180 
NATURE 
[DECEMBER 24, 1903 
Leeds which had been used in their production. This 
occurrence was attended with serious consequences, 
and caused such widespread alarm that it was deemed 
expedient that a Royal Commission should issue to 
ascertain the amount of the sickness and death attri- 
butable to poisoning by arsenic, and to consider by 
what safeguards the introduction of arsenic into articles 
of food or drink can be prevented. : 
In their first report the Commissioners dealt with 
the immediate question which led to their appoint- 
ments, and made certain recommendations with the 
view of strengthening the hands of the Inland Revenue 
Authorities in preventing a recurrence of such a catas- 
trophe as that which occurred in the autumn of 1900. 
In their second and final report the Commissioners 
state in the outset what action they took to ascertain 
what became of the large stock (more than 700 tons) 
of arsenicated glucose and “ invert ”? remaining at the 
works of the firm who made it, and also what became 
of certain arsenicated table syrups (14 tons in amount) 
which they had placed on the market. It is satis- 
factory to know that all the contaminated glucose and | 
“i 
invert ’’ sugar was got rid of for purposes uncon- 
nected with food, particulars regarding each sale and 
the undertakings entered into respecting the use of all | 
sugars sold being communicated to the Commission 
and to the Local Government Board. 
As regards the extent of the epidemic, it appears 
from the evidence of witnesses and from information 
obtained from medical officers of health that the total 
number of persons who suffered was certainly not 
fewer than 6000, and probably considerably more. It 
is impossible to determine the number of fatal cases 
with any approach to accuracy. From the returns of 
the medical officers of health it appears that these were 
at least seventy, that is to say, there were seventy cases 
in which arsenical poisoning was entered in the death 
certificate as the cause of death, or was found to be a | 
cause as the result of a coroner’s inquest. These, in 
the opinion of the Commissioners, do not represent the 
total number of cases. Deaths occurring before the 
discovery of the cause of the outbreak were frequently 
certified as due to “ chronic alcoholism ”’ and “ cirrhosis 
of the liver,’? and in some cases were attributed to 
Addison’s disease and to locomotor ataxy. Other 
deaths were recorded as due to ‘* alcoholic,’ ‘“ peri- 
pheral,”’ or “ multiple’ neuritis 
Not the least valuable result of the inquiry has been 
to bring together a series of detailed descriptions by 
competent medical observers of individual cases of 
poisoning, of different clinical types which they have | 
distinguished, of particular symptoms met with at | 
different stages of the malady, and of pathological 
changes observed post mortem. These descriptions 
form valuable material for reference and comparison, 
and merit careful attention. 
The Commissioners are of opinion that a consider- 
able proportion of beer brewed in some parts of the 
country before 1900 contained noteworthy quantities of 
arsenic, mainly derived from malt and from brewing 
sugars. It is also evident that before 1900 the degree 
to which beer had been liable to receive arsenic from 
malt must have varied greatly in different parts of 
England. Malt has been shown to have been subject 
to arsenical contamination in much greater degree 
when the fuel used on the kiln has been gas coke 
than when oven coke or anthracite has been em- 
ployed. It would seem that the fact of greater pre- 
valence of alcoholic neuritis among beer drinkers in 
Manchester and Liverpool before 1900, when compared 
with other places, is to be ascribed to the larger pro- 
portion of arsenic contained in much of the malt 
there used, due to the character of the fuel employed 
in kilning. That malt of this character will give rise 
NO. 1782, VOL. 69] 
to arsenical poisoning was shown by the occurrence 
of an outbreak in Halifax in 1902, the circumstances 
of which were carefully inquired into by the Com- 
mission. 
Incidentally, the Commission has accumulated — 
interesting and valuable information on the question 
of individual susceptibility to arsenic, on the mode in 
which it accumulates in human tissues, and on the 
ways in which it is eliminated. Arsenic was detected 
in sweat, in the epidermic scales which are freely shed 
in the condition known as keratosis, in the nails and — 
in hair. It appears that epidermic tissues, which 
consist principally of keratin, have a special affinity 
for arsenic, and that the effect of arsenic upon nerve 
tissue may be related to the fact that nerve sheaths 
consist largely of keratin. 
With regard to the suggested relation between the 
9 
disease known as ‘‘beri-beri’’—a disease mainly 
characterised by peripheral neuritis—and arsenical 
poisoning, the Commissioners are of opinion that 
such clinical, etiological and chemical data as they 
have been able to collect lend no support to the idea 
of such relation. 
Much of the evidence laid before the Commission 
related to the relative value of different methods of 
estimating small quantities of arsenic in brewing 
materials and in food and drink generally. Indeed, | 
there has sprung up quite a plentiful crop of literature 
on the subject within the last three years, and one 
effect of the inquiry has unquestionably been greatly to 
improve our analytical methods of detecting and 
estimating minimal quantities of arsenic. On the 
whole the Commission is inclined to recommend the 
method of comparison of mirrors, obtained either by 
the so-called Marsh-Berzelius method or by the elec- 
trolytic method as worked out by a departmental 
committee appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue. 
A considerable section of the report deals with the 
various ways in which foods are liable to become con- 
taminated by arsenic, and the precautions which 
should be taken by manufacturers to exclude it. In 
the greater number of cases the introduction of 
arsenic would appear to be due to the use of mineral 
acids, more particularly sulphuric and hydrochloric 
acid, in the preparation of ingredients of food. 
Arsenic may also be introduced in the mineral or 
organic colouring matters which may be employed to 
‘“improve ’’ the appearance of food preparations. 
The subject of malt naturally receives much atten- 
tion. Although the exclusion of small quantities of 
arsenic from it has proved to be a matter of consider- 
able difficulty, it 1s satisfactory to know that all the 
evidence goes to show that it is now commercially 
practicable to produce malt which either may be con- 
sidered free from arsenic or in which the amount of 
arsenic is certainly less than 1/250th grain per pound. 
Considerations of space preclude us from attempting 
to show how it has been proved that access of arsenic 
to malt may be obviated or diminished. No doubt 
this section of the report will receive from those com- 
mercially interested in the matter the attention which 
_its exhaustive treatment merits. 
In the concluding sections of their report the Com- 
missioners deal with the present means of official 
control over purity of food, more especially in relation 
to arsenic, and discuss the general question as to what 
improvements are, in their opinion, needed in the 
official control over the purity of food. 
As this is, perhaps, the most generally important 
outcome of their deliberations, and bears directly upon 
the question of the efficacy of the machinery which 
supervises the working of the Food and Drugs Acts, 
we propose to reserve the consideration of their re- 
commendations to a subsequent article. 
