Nature of Chemistry. There is an almost endless
diversity among the various objects by which mankind
is surrounded ; but one property, at least, they possess
in common, and that is the property of weight. All
objects are attracted by the earth, and the reason why a
thing is heavy is that this earth-attraction, known as
gravitation, offers the resistance called weight to any
efforts to raise things from its surface. This property
of weight characterizes not only solid substances like
iron or wood, but likewise liquids, such as water and oil,
and also gases, of which atmospheric air is an example.
It is convenient to have one name that shall include all
such bodies, and for this purpose the term matter is
employed. Matter, then, is anything which possesses
weight, i.e. is acted on by gravitation.
It is now easy to explain the objects of chemistry.
Matter is not only most varied in form, but its form is
also continually varying; it is the function of the
chemist to investigate these different forms of matter
and also the changes to which they are subject. These
may be summed up in the following definition :
Chemistry is that science which treats of the composition
of matter, of the changes produced therein by heat and
other natural forces, and of the action and reaction of
different kinds of matter on each other.
The composition of matter embraces all questions of
analysis.
The action of forces on matter, and of different kinds
of matter on each other, include the science of chemical
processes and manufactures.
The study of the nature and action of drugs is ex-
pressly included in the domain of chemistry. The
Institute of Chemistry is the governing body of the
chemical profession ; and, among its other functions, is
an examining body. As such it examines chemists
in Therapeutics and Pharmacology. These subjects
include " Uses of the commoner drugs . . . how far the
impurities affect the medicinal value of the drugs ; the
chemical changes which familiar drugs may undergo in
the body . . . the reputed medicinal, deleterious, and
average fatal doses of such drugs as are poisonous ; and
the reputed effects of age, idiosyncrasy, and habituation
in modifying these."
Forensic Chemistry. The qualifying word "forensic"
implies that which appertains to the proceedings of
Courts of Justice. Forensic chemistry may therefore
be regarded as including all those branches of chemistry
which are of service in solving the various questions
that arise during the course of judicial proceedings.
Thus in the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts
their whole operation depends on the results of analysis.
The same remark applies with almost equal force to
many criminal actions, of which murder by poison is
the most striking example. In civil cases too, chemistry
often plays an important part; and in such litigation as
that involved in patent actions, the chemistry of manu-
facturing processes is examined most exhaustively. A
complete treatise on forensic chemistry would therefore
have at least to deal with all the general principles of
chemistry, all analytical methods, and all processes of
chemical manufactures, in so far as they apply to the
solution of judicial problems. It is scarcely too much
to say that it would in fact require to be co-extensive
with the science of chemistry itself. Such ambitious
aims are not compatible with the scope of the present
work, which, as already intimated, owes its origin to a
course of lectures on forensic chemistry. Obviously, a
small portion only of the subject could be treated
within such limitations, and choice fell upon " chemical
evidence, its preparation and adduction." The subject-
matter of these lectures, with certain enlargements and
additions, forms also the subject-matter of this book.
Nature of Evidence. In all legal proceedings the
first essential is that the facts of the matter in dispute
shall be brought to the knowledge of the Court in the
most authentic form possible. This is done by the
giving of evidence, and evidence may be regarded as-
that by which facts are proved in the course of legal
proceedings. The Court is entitled to the very best
evidence that can be obtained, and when it is available
will usually insist on that of eye-witnesses, who are
required to come personally to the Court and there state
exactly what they have seen, or facts which are within
their personal knowledge. The correctness of their
evidence can then be tested by questions put on behalf
of all the parties, and, should he deem it necessary,
by the judge himself. Witnesses are frequently
required to bring with them and produce books or
other documents. They may also produce and show
to the Court objects which serve to explain or elucidate
their evidence.
In certain cases evidence may be given in writing, the
document, according to circumstances, being then known
either as a " statutory declaration " or an " affidavit." It
is specially enacted by the Food and Drugs Acts that a
certificate of analysis given by a Public Analyst may be
produced in Court and used as evidence.
