now so much used for the dyeing of food products, are no longer prepared—as was rosaniline (the parent substance of so many aniline dyes) at an early stage of its manufacture—with arsenic acid, yet they are often contaminated indirectly from sulphuric acid. Furthermore, hardly any metal that results from the smelting of any ore with coal is free from arsenic, iron in particular, as employed for pots and pans and implements, being highly arsenical. From the iron the many chemical preparations which contain or are made with the aid of iron salts may be arsenicated. The general presence of arsenic from some of these causes has been known for many years; outbreaks of arsenical poisoning have been due to it at various times, but neglect, forgetfulness and human shortsightedness let the matter go into oblivion, and it is safe to predict, in spite of all attention which has been given to the subject, of the panic which was created by the beer-poisoning outbreak, of the shock and injury caused to manufacturers of many kinds, and of the watchfulness aroused in officers of health and analysts, that as long as the production of food materials or substances that go into food materials is not left to the care of nature, and as long as man adds the products of his ingenuity to our food and drink, so long will “accidents,” like the Manchester poisoning, from time to time recur. We now search for arsenic; some other time it is lead, or antimony, or selenium, that will do the mischief. Man does what he can according to his light, but he sees but a little patch of the sky of knowledge, while the plant or the animal building up its body from the plant has learned by inheritance to avoid the assimilation of matters noxious to it. Strictly speaking, arsenical poisoning does not belong to the subject of adulteration. It is not due to wilfulness but to stupidity, but it affords a lesson which cannot be taken too much to heart, that mankind, by relying too much upon “science” in feeding, is on a path that is fraught with considerable danger.
To safeguard consumers, as far as practicable, the royal commission made important recommendations concerning amendments of the Food Acts; these, as at present interpreted and administered, were reported to be unsatisfactory for the purpose of protecting the consumer against arsenic and other deleterious substances in food. “As a rule public analysts receive samples in order that they may pronounce upon their genuineness or otherwise, knowing nothing of the local circumstances which led to their being taken, of their origin or the reasons for sending them. The term ‘genuine’ in this sense means that the analyst has not detected such objectionable substances as he has considered it necessary to look for in the sample submitted to him. Obviously, the value of the statement that the sample is ‘genuine’ depends upon the extent to which the analyst has means of knowing what are the objectionable substances which it is liable to contain. In present circumstances he has not sufficient information on this point.” It was also pointed out that the application of the Food Acts to prevention of contamination of foods by deleterious substances was materially hindered by want of an official authority with the duty of dealing with the various medical, chemical and technical questions involved, and that the absence of official standards militated against the efficiency of the existing acts. The commission advised that a special officer be appointed by the Local Government Board to obtain by inquiries from various sources, such information as would enable the board to direct the work of local authorities in securing greater purity of food; and they further recommended that the board or court of reference, which had been advised by the Committee on Food Products Adulteration, should be established. Pending the establishment of official standards in respect of arsenic under the Food Acts, they were of opinion that penalties should be imposed upon any vendor of beer or any other liquid food, or of any liquor entering into the composition of food, if that liquid be shown by adequate test to contain one-hundredth of a grain or more of arsenic in the gallon, and with regard to solid food, no matter whether it be consumed habitually in large or small quantities, or whether it be taken by itself (like golden syrup), or mixed with water or other substances (like chicory or yeast extract)—if the substance contain one-hundredth of a grain of arsenic or more to the pound. The board of reference, most urgently needed for the protection of the public and for the guidance of manufacturers and officers, has yet to be created.
While from time immemorial certain articles of food have been preserved by salting, smoking, drying, or by the addition of sugar and in some cases of saltpetre, during the last quarter of the 19th century the use of chemicals acting more powerfully as antiseptics or preservatives extended enormously, particularly in England. A very Preservatives in food.large fraction of the British food supply being obtained from abroad, a proportionately great difficulty exists in obtaining the food in an entirely fresh and untainted condition. While refrigeration and cold-storage has been the chief factor in enabling the meat and other highly perishable foods to be imported, other steps, ensuring preservation of goods that are collected from farmers and brought together at shipping ports, are necessary to prevent decomposition prior to such goods coming into cold store. Thus it is well-nigh impossible to collect butter from farms in Australia or New Zealand far distant from the coast without the addition of some chemical preservative. Heavily salted goods no longer appeal to the modern palate, and, with the progress of specialized labour, the inhabitants, especially of great towns, have become accustomed to resort to manufactured provisions instead of the home-made and home-cooked food. Manufacturers of many articles of preserved food gradually adopted the use of chemical preservatives, and at the present time the practice has become so general that it may be said that practically every person in the United Kingdom who has passed the suckling stage consumes daily more or less food containing chemical preservatives. The Food Act allows of the addition of any ingredient, not injurious to health, if it be required for the production or preparation of the food, or as an article of commerce, in a state fit for carriage. The legality or otherwise of the use of chemical preservatives, therefore, hinges upon their innocuousness. Upon theoretical considerations it is clear that a substance which is capable of acting as an antiseptic must act injuriously upon bacteria, fungi or yeasts, and as the human body is, generally speaking, less resistant to poisons than the low organisms in question, it would seem to follow that antiseptics are bound to affect it injuriously. It is, of course, a question of dose and proportion. It has further been said that all antiseptics possess some sort of medicinal action, and however valuable they may be in disease when administered under the control of a competent physician, they have no business to be given indiscriminately to sick and healthy alike by purveyors of food. The result of a general desire on the part of importers and manufacturers of food materials, of the officers under the Food Act, of the medical profession and of the public, resulted after many years of agitation and complaint and after numerous conflicting magisterial decisions, in the appointment in 1899, by the president of the Local Government Board, of a departmental committee to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring matters in food, with the reference to report: first, whether the use of such materials or any of them, in certain quantities, is injurious to health, and, if so, in what proportion does their use become injurious, and, second, to what extent and in what amounts are they used at the present time. After the examination of a great number of witnesses a report was issued in 1901. Perhaps the most important conclusion was that the instances of actual harm which were alleged to have occurred from the consumption of articles of food and drink chemically preserved were few in number, and were not at all supported by conclusive evidence. During the period which has elapsed since chemically preserved food has been used, the mortality as a whole has declined, and while this naturally cannot be put to the credit of the preservatives but is largely due to better feeding in consequence of the introduction of cheaper foods, which are rendered possible to some extent by the use of preservatives, it conclusively establishes the fact that no obvious harm has been done to the health of the community. The committee made certain recommendations which are the most authoritative pronouncements
