صور الصفحة

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 shortsightedncss 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 oflicial authority with the duty of dealing with the various medical, chemical and technical questions involved, and that the absence of oflicial 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 19th 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 manu~ facturcd 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 must 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 afi'ect 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

Preservatives In Iood.

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 ofl'ence 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 0-2 5 % 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.

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 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. Tunniclifi'e 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 r 5 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 oflered 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

I. 8



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 efiect of boracic acid and borax on the general health varied with the amount administered, quantities not exceeding half a gramme (7% 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 feeling of fulness and uneasiness in the stomach and sometimes actual nausea, also one of fulness in the head manifested as adull 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.” it

Dr Wilev’s conclusions were adversely criticized by Dr 0. 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 selfdeception 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.

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.

SaIiCylic 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 colntains 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 salicylic 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 andin 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


Salicylic add.


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 efl'ects 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.

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 Other been found in butter, imported mainly from Brittany, “new” 1!] quantities quite inadmissible in food under any tlves. 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. Saccharinc, 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 new 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.

A similar criticism applies to the continually extending use of colouring matter in food. Civilized man requires his food not only to be healthy and tasty, but also attractive in appearance. It is the art of the cook to prepare dishes that please the eye. This is a difficult art, for the various food. colouring matters which are naturally present in meat and fish, in fruit, legumes and green vegetables are of a delicate and changeable nature and easily affected or destroyed by cooking. Many years ago some artful, if stupid, cook found that green vegetables like peas or spinach, when cooked in a copper pan, by preference a dirty one, showed a far more brilliant colour than the same vegetables cooked in earthenware or iron. The manufacturer who puts up substances like peas in pots or tins for sale produces the same effect which the mo]; in her ignorance innocently obtained, by the wilful addition of a substance known to be injurious to health, namely, sulphate of copper. The copper combines with the chlorophyll, forming copper phyllocyanate, which, by reason of its insolubility in the gastric juice, is comparatively innocuous. Preserved peas and beans have been for so many years “ coppered ” in this manner that it is diflicult to induce the public to accept these vegetables when possessed of their natural colour only. Several countries endeavoured to abolish the objectionable practice, but the public pressure has been too great, and to-day the practice is almost universal. In England the amount of copper corresponds to from one to two grains per pound of the vegetable calculated as crystallized copper sulphate. The opinion of the departmental committee was clearly expressed that the practice should be prohibited. No effect has been given to the recommendation. '

Milk is naturally almost white with a tint of cream colour. When adulteratcd with water this tint changes to a bluish one. To hide this tell-tale of a fraud, a yellow colouring matter used to be added by London milkmen. Very gradually this practice, which had its origin in fraud, has extended to all milk sold in London. The consumer, mis-educated into believing milk to be yellow, now requires it to be so. Large dairy companies have endeavoured to wean the public of its error, without success. From milk the practice extended to butter; natural butter is sometimes yellowish, mostly a faint fawn, and sometimes almost white. In agricultural districts this is well known and taken as a matter of course. In big towns, where the connexion of butter and the cow is not well known, the consumer requires butter to be of that colour which he imagines to be butter-colour. Anatto, turmeric, carrot-juice used formerly to be employed for colouring milk, butter and cheese, but of late certain aniline dyes, mostly quite as harmless physiologically as the vegetable dyes just mentioned, are largely being used. The same aniline dyes are also employed in the manufacture of an imitation Demerara sugar from white beet sugar crystals. Aniline dyes are very frequently used by jam-makers; the natural colour of the fruit is apt to suffer in the boiling-pan, and unripe, discoloured or unsound fruit can be made brilliant and enticing by dye. The brilliant colours of cheap sugar confectionery are almost invariably produced by artificial tar-colours. Most members of this class of colouring matters are quite harmless, especially in the small quantities that are required for colouring, but there are a few exceptions, picric acid, dinitrocresol, Martius-yellow, Bismarck brown and one of the tropaeolins being distinctly poisonous. On the whole, the employment of powerful aniline dyes is an advance as compared with the use of the vicious and often highly poisonous mineral colours which Hassall met with so frequently in the middle of the 19th century. . Mineral colours, with very few exceptions, are no longer used in food. Oxide of iron or ochre is still very often found in potted meats, fish sauces and chocolates; dioxide of manganese is admixed with cheap chocolates. All lump sugar of commerce is dyed. Naturally it has a yellow tint. Ultramarine is added to it and counteracts the yellowness. In the same way our linen is naturally yellow and only made to look white by the use of the blue-bag.

The same idea underlies both practices, and indeed the use of all colouring matters in manufactured articles, namely, to make them look better than they would otherwise. Within bounds, this is a reasonable and laudable desire, but it also covers many sins—poor materials, bad workmanship, faulty manufacturing and often fraud. Like sugar, flour and rice are sometimes blued to make them look white. All vinegar, most beers, all stout, are artificially coloured with burnt sugar or caramel. The line dividing the legitimate and laudable from the fraudulent and punishable is so thin and difficult to draw that neither the law nor its officers have ventured to draw it, and yet it is a matter which urgently requires regulation at the hands of the state. Practices which, when new, admit of regulation are almost ineradicable when they have become old and possessed of “ vested rights.” Recognizing this, the departmental committee, like the royal commission on arsenical poisons, recommended that “ means be provided, either by the establishment of a separate court of reference, or by the imposition of more direct obligation on the Local Government Board, to exercise supervision over the use of preservatives and colouring matters in foods and to prepare schedules of such as may be considered inimical to the public health.”

In close connexion with this subject is the occasional occurrence of injurious metallic impurities in food-materials. Tin chloride is used in the West Indies to produce the yellow colour of Demerara sugar. The old processes of sugar-boiling left some of


the brown syrup attached to the crystals, giving them both their colour and their delicious aroma; with the introduction of modern processes affording a much greater yield of highly refined sugar, white sugar only was the result. The consumer, accustomed to yellow sugar, had the colour artificially supplied by the action of the tin compound upon the sugar. At the present time all Demerara sugar, with the exception of that portion that is dyed with aniline dye, has had its colour artificially given it and consequently contains strong traces of tin. Soda-water, lemonade and other artificial aerated liquors are liable to tin or lead contamination, the former proceeding from the tin pipes and vessels, the latter from citric and tartaric acids and cream of tartar used as ingredients, these beingcrystallized by their manufacturers in leaden pans. Almost all l‘Canned” goods contain more or less tin as a contamination from the tin-plate. While animal foods do not attack the tin to any great extent, their acidity being small, almost all vegetable materials, especially fruits and tomatoes, powerfully corrode the tin covering of the plate, dissolving it and becoming impregnated with tin compounds. It is quite easy to obtain tin-reactions in abundance from every grain of tinned peaches, apples or tomatoes. These tin compounds are by no means innocuous; yet poisoning from tinned vegetable foods is of rare occurrence. On the whole, tin-plate is a very unsuitable material for the storage and preservation of acid goods. Certain enamels, used for glazing earthenware or for coating metal cooking pots, contain lead, which they yield to the food prepared in them. Food materials that have been in contact with galvanized vessels sometimes are contaminated with zinc. Zinc is also not infrequently present in wines. The effect of the application of the food laws has been entirely beneficial. Not only has the percentage proportion of samples found adulterated largely declined, but the gross forms of adulteration which prevailed in the middle of the 53,71: of 19th century have almost vanished. Plenty of fraud Panama. still prevails, but poisoning by reckless admixture is of exceedingly rare occurrence. Whilst formerly milk was not infrequently adulterated with an equal bulk of water, few fraudulent milkmen now venture to exceed an addition of IO

[ocr errors]
[graphic][graphic][graphic][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]

The details of the working of the Food Acts in 1904 in England and Wales are set out in the table on the next page.

U nich Slates.—Each separate state has food laws of its own. From the rst of January 1907 the “American National Pure Food Law,” applicable to the United States generally, came into force, without superseding the State food laws, the only effect of the National Law being the legalization of shipments of any food which complies with the provisions of the National Law into any state from another state, even though the food is adulterated within the meaning of the state law. The law applies to every person in the United States who receives food from another state and offers it for sale in the original unbroken packages in which he receives it, and if it is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the National Law he can be punished for having received it and offering it for sale in the original unbroken package to the same extent as the person who shipped it to him can be punished. The mere fact that he is a citizen of a state selling food within that state will not excuse him; and he will be subject to prosecution to the same extent as he would be if he uttered counterfeit money. Retailers. however, can protect themselves from prosecution when they sell goods in original unbroken packages by procuring a written guarantee, signed by the person from whom they received the goods, such guarantee stating that the goods are not adulterated within the meaning of the National Law. The guarantee must also contain the name and address of the wholesale vendor, but unless the parties signing the guarantee are residents of the United States the guarantee is void. The law afiects all foods shipped from one state or district into another and also all foods intended for export to a foreign country. It also aflects all food products manufactured or offered for sale in any

[merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]

territory or the District of Columbia, wherever such foods may have been produced. The law does not affect foods manufactured and sold wholly within one state, nor such as have been shipped from another state but not in the original package. While thus the National Food Law is mainly intended to regulate the food traffic between the difl'erent states, and leaves to the states freedom to regulate their internal traffic, it must gradually tend to unify the present complicated state food legislation, and it is therefore here more usefully considered than would be the separate state laws.

The definition of adulteration as set forth in sec. 7 is as follows:—“ For the purpose of this act an article shall be deemed to be adulterated: In the ease of drugs: (I) If, when a drug is sold under or by a name recognized in the United States


Pharmacopoeia or National Formuiary, it difl'ers from the standard of strength, quality or purity, as determined by the test laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary official at the time of investigation; provided that no drug defined in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary shall be deemed to be adulterated under this provision if the standard of strength, quality or purity be plainly stated upon the bottle, box or other container thereof although the standard may differ from that determined by the test laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary. (2) If its strength or purity fall below the professed standard or quality under which it is sold. In the case of confectionery: If it contains terra alba, barytes, talc, chrome yellow or other mineral substance or poisonous colour or flavour, or other ingredient deleterious or detrimental to health, or any vinous, malt or spirituous liquor or compound or narcotic drug. In the ease of food: (1) If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength. (2) If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article. (3) If any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted. (4) If it be mixed, coloured, powdered, coated or stained in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed. (5) If it contain any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient . which may render such article injurious to health: provided that when in the preparation of food products for shipment they are preserved by any external application applied in such manner that the preservation is necessarily removed mechanically, or by maceration in water, or otherwise, and directions for removal of said preservations shall be printed on the covering of the package, the provisions of the act shall be construed as applying only when said products are ready for consumption. (6) If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed 0r putrid animal or vegetable substance, or any portion of an animal unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it is the product of a diseased animal or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter. . . .”

Whatever vagueness attaches to these definitions is intended to be removed by secs. 3 and 4, which provide that the secretaries of the Treasury, of Agriculture, and of Commerce and Labour “ shall make uniform rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of the act, including the collection and examination of specimens of food and drugs,” which examination “ shall be made in the bureau of chemistry of the department of agriculture, or under the direction and supervision of such bureau, for the purpose of determining from such examinations whether such articles are adulterated 0r misbranded within the meaning of the act.” Contravention of the act is punishable for the first offence by a fine not exceeding 500 dollars or 1 year’s imprisonment or both, and for each subsequent ofience by a fine not less than 1000 dollars or 1 year’s imprisonment or both. Under an act of congress, approved March 1903, the bureau of agriculture established standards of purity for food products, “ to determine what are regarded as adulterations therein for the guidance of the officials of the various states and of the courts of justice.” The elaborate set of food definitions and standards worked out under the guidance of the chief of the bureau, Dr H. W. Wiley, have also received legal sanction and form a corollary to the National Food Law. For each of the more important articles of food an official definition of its nature and composition has thus been established, 0f the utmost value to food officers, manufacturers and merchants not only in the United States but throughout the world. A few of these definitions may here find a place :—

“ Lard is the rendered fresh fat from slaughtered healthy hogs. Leaf-lard is the lard rendered at moderately high temperatures from the internal fat of the abdomen of the hog, excluding that adherent to the intestines. Standard lard and standard leaflard are lard and leaf-lard respectively, free from rancidity, containing not more than 1% of substances other than fatty acids, not fat, necessarily incorporated therewith in the process of rendering, and standard leaf-lard has an iodine number not

« السابقةمتابعة »