290 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



whether such materials as phosphorus and iron are of use to 

 the system when taken in an inorganic form. There is a 

 growing tendency to answer this question in the affirmative and 

 to discredit the older view to the contrary. 



Since Dr. Hamill's report was issued, Mr. Humphries has 

 announced at the British Association meeting that during the 

 process of conditioning flour and still more so during the 

 manufacture of bread from it, there is an actual conversion by 

 enzymic action of organic into inorganic phosphate, so that 

 finally 40 per cent, or more of the phosphorus is in the form 

 of inorganic phosphate. If this be confirmed — and there is no 

 reason to distrust the observations — Dr. Hamill's objection to 

 phosphates as improvers can no longer be maintained. 



The fact that inorganic phosphates are formed during con- 

 ditioning affords a clue to the changes already alluded to which 

 take place on spraying with water and explains their effect. 

 Dr. Hamill seems to have quite overlooked the fact that flour is 

 a changing substance or at least to have ignored it in his 

 report. It is perhaps advisable to point out that the inorganic 

 phosphates, such as potassium phosphate, present in wheat, 

 differ very materially from the organic compounds ; in some of 

 these the phosphorus atom is united to compounds of carbon 

 and nitrogen in groups of unknown complexity, whilst in others 

 the organic complexes form ethereal salts of phosphoric acids. 



Dr. Hamill gives two other reasons for prohibiting the use of 

 flour improvers. The first relates to protein — his argument 

 being that if by means of improvers weak wheats with little 

 protein are made to simulate strong wheats the consumer gets 

 a loaf containing less protein and consequently of lower nutri- 

 tive value. This point was fully dealt with in the last article 

 and the small differences in the amount of protein shown to be 

 of but little importance. 



The second statement is that the consumer loses by the 

 treatment, as he gets a larger loaf containing more water from a 

 treated flour and therefore there is a diminution of the actual 

 amount of flour in each loaf. Quite apart from the fact that the 

 bread of the larger loaf is certainly the more digestible and 

 that thereby any small loss of weight would be more than made 

 up, it is also probable that the untreated flour would be unsuited 

 for bread-making by itself and if not blended with a stronger 

 wheat could only be used for some other purpose. 



