Public Analyst Research Articles

The British Food Journal Volume 58 Issue 10 1956

The latest report of its Preservatives Sub‐Committee to the Food Standards Committee, which deals with the use of emulsifying and stabilising agents in foods and whose recommendations are summarised on another page of this journal, presents to the public analyst what must seem a most formidable prospect. There is a list of eleven organic substances or classes of substances, some of whose names, presumably, may in due course be seen on labels among the ingredients of our foods and whose detection and estimation will consequently sooner or later need to be undertaken in analytical laboratories concerned with quality control. Of the substances recommended for official approval, we are not sure if the assay of any one in a mixed foodstuff could be carried out with any degree of confidence by the average food analyst. The Committee are only too well aware of the technical difficulties they are raising, but quite rightly have not shrunk from suggesting standards or limitations that at present might be regarded as presenting almost insoluble problems of enforcement.

The British Food Journal Volume 57 Issue 11 1955

In addition to the quarterly reports which public analysts are required to furnish to Food and Drugs Authorities, some analysts take a deal of trouble over annual reports, many of which often contain useful information. To those who are good enough to send us copies the British Food Journal tenders its thanks. It is realised, of course, that such reports are intended mainly for perusal by lay folk, as well as by those professionally concerned, in the various localities for which the analysts act. For that reason, and at the risk of being criticised for ungracious conduct, we feel impelled to offer the suggestion that care should invariably be taken to avoid the presentation of facts in such a manner as may be calculated to mislead the ordinary reader. There is ample scope, in our view, for further instructions or advice to be issued by the Ministry concerned with respect to foods and drugs respectively. For example, all statistical tables relating to samples of milk would be much more informative if the reports clearly distinguished between samples taken from bottles distributed to the public by retailers, samples from producer‐retailers and samples procured from farmers’ churns. There is little point in wrestling with elaborate and complicated tables of figures showing percentages of “ adulterated ” samples or the average composition of samples examined in various years and in various areas if the reader is left in ignorance of the circumstances in which the samples of milk have been procured. The public analyst of one large authority, which need not here be named, takes great trouble to discover the so‐called “ adulteration rate ” in the areas of several other authorities, and appears to have or to give the impression that a low rate of unsatisfactory samples of food and drugs in his area is a reassuring sign. Our own view is that it is nothing of the kind. What matters most, as we repeat with a regularity which is a bit monotonous, is the system adopted to select and obtain samples for analysis. If the sampling officers obtain, perhaps more or less at random, substantial numbers of samples of arrowroot, bacon, barley, blancmange powder, saccharin tablets, salt, semolina, sugar, treacle and tea, the so‐called adulteration rate is not likely to be so high as in an area where the sampling officers interest themselves more closely in spread bread‐and‐butter and hot milk at cafés, ice‐cream, “ butter sweets ” and sausages. To avoid misconception, we must add that we do not consider that the articles in this last group of foods are the most important that could with advantage be sampled— but it is a group the sampling of which in recent days has resulted in the discovery of numerous infringements.

John Theodore Hewitt, 1868-1954

John Theodore Hewitt was born at Windsor on 12 October 1868, the son of John Hewitt (1840-1874) and Alice Mary Hewitt ( née Pasmore). The father had a coachbuilding business, which received most of the work from the Castle. He had previously been apprenticed to a hatter and hosier at Tonbridge and met his wife at meetings of the Plymouth Brethren in Windsor. John Hewitt had three children. The eldest died in infancy. John Theodore was the second and Alice Marian the third. John Hewitt was a studious man, who read his New Testament in Greek. He was, however, a victim of tuberculosis and died at the early age of 34. Shortly afterwards his widow purchased the good-will of a small private school for girls and little boys at Newbury. This was a success. She found time to attend classes in chemistry and electricity and magnetism given in Newbury by a German (titular Professor) Hoffert and took John Theodore, then eleven years old, with her. The boy’s interest was aroused and he began to do experiments at home. In 1881 Mrs Hewitt was appointed Headmistress of the Girls’ College and High School at Southampton and succeeded in persuading T. W. Shore, the Principal of the Hartley Institute, to admit her young son, John Theodore, who as a result received instruction in mathematics, classics, machine drawing and chemistry. One of his fellow students was W. R. Bower (later Head of the Physics Department at Huddersfield Technical College) and another was F. W. Lanchester, later of aerodynamic and motor-car fame. The chemistry teaching was in the hands of James Brierley, the Public Analyst for Southampton. At this period Hewitt and Bower became walking enthusiasts: they apparently thought nothing of a day’s walk of thirty or forty miles. Walking remained one of Hewitt’s favourite pastimes.

