APPENDIX D LXXVII 
A further remark by the Commissioner, in his report for 1891 is 
worthy of special comment. 
“Complaints have been made by certain manufacturers of the 
mention of their names in connection with samples indiscriminately 
taken from retailers. It will, however, be observed that the names 
are given as the “alleged” manufacturers only, or parties from whom 
the goods are stated to have been purchased by the vendor.” 
This question of publishing the name of a manufacturer, “as given 
by the vendor” has come up for criticism many times since 1891. It 
is undeniable that opportunity for doing great injury to the reputation 
of a manufacturer is given by this practice. Either through ignorance 
or through malice, a vendor may give the name of another than the 
actual manufacturer, and the name, therefore, is published with the 
imprimatur of the Department, which, nevertheless, has no special 
control over the person from whom it obtained information. The 
Adulteration Act requires the publication of the name of a manufacturer 
or furnisher, when known; but it is open to question whether statements 
made to departmental officers by irresponsible persons, can be called 
knowledge, in such sense as to justify the Department in taking the 
‘risk of inflicting grave injury upon the good name of manufacturers. 
For although the publication distinctly states that this information is 
merely given “as obtained from the vendor,” the harm is of a real 
character; and in this age of competition in trade, there can be no 
difficulty in understanding such to be the case. 
As already noted this Act is based on the British Act of 1860 and 
its Amendments. On careful reading of its clauses, the necessity of 
having definite standards of reference will appear. So far as drugs, 
included in the Pharmacopceias, are concerned, we have in these authori- 
ties, fairly satisfactory standards; but it is otherwise with ordinary 
food products. In the first place, these are not usually substances of 
definite chemical composition; and even when theoretically such, 
for example, common salt, baking soda, sugar, tartaric acid, &c., the 
commercial article is unavoidably more or less removed from a state 
of chemical purity by the condition of its production. Tea does not 
cease to be tea because it varies in flavour, in the amount of ash it yields, 
or in its content of alkaloid. Milk, of genuine character, varies much 
as regards its percentage of butter-fat, and other solids. The question 
of Limit of Variation which may consist with genuineness in character, 
is a most important one; and its importance was early recognized by 
all those interested in carrying out the Adulteration Act. 
It was mainly with a view to settling this question that the Society 
of Public Analysts of England was formed in 1874; and the organ of 
this Society “The Analyst,” is still published, and is recognized as the 
most important English journal dealing with food and drug analysis. 
