of the body and the nature of our food supply.

A considerable portion of Dr. G. S. BUCHANAN'S report on the work of the Inspectors of Foods of the Local Government Board during the year 1908–09 deals with work carried out in special relation to the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907. A large amount of the meat consumed in this country is imported from the continent of Europe, the United States, and the colonies, and it may almost be said that the fact of our having to rely on the foreign producer for so much of our meat supply accounts for some of it being derived from diseased animals, or being in other ways unwholesome, or bearing evidence of having been prepared under conditions in which the needful sanitary precautions have not been taken.

The general quality of milk supplied by the cows will also affect the question, and in this connection it may be noted that Mr. Lehmann stated to the Departmental Committee that Dutch cows do not produce a milk so rich in fat as these of Switzerland; an examination of the figures given tends to corroborate this view. Dutch milks appear to require concentration to a higher degree in order to provide as large a proportion of fat as Swiss or Norwegian made milk.

Some people assert that the tendency of modern Governments is to be too grandmotherly. They urge that people must not depend on the Government preventing them from coming to harm, and that they should be self‐reliant. This is very true, but nowadays one individual cannot be a specialist in everything. The ordinary person has to take a great many things on trust. For instance, a passenger by train is not able to inspect the engine and look at all the wheels, examine the whole length of railway, and in other ways assure himself that he and his are fairly safe from the results of the carelessness of others. On the contrary, he has to trust to the “powers that be” that they have adjusted the laws concerning responsibility in case of accident to any train that, on the average, the proper amount of care has been exercised. It is the same with weights and measures; a purchaser cannot always carry about with him a pair of scales and a set of weights to ensure his not being cheated; he has to trust to the Government and its inspector. And the Food and Drugs Acts constitute an attempt to protect people who are not in a position to protect themselves from being cheated. It has been suggested that the same principle should be extended to ensuring the proper cooking of food. The digestibility of most foods depends very largely upon the cooking, and yet how many of those who keep restaurants or roadside inns are really capable of cooking food properly? A busy man at the lunch hour and a cyclist at an inn are usually in a hurry. They have to eat the food supplied or go for some hours without any, and there ought to be some means invented to ensure the food being fit to eat. There would, of course, have to be some legal definition of “well‐done” or “under‐done” meat, and what a cup of “fresh” tea ought to be. The exact hardness of potatoes allowable by law would give rise to appeal cases, and some glaring case of an egg boiled too hard might send a landlord to prison for a month. Boarding‐houses might even be brought within the administrations of the Proper Cooking of Food Acts.

The inaugural meeting of the newly established National Party was held in the Queen's Hall, Langham Place, on Thursday, October 25th, under the presidency of Admiral Lord Beresford. There was a large and distinguished audience numbering about 3,000 persons, among those on the platform being Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Brigadier‐General Page Croft, M.P., Mr. Havelock Wilson, Miss Constance Williams, the Hon. G. J. Jenkins (all of whom addressed the meeting), Earl Bathurst, Sir C. Allom, Major Alan Burgoyne, M.P., Colonel Cassal, Mr. G. K. Chesterton, Sir R. Cooper, M.P., Capt. Viscount Duncannon, M.P., Sir W. Earnshaw Cooper, Mr. H. A. Gwynne, Mr. Rowland Hunt, M.P., Lieut.‐Col. Lord Leconfield, Lord Leith of Fyvie, Admiral Sir H. Markham, The Earl of Northesk, Colonel R. H. Rawson, M.P., Lord Edward St. Maur, Admiral Sir Edward Seymour, Lord Stafford and others.

The Sanitary Committee of a certain County Council, strong with the strength of recent creation, have lately been animated by a desire to distinguish themselves in some way, and, proceeding along the lines of least resistance, they appear to have selected the Public Analyst as the most suitable object for attack. The charge against this unfortunate official was not that he is incompetent, or that he had been in any way negligent of his duties as prescribed by Act of Parliament, but simply and solely that he has the temerity to reside in London, which city is distant by a certain number of miles from the much favoured district controlled by the County Council aforesaid. The committee were favoured in their deliberations by the assistance of no less an authority than the “Principal” of a local “Technical School”;—and who could be more capable than he to express an opinion upon so simple a matter? This eminent exponent of scientific truths, after due and proper consideration, is reported to have delivered himself of the opinion that “scientifically it would be desirable that the analyst should reside in the district, as the delay occasioned by the sending of samples of water to London is liable to produce a misleading effect upon an analysis.” Apparently appalled by the contemplation of such possibilities, and strengthened by another expression of opinion to the effect that there were as “good men” in the district as in London, the committee resolved to recommend the County Council to determine the existing arrangement with the Public Analyst, and to appoint a “local analyst for all purposes.” Thus, the only objection which could be urged to the employment of a Public Analyst resident in London was the ridiculous one that the composition of a sample of water was likely to seriously alter during the period of its transit to London, and this contention becomes still more absurd when it is remembered that the examination of water samples is no part of the official duty of a Public Analyst. The employment of local scientific talent may be very proper when the object to be attained is simply the more or less imperfect instruction of the rising generation in the rudiments of what passes in this country for “technical education”; but the work of the Public Analyst is serious and responsible, and cannot be lightly undertaken by every person who may be acquainted with some of the uses of a test‐tube. The worthy members of this committee may find to their cost, as other committees have found before them, that persons possessing the requisite knowledge and experience are not necessarily indigenous to their district. Supposing that the County Council adopts the recommendation, the aspirations of the committee may even then be strangled in their infancy, as the Local Government Board will want to know all about the matter, and the committee will have to give serious and valid reasons in support of their case.