Burden of Proof. It is the duty of the party who
alleges the affirmative case to prove that case. Such
party is generally the prosecutor or plaintiff. Thus, if
milk is said to be adulterated, the prosecutor must prove
the fact of adulteration. If the Crown accuses the
prisoner in the dock of having poisoned a man, the
Crown must prove that the man was in fact poisoned
by the prisoner. At times the burden of proof shifts
from one party to the other, and of this an illustration
is afforded in the working of the Adulteration Acts.
The Board of Agriculture is empowered to make
regulations determining what deficiency in any of the
normal constituents of genuine milk, and other articles
specified, shall raise a presumption, until the contrary
is proved, that the milk is not genuine. On the
prosecution proving such deficiency, the further burden
of proof is on the accused person, who must show by
sufficient evidence that the milk is in fact genuine.
It may be taken as an absolute rule that the evidence
must be complete and conclusive. A very general
defence is that the evidence is incomplete and incon-
clusive. Although this may at times seem to operate
hardly against those on whom the burden of proof rests,
yet a little consideration will show the rule to be a fair
one. The defence has a perfect right to succeed if at
any one point the chain of proof breaks.
Chemical Evidence. Chemical evidence is that
which deals with chemical facts and deductions. In
general, such evidence is governed by the same rules
as apply to other evidence. To this there is one
important exception. The ordinary witness as to fact
is not allowed to give his opinion. He may state that
he saw the body of a man in a pool of water, but his
opinion that some one must therefore have thrown him
in is not evidence. But the expert witness, in which
class is included the chemist, has a somewhat wider
latitude permitted him. It was held in Folkes v. Chad
(Cockle's Leading Cases on Evidence) as early as 1782
by MANSFIELD, C. J., that " In matters such as those of
science, expert witnesses may give evidence as to their
opinion." The chemist may therefore state not merely
his facts, but also the deductions he has drawn from
them, and the opinions he has formed thereon.
Functions of Chemist and Lawyer. Although
both chemist and lawyer are concerned in the pre-
paration and formulation of chemical evidence, they
are not necessarily familiar with each other's methods
and requirements. The chemist will often wish that
he could get the lawyer to understand something at
least of the processes by which he arrives at his results,
so that the latter may realise more clearly the actual
nature and value of the evidence he is prepared to give.
The lawyer to whom a chemical report or certificate is
sent will frequently regret that such a report contains
much that is useless to him for his particular purpose,
while perhaps something absolutely necessary in order
to comply with a legal technicality is altogether
wanting. It follows that the chemist should know
sufficient of the rules of evidence to make his analyses
or experiments as useful as possible to the lawyer. To
the latter it is an immense advantage to be able to
understand something of the principles underlying the
processes by which the chemist arrives at his con-
clusions. The author's primary object in this work is
therefore to make clear to both chemists and lawyers
matters which are common ground to both professions,
and to render them sufficiently plain for the members
of each to understand, where they overlap, the work of
the other. Taking these in their natural sequence, the
principles of chemical work and analysis will first
demand consideration.
Chemical Analysis, Definition of. For the present
purpose this may be regarded as including all methods
of ascertaining and determining the composition in
whole or in part of the substance in issue.
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN SUCH ANALYSIS.
I, Collection of Fair Samples. The taking of,
samples is in itself a matter requiring much care, and
frequently presenting considerable difficulty. Thus the
contents of a vessel may vary in composition according
to the part from which taken. For example, one part
of a barrel of butter may contain a larger proportion
of water than another. Or in a parcel of ore some
pieces may be much richer in metal than are others.
In all these cases the sample should be so taken as to
represent as nearly as possible the average quality of
the whole bulk. The chemist should himself take the
sample ; or some other person, skilled in the art of
sampling the particular product, should take it for the
purpose of analysis. The analyst will personally see to
it that his sample is uniformly mixed before he takes
portions for his analysis.
In certain bodies there is always a natural tendency
toward separation. A good example of these is milk :
the fat or cream is lighter than the remainder of the
milk, and so rises to the surface. This is remedied by
thoroughly shaking or stirring before taking the sample.
