June 7, 1873.] 
THE pharmaceutical journal and transactions. 
979 
SHtc Iharmamitkal Journal. 
-«♦-- 
SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1873. 
Communications for this Journal, and hooks for review, etc., 
should he addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
tra/nsmission of the Journal should he sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street , London, W. Envelopes indorsed “Pharm. Journ. > 
THE ADULTERATION ACT. 
The Adulteration Act lias now been long enough 
in force to justify the expectation that by this time 
there would have existed some decisive evidence as 
to its operation throughout the country. This is 
especially the case since the 7tli clause provided that 
a quarterly report as to the number of articles 
analysed and the nature of the adulterations detected 
should be furnished to local authorities by the ana¬ 
lysts appointed under the Act. As yet, however, but 
little of such evidence appears to exist, and in one 
case a chief constable candidly reports that nothing 
has been done beyond the appointment of an analyst. 
There are, however, some exceptions. In Glasgow 
Professor Thorpe reports that between the 12tli 
March and the 24th April he received 30 samples— 
viz. flour, 5; milk, 8; butter, 4; tea, 11; bread, 1; 
and one of a green paper used in covering confections. 
The flour he found to be unadulterated ; 6 out of 
the 8 samples of milk, he states, contained water 
varying from 5 to 30 per cent.; all the butter was 
inferior, containing from 12 to 26 percent, of starchy 
and curdy matter, and from a trace up to 16'4 per 
cent, of water; the samples of tea were, with one 
exception, genuine; the bread was free from alum; 
and the green colour of the paper was found to 
be due to a compound of copper and arsenic. In 
Clerkenwell, Dr. Stevenson has reported the results 
of the analysis of 47 samples,—34 of bread and 13 of 
tea. Of the tea samples 4 were in his opinion adul¬ 
terated, but he did not advise a prosecution, since 
he did not feel sure that the adulterations were effected 
in this country, and because they were not injurious 
to health. Of the bread 8 samples contained alum, 
but some duplicate samples obtained from the same 
shops showed a marked improvement. 
Professor Thorpe points out that one of the chief 
difficulties in working the present Act consists in the 
fact that the prosecutor is under the necessity of 
proving that the vendor of the article adulterated is 
aware that it is so, a difficulty which is increased by 
the fact that few simple and, in the hands of dealers, 
easily applicable tests are known, whereby the dealer 
can satisfy himself as to the purity of the article he 
retails. Such tests, he thinks, might be devised, if 
analysts would give their attention to the matter. 
Unfortunately, however, he illustrates the difficulty 
of the subject by himself suggesting the use of a 
test for butter which might sometimes lead to very 
erroneous conclusions. 
Dr. Corfield and Mr. Whitmore have also pre¬ 
sented reports in reference to their respective dis¬ 
tricts ; but neither have furnished much reason for 
satisfaction. Mr. Whitmore, as analyst for the 
parish of Marylebone, has in his report confined his 
attention chiefly to milk, and has elicited a vigorous 
criticism from the British Medical Journal. Starting 
with the assertion that the report is weak and abor¬ 
tive, our contemporary proceeds to justify these com¬ 
ments by showing the absence of any useful purpose 
the report can serve. The general prevalence of the 
practices of skimming and watering milk have long 
been sufficiently well known not to require further 
evidence, and there was no reason to suppose Mary¬ 
lebone is any exception to the rule. The only useful 
information that could be furnished in connection 
with these practices has not been made public, viz., 
the names of the offenders. Consequently the effect 
of the Act, so far as the inhabitants of Maryle¬ 
bone are concerned, is merely the raising a vague 
impression that an every day article of food. is 
systematically debased. We doubt the deterrent in¬ 
fluence of such a course, and in the interest of the 
honest tradesman, would much prefer more decided 
measures. 
But the Marylebone analyst appears to be most of 
all unhappy in the chemical evidence he brings for¬ 
ward as indicating the existence of gross adulteration 
of milk. He reports determinations as to specific 
gravity and amount of cream, together with admis¬ 
sions that both these data are utterly valueless for 
indicating the quality of milk. His attempts to ob¬ 
tain other data more adequate as a measure of quality 
in milk seem to have been frustrated by insufficient 
familiarity with the details of analytical work ; and 
this is an instance in support of the opinion we 
expressed long since, that medical analysts v ould 
generally fail in this particular. It is here indeed 
possible to refer to the criticisms of a medical journal 
in confirmation of this view, for our contemporary 
mentioned above speaks of the Marylebone analyst s 
determinations as being “ absurd” and confused. 
Dr. Corfield’s report to the Vestry of St. George s 
appears to have raised some difficulties, as repoited 
in this Journal at page 963. These seem to have 
arisen from his misinterpretation of the proper func¬ 
tions of an analyst under the Act, and from a too 
zealous desire to deal effectively with the evil of 
adulteration. Such misunderstanding is made too 
possible by the terms of the Act as it stands, and its 
occurrence shows the need of further definition of 
duties and modes of procedure. 
While dealing with this subject it is impossible to ' 
avoid referring to the general absence of anything 
like satisfactoiy results from the operation of the 
Adulteration Act. A large number of appointments 
have been made and confirmed in various parts of 
the country, but we arc still waiting to see what 
