Chapter XLII: Section 6: , quoted above, gave rise to an immense amount of (1)

litigation, and already in 1879 it was found necessary to pass an amending act, making it clear that if a purchase was effected by an inspector with the intent to get the' purchased article analysed, he was as much ``prejudiced'' if obtaining a sophisticated article as a private purchaser who purchased for his own use and consumption. The amending act also dealt in some small measure with a difficulty which immediately after passing the act was found to arise in ascertaining whether any article was ``of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser''---``in determining whether an offence has been committed under section 6 by selling spirits not adulterated otherwise than by the admixture of water, it shall be a good defence to prove that such admixture has not reduced the spirit more than twenty-five degrees under proof for brandy, whisky or rum, or thirty-five under proof for gin.'' Almost insuperable difficulties as to the meaning of ``nature, substance and quality'' subsequently arose as regards every conceivable food material. its it was obviously impossible for parliament to define every article, to lay down limits of composition within which it might vary, to specify the substances or ingredients that might enter into it, to limit the proportions of the unavoidable impurities that might be contained in it, the duty to do all this was left to the individual analysts. An enormous number of substances had to be analysed until sufficient evidence had been accumulated for the giving of correct opinions or certificates. Endless disputes unavoidably arose, friction with manufacturers and traders, unfortunately also with the referees at the inland revenue, who for many years were altogether out of touch with the analysts. Conflicting decisions come to by various benches of magistrates upon similar cases, allowing of the legal sale of an article in one district which in another had been declared illegal, rendered the position of merchants often unsatisfactory. It was not recognized by parliament until almost a quarter of a century had elapsed that it was not enough to compel local authorities to get samples analysed, but that it was also the duty of parliament to lay down specific and clear instructions that might enable the officers to do their work. This has only been very partially done even at the present time.

Difficulties of administration.

A curious condition of things arose out of the definition of ``food'' given in the act of 1875: ``The term food shall include every article used for food or drink by man, other than drugs or water.'' It had been the practice of bakers to add alum to the flour from which bread was manufactured, in order to whiten the bread, and to permit the use of damaged and discoloured flour. This practice had been strongly condemned by chemists and physicians, because it rendered the bread indigestible and injurious to health. Shortly after the passing of the Food Act this objectionable practice was stamped out by numerous prosecutions, and alumed bread now no longer occurs. A large trade, however, continued to be carried on in baking powders consisting of alum and sodium bicarbonate. It was naturally thought that, as baking powder is sold with the obvious intention that it may enter into food, the vendors could also be proceeded against. The high court, however, held that, baking powder in itself not being an article of food, its sale could not be an offence under the Food Act. This anomaly was removed by a later act. Under section 6 of the act of 1875 a defendant could be convicted, even if he had no guilty knowledge of the fact that the article he had sold was adulterated. In the repealed Adulteration Act of 1872 the words ``to the knowledge of'' were inserted, and they were found fatal to obtaining convictions. The general rule of the law is that the master is not criminally responsible for the acts of his servants if they are done without his knowledge or authority, but under the Food Act it was held (Brown v. Foot, 1892, 66 L.T. 649) that a master was liable for the watering of milk by one of his servants, although he had published a warning to them that they would be dismissed if found doing so. Milk might be adulterated during transit on the railway without the knowledge of the owner or receiver, and yet the vendor was liable to conviction.

When it is brought to the knowledge of a purchaser that the article sold to him is not of the nature, substance or quality he demanded, the sale is not to the prejudice of the purchaser. The notice may be given verbally or by a label supplied with the article. A common law notice may also be given. In Sandys v. Small, 1878, 3 Q.B.D. 449, a publican had displayed a placard within the inn to the effect that the spirits sold in his establishment were watered. This was held, as it were, to contract him out of the Food Act. Similarly, in the case of butters that had been adulterated with milk, the vendors, by giving a general notice in the shop, evaded punishment under the act. A notice, is, however, of no avail if given under section 8 of the act, if the admixture has been made for fraudulent purposes. In Liddiart v. Reece, 44 J.P. 233, 1880, an inspector asked for coffee and received a packet with a label describing it as a mixture of coffee and chicory. It was sold at the price of coffee. It turned out to be a mixture containing 40% of chicory. The high court held that this was an excessive quantity, and was added for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the bulk or weight. In another case, however (Otter v. Edgley, 1893, 57 J.P. 457), where an inspector had asked for French coffee and had been supplied with a mixture containing 60% of chicory, the article being labelled as a mixture, the high court held that there was no evidence of fraud, and, in the case of cocoa, a mixture containing as little as 30% of cocoa and 70% of starch and sugar, the label stating it to be a mixture, was held to have been legally sold (Jones v. Jones, 1894, 58 J.P. 653). In this case the label notifying the admixture was hidden by a sheet of opaque white paper, nor had the purchaser's attention been called to it, but the price of the article was much lower than that of pure cocoa. It is seen from these few instances, taken at random out of scores, that this clause of the act was far from clear and was very variously interpreted at the courts. The warranty clause (clause 25) also gave rise to an immense amount of litigation. In the earlier high court decisions a very narrow interpretation was given to the term ``written warranty,'' but in later years a wider view prevailed. A general contract to supply a pure article is not a sufficient warranty unless with every delivery there is something to identify the delivery as part of the contract. An invoice containing merely a description of an article as ``lard'' or ``pepper'' is not a warranty; but if there be added the words ``guaranteed pure'' it is a sufficient warranty. A label upon an article is not in itself a warranty, but a label bearing the words ``pure'' or ``unadulterated,'' coupled with an invoice which could be identified with the label, together were held to form an effective warranty.