In case the sample is obtained by the ordinary method
of purchase, the responsibility for its quality rests on
the vendor. He cannot shield himself by proving that
the bulk is much richer than was the actual lot sold-
But the buyer, before dividing his purchase into parts,
should take care that each part is of the same
composition.
The point of separation of a sample was raised in a
recent case, Tucker v. Hayes and Finch, 1908. In that
case a sample was taken of a cake of candle-wax, and
submitted to analysis. In cross-examination, the chemist,
Hehner, was asked whether certain of the constituents
might not, during the solidification of the melted mass,
have first separated out and fallen to the bottom, thus
causing the upper layer to be of different composition
from the lower. In reply, the analyst was able to say
that from the nature of the constituents no such
separation could occur.
II, Changes in Sample. In the case of perishable
articles considerable changes may take place in the
substances after the purchase and before the sample
has reached the analyst. Thus milk may go sour, and
in extreme cases may lose some portion of its solid
matter by its conversion into gases as a result of
fermentation. This property is recognised by the
Food and Drugs Acts, and in the case of a certificate
regarding milk, butter, or any article liable to decom-
position, the analyst is required to specially report
whether any change had taken place in the constitution
of the article that would interfere with the analysis.
The excise laws permit the sale of non-intoxicating
beers, as for example ginger beer and the so-called
herb beers, free of duty, provided the amount of alcohol
they contain does not exceed 2 per cent, of proof
spirit. These non-excisable beers are prepared by a
process of fermentation in which sugar is changed by
yeast into alcohol and carbon dioxide gas, just the
same as in ordinary beers. In order to prevent the
alcohol exceeding the excise limit, the quantity of
sugar must be carefully regulated and the fermenta-
tion arrested when sufficient alcohol has been produced.
The resultant beer has usually some unchanged sugar
left in it as a flavouring matter. If the beer has
simply been sterilised, and untreated with a preserva-
tive, the accidental introduction of some fresh yeast
may again set up fermentation, and thus increase the
percentage of alcohol present to an amount beyond
the permitted limit. From time to time the excise
authorities purchase samples of non-excisable beers
and submit them to analysis.- In the case of excess of
alcohol, a possible line of defence is that fermentation
has occurred during the period between purchase and
analysis, and consequently the excess at the latter
date is not conclusive proof of excess of alcohol at the
time of sale. Under such circumstances an analyst,
if pressed, would probably admit that such a change
was possible though exceedingly improbable. In
anticipation of such defence, the analyst should
observe carefully the condition of the sample when
submitted to him i.e., whether quiescent or in a state
of fermentation. If considered necessary, the beer
may be examined for living yeast cells, and also for
the presence or absence of sufficiency of preservative
to inhibit fermentation. Positive evidence may thus
be obtained which will negative the defence of after-
fermentation if raised. On the other hand, such
defence may be considerably strengthened by showing
that other bottles of the same batch (as well as a
portion of the sample taken for analysis) were in
active fermentation, or in such a condition that, on
opening, active fermentation was promptly set up.
III. Methods of Analysis, Principles of. The
methods of analysis may be conveniently divided into
two groups, namely, those of Direct and Indirect
methods.
Direct Methods.
(1) Separation, recovery, and determination of the
essential constituent. For example, fat from milk, or
arsenic from a body suspected of being poisonous.
(2) Separation, recovery, and determination of some
body which is a measure of the essential constituent.
For example, butter fat contains certain volatile acids.
The separation and estimation of these afford a measure
of the quantity of butter fat in a mixture of fats.
(3) Production, separation, recovery, and determina-
tion of some body containing a definite proportion of
the essential constituent, or some component of the
essential constituent. For example, from a substance
containing potassium phosphate, magnesium phosphate
may be obtained by precipitation and determined.
Magnesium phosphate contains a definite proportion of
anhydrous phosphoric acid, or phosphoric anhydride,
and so the amount of that body in the original substance
is ascertained.
Indirect Methods.
