202 
interests of the Revenue. Accordingly the Revenue 
authorities look pretty sharply after the brewers, and 
exercise considerable powers with regard to the in- 
gredients which may be used by them. By the 
‘Customs and Revenue Act of 1888 the Commissioners 
of the Treasury have power to prohibit, by issue of an 
order published in the London Gazette, the use in the 
manufacture or preparation for sale of any article of 
excise, of any ‘‘ substance or liquor of a noxious or 
detrimental nature,’’ or which, ‘‘ being a chemical or 
artificial extract or product, may affect prejudicially 
the interests of the Revenue,’’ and it was in terms of 
this Act that the Commissioners of the Treasury, act- 
ing under the advice of the Commissioners of Inland 
Revenue, prohibited in 1901 the use of arsenicated 
glucose and ‘“‘invert’’ sugar in the manufacture of 
‘beer under a penalty of 50/. To the plain man there 
is an element of humour—grim humour, it must be 
admitted—about this procedure. Apparently such is 
the condition of the Statute Book with respect to 
official control in the interests of public health of the 
manufacture of articles of food and drink that this 
is the only known administrative method of arresting 
a grave public danger—unless, indeed, the incrimin- 
ated material is of such a character that it may be 
taken in transit, and that the whole of it may be 
brought before a magistrate in a police court by direc- 
tion of a medical officer of health. The action of the 
Treasury is, it will be observed, restricted to articles 
of excise, and is exercised ostensibly solely in the 
interests of the Revenue. No action was, or apparently 
could be, taken by the local authority in the district in 
which the works of Bostock and Co. were situated 
to seize or otherwise deal with the large quantity of 
contaminated glucose, ‘‘invert’’? sugar, and table 
syrup stored at these works after their poisonous 
nature was discovered. 
Apart from the injunctions they have laid upon the 
excise authorities to extend the application of the 
powers they already possess to ensure the purity of 
beer, the chief outcome of the Commissioners’ pro- 
tracted inquiry has been to formulate a series of re- 
commendations, or rather propositions, as to the 
necessity for more extended administration by the 
Local Government Board; as to the necessity for 
official ‘‘ standards ’’ for purposes of the Sale of Food 
and Drugs Acts; as to the responsibility of the manu- 
facturer or intermediate vendor—that is, apart from 
the retailer-—under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts; 
and as to the extension of the powers of local authori- 
ties to prevent the sale of suspected foods pending 
analysis. 
With respect to the Local Government Board, the 
Commissioners are of opinion that this department 
ought to have the services of a special officer with 
scientific knowledge, who should be in relation with 
the Government Laboratory, and be able to institute 
the necessary chemical inquiries, and in other ways 
(for instance, where physiological investigations are 
necessary) have adequate assistance In this way the 
‘Commissioners think that full and authoritative in- 
vestigation could be made where risks to health are 
suspected, or where new colouring matters, preserv- 
-atives, or other chemical additions to food are intro- 
duced. The officer ought not only to have the duty of 
collecting information from public analysts and other 
local officers, and of advising how the Sale of Food and 
Drugs Acts may be efficiently worked, but he should 
be required to make inspections and inquiries as to 
conditions of food-manufacture at home and abroad. 
Under the improved condition thus contemplated, the 
Local Government Board should for such purposes be 
dn touch with other public departments which might 
NO. 1783, VOL. 69] 
NATURE 
[DECEMBER 31, 1903 
be able to render assistance in special directions, e.g. 
the Board of Inland Revenue in the case of excisable 
articles, the Board of Customs in the case of imported 
foods, and the Patent Office in the case of patented 
processes of food preparation. 
The Commissioners are of opinion that the Local 
Government Board should be the authority to pre- 
scribe and from time to time vary ‘‘ standards ’’ for 
the purpose of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. By 
the Act of 1899 the Board of Agriculture has been em- 
powered to make regulations, which may imply 
““standards,’’ with respect to milk, cream, butter, or 
cheese, articles which—and especially the first-named— 
are more frequently the subject of prosecutions under 
the Acts than any other food substances. There is a 
slight difference of opinion as to the manner in which 
these ‘‘standards’’ should be arrived at. The 
majority of the Commissioners favour the establish- 
ment of a so-called Board of Reference, which they de- 
fine to be a permanent body consisting of a small 
number of scientific men nominated by the Crown or 
departmentally. The principal of the Government 
Laboratory, who, apparently, does not dissent from the 
idea of a consultative board to advise on points con- 
nected with the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, thinks 
that it would be preferable to follow the procedure of 
the Board of Agriculture and to entrust the consider- 
ation of the propriety of fixing a standard, or standards 
in the case of particular groups of allied substances, 
to specially constituted committees, appointed ad hoc 
and for the occasion, in which manufacturers and 
technical experts were represented. There is, no 
doubt, much to be said on both sides of this question, 
but considering the very large and legitimate com- 
mercial interests involved, it is questionable whether 
public opinion would be wholly satisfied by the ex- 
clusion from the board of persons of special knowledge 
and experience of the article for which a “‘ standard ” 
is required. 
After all, the number of substances, or groups of 
allied substances, for which ‘‘ standards ’’ would be 
required is not inordinately large. 
A matter of more immediate importance is the 
nature of the amendment which is required to bring 
home to the real offender the responsibility for a con- 
travention of the Acts. At present the actual manu- 
facturer of an adulterated article is too frequently 
allowed to escape, and owing to the difficulty of reach- 
ing him, local authorities are often unwilling to take 
action, on the ground that they do not regard the re- 
tailer, who has had nothing to do with the contamin- 
ation and is frequently not in a position to know that 
it exists, as the really culpable person. Warranties 
are very difficult to take action upon, and the conditions 
which have to be complied with under the Statutes are 
so numerous and so exacting that it is well nigh hope- 
less to proceed. If a warrantor states that at the time 
of giving a warranty ‘‘ he had reason to believe that 
the statements contained therein were true,’’ he has a 
good defence. As the law stands at present it is rarely 
worth while to attach the manufacturer or middleman 
to the prosecution. 
The particular method of arriving at a food-standard 
advocated by Dr. Thorpe is well exemplified by the 
second of the two Parliamentary papers under review. 
In July, 1901, the departments concerned appointed a 
committee to inquire and report as to what regulations, 
if any, may with advantage be made under Section 4 
of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899 for determin- 
ing what deficiency in any of the normal constituents 
of butter, or what addition of extraneous matter or 
proportion of water in any sample of butter shall for 
the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts raise 