British Food Journal Volume 56 Issue 9 1954

More than once the British Food Journal has had occasion to deplore the inclusion, in official reports to local authorities, of elaborate statistical tables giving the impression that bare figures relating to the examination of samples of food and drugs are of more value than is in fact the case. “Figures by themselves,” said an experienced teacher of arithmetic, “have no meaning.” It is highly gratifying now to find that Mr. A. N. Leather, B.Sc., F.R.I.C., Public Analyst for the City of Manchester, has found time to discuss the problem of summarising laboratory results in such a manner as to convey a far more enlightening meaning than is to be derived from “bare” statistics. Space does not permit the inclusion of the whole of Mr. Leather's comments, but the gist of his argument—which we find most convincing—is here recorded.

The Fusion of an Individual with the Organization

that all eight predictions were confirmed by the data provides presumptive evidence of the validity of the theory. It is tentatively concluded that perceived primary group pressures can have considerable effect on attitudes even when there is reason to doubt that group norms and sanctions are operating. It is suggested that the net effect of these perceived pressures is to increase the homogeneity of attitudes within a population, and that the greater the strength of these pressures, the greater is the degree of homogeneity which they can create. This conclusion is in harmony with Redfield's observation that communities in which primary group bonds are strong tend to be relatively homogeneous with respect to attitudes.17 It is also consistent with Angell's contention that societal agreement with respect to important integrating attitudes may be encouraged through the creation of strong primary group bonds.18 If these conclusions are confirmed by further research, the public opinion analyst will have been provided with a useful explanatory principle. More important, another step will have been taken toward the integration of sociological theory and public opinion research.

British Food Journal Volume 56 Issue 6 1954

Although the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill was formally presented to the House of Commons and read a first time on March 1st, time for its second reading had not been found when the House adjourned for the Whitsuntide recess, in spite of the fact that Her Majesty's Government had applied the guillotine to the proceedings on the highly contentious Television Bill in the Committee stage. Moreover, the Finance Bill, though some progress has been made in dealing with amendments, will still need some days for the discussion of a large number of amendments and proposed new clauses of which notice has been given by members of different political allegiances. On May 26th the Leader of the House was asked by a Labour member whether trade interests had been pulling strings with the object of delaying the second reading of the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill. Mr. Crookshank, while discouraging the suggestion, did not seem ready to give any definite information with respect to the date when progress is likely to be made. Meanwhile, The Economist has published a letter from Mr. C. A. Adams, C.B.E, (whose exceptionally strong qualifications to write with authority are well known to administrators of Food and Drug law), suggesting that there is a strong case for enlarging the scope of the Amendment Bill so as to include cosmetics, as has been found desirable and practicable in Canada and in the United States. The British Food Journal is not hopeful that a Government which has scrapped the Labelling Advisory Service of the Ministry of Food will adopt Mr. Adams's excellent advice, nor that it will recognise that changes in circumstances since 1875 make it desirable now to eliminate the control of modern medicinal products—incapable of being chemically analysed—from the scope of an Act intended mainly to deal with food. But it is at least permissible to hope that legislators will not be so foolish as to agree in this session to the multiplication of small Food and Drugs Authorities, pending the long‐delayed reform in the structure of local government. On the unwisdom of this multiplication, Mr. H. E. Monk, B.Sc., F.R.I.C., public analyst for Kent and for many boroughs and urban districts in that county, is submitting some thoroughly wise comments in a paper on Food Standards which he is to present to the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration on June 23rd.