(1) Determination of physical characteristics. For
example, specific gravity. Thus water has a specific
gravity of TOOOO, and pure alcohol of 07935. Mixtures
of water and alcohol have intermediate specific gravities,
and as all potable spirits are mixtures of alcohol and
water the determination of the specific gravity affords
a means of ascertaining the proportions of alcohol and
water present. It is obvious that for such methods to
be trustworthy there must be no other disturbing body
in the substance. In the case of ordinary spirits, such
as whisky or gin, there are only traces of bodies other
other than alcohol and water present, and these do not
materially interfere with the results. With beers it is
different, and so all the spirit and some of the water are
first separated by distillation, and then the specific
gravity of the distilled portion (distillate) is taken.
From this, the percentage of alcohol in the beer is
obtained by calculation. If wished for the sake of
greater accuracy, spirits such as gin or whisky may
similarly be first distilled.
Another such mode of analysis is the determination
of the molecular weight of a substance. The chemist
terms the smallest possible particle of a body, which is
capable of existing alone, a molecule ; and the relative
weight of this is termed the molecular weight. Such
molecular weight may be ascertained by chemical
analysis. Suppose a substance is known to consist of
a mixture of two bodies only, one of which has a
molecular weight of 100, and the other of 200 ; and
that the mixed substance has a molecular weight of
150. Obviously, the mixture must consist of equal
quantities of each constituent. With any other inter-
mediate molecular weight, the proportions of each
constituent is simply a matter of calculation. This
mode of analysis was largely employed in the analyses
of candle waxes for the purposes of the case of Tucker
v. Hayes and Finch before referred to.
(2) Determination of some chemical effect which the
essential constituent is capable of producing. For
example, an alkali possesses the power of neutralising
an acid. If a solution of acid of known strength is
prepared, the amount of alkali in a substance under
examination may be ascertained by determining the
quantity of the acid solution it is capable of neutralising.
Conversely, the quantity of acid in a substance may
be determined by the similar employment of a solution
of alkali of known strength. The chemist prepares a
range of such solutions, known as standard or normal
alkalis and acids, and uses them for analytical operations
of this description. Such determinations are known
respectively as alkalimetry and acidimetry. The
whole branch of analysis, termed volumetric analysis,
is based on the estimation of bodies by the use of
standard solutions of known strength and which pro-
duce specific and recognisable chemical changes.
As another example, certain sugars possess the
property of precipating in the insoluble form an oxide
of copper, known as cuprous oxide, from a solution of
copper salts. If, with the requisite precautions, a
solution of a sugar be added to the copper salt solution,
this precipitate is formed and may be separated and
weighed. The amount of the cuprous oxide thus
obtained is a measure of the quantity of the sugar
present in the body under examination. This con-
stitutes the well-known Fehling's Test.
Although the details of methods of chemical analysis
are to the lay mind most complicated and involved,
there is scarcely an operation of analysis which does
not fall either into one or other of the groups described,
or is a combination of two or more of them.
Minute Traces. Occasionally a question is raised
as to the recognition of minute traces. Thus, in some
forms of analysis a return is made of the number of
parts per million of some constituent. An objection
may be taken that accuracy in the determination of
such infinitesimal quantities is impossible, and that,
even if determined, it cannot possibly matter whether
so small a quantity of any particular substance is
present or absent. The first objection can only succeed
when those responsible for the decision are totally
ignorant of the principles of analysis. Parts per
million are by no means difficultly recognisable and
determinable by analytic methods ; and a chemist
may speak with just as much certainty of these
apparently minute quantities as he would of the
number of Ibs. of a body in a cwt. of a mixture. The
latter objection is perhaps more plausible, but equally
fallacious. Brandy should consist entirely of spirit
distilled from wine, which in turn ought only to
consist of the fermented juice of the grape. Brandy
is imitated by taking plain alcohol, colouring and
flavouring it to look and taste something like the
genuine spirit. In making an analysis, the chemist
searches for and estimates some special constituent,
which in genuine brandy is present in only the most
minute quantities, while in the fictitious spirit it is
entirely absent. It may be very likely that the trace
of this body present in the brandy does not materially
affect its quality, and if it could be removed without
any other disturbance, the spirit would not be ap-
preciably altered. This, however, is not the point;
the analyst determines this body because it is evidence
of whether the liquid is brandy or not. If present
in the normal quantity, it goes to prove the spirit is
genuine ; a diminished amount tends to show plain
spirit has been added. If the amount diminishes to
vanishing point, the conclusion is that the spirit
contains no brandy at all. It is in this way that
determinations of constituents, comparatively unim-
portant in themselves, may nevertheless be pregnant
with information as to the purity or otherwise of a
body.