As many thousands of samples were annually submitted by inspectors under the act to the analysts who had been appointed in 237 boroughs and districts, a very large number of cases led to disputes of law or fact, about seventy high court cases being decided within eighteen years of the passing of the act. While these cases related to a variety of different articles and conditions, dairy produce, namely milk and butter, led to the greatest amount of litigation. It may seem to be a simple matter to ascertain whether a vendor of milk supplies his customer with milk of the ``nature, substance and quality demanded,'' but milk is subject to great variations in composition owing to a large number of circumstances which will be considered below.

Margerine Act.

Not many years after the passing of the Food Act of 1875 the sale of butter substitutes assumed very large proportions, and so seriously prejudiced dairy-farmers that, as regards these, an act was passed which was not exactly an amendment of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, although it embodied a good many provisions of that act. It was called the Margarine Act 1887. It provided that every package of articles made in imitation of butter should be labelled ``margarine'' in letters 1 1/2 inches square. The vendor, however, was protected if he could show a warranty or invoice, whereas in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act he was not protected by invoice merely. Inspectors might take samples of ``any butter or substitute purporting to be butter'' without going through the form of purchase. The maximum penalty was raised from L. 20 as provided by the Food Act, to L. 50 in the case of a first and to L. 100 in the case of repeated conviction. The Margarine Act is the first statute that makes reference to and sanctions the use of preservatives, concerning which a good deal will have to be said farther on.

Select committee, 1894.

In the course of twenty years of administration of the Food Acts so many difficulties had arisen in reference to the various points referred to, that in 1894 a select committee was appointed to inquire into the working of the various acts and to report whether any, and if so what, amendments were desirable. During three sessions the committee sat and took voluminous evidence. They reported that where the acts had been well administered they had been most beneficial in diminishing adulteration offences. Forms of adulteration which were common prior to the passing of the 1875 act, such as the introouction of alum into bread and the colouring of confectionery with poisonous material, had almost entirely disappeared. A close connexion had been shown to exist between the extent of adulteration and the number of articles submitted for analysis under the acts, the proportion of adulterated samples being found to diminish as the number of samples taken relatively to the population increased. Thus, in 1890, in Somersetshire one sample had been analysed for every 379 persons, the percentage of adulterated samples in those taken for analysis being as low as 3.6; in Gloucestershire one to 770 persons with 6.2 of adulteration; in Bedfordshire one to 821 with 7.1; in Derbyshire one to 3164 with 17.1%, and in Oxford one sample to 14,963 inhabitants with no less than 41.7% of adulterated samples. The number of samples of articles annually submitted to analysis, according to the returns obtained by the Local Government Board, steadily increased from the commencement onward. Whereas in 1877, 14,706 samples, and in 1883, 19,648 samples were analysed, in 1904-1905 the number was no less than 84,678, or an average of one sample to 384 inhabitants for the whole country. In the five years 1877--1881 the proportion found adulterated was 16.2%; in the following five years ending with 1886, the percentage was 13.9; in the five years ending 1891, the percentage was 11.7; and in the year 1904 the percentage was only 8.5. The select committee found that wide local differences in the administration of the acts existed, and that in many parts of the country the local authorities had failed to exercise their powers. In one metropolitan district, eight members of the local authority had been convicted of offences under the acts, upon evidence obtained by their own inspector. The result was that the duties of the inspector of the acts were afterwards controlled by a committee of that local authority, who decided the cases in which prosecutions should be.undertaken, and the administration of the acts was ``little better than a farce.'' No power existed to compel local authorities to carry out the acts. The committee came to the conclusion that in many cases the responsibility for the adulteration of articles of food did not rest with the retailer but with the wholesale dealer or manufacturer; that the law punished petty offences and left great ones untouched; that it fined a small retailer and left the wholesale offender scot free. As regards warranty, they thought that the precedent created by the Margarine Act should be followed generally, and that invoices and equivalent documents should have the force of warranties. They found that a considerable proportion of the food imports were adulterated, out of 890 samples of butter taken by the customs in 1895 no less than 106 being impure, and they recommended that in addition to tea, which by section 30 of the act of 1875 was to be systematically analysed by the customs, prior to being passed for distribution, samples of all food imports should be taken and examined by the customs. The committee further found that the penalties imposed under the acts had for the most part been trifling and quite insufficient to serve as deterrents, the profits derived from the sale of adulterated articles being out of proportion great to the insignificant fines imposed, and they recommended that for the second offence the penalty of L. 5 should be the minimum one, and that in respect to third or subsequent offences imprisonment without the option of a fine might be inflicted. The important question of food standards was considered at great length. The absence of legal standards or definitions of articles of food had occasioned great difficulty in numerous cases, but as no authority was provided by the existing acts that might fix such standards, they recommended the formation of a scientific authority or court of reference composed of representatives of the laboratory of the Inland Revenue, of the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, the General Medical Council, the Institute of Chemistry, the Pharmaceutical Society, of other scientific men and of the trading and manufacturing community, who should have the duty of fixing standards of quality and purity of food to be confirmed by a secretary of state.

