the United Kingdom was no longer recognized as a defence,
unless the defendant could prove that he had taken reasonable
steps to ascertain and did in fact believe in the accuracy
of the statement contained in the warranty. This prevented
collusion between a foreign shipper and an importer; and,
lastly, the definition of ``food'' was widened (in view of
the baking-powder decision) so that the term food ``shall
include every article used for food or drink by man, other
than drugs or water, and any article which ordinarily enters
into or is used in the composition or preparation of human
food, and shall also include flavoring matters and condiments.''
The act of 1899 embodies, with one exception, the most
important recommendations of the Food Products Committee,
the exception being the omission of instituting a board of
reference that might deal with difficulties as they arose,
guide analysts and public authorities in fixing limits for
articles other than milk and butter, and take up the important
questions of preservatives and colouring matters and such
like. An occurrence which almost immediately followed
the passing of the act showed in the strongest manner the
necessity of such guiding board--namely, the outbreak of
arsenical poisoning in the Midlands in the latter part of 1900.
Arsenic in foods.
In the month of June 1900 there occurred, mainly in the
Midlands but also in other parts of England and Wales, an
outbreak of an illness variously described as ``alcoholism,''
``peripheral neuritis'' or ``multiple neuritis.'' This
affected about 6000 persons and resulted in about 70
deaths. It was soon ascertained that the sufferers were all
beer drinkers, and several of them were employees of a local
brewery, the majority of whom had suffered for some months
past. Although suspicion fell early upon beer, some
considerable time elapsed before Dr E. S. Reynolds of
Manchester discovered arsenic in dangerous proportions in the
beer. Steps were immediately taken by brewers and sanitary
authorities to ensure that this arsenical beer was withdrawn
from sale, and, as a result, the epidemic came speedily to an
end. In all instances where this epidemic of sickness had been
traced to particular breweries, the latter had been users of
brewing sugars-glucose and invert sugar--supplied by a single
firm. The quantity of arsenic detected in specimens of
these brewing sugars was in some cases very large, amounting
to upward of four grains per pound. The implicated brewing
sugars were found to have become contaminated by arsenic
in course of their manufacture through the use of sulphuric
acid, some specimens of which contained as much as 2.6% of
arsenic. The acid had been made from highly arsenical iron
pyrites, and as the manufacturers of the glucose had not
specifically contracted with the acid makers for pure acid,
the latter, not knowing for what purpose the acid was to be
used, had felt themselves justified in supplying impure
acid. A royal commission was appointed in February 1901,
with Lord Kelvin as chairman, to inquire into the matter,
and an enormous amount of attention was naturally given
to it by chemists and medical men. It was soon found that
arsenic was very widely disseminated in two classes of food
materials, namely, such as had been dried or roasted in gases
resulting from the combustion of coal, and such as had been
more or less chemically manufactured. All coal contains iron
pyrites, and this mineral again is contaminated with arsenic.
When the coal is burned the fumes are arsenical and part of
the arsenic condenses and deposits. Malt dried in English malt
kilns was found to be almost invariably arsenical, and there
cannot be a doubt that English beers had for many years past
been thus contaminated. At the present time coal virtually
free from arsenic is selected for malting, or Newlands'
process, consisting of the admixture with coal of lime which
renders the arsenic non-volatile, is adopted, and malt free
from all but the merest traces of arsenic is manufactured.
Part of the arsenic remains in the coalashes and wherever
these deposit arsenic can be traced. Sir Edward Frankland
had, many years previously, detected arsenic in the London
atmosphere. Chicory roasted with coal, steaks and chops
grilled over an open fire, thus obtain a minute arsenical
dosing. In sugar refineries carbonic acid gas is, at one stage
of the process, passed through the liquor for the purpose of
precipitating lime or strontia. When this carbonic acid is
derived from coal the sugar often shows traces of arsenic.
When arsenical malt or sugar infusion is fermented, as in
brewing, the yeast precipitates upon itself a considerable
proportion of the impurity, thus partly cleaning the beer,
but all preparations made from yeast-extracts resemble to some
extent meat extracts, with which they are sometimes fraudulently
mixed---are thus exposed to arsenical contamination. On the
continent of Europe malt is not dried in kilns with direct
access of combustion gases but on floors heated from beneath,
and continental beers therefore have not been found arsenical.
The second class of causes of contamination consists of
chemicals. The most important chemical product is sulphuric
acid. This used to be made from brimstone or native volcanic
sulphur, which is virtually free from arsenic. But since
about 1860 sulphuric acid has been more largely made from
iron or copper pyrites. Pyrites-acid is always arsenical,
but can, by suitable treatment, be easily freed from that
impurity. For many purposes acid that has not been purified is
employed. In the Leblanc process of manufacture the first step
is the conversion of salt into sodium sulphate by sulphuric
acid. The hydrochloric acid which is formed carries with
it most of the arsenic of the sulphuric acid. Wherever such
hydrochloric acid is used it introduces arsenic; thus, in
the separation of glycerin from soap lyes, the alkali of the
latter is neutralized with hydrochloric acid and glycerin
is in consequence frequently highly arsenical. So is the
soda produced in the Leblanc process, and every one of the
numerous soda salts made from soda is liable to receive its
share. All acids liberated from their salts by sulphuric
acid, such as phosphoric, tartaric, citric, boracic, may be,
and sometimes are, thus contaminated. All superphosphates,
made by the action of crude sulphuric acid upon bones or
other phosphatic materials, and sulphate of ammonia, made
from gas-liquor and acid, that is to say, two of the most
important manurial materials, are arsenical, and the poison
is thus spread far and wide over meadows and fields, and can
be traced in the soil wherever artificial manures have been
applied. The crops sometimes take up arsenic to a slight
extent, but happily the plant is more selective than man,
and no serious amount of poison absorption appears to be
possible. The risk of contamination is, of course, much
greater with substances which, like glucose, are not further
purified by crystallization, but retain whatever impurity
is introduced into them. Glucose is not only used in beer,
in which by legal enactments it is permitted to be used, but
is also substituted for sugar in a number of food products,
and is liable to carry into them its contamination. Sugar
confectionery, jams and marmalade, honey, and such like, are
often admixed with glucose. It is difficult to say in the
present state of the law whether such admixture amounts to
adulteration. It was clearly made originally for fraudulent
purposes, but usage and high court decisions have gradually
given the practice an air of respectability. Vinegar of sorts
is also made from a glucose liquor produced by the action
of sulphuric acid upon maize or other starchy material, and
is, in its turn, exposed to arsenic contamination. There is
hardly a chemical substance which has directly or indirectly
come into contact with sulphuric acid that is not at times
arsenical. Thus, while artificial colours, 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,