Blank Experiments. Frequently there are un-
avoidable impurities in the chemical reagents used in
an analysis, or there may be errors of experiment
that should be considered and allowed for. A common
method of providing for these is by means of what
is called a " blank experiment." . For example, in what
is known as Kjeldahl's method of determining nitrogen
in organic bodies, the weighed quantity of the sub-
stance is heated in a flask with sulphuric acid and
other reagents until completely decomposed. The
nitrogen is then present in the form of ammonium
sulphate ; from this it is liberated by the addition of
sodium hydrate, and ammonia is distilled off, and
estimated. The quantity of ammonia thus found is-
the measure of the nitrogen in the original body. It
is almost impossible to get the various reagents free
from traces of ammonia. The usual practice is there-
fore to make an experiment exactly like the whole
determination, except that none of the body to be
estimated is used. The sulphuric acid and other
reagents are heated in the flask, and every stage
of the process gone through. At the end, the distilled
ammonia is determined. The quantity should not
be large ; but in practice there is always some
obtained. Whatever the amount may be, this is
used as a correction, and is deducted from that found
in the actual analyses. Such a blank experiment
should be made with each fresh lot of reagents.
But where such blank analyses are made, it must
be remembered that they are " unreliable unless all
the circumstances be thoroughly comprehended and
taken into account." For example, in Crooke's Select
Methods of Analysis, directions are given for the
testing of reagents for arsenic by a blank analysis.
On thus testing ferric chloride it gave no arsenic
reaction, and was apparently pure ; nevertheless
arsenic in considerable quantities was evolved in
the course of an experiment in which this ferric
chloride was used. On subsequently repeating the
blank test on the ferric chloride, but with the addition
of copper or carbon (charcoal), a considerable amount
of arsenic was evolved. The explanation is that the
arsenic in the ferric chloride had to be reduced to the
arsenious form before it would distil off in the
test. (Analyst XV. 16.)
When blank analyses are relied on, they should
be carefully studied from this standpoint, both by the
side submitting the result and by those whose duty it
is to question and, if necessary, attack them.
Such underlying principles as are here described,
if once grasped by the legal mind, should prove of
immense assistance in the understanding and digesting
of analytic evidence.
Range of Chemical Evidence. As already stated,
such evidence is required in a wide range of cases,
such as those arising out of the Food and Drugs Acts,
more important criminal matters, and many civil
causes. It is proposed to illustrate its utilisation by
reference to cases occurring in the administration of
these various branches of the law.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
ADULTERATION OF FOOD
Food and Drugs Acts. The principal Act passed
for the purpose of ensuring the purity of Food and
Drugs is that entitled " The Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1875." There is also an amending Act, entitled
" The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899," in which
certain important alterations are made. Food and
Drugs are defined in the following words in section 2
of the 1875 Act:
" The term ' food ' shall include every article used
for food or drink by man, other than drugs or
water.
" The term ' drug ' shall include medicine for
internal or external use."
In the Act of 1875, sections 3 to 9 deal with the
description of offences under the Act. Sections 3 and
4 prohibit the mixing of injurious ingredients with
articles of food and drugs, and also prohibit the
selling of ' same. The following important sections-
are set out in full :
Prohibition of the sale of articles of food and
of drugs not of the proper nature, substance, and
quality.