British Food Journal Volume 56 Issue 3 1954

The two Food and Drugs Bills have continued to make tranquil progress in the House of Lords. At the conclusion of the Report stage of the Bill applying to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Lord Woolton moved that the Bill be sent again for consideration to a Committee of the whole House. The reason for this was to enable the Government to introduce a few clauses—five was suggested as the probable number—for the purpose of carrying out certain recommendations of the Inter‐Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses. Her Majesty's Ministers had quite recently decided that legislation on the lines of that Committee's Report should without delay be submitted to Parliament. The amendments made in the Report stage were not of outstanding importance. But the Government have now recognised that some public analysts have not the necessary equipment to carry out some of their functions, and therefore an addition was made to the Bill providing that “if the public analyst for an area is for any reason unable to perform an effective analysis” the sample shall be submitted to the public analyst of some other area. Another amendment dealing with the disposal of samples provides as under:—

British Food Journal Volume 55 Issue 3 1953

Many changes have been made in methods for checking the adulteration and misdescription of food in the 54 years of the life of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL. In January 1899, when the first issue appeared, it was stated that the existing laws were lamentably inadequate and faulty, and that their application must be supplemented by the power of the Press. The prime movers in the establishment of the Journal were a group of public analysts, including particularly Colonel C. E. Cassal, Mr. J. Kear Colwell and Mr. Cecil H. Cribb, who between them held appointments under the Vestries of the parishes of St. George's (Hanover Square), Kensington, Battersea, Clerkenwell, Holborn, St. Giles, Fulham, the Strand District and some Counties in the Provinces. The need for stimulating the activity of some local authorities was clear. Thus, in the year 1898, the total number of samples submitted to the County Analyst for Herefordshire was 8: 1 of milk, 4 of butter, 1 of lard, 1 of beer and 1 of whisky. The Public Analyst, the late Mr. E. W. Voelcker, F.I.C., criticised the inactivity of the County officers. His letter was considered by the Standing Joint Committee, which stoutly defended the Chief Constable and stated that there did not appear to be the slightest ground for the Analyst's strictures. (The population of Herefordshire was then nearly 116,000.) It is not recorded whether or not the Chief Constable of Herefordshire became a regular reader of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL in 1899.

