July 8, 1920] 



NATURE 



597 



vision of disablement allowances and the guarantee 

 of a certain rate of interest on policies issued by the 

 association. 



We see, therefore, that, through the administration 

 of a great private benefaction, there has been evolved 

 in America a pension system which in general form 

 is not dissimilar from the Federated Superannuation 

 System for Universities and University Colleges 

 in this country. There are, howeVer, important difter- 

 ences. Whereas our federated system is in all essen- 

 tials applied uniformly throughout the institutions 

 concerned, the revv systeni in America is subject to 

 a variety of conditions as to the rate of contribution, 

 the grades of staff admitted, and other qualifications 

 as to length of service and amount of salary. Also, 

 while some institutions make entrance to the scheme 

 compulsory on all members of certain grades of staff, 

 o^thers leave it entirely to the option of the individuals. 

 So long as this lack of uniformity continues, the 

 simplicity of transfer from one institution to another, 

 so valuable a feature of the English system, can 

 scarcely be secured. It is further to be observed that 

 the rate of contribution of the American college is 

 never more than 5 per cent., as compared with the 

 10 per cent, now generally given by the English 

 university ; but against this must be put the fact that 

 the policies issued by the American Teachers' Associa- 

 tion are a little more generous in their terms than 

 those of the insurance companies in our federated 

 system. 



.\ particularly useful section of the fourteenth report 

 of the Foundation is that which deals with current 

 pension problems both in America and in this country. 

 It is here that we are most impressed with the 

 almost chaotic condition of the pension arrange- 

 ments in .America as a result of the diversity of the 

 State systems ; but we are bound, on the other hand, 

 to confess that our own Fisher scheme, while ad- 

 mitted to be generous, comes in for severe criticism, 

 especially on account of its non-contributory basis 

 and of the alleged weakness of the arguments used 

 to support the adoption of a scheme of that character. 

 Indeed, throughout the report the virtues of the 

 contributory plan are urged repeatedly and with great 

 insistence, and we cannot dismiss lightlv the opinions 

 of an authority occupying the unique position of the 

 Carnegie Foundation. Though perhaps not within 

 the sphere of immediate practical politics, it is legi- 

 timate to conjecture whether greater advantage 

 would not result from a contributory system of pen- 

 sions applied to the whole of our teaching profession 

 than from a non-contributory system granted to a part 

 of it. By the former plan we should recognise the 

 essential unity of a great profession ; bv the latter 

 we tend to separate it into parts and hamper the free 

 interchange of teachers between one institution and 

 another. 



Those who are concerned in unravelling the knots 

 in our own pension systems will find much suggestive 

 material in this and previous reports of the Carnegie 

 Foundation. But it is gratifying to feel that without 

 the colossal munificence of a Carnegie we have vet 

 reached a position which, with all its weaknesses, is 

 still in many ways far in advance of that occupied 

 by our Transatlantic cousins. Though we may 

 regret lost opportunities, we realise that in a com- 

 parative sense we are not so badly off as we 

 thought, and we ar-^ led to ask ourselves whether, 

 after all. the scheme inspired by .Sir William M'Cor- 

 mick's Committee and designed by our universities 

 in co-ooeration does not represent the l>est thing so 

 far don*^ in the matter of teachers' pensions. 



In addition to its achievements in the pensions 

 field, a valuable series of educational reports stands 

 to the credit of the Carnegie Foundation. Under this 

 NO. 2645, VOL. 105] 



head the papers contained in the fourteenth report 

 on current tendencies in education, on legal educa- 

 tion, and on the training of teachers are worthy 

 of notice, though perhaps not so much for their dis'- 

 covery of new ideas as for their clear exposition of 

 accepted principles and their straightforward descrip- 

 tion of the good and the bad in e.xisting practice. 



National Food Consumption in the United 

 States. 



pROF. RAVMO.ND PE.VRL has contributed to the 

 ■•• Proceedings ot the American Philosophical 

 Society (vol. Iviii., 1919, p. 182J an instructive article 

 upon the consumption ot foodstuffs in America from 

 1911 to 1918. He distinguishes between (1) primarv 

 foods, such as plant materials directly consumable by 

 man, or animals not nourished upon primary food- 

 stuffs, and (2) secondary foods, which cover the edible 

 products ot animals nourished upon primarv food- 

 stuffs. The necessary deductions were made for loss 

 in storage, transit, etc., and for inedible refuse. The 

 statistics are expressed in terms of metric tons of 

 proteins, carbohydrates, and fats, and also in terms 

 of Calories. 



Broadly speaking, the salient feature of the analvsis 

 is- the uniformity of consumption from year to vear. 

 The greatest relative advance (relative, that is, to the 

 increase of population) was in the consumption of 

 fat, the least in the consumption of protein, but the 

 deviations from the line of increasing population are 

 small. 



Turning to the sources, it appears that 47 per cent, 

 of the protein is derived from primary, and 53 per 

 cent, from secondary, foods. Of fats', 82 per cent, 

 are derived from secondary sources, while 95 per cent, 

 of the carbohydrates come from primary sources. In 

 terms of Calories, 61 per cent, of the intake is from 

 primary foodstuffs. 



These figures are not greatly different from the 

 British returns analysed by the Food (War) Committee 

 of the Royal Society. W'e derived 42 per cent, of our 

 protein, 92 per cent, of our fat, and 35 per cent, of 

 our energy from secondary sources. 'Put otherwise, 

 we get fewer Calories and' less protein, but more fat, 

 from animal sources (exclusive of fish, which comes 

 under primary sources in Prof. Pearl's classification) 

 than the .Americans. We should, perhaps, use the 

 past tense in this comparison, since the British data 

 do not refer to existing conditions. 



Thirty-six per cent, of the American intake of pro- 

 tein is in the form of grain, 26 per cent, in meats, and 

 20 per c^nt. in dairy products. Of fat, 51 per cent, 

 is furnished by meats, 27 per cent, by dairy products, 

 and 12 per cent, by vegetable oils and nuts. Of carI)o- 

 hvdrates, 56 per cent, is furnished by grains anil 

 26 per cent, by sugars. Of total energy, 35 per cent, 

 comes from grains, 22 per cent, from meats, 15 per 

 cent, from dairv products, and 13 per cent, from 

 \sugars. These four groups contribute 85 per cent, of 

 the total energv value. 



The effects of the food economy campaign and the 

 food administration in 1017-18 are of interest. The 

 total consumption of food increased, but not in pro- 

 portion to the population ; the consumption of meat 

 practically did not increase at all, and the consumption 

 of grain only i per cent. The great increases were in 

 the consumption of vegetables, of oils and nuts, and 

 of oleomargarine, amounting respectively to 30 per 

 cent., 29 per cent., and ti6 per cent over the averages 

 of the prece<ling six years. The increase in the two 

 former groups may have been due to the activity of 