" 6. No person shall sell to the prejudice of the
purchaser any article of food or any drug which
is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the
article demanded by such purchaser, under a penalty
not exceeding twenty pounds ; provided that an
offence shall not be deemed to be committed under
this section in the following cases ; that is to say,
(1.) Where any matter or ingredient not injurious
to health has been added to the food or
drug because the same is required for the
production or preparation thereof as an
article of commerce, in a state fit for car-
riage or consumption and not fraudulently
to increase the bulk, weight, or measure
of the food or drug, or conceal the inferior
quality thereof ;
(2.) Where the drug or food is a proprietary
medicine, or is the subject of a patent in
force, and is supplied in the state required
by the specification of the patent ;
(3.) Where the food or drug is compounded as in
this Act mentioned ;
(4) Where the food or drug is unavoidably mixed
with some extraneous matter in the pro-
cess of collection or preparation."
Provision for the sale of compounded articles of
food and compounded drugs.
" 7. No person shall sell any compound article of
food or compounded drug which is not composed of
ingredients in accordance with the demand of the
purchaser, under a penalty not exceeding twenty
pounds."
Prohibition of the abstraction of any part of an
article of food before sale, and selling without
notice.
" 9. No person shall, with the intent that the
same may be sold in its altered state without
notice, abstract from an article of food any part of
it so as to affect injuriously its quality, substance,
or nature, and no person shall sell any article so
altered without making disclosure of the alteration,
under a penalty in each case not exceeding twenty
pounds."
Section 5 affords protection to persons in certain
cases on proof of absence of knowledge on their part.
Section 8 makes an exemption in favour of vendors
who affix to their goods a label distinctly setting out
that the food or drug is mixed.
In the case of James v. Jones, 1894, 1 Q.B. 304,
it was Held that baking powder was not an article
of food, and that the sale of it was not an offence
within section 3, Food and Drugs Act, 1875. In
course of his judgment HAWKINS, J., said : " We are
clearly of opinion that the baking powder in question
is not an article of food, and that neither the sale of it
nor the admixture of it with an article of food, unless
such article is intended for sale, is prohibited by the
statute." No doubt, as a result of this decision, the
definition of food is extended as follows in section 26
of the Act of 1899 :
" 26. For the purposes of the Sale of Food and
Drugs Acts the expression "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 flavouring matters and condiments."
This Act further in section 8 restricts the amount
of butter fat in margarine :
" 8. It shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell,
expose for sale, or import any margarine, the fat of
which contains more than ten per cent, of butter
fat ; and every person who manufactures, sells,
exposes for sale, or imports any margarine which
contains more than that percentage, shall be guilty
of an offence under the Margarine Act, 1887 ; and
any defence which would be a defence under
section seven of that Act shall be a defence under
this section, and the provisions of the former
section shall apply accordingly."
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES AND CASES.
The following examples indicate something of the
general scope and operation of the Food and Drugs
Acts. They have also been chosen so as to illustrate
so far as possible points of interest which arise in the
administration of these laws.
Milk. Unless otherwise specified, by milk is under-
stood that of the cow in its natural and unaltered
state. Milk consists essentially of fatty matter,
sugar of milk (lactose), proteids (casein, etc.), and
mineral matters (ash), suspended or dissolved in
water. The following table, based on the authority
of Vieth and Richmond, gives the average composi-
tion of pure new milk :
Fat, ... ' 4-0
Sugar, 4'5
Proteids, 3*6
Ash, 07
Total non-fatty solids, 8*8
Water, ... S7'2
100-0
From the analysis of a large number of samples, the
following maximum and minimum percentages of
fat, and solids not fat, have been found:
Fat, Solids Not Fat,
per cent. per cent.
Maximum, ... 12'52 10'60
Minimum, ... T04 4'90
Droop Richmond states that these samples were all
undoubtedly genuine.
By the removal of fat, what is called " separated
milk" is produced. In this the percentage of other
solid bodies is slightly increased, and separated milk
has about the following average composition :
Fats, 0-3
Sugar, 4-6
Proteids, 37
Ash, 0-7
Total non-fatty solids, 9'0
Water,... 907
100-0
With a substance varying so widely in composition
as does milk, it becomes necessary to fix certain
standards or limits, below which a milk shall be
regarded as adulterated. Fortunately, although the
milk of individual cows may differ so largely, the
mixed milk of a herd is much more constant in
composition, and so a standard is the more readily
fixed which shall not be unjust to the vendor, and
yet shall protect the public from gross imposition.