British Food Journal Volume 54 Issue 6 1952

The Attorney‐General has informed the House of Commons that good progress has been made with the preparation of a Bill for consolidating the Food and Drugs Acts. Such a measure is badly needed—for a variety of reasons. First, there are the wholesale amendments made already by the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950. Then there is the intensified muddle of the powers and duties of several Government Departments—namely, the Ministries of Food, of Health, of Agriculture and of Housing and Local Government. Further, much of the emergency legislation now in force—including some Food Standard Orders made under temporary powers—cries aloud to be made permanent. And, in addition, various doubtful questions under the existing law might well be resolved. In theory, consolidation Bills are not expected to bring about substantial amendments if these deal with matters of controversy. In practice, such amendments are sometimes made. This was the case when the Food and Drugs Bill of 1938—which was meant to be a consolidating statute—was before the Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons. For example, a great change was then made, in the teeth of strong opposition, concerning the qualifications of a local authority to become a Food and Drugs Authority. It will not be surprising if the new Bill alters the existing law with respect to the powers of such Authorities to enforce statutory provisions of their own volition—without having to receive the formal consent of a Ministry. In the matter of food standards, while some may be included in an Act of Parliament, many others must obviously continue to be dealt with by statutory instruments. However much the Government may wish to abolish food rationing and control, it is clear that meat, bacon, butter and cheese must for some time remain rationed—and that some Department must continue to have powers to restrict and regulate the sale and composition of foods in short supply, as circumstances may from time to time render such regulation necessary and variable in its scope. Examples which will occur to everyone are sausages and other products containing meat; cream; ice‐cream and other products containing cream; eggs and articles containing them; with the ever‐present possibility of further control of milk and its products at certain seasons of the year. Among the doubtful points to be cleared up is one concerning the definition of meat. “ Meat ” in various statutes has widely different meanings. Recently, the Divisional Court has decided that in the Transport Act, 1947, which has a definition that “meat” means carcases (etc.) of animals, the definition does not cover fish. The Lord Chief Justice was careful to indicate that the Court was not deciding that “whalemeat” was outside the scope of the definition, and added that in the Transport Act “meat” might perhaps include rabbits, poultry and game. There are various decisions on record under other statutes. Thus meat was held in 1905 to be “ any kind of solid food”. In 1915, a Court held that ice‐cream may be meat, and in 1916 another Court ruled that ice‐cream is not meat. Still another difficult question presents itself under S. 14 of the Food and Drugs Act 1938, which requires the registration of premises under for the preparation or manufacture of potted, pickled or preserved food intended for sale, and lays down that “the preparation of meat or fish by any process of cooking shall be deemed to be the preservation thereof ”. Who can say whether for the purpose of this Section bacon is meat? A shopkeeper may find himself in possession of ham or bacon which shows signs of losing its sweetness. So he decides to boil it and sell it as cooked, in order to avoid waste of good food. Is it an offence if his premises are not registered under the Section? I have my own view on this, but do not express it because the whole thing is so doubtful and open to argument. Analysts' fees may perhaps come under consideration. If a private purchaser requires the public analyst to provide a certificate concerning an article said to contain various proportions of several vitamins, must the maximum fee remain at one guinea, as laid down in S. 69 (3) of the Food and Drugs Act? This can hardly be justified, in view of the recent announcement in the “ London Gazette ” that the fee of the Government Chemist for analysing referred samples under the Act is now raised to four guineas. There is hardly any limit to the amount of tidying‐up which might with advantage be tackled in a Food and Drugs Consolidation Bill.

The analytical determination of mineral oil in bread and buns: The effect of varying composition of these baked goods on mineral oil absorption

AbstractA method is described for the determination of mineral oil in commercial bread, which might contain added gluten and/or fat, malt breads and buns. The variation in composition of these products influences the relative quantities of mineral oil absorbed by each, and also the quantities capable of solvent‐extraction under the standard conditions described. Complete extraction of mineral oil from such products is difficult to achieve, but the ratio of mineral oil to the natural oils present in the extract obtained by solvent extraction under standard conditions is constant. Analytical results obtained with various types of bread and buns adulterated with known quantities of mineral oil permit correlation with the quantity of such oil extracted from unknown samples by the described method. This procedure is reasonably satisfactory for all the above products except malt breads. The work described in this paper has been carried out to guide the producers of baked goods in ascertaining that their products comply with the limit of 0.2% mineral oil resulting from the use of mineral oils as machinery lubricants etc. and permitted by the Mineral Oil in Food Order (1949). The variations in composition of different types of baked products and the fundamental effect these have on the quantity of mineral oil extracted under the conditions described emphasizes the difficulty confronting the public analyst in the legal interpretation of the Order. Other methods of analysis are also discussed.

British Food Journal Volume 53 Issue 2 1951

British Food Journal Volume 53 Issue 2 1951

The public analyst and the public health.

The public analyst and the public health.

Frederic Stanley Kipping 1863-1949

Frederic Stanley Kipping was born on 16 August 1863 at Higher Broughton in Manchester. He was the eldest son of James Stanley and Julia Kipping and had two brothers and four sisters. His father held a post in the Manchester branch of the Bank of England of which his paternal grandfather was head. His grandfather on his mother’s side was C. A. Duval, a Manchester artist of considerable reputation. James Stanley Kipping played chess against many of the champions of his time, including Paul Murphy, whom he defeated on one occasion when this World Champion was playing a number of opponents simultaneously. F. S. Kipping regarded himself as only a moderate player, but his eldest son, C. S. Kipping, Headmaster of Wednesbury High School, inherited his grandfather’s skill and is a composer of chess problems of worldwide repute and has edited various chess journals. Kipping early acquired that interest in open-air life which was never to leave him. His father owned a small farm near Higher Broughton, which was at that time practically in the open country. Here he made himself generally useful and gained a fair knowledge of animals and practical agriculture. In the early days the Kipping children had a governess, but at the age of eleven Frederic Stanley entered Manchester Grammar School on the same day as Herbert Brereton Baker. (It is remarkable that both these boys became Longstaff Medallists of the Chemical Society.) He had already become interested in chemistry through his father’s friend and neighbour, J. Carter Bell, the public analyst for Cheshire, who showed him various simple precipitation reactions in inorganic chemistry, and advised his father to make him an analytical chemist. No doubt at this time that honourable profession was still generally regarded from the Dickensian point of view, so clearly indicated in Our mutual friend .

British Food Journal Volume 52 Issue 7 1950

During the past few years the British Food Journal has reported a great many prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act in respect of “ foreign bodies ” in food. Examples have been cigarette ends and pieces of metal or wood in bread, rat dirt and mouse dirt in cereals, nails or small pieces of metal in sausages, splinters of glass in milk, and a host of similar instances. Some of the prosecutions have been for selling food unfit for human consumption, but many have been for selling food not of the substance demanded. I confess that I have always had some doubt whether a loaf is entirely unfit for human use merely because it contains a clean piece of metal quite easily seen and removed. Still, justices never seem to have any difficulty in convicting the vendor under one Section or another. The older readers of the British Food Journal will remember that until the Act of 1938 came into force it was impossible to institute proceedings under the “ prejudice to the purchaser ” Section unless there was a Public Analyst's certificate. I laboured for many years to get this restriction eliminated. First, I was able to persuade my colleagues on the Departmental Committee on the Composition and Description of Food (which reported in 1934) to make a recommendation in that direction, although it was rather doubtful whether it fell within the terms of reference. Then, contrary to the strong representations of the Society of Public Analysts, but with the approval of the Ministry of Health, I persuaded the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Bill of 1938 to enact that a Sampling Officer should be entitled at his discretion to submit or not to submit a sample for analysis. What I had in mind was this: first, that it was sheer waste of time and money to consult an Analyst when an offence could be quite effectively proved without an analysis. Secondly, a wide range of cases in which what was sold was not of the nature demanded could be better proved by an Inspector or by trade evidence than by analysis in a chemical laboratory. Examples particularly in my mind were the substitution of haddock for hake, witches for lemon soles, sheep's liver for calves' liver, the sale of foreign produce as home‐grown, the sale of apples, plums and other fruit of different kinds from those under whose names they were sold, the sale of margarine for butter when the facts were admitted by the vendor, the improper description of wines which could better be proved by skilled tasters than by analysts, and, of course, though to a minor extent, the inclusion of foreign bodies such as those mentioned above. I had always felt that the public needed vastly better protection than could be given by chemical analysis alone, and that the scope of the Act was quite unduly restricted. But I do not pretend that I anticipated such a spate of prosecutions in respect of the accidental and careless admission of foreign bodies in loaves and the rest. One evident cause for this is that the public, through their association with the local Food Office, have become enforcement conscious. In the old days a normal purchaser of a loaf containing a piece of wood did not dream of taking more drastic action than remonstrating with the baker. Now, everyone's first instinct is to repair to the Food Office or the Town Hall with official complaint. Now that I am on the shelf and no longer concerned either with enforcing the Food and Drugs Act or with defending those charged with offences, I find it interesting to contrast present‐day practice with that of forty odd years ago.