The committee's deliberations and recommendations resulted in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899. This unfortunately was not a comprehensive act superseding the previous acts, but was an additional and amending one, so that at the present time four food acts run parallel and are together in force, rendering the subject from a legal point of view one of extreme complexity. In this act the growing influence of the Board of Agriculture and the desire to assist farmers and dairymen more decisively than previously are clearly apparent. Section 1 empowers the customs to take samples of consignments of imported articles of food and enjoins them to communicate to the Board of Agriculture the names of the importers of adulterated goods, any article of food to be considered adulterated or impoverished if it has been mixed with any other substance (other than preservative or colouring matter, of such a nature and such a quantity as not to render the article injurious to health), or if any part of it has been abstracted to the detriment of the article. Margarine or cheese containing margarine has to be conspicuously marked as such; condensed, separated or skim milk has to be clearly labelled ``machine-skimmed milk'' or ``skimmed milk,'' as the case may be. The next sections give to the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture a roving commission to see that the acts are properly enforced throughout the kingdom so as to apply the acts more equally throughout the country than heretofore, and in default of local authorities carrying out their duties empower the government departments mentioned to execute and enforce the acts at the expense of the local authorities. The importance of a regular and conscientious control of the public food supply by the local authorities was thus for the first time, after forty years of experimental legislation, fully acknowledged. In recognition of the great difficulties experienced for many years by analysts in their endeavour to fix minimum percentages for the fat and other milk constituents, and their inability to do so without statutory powers, the Board of Agriculture is authorized by section 4 to make regulations ``for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of genuine milk, cream, butter or cheese, or what addition of extraneous matter or proportion of water'' in any of these materials shall raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that these articles are not genuine. In pursuance of these powers the Board of Agriculture did in 1901 issue their milk regulations, adopting officially the minima agreed upon by public analysts, and in 1902 the sale of butter regulations, which fixed 16% as the maximum of water that might be contained in butter. It is important to note that the fact of a sample of milk falling short of the standard is not conclusive evidence of adulteration, but it justifies the institution of proceedings and casts the onus of proving that the sample is genuine upon the defendant. The Margarine Act of 1887 was extended to margarine cheese, the obligatory labelling of margarine packages was more precisely regulated, margarine manufacturers and dealers in that article were compelled to keep a register open to inspection by the Board of Agriculture, showing the quantity and designation of each consignment, and power was given to officers of the board to enter at all reasonable times manufactories of margarine and margarine cheese. The amount of butter-fat that might be present in margarine was limited to 10%, while under the Margarine Act of 1887 an unlimited admixture might have been made, provided that the mixture, no matter how large the percentage of butter, was sold as margarine. As is further explained below, the difficulty of distinguishing without chemical aid between pure butter and margarine containing a considerable percentage of butter is very great, and fraudulent sales continued to be common after the passing of the Margarine Act. The labelling section of the Food Act 1875 (sec. 8), which had been systematically circumvented, was modified, a label being no longer recognized as distinctly and legibly written or printed, unless it is so written or printed that the notice of mixture given by the label is not obscured by other matter on the label, though labels that had been continuously in use for at least seven years before the commencement of the act were not interfered with. In consequence of the admitted unfairness of asking for a portion of the contents of a properly labelled tin or package and then instituting proceedings because no declaration of admixture had been made, it was enacted that no person shall be required to sell any article exposed for sale in an unopened tin or packet, except in the unopened tin or packet in which it is contained. This removed a grievance which had long been felt both by retailers and manufacturers, and is a provision of growing importance with the continually increasing sale of articles put up in factories. The warranty provisions, which, as before stated, had given rise to much litigation, were more clearly defined. A notice that a defendant would rely for his defence upon a warranty had to be given within seven days of the service of the summons or the defence would not be available, and the warrantor was empowered to appear at the hearing and to give evidence so that no man's name could, as sometimes previously happened, be dragged into a case without due notice to him. A warranty or invoice given by a person resident outside the United Kingdom was no longer recognized as a defence, unless the defendant could prove that he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain and did in fact believe in the accuracy of the statement contained in the warranty. This prevented collusion between a foreign shipper and an importer; and, lastly, the definition of ``food'' was widened (in view of the baking-powder decision) so that the term food ``shall include every article used for food or drink by man, other than drugs or water, and any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, and shall also include flavoring matters and condiments.''

The act of 1899 embodies, with one exception, the most important recommendations of the Food Products Committee, the exception being the omission of instituting a board of reference that might deal with difficulties as they arose, guide analysts and public authorities in fixing limits for articles other than milk and butter, and take up the important questions of preservatives and colouring matters and such like. An occurrence which almost immediately followed the passing of the act showed in the strongest manner the necessity of such guiding board--namely, the outbreak of arsenical poisoning in the Midlands in the latter part of 1900.

Arsenic in foods.

In the month of June 1900 there occurred, mainly in the Midlands but also in other parts of England and Wales, an outbreak of an illness variously described as ``alcoholism,'' ``peripheral neuritis'' or ``multiple neuritis.'' This affected about 6000 persons and resulted in about 70 deaths. It was soon ascertained that the sufferers were all beer drinkers, and several of them were employees of a local brewery, the majority of whom had suffered for some months past. Although suspicion fell early upon beer, some considerable time elapsed before Dr E. S. Reynolds of Manchester discovered arsenic in dangerous proportions in the beer. Steps were immediately taken by brewers and sanitary authorities to ensure that this arsenical beer was withdrawn from sale, and, as a result, the epidemic came speedily to an end. In all instances where this epidemic of sickness had been traced to particular breweries, the latter had been users of brewing sugars-glucose and invert sugar--supplied by a single firm. The quantity of arsenic detected in specimens of these brewing sugars was in some cases very large, amounting to upward of four grains per pound. The implicated brewing sugars were found to have become contaminated by arsenic in course of their manufacture through the use of sulphuric acid, some specimens of which contained as much as 2.6% of arsenic. The acid had been made from highly arsenical iron pyrites, and as the manufacturers of the glucose had not specifically contracted with the acid makers for pure acid, the latter, not knowing for what purpose the acid was to be used, had felt themselves justified in supplying impure acid. A royal commission was appointed in February 1901, with Lord Kelvin as chairman, to inquire into the matter, and an enormous amount of attention was naturally given to it by chemists and medical men. It was soon found that arsenic was very widely disseminated in two classes of food materials, namely, such as had been dried or roasted in gases resulting from the combustion of coal, and such as had been more or less chemically manufactured. All coal contains iron pyrites, and this mineral again is contaminated with arsenic.

When the coal is burned the fumes are arsenical and part of the arsenic condenses and deposits. Malt dried in English malt kilns was found to be almost invariably arsenical, and there cannot be a doubt that English beers had for many years past been thus contaminated. At the present time coal virtually free from arsenic is selected for malting, or Newlands' process, consisting of the admixture with coal of lime which renders the arsenic non-volatile, is adopted, and malt free from all but the merest traces of arsenic is manufactured. Part of the arsenic remains in the coalashes and wherever these deposit arsenic can be traced. Sir Edward Frankland had, many years previously, detected arsenic in the London atmosphere. Chicory roasted with coal, steaks and chops grilled over an open fire, thus obtain a minute arsenical dosing. In sugar refineries carbonic acid gas is, at one stage of the process, passed through the liquor for the purpose of precipitating lime or strontia. When this carbonic acid is derived from coal the sugar often shows traces of arsenic. When arsenical malt or sugar infusion is fermented, as in brewing, the yeast precipitates upon itself a considerable proportion of the impurity, thus partly cleaning the beer, but all preparations made from yeast-extracts resemble to some extent meat extracts, with which they are sometimes fraudulently mixed---are thus exposed to arsenical contamination. On the continent of Europe malt is not dried in kilns with direct access of combustion gases but on floors heated from beneath, and continental beers therefore have not been found arsenical. The second class of causes of contamination consists of chemicals. The most important chemical product is sulphuric acid. This used to be made from brimstone or native volcanic sulphur, which is virtually free from arsenic. But since about 1860 sulphuric acid has been more largely made from iron or copper pyrites. Pyrites-acid is always arsenical, but can, by suitable treatment, be easily freed from that impurity. For many purposes acid that has not been purified is employed. In the Leblanc process of manufacture the first step is the conversion of salt into sodium sulphate by sulphuric acid. The hydrochloric acid which is formed carries with it most of the arsenic of the sulphuric acid. Wherever such hydrochloric acid is used it introduces arsenic; thus, in the separation of glycerin from soap lyes, the alkali of the latter is neutralized with hydrochloric acid and glycerin is in consequence frequently highly arsenical. So is the soda produced in the Leblanc process, and every one of the numerous soda salts made from soda is liable to receive its share. All acids liberated from their salts by sulphuric acid, such as phosphoric, tartaric, citric, boracic, may be, and sometimes are, thus contaminated. All superphosphates, made by the action of crude sulphuric acid upon bones or other phosphatic materials, and sulphate of ammonia, made from gas-liquor and acid, that is to say, two of the most important manurial materials, are arsenical, and the poison is thus spread far and wide over meadows and fields, and can be traced in the soil wherever artificial manures have been applied. The crops sometimes take up arsenic to a slight extent, but happily the plant is more selective than man, and no serious amount of poison absorption appears to be possible. The risk of contamination is, of course, much greater with substances which, like glucose, are not further purified by crystallization, but retain whatever impurity is introduced into them. Glucose is not only used in beer, in which by legal enactments it is permitted to be used, but is also substituted for sugar in a number of food products, and is liable to carry into them its contamination. Sugar confectionery, jams and marmalade, honey, and such like, are often admixed with glucose. It is difficult to say in the present state of the law whether such admixture amounts to adulteration. It was clearly made originally for fraudulent purposes, but usage and high court decisions have gradually given the practice an air of respectability. Vinegar of sorts is also made from a glucose liquor produced by the action of sulphuric acid upon maize or other starchy material, and is, in its turn, exposed to arsenic contamination. There is hardly a chemical substance which has directly or indirectly come into contact with sulphuric acid that is not at times arsenical. Thus, while artificial colours, now so much used for the dyeing of food products, are no longer prepared---as was rosaniline (the parent substance of so many aniline dyes) at an early stage of its manufacture--with arsenic acid, yet they are often contaminated indirectly from sulphuric acid. Furthermore, hardly any metal that results from the smelting of any ore with coal is free from arsenic, iron in particular, as employed for pots and pans and implements, being highly arsenical. From the iron the many chemical preparations which contain or are made with the aid of iron salts may be arsenicated. The general presence of arsenic from some of these causes has been known for many years; outbreaks of arsenical poisoning have been due to it at various times, but neglect, forgetfulness and human shortsightedness let the matter go into oblivion, and it is safe to predict, in spite of all attention which has been given to the subject, of the panic which was created by the beer-poisoning outbreak, of the shock and injury caused to manufacturers of many kinds, and of the watchfulness aroused in officers of health and analysts, that as long as the production of food materials or substances that go into food materials is not left to the care of nature, and as long as man adds the products of his ingenuity to our food and drink, so long will ``accidents,'' like the Manchester poisoning, from time to time recur. We now search for arsenic; some other time it is lead, or antimony, or selenium, that will do the mischief. Man does what he can according to his light, but he sees but a little patch of the sky of knowledge, while the plant or the animal building up its body from the plant has learned by inheritance to avoid the assimilation of matters noxious to it. Strictly speaking, arsenical poisoning does not belong to the subject of adulteration. It is not due to wilfulness but to stupidity, but it affords a lesson which cannot be taken too much to heart, that mankind, by relying too much upon ``science'' in feeding, is on a path that is fraught with considerable danger. To safeguard consumers, as far as practicable, the royal commission made important recommendations concerning amendments of the Food Acts; these, as at present interpreted and administered, were reported to be unsatisfactory for the purpose of protecting the consumer against arsenic and other deleterious substances in food. ``As a rule public analysts receive samples in order that they may pronounce upon their genuineness or otherwise, knowing nothing of the local circumstances which led to their being taken, of their origin or the reasons for sending them. The term `genuine' in this sense means that the analyst has not detected such objectionable substances as he has considered it necessary to look for in the sample submitted to him. Obviously, the value of the statement that the sample is `genuine' depends upon the extent to which the analyst has means of knowing what are the objectionable substances which it is liable to contain. In present circumstances he has not sufficient information on this point.'' It was also pointed out that the application of the Food Acts to prevention of contamination of foods by deleterious substances was materially hindered by want of an official authority with the duty of dealing with the various medical, chemical and technical questions involved, and that the absence of official standards militated against the efficiency of the existing acts. The commission advised that a special officer be appointed by the Local Government Board to obtain by inquiries from various sources, such information as would enable the board to direct the work of local authorities in securing greater purity of food; and they further recommended that the board or court of reference, which had been advised by the Committee on Food Products Adulteration, should be established. Pending the establishment of official standards in respect of arsenic under the Food Acts, they were of opinion that penalties should be imposed upon any vendor of beer or any other liquid food, or of any liquor entering into the composition of food, if that liquid be shown by adequate test to contain one-hundredth of a grain or more of arsenic in the gallon, and with regard to solid food, no matter whether it be consumed habitually in large or small quantities, or whether it be taken by itself (like golden syrup), or mixed with water or other substances (like chicory or yeast extract)--if the substance contain one-hundredth of a grain of arsenic or more to the pound. The board of reference, most urgently needed for the protection of the public and for the guidance of manufacturers and officers, has yet to be created. While from time immemorial certain articles of food have been preserved by salting, smoking, drying, or by the addition of sugar and in some cases of saltpetre, during the last quarter of the 10th century the use of chemicals acting more powerfully as antiseptics or preservatives extended enormously, particularly in England. A very large fraction of the British food supply being obtained from abroad, a proportionately great difficulty exists in obtaining the food in an entirely fresh and untainted condition. While refrigeration and cold-storage has been the chief factor in enabling the meat and other highly perishable foods to be imported, other steps, ensuring preservation of goods that are collected from farmers and brought together at shipping ports, are necessary to prevent decomposition prior to such goods coming into cold store. Thus it is well-nigh impossible to collect butter from farms in Australia or New Zealand far distant from the coast without the addition of some chemical preservative. Heavily salted goods no longer appeal to the modern palate, and, with the progress of specialized labour, the inhabitants, especially of great towns, have become accustomed to resort to manufactured provisions instead of the home-made and home-cooked food. Manufacturers of many articles of preserved food gradually adopted the use of chemical preservatives, and at the present time the practice has become so general that it may be said that practically every person in the United Kingdom who has passed the suckling stage consumes daily more or less food containing chemical preservatives. The Food Act allows of the addition of any ingredient, not injurious to health, if it be required for the production or preparation of the food, or as an article of commerce, in a state fit for carriage. The legality or otherwise of the use of chemical preservatives, therefore, hinges upon their innocuousness. Upon theoretical considerations it is clear that a substance which is capable of acting as an antiseptic mnst act injuriously upon bacteria, fungi or yeasts, and as the human body is, generally speaking, less resistant to poisons than the low organisms in question, it would seem to follow that antiseptics are bound to affect it injuriously. It is, of course, a question of dose and proportion. It has further been said that all antiseptics possess some sort of medicinal action, and however valuable they may be in disease when administered under the control of a competent physician, they have no business to be given indiscriminately to sick and healthy alike by purveyors of food. The result of a general desire on the part of importers and manufacturers of food materials, of the officers under the Food Act, of the medical profession and of the public, resulted after many years of agitation and complaint and after numerous conflicting magisterial decisions, in the appointment in 1899, by the president of the Local Government Board, of a departmental committee to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring matters in food, with the reference to report: first, whether the use of such materials or any of them, in certain quantities, is injurious to health, and, if so, in what proportion does their use become injurious, and, second, to what extent and in what amounts are they used at the present time. After the examination of a great number of witnesses a report was issued in 1901. Perhaps the most important conclusion was that the instances of actual harm which were alleged to have occurred from the consumption of articles of food and drink chemically preserved were few in number, and were not at all supported by conclusive evidence. During the period which has elapsed since chemically preserved food has been used, the mortality as a whole has . declined, and while this naturally cannot be put to the credit of the preservatives but is largely due to better feeding in consequence of the introduction of cheaper foods, which are rendered possible to some extent by the use of preservatives, it conclusively establishes the fact that no obvious harm has been done to the health of the community. The committee made certain recommendations which are the most authoritative pronouncements upon the subject. They are as follows:--That the use of formaldehyde or formalin, or preparations thereof, in food or drinks, be absolutely prohibited, and that salicylic acid be not used in a greater proportion than one grain per pint in liquid food and one grain per pound in solid food, its presence in all cases to be declared. That the use of any preservatives or colouring matter whatever in milk offered for sale in the United Kingdom be constituted an offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. That the only preservative which it shall be lawful to use in cream be boric acid, or mixtures of boric acid and borax, and in amount not exceeding 0.25% expressed as boric acid, the amount of such preservative to be notified by a label upon the vessel. That the only preservative permitted to be used in butter and margarine be boric acid, or mixtures of boric acid and borax, to be used in proportions not exceeding 0.5% expressed as boric acid. That in the case of all dietetic preparations intended for the use of invalids or infants, chemical preservatives of all kinds be prohibited.

Borax.

As the most commonly used chemical preservative is boric acid, free or in the form of borax, which is extensively employed in butter, cream, ham, sausages, potted meats, cured butter, cream, ham, sausages, potted meats, cured fish, and sometimes in jams and preserved fruit, the arguments for and against its employment deserve more detailed attention. It cannot be looked upon in the light of common adulteration because, in any case, the quantity used is but an inconsiderable fraction, and the cost of it is generally greater than that of the food itself. It is not used to hide any traces of decomposition that may have taken place or to efface its effects. On the other hand, it cannot be said to be ``required for the production or preparation'' of the articles with which it is mixed, since a fraction at least of similar articles are made without preservative. It enables food to be kept from decomposition, but it also lessens the need for cleanliness and encourages neglect and slovenliness in factories. It has no taste, or only a very slight one, hence does not manifest itself to the consumer in the same way as does common salt, and cannot therefore be avoided by him should he desire to do so. Its preservative action, that is, its potency, is very slight in comparison with most other preservatives; its potential injuriousness to man must be proportionately small. It is practically without interference upon salivary, peptic or tryptic digestion, unless given in large quantities. Experiments made by F. W. Tunnicliffe and R. Rosenheim upon children showed that neither boric acid nor borax, administered in doses of from 15 to 23 grains per diem, exerted any influence upon proteid metabolism or upon the assimilation of phosphatized materials. The fat assimilation was, if anything, improved, and the body weight increased, and the general health and well-being was in no way affected. On the other hand, evidence was adduced that in some cases digestive disturbances, after continuous administration of from 15 to 40 grains, were observable, nausea and vomiting in some, and skin irritation, in one case resulting in complete baldness, in others.

Although it is in most cases very difficult to trace any gastric disturbance to any particular article of food or one of its ingredients, so as to exclude all other possible causes of disturbance, a fairly good case has been made out by a number of medical practitioners against boracic acid, taken in an ordinary diet and not for experimental purposes. The most exhaustive investigation which has as yet been made was carried out by Dr H. W. Wiley, chief chemist to the United States department of agriculture. A large number of young men who had offered themselves as subjects for the investigations, were boarded as a special ``hygienic table,'' but otherwise continued their usual vocations during the whole period of the experiment. They were placed upon their honour to observe the rules and regulations prepared by the department and to use no other food or drink than that provided, water excepted, and any water consumed away from the hygienic table was to be measured and reported. They were to continue their regular habits and not to indulge in any excessive amount of labour or exercise. Weight, temperature and pulse rate were continuously recorded. The periods during which the subjects of the experiment were kept under observation varied from thirty to seventy days, periods of rest being given during which they were permitted to eat moderately at tables other than the experimental one. There was a good and ample diet. The observations were divided into three periods: the fore period, the preservative period and the after period, during the whole of which time the rations of each member were weighed or measured and the excreta collected. Before the ``fore'' period was commenced a note was made of the quantities of food voluntarily consumed by each of the candidates, and from these the proper amount necessary in each case to maintain a comparatively constant body weight was calculated. When a suitable result was thus arrived at, the same quantity of food was given daily during the ``preservative'' and ``after'' periods. The preservative was given in the forms of borax and of boric acid, at first mixed with butter, but subsequently in gelatine capsules. This was found to be necessary from the fact that when the preservative was mixed with the food and concealed in it some of the members of the table evinced dislike of the food with which it was supposed to be incorporated; those who thought that the preservative was in the butter were disposed to find the butter unpalatable, and the same was true with those who thought it might be in the milk or coffee, while, when the preservative was given openly, much less disturbance was created. The preservative was given at first in small doses such as might be consumed in commercial food that had been preserved with borax; gradually the quantities were increased in order to reach the limit of toleration for each individual. All food was weighed, measured and analysed, the same being the case with the excreta. The blood was examined periodically as regards colouring matter and number of corpuscles. Everything was done to keep up the general health of the members and to do away with all unfavourable mental influences due to the circumstances. During the time of the experiment analyses were made of 2550 food samples and 1175 samples each of urine and faeces. The general results were as follows: there was no tendency to excite diarrhoea, and the nitrogen-metabolism was but very little influenced, if anything being slightly decreased. As regards phosphorus the combined results of all observations indicated that the preservative increased the excretion of phosphorus to a small extent, from 97.3% in the ``fore'' period, to 103.1 in the ``preservative'' period. The metabolism of fat was uninfluenced; there was an increase of the solid matters in the faeces and a decrease of those in the urine, from which Dr Wiley concluded that the preservatives interfered with the process of digestion and absorption. No influence was exerted on the corpuscles and the haemoglobin of the blood. The effect of boracic acid and borax on the general health Varied with the amount administered, quantities not exceeding half a gramme (7 1/2 grains) of boracic acid, or its equivalent of borax, producing no immediate effects, but the long-continued administration of such small doses seemed to produce the same results as the use of large doses over a shorter period. There was a tendency to diminish the appetite and to produce a fooling of fulness and uneasiness in the stomach and sometimes actual nausea, also one of fulness in the head manifested as a dull headache which disappeared when the preservative was dropped. The continued administration of large doses, 60 to 75 grains per day, resulted in most cases in loss of appetite, inability to perform work of any kind and general unfitness. In most cases 45 grains per day could be taken for some time, but gradually injurious effects were observed. In some cases 30 and even 15 grains per day appeared to cause illness, but it is acknowledged that these persons may have been suffering from influenza. The administration of 7.5 grains was declared by Dr Wiley to be too much for the normal man to receive regularly, although for a limited period there might be no danger to health. Dr Wiley concludes his report: ``It appears, therefore, that both boric acid and borax, when continuously administered in small doses for a long period or when given in large quantities for a short period, create disturbance of appetite, of digestion and of health.''

Dr Wiley's conclusions were adversely criticized by Dr O. Liebreich, who carefully studied on the spot all the conditions of the experiment and the documents relating to the investigation. He pointed out that the results were so indefinite and the number of persons under control so small that ``one case of self-deception or of forgetfulness only would throw into absolute uncertainty the solution of the whole question''; that no lasting injury to health was found in spite of transient disturbances attributed by Dr Liebreich to other causes, and that all persons declared themselves to be in better physical condition after seven months than they had been before. On the whole the balance of evidence seems to be that while no acute injury is likely to result from boron compounds in food, they are liable to produce slighter digestive interferences.

Formaldehyde.

Other chemical substances that are in use for the purpose of preserving food materials may be treated more shortly. Formaldehyde, coming into commerce in the form of a 40% solution under the name of formalin, was for a time largely used in milk. It certainly has very great antiseptic properties, as little as 1 part in 50,000 parts checking the growth of organisms in milk for some hours, but as the substance combines with albuminous matters and hardens them to an extraordinary degree, rendering, for instance, gelatine perfectly insoluble in water, it exerts an inhibitory effect on the digestive ferments. It injures salivary, peptic and pancreatic digestion. A set of five kittens fed with milk containing 1 part in 50,000 of formaldehyde for seven weeks were strongly retarded in growth, three ultimately dying, while four control kittens fed on pure milk flourished. In even moderate doses formalin produces severe pains in the abdomen and has caused death. It is now generally recognized as a substance that is admirably adapted for disinfecting a sick-room, but quite improper and unsuitable for food preservation.

Salicylic acid.

Salicylic acid or orthohydroxybenzoic acid is either obtained from oil of winter-green or is made synthetically by Kolbe's process from phenol and carbonic acid. Artificial salicylic acid generally contains impurities (creasotic acids) which act very injuriously upon health. When pure, salicylic acid employed as a food preservative has never produced decided injurious effects, although administered by itself in fairly strong solution it acts as an irritant to the stomach and kidneys, and sometimes causes skin eruptions. It is a powerful drug in larger doses and requires careful administration, especially as about 60% of the persons to whom it is administered show symptoms known as ``salicylism,'' namely, deafness, headache, delirium, vomiting, sometimes haemorrhage or heart-failure. It is doubtful whether pure salicyiic acid produces these symptoms. When present in proportion of 1 to 1000 it inhibits the growth of moulds and yeasts. In jams 2 grains per pound and in beverages 7 grains to a gallon are considered by manufacturers to be sufficient for preservative purposes. It is used mainly in articles of food or drink containing sugar, that is to say, in jams and preserved fruit, lime and lemon juices, syrups, cider, British wines and imported lager. Its use in butter, potted meat, milk or cream, in which it was not infrequently met with formerly, is now quite exceptional. It has already been stated that the preservative committee recommended its permissive use in small proportions. To some extent benzoic acid and benzoates have taken the place of salicylic acid and salicylates, partly because salicylic acid can readily be detected analytically, while benzoic acid is not quite easily discoverable. Its antiseptic potency is about equal to that of salicylic acid, and the arguments for or against its use are similar to those relating to the latter.

For the preservation of meat and beer, lime juice and dried fruit, sulphur dioxide (sulphurous acid) and some of the sulphites have long been employed. Sulphuring of hops and disinfection of barrels by burning brimstone matches is an exceedingly old practice. Burning sulphur is well known as a gaseous disinfectant of rooms, bacteria being killed in air containing 1% of the gas. As the taste and smell of sulphurous acid and of sulphites are very pronounced it follows that but small quantities can be added to food or drink. About 1 part in 4000 or 5000 of beer is the usual amount. While, in larger quantities, the sulphites have decided physiological activity and are apt to produce nephritis, there is not any evidence that they have ever caused injurious effects in alcoholic liquors. The excise authorities have tacitly sanctioned their employment in breweries, although the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1885 declares that a brewer of beer shall not add any matter or thing thereto except finings or other matter or thing sanctioned by the commissioners of Inland Revenue, and although sulphites are used in all breweries, the Board of Inland Revenue do neither sanction nor interfere. An antiseptic with a pronounced taste is obviously a safer one in the hands of a nonmedical person than one virtually devoid of taste, like boric, salicylic or benzoic acids or their salts.

Other preservatives.

Sodium fluoride, a salt possessing powerfully antiseptic properties, but also at the same time clearly injurious to health and interfering with salivary and peptic digestion, has been found in butter, imported mainly from Brittany, in quantities quite inadmissible in food under any circumstances. A few other chemical preservatives are occasionally used. Hydrogen peroxide has been found effective in milk sterilization, and if the substance is pure, no serious objection can be raised against it. Saccharine, and other artificial sweetening agents, having antiseptic properties, are taking the place of sugar in beverages like ginger-beer and lemonade, but the substitution of a trace of a substance that provides sweetness without at the same time giving the substance and food value of sugar is strongly to be deprecated. The employment of chemical preservative matters in articles intended for human consumption threatens to become a grave danger to health or well-being. Each dealer in food contributes but a little; each one claims that his particular article of food cannot be brought into commerce without preservative, and each condemns the use of these substances by others. There is doubtless something to be said for the practice, but infinitely more against it. It cheapens food by allowing its collection in districts far away, but the chief gainer is not the public as a whole but the manufacturer and the wholesale merchant. Our body has by inheritance acquired habits and needs that are quite foreign to chemical interference. Some day, artificially prepared foods, containing liberal quantities of matters that are not now food ingredients, may conceivably compare with natural food products, but that day is not yet, and meantime it ought to be clearly the duty of the state to see that the evil is checked. The intention which has introduced this form of adulteration may be more or less beneficent, but in practice it is almost wholly evil.

Colouring matter in food.