In the early days of its existence, the Society of
Public Analysts resolved that milk should contain
"not less than 9*0 per cent, by weight of milk solids
not fat, and not less than 2'5 per cent, of butter-fat."
With improved methods of analysis, more fat was
obtained from the same milk, and accordingly these
figures were modified by the Society in 1886, which
then resolved that in future milk should not be
passed as genuine unless it contained : " Total solids
11 '5 per cent., consisting of not less than 3 per cent,
of fat, thus leaving not less than 8*5 per cent, of
non-fatty solids."
Allen is of the opinion, based on a very wide
experience, that " the limits of 8'5 for non-fatty solids
and 3*0 per cent, for fat are as low as is consistent
with the interests of the public, and are not liable to
occasion injustice to the milk vendor, provided they
are applied with the discretion which a public analyst
is presumed to possess." Vieth, in discussing this
standard, has written: "I think it is very judi-
ciously fixed, but, in upholding the standard of
purity, it should not be forgotten that the cows have
never been asked for nor have given their assent
to it, and that they will at times produce milk below
standard. A bad season for hay-making is, in my
experience, almost invariably followed by a particu-
larly low depression in the quality of the milk
towards the end of the winter. Should the winter
be of unusual severity and length, the depression will
be still more marked. Long spells of cold and wet,
as well as of heat and drought, during the time when
cows are kept on pasture, also unfavourably influ-
ence the qualit} 7 and, I may add, quantity of milk."
Droop Richmond regards the limit of 3*0 per cent, for
fat as certainly reasonable for the mixed milk of
a whole herd. But, in his view, "a milk should
never be pronounced as watered on the evidence of
the solids not fat alone, unless this is well below 8*0
per cent. ; a determination of the total nitrogen and
of the ash at least should be made in addition ; a
judgment formed on these determinations will be in
all probability correct."
Instead of standards or limits, the adoption of a
scheme of valuation of milks has been suggested on
various occasions. Thus Estcourt in 1883 proposed to
give marks to a milk on the results of analysis. His
suggestion was that 8*5 per cent, of non-fatty solids
should count as 200, and 3'0 per cent, of fat as 100.
From these he deduced the factor 7'85 for non-fatty
solids, and 11*10 for fat, and proposed that a milk
which contained such a percentage of non-fatty solids
and of fat as would, when multiplied by their
respective factors, together produce 100, should be
considered of full value, and consequently not liable to
condemnation. Therefore a milk containing 8*5 of
non-fatty solids and 3*0 per cent, of fat would have
a value of 100, for
8-5 x 7-85 = 667 and
3-0 x 11-10 = 33-3
100-0
The values given to the fats and non-fatty solids
are arbitrary, and have evidently been selected so
as to bring the awarded marks into line with the
approval or condemnation of a milk by the Society
of Public Analysts' standard.
There is another aspect of this question, and one
which it may be well to consider in conjunction with
the problem of milk adulteration. For commercial
purposes, a direct estimate of value is of more im-
portance than knowing whether or not a particular
sample of milk passes the limits of the public analyst.
Thus milks containing respectively 3 and 4 per cent,
of fat would, so far as the fat is concerned, be passed
as free from adulteration ; but evidently the former
sample has only three-fourths the value of the latter.
For some years this subject of the valuation of milks
engaged the attention of the author, who suggested
the appended scheme in a lecture delivered before the
Society of Arts in 1901. He had then for some
considerable time employed a standard of valuation
worked out on the following lines : From an ex-
amination of a large number of commercial milks an
average conventional standard of quality was first
determined, the aim being not to go so low as the
legal limit for adulteration, but to take figures which
a buyer might reasonably demand to be reached in
milks supplied to him. These were ultimately taken
as being for
New Separated
Milk. Milk.