British Food Journal Volume 52 Issue 4 1950

The estimated population of the City of Madras at the present time is about one million. This fact alone, considered in relation to public health, speaks for itself. The Public Analyst for the city, who has drawn up this report, acts under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918. The Act, therefore, has been operative for about thirty years. Two graphs are given in the report. One of these shows the number of samples of foods submitted by, it may be supposed, officials corresponding to our food inspectors, each year from 1931 to 1948. The other shows the percentage of samples returned as adulterated for the years 1931 to 1948. From the first graph it appears that the number of samples submitted was about 750 in 1931. In 1948 the number rose to 4,035. From 1931 to 1946 the rise on the whole was steady. From 1946 it was rapid—2,000 in 1946. The curve which expresses the percentage of samples returned as adulterated seems to bear little relation to the first curve. It is most irregular. During the first three or four years the rate of adulteration kept pace with the number of samples collected for analysis. We may suppose that milk is as necessary a constituent of food in Madras as it is elsewhere. Out of the 4,035 samples of food analysed in 1948, 2,054 were milk samples. Out of these 915 were cows‘ milk. The rest consisted of buffalos’ milk or a mixture of cow and buffalo milk, and a number were unspecified. Added water, in nearly every case, was the offence. This ranged from 2 per cent to 81 per cent. Nearly half the cows‘ milk was reported against; half the buffalos’ milk; and about 45 per cent of the mixed milk. If these figures be a measure of the efficiency of the Act of 1918 so far as it relates to the purity of the milk supply the statute would seem to be almost a dead letter. Admittedly many circumstances, especially at the present time, are responsible for the nature and extent of food adulteration in any given district, and these would lead to the unsatisfactory nature of the results just referred to. However, it is suggested that a powerful contributory cause is the inadequacy of the average fine that is inflicted for the offence of food adulteration. In 1944 this was Rs. 59. In 1948 it was Rs. 43, a drop of nearly 25 per cent. “ Let the punishment fit the crime.” The collection and analysis of samples is plainly in the nature of futility unless it be followed by correspondingly vigorous action on the part of the courts against proved offenders. The report remarks: “ Unless a more serious view of offences under the Food Adulteration Act is taken and the maximum penalties provided under the Act are imposed the good effect of increased sampling will be annulled, and much progress cannot be made of effectively suppressing the evil practice of adulteration in the city.” Other samples of foods were analysed and details of the results are given in the report. These show in many cases deliberate, heavy and unscrupulous adulteration which is, unfortunately, but too evident in the milk supply of the city.

Public Utility Common Stocks and Factors Affecting Their Worth

be, in theory, relatively simple. There are few secrets or mysteries about the public utility business, which is made up of local monopolies. Few fields of private enterprises are more completely subject to regulation, and the industry normally files with regulatory and other bodies a mass of statistics and reports. In a former decade, the analyst was needed to dig out statistics and important facts regarding a particular company. In this decade, the public utility analyst must co-ordinate and interpret the vast array of facts and figures, now made readily available to him, and bring forth, from this great amount of information sound judgment on values and prospects. Before discussing those factors that look to be the most important in the analysis of public utility securities, it might be worth while, at the risk of perhaps mentioning the obvious, to touch briefly on factors with which the utility analyst normally need not concern himself too seriously. Unlike the industrial analyst, the utility analyst generally is not too concerned with the acceptability or quality of product. Electric power is an integral part of our economic and social life, and no substitute for electricity appears to threaten the power industry over the foreseeable future. Atomic energy may offer a threat, largely to the process, but not so much to the end product, and that only in the distant future. Electric power is not subject to changes in fashion or style. Today it is almost comparable in its place in our civilization to a basic item such as water.

British Food Journal Volume 51 Issue 8 1949

This report is addressed to the Health Committee of the Corporation. “ It is many years since such a report was issued”, and 1947 was the first complete year in which the Writer of the report was in charge of the Department for whose activity he speaks. A short account of the scope and duties of the Department is given. The writer is not only the Public Analyst for Liverpool City itself, but for seven boroughs besides. He is the Agricultural Analyst for five county boroughs. Work is carried out as requested by all the Liverpool Corporation Departments. This work includes, among others, those relating to Water, Health, Public Baths, and the Port Health Authority; examinations for pathological purposes on behalf of hospitals and private practitioners. Toxicological examinations are also made for H.M. coroners. The department is also concerned with problems relating to atmospheric pollution in co‐operation with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The City Analyst represents Liverpool on the Standing Conference that is concerned with these matters. It is not claimed that the duties of the City Analyst's Department differ in kind from those undertaken by other official analysts in the great industrial centres of the country, but the volume of the work is probably not exceeded anywhere else. Numerical details are not embodied in the report, but are relegated to five appendices. We note from Appendix No. 1 that the total number of examinations of all kinds that were undertaken during the time under review amounted to well over eleven thousand. As already remarked, it is years since such a report was issued. We are in complete agreement with the remark that a summary of the scope and conditions of the work of the City Analyst's Department “ may be helpful”. It will be helpful inasmuch as it—with, we may add, other reports of a like nature—will enable the “ man in the street ” the better to appreciate the nature of the service that the health authorities, represented by official analysts throughout the country, render in their endeavour to ensure that air, water supply, food and other essentials are as they should be. We note that the Corporation Departments and Local Authorities were making a “ steadily increasing use ” of the laboratory facilities during the year. This entailed some reorganisation of the Departments so far as that is related to the examination of foods and drugs. It is hardly needful to point out that post‐war regulations as to the correct labelling and advertising of foods and drugs, especially pre‐packed foods, demand more than analysis. A too excessive use of the commercial imagination in the past with regard to the nature, substance and quality of the stuff in, say, a package, has led to a considerable increase of laboratory staff to cope with the business, with a corresponding increase in the size of the laboratory. With regard to food and drug administration, it is pointed out that the figure given in the reports of the Public Analysts as to the number of unsatisfactory samples is misleading, the number being in all cases too high. Thus for Liverpool it is given as 5·5 per cent of the total number of foods and drugs examined. The sampling officers take samples representing types of foods that are most likely to be irregular. When an irregularity is found, repeated samples may be taken in an attempt to trace the trouble to its source. The result is that the number representing samples found to be unsatisfactory in the course of such an investigation would indicate—when included in the general figures relating to all samples examined—a higher proportion of unsatisfactory samples than is actually the case. “ Thus the percentage of unsatisfactory samples may be just as much a measure of the activity of the sampling officer as of the adulteration practised.” Again, it is pointed out that many of the irregularities disclosed in the examination of foods are not, from the common‐sense point of view, matters for which legal action is desirable. Accident or ignorance of legal regulations may be the cause of irregularities. “ It is generally sufficient to draw attention to what is wrong and it is immediately put right.”

British Food Journal Volume 51 Issue 3 1949

The Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, and Defence Regulations. — Inspection under the last‐named Regulations has added very considerably to the duties of the officers conducting inspections. The inspection relates wholly to foodstuffs and mainly to pre‐packed foods of all kinds, increasingly large amounts of which are being put on the retail market. The amount of this extra work is suggested by the figures given. Over 1,300 visits of inspection were made and over 28,000 articles were inspected. Out of these, 485 were found to be deficient in either weight or measure, but in nearly every case—there were only six prosecutions—the deficiency was small and only merited a cautionary letter. Nevertheless, the activities of the Department in this respect should not be underrated, as the knowledge that such inspections are made serves to prevent offences that are for the most part due to want of care rather than to any desire to make an illegal profit. Under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, 4,766 samples were taken: out of these, 624 were submitted to the Public Analyst, who reported against 54. In 15 cases proceedings were taken. Convictions and fines followed in each case. The greater number of cases, as usual, are concerned with milk. They call for no special comment. It may be mentioned that in one case the offence of obstructing an inspector by refusal to sell a sample of milk and attempting to pour the whole lot into the road resulted in a £10 fine.

British Food Journal Volume 50 Issue 9 1948

In Somerset samples of all kinds submitted and examined amounted to 1,880. Out of these, 1,666 were taken under the Food and Drugs Act, 1898, and the Statutory Rules and Orders issued by the Ministries of Health and Food and the Public Health Acts. It may be observed, though the fact is but too well known to. all those who are officially concerned with the administration of the Acts referred to above, that the number of Rules and Regulations is now very large. This number, by the very nature of the conditions that gave rise to them, will certainly increase. It follows that though the number of samples submitted may not increase, the work in connection therewith will certainly do so. Thus out of forty‐one samples described as either adulterated or incorrect, about half were incorrectly labelled. If this were only a matter of name and address the error or omission could be easily put right, but claims may be made by the vendors that cannot be substantiated. This is left to the Public Analyst to decide. Thus: “Should not bear a reference to scrofula”; or “‘Double strength’ has no meaning”; or “Should not be described as a ‘Cocktail’.” The Public Analyst has the double duty of correcting all sorts of verbal inaccuracies or exaggerations, and carrying out an analysis, often of a most complex description, and then interpreting the results of that analysis. Out of 689 milks examined, 72, or 10·4 per cent, were adulterated, against only 4 per cent in 1946. “This apparent increase in adulteration is probably due to the fact that a large number of samples were taken as a result of complaints received from milk factories.” Cow fat content was in some cases directly traceable to the large proportion of Friesian cows in the herd. The farmers were recommended to introduce into their herds cows of a breed giving milk with a higher proportion of fat. The old fault of bad mixing was responsible for some other prosecutions. Thus 8·67 per cent of fat at the top of the churn and 2·70 at the bottom at the time of delivery. The Report observes that a substance called Ground Almond Substitute should correspond to some extent with ground almonds. This remark was suggested as a result of examining a sample of the alleged substitute. It had a slight odour and flavour of almonds, but no further resemblance to almonds. The 4·2 per cent of fixed oil was mainly derived from the wheat—85 per cent—and the soya flour—15 per cent—of which it was composed. As flour costs 3d. a lb., and soya flour 10½d. a lb., it is pointed out that the cost of this mixture would be 4½d. a lb. It was sold for 2s. a lb. We are glad to note that the magistrate's view of the swindle was a £5 fine. As it might be used raw for cake icing or marzipan, the result of ingesting this rubbish would probably bring about digestive troubles in young children.

Mr. G. S. W. Marlow

GEORGE STANLEY WITHERS MARLOW, whose death occurred on March 5, was born in 1889, and educated at New College Choir School, Oxford, and King‘s College, University of London. He graduated B.Sc. in 1909, and the next year obtained his associateship of the Institute of Chemistry, taking as his special subject, food and drugs. The F.I.C. (now F.R.I.C.) followed in 1913. For a couple of years after graduating, he was assistant to Mr. E. Hinks, public analyst for the County of Surrey. In 1911, he joined the staff of the Government Chemist, where he remained until 1919, when he became assistant secretary of the Institute of Chemistry. After six years there, he left to become personal assistant to Mr. W. J. U. Woolcock, general manager of the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers. Meanwhile, in 1923, he had been called to the Bar, and decided to practise in 1927. He was a member of Gray‘s Inn, and pupil to the late Mr. W. Trevor Watson, K.C. He acted in such cases of chemical patents as arose, his first being the application of Boots Cash Chemists, Ltd., to revoke Sharp and Dohme in the matter of hexyl resorcinol.