Total solids, ... 12-5 9-3
Fat, 3-5 0-3
Non-fatty solids, ... 9'0* 9-0
At the time when these figures were adopted, the
approximate wholesale prices of milk were, new, lOd.
per gallon ; separated, 2J (2'5)d. per gallon. New
milk differs essentially from separated in that it
contains an excess of 3*2 per cent, of fat. According
to the wholesale prices this excess of fat has a market
value of 7'5d., and in the same proportion 3'5 per cent,
of fat is worth 8'2d. From this the value of con-
ventional standard samples can be expressed in terms
of their constituents :
New Milk. Separated Milk.
Fat, 3-5 = 8-2d. 0'3 - 07d.
Non-fats, ... 9'0 = l'8d. 9'0 = l'8d.
Per Gallon, 10'Od. 2'5d.
If the value of standard new milk be called 100,
then the value of any other sample can from the
analysis be expressed in terms of percentages of the
standard from the following table :
This figure is in reality too high for the non-fatty solids in an
average milk, but as it was desired to make the comparison between
new and separated milk as simple as possible to those not familiar
with analytic calculations, the same figure was adopted for each.
The difference between 9.0 and 8 '8 (the more correct figure) does not
practically affect the valuations.
VALUATION OF MILKS.
Fat in Terms of Standard.
Milk with 26 per cent, ol
added water
Milk deprived of 40 per
cent, of its cream
Old Somerset House limit,
below which milks were
considered adulterated
Average composition of pure new milk
Very rich milk slightly watered
High quality sample of separated milk...
Attention is drawn to the fact that milk No. 7,
although of highest value in terms of standard, shows,
nevertheless, evidence of having been watered, and
might possibly be made the subject of a prosecution
if analysed for the purposes of the Food and Drugs
Act. The public analyst is concerned simply with
adulteration, while the commercial user is more vitally
interested in the question of intrinsic value. The fact
of such a milk as this being exceptionally rich in fat
is not necessarily a defence to a prosecution for
adulteration by the addition of water. The actually
high value is nevertheless a fact which the defendant
will do well to bring before the Court in view of a
case, the report of which follows :
Milk exceptionally good though water had been
added. In Banks v. Wooler, (1900, 64 J.P. 245), it
was stated in the certificate of the public analyst
that the "sample of milk . . . contained the parts
as under : Fat, 3*55 parts ; non-fatty solids, 7'4G
parts ; water, 88*99 parts ; total, 100. I am therefore
of opinion that this milk contains 10 per cent, of
added water. This opinion is based upon the above
analytic result in conjunction with the fact that
natural milk contains not less than 8'5 of non-fatty
solids." It appeared to the justices that the milk
was exceptionally good, the butter fat being above
normal ; and, having regard to all the circumstances,
they thought that, though the charge was proved,
the offence was of so trifling a nature that it was
inexpedient to inflict any punishment, and they
therefore dismissed the information. It was Held
by CHANNELL and BUCKNILL, J.J., that " This case
must be remitted to the justices with the intimation
that, if the milk had been exceptionally good after
adulteration, they might have considered the offence
too trifling to convict ; but if the milk was only
exceptionally good before adulteration the offence
vras not trifling, and they should convict."
On setting out the value of this sample from the
analysis, according to the table previously given, the
following figures are obtained :
Fat, 3-55 ... ... ... 8217
Non-fatty solids, 7*46 ... 14'90
Value in terms of standard ... 97'07
per gallon ... ... 9'7d.
This milk is therefore intrinsically worth 9*7d., as
against 8'7d. as the value of milk of the lowest legal
limit. The fact of milk being exceptionally good,
even after being watered, entitles the justices to
consider the case on its merits and dismiss it if they
think the offence too trifling for which to convict.
Exceptionally good quality, even in event of con-
viction, would almost certainly be regarded as a
palliation of the offence, and its proof result in a
mitigation of the penalty.
Board of Agriculture Regulations. Certain
powers have been conferred on the Board of Agri-
culture by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899,
these being embodied in :
"Section 4. (1.) The Board of Agriculture may,
after such inquiry as they deem necessary, make
regulations for determining what deficiency in any
of the normal constituents of genuine milk, cream,
butter, or cheese, or what addition of extraneous
matter or proportion of water, in any sample of
milk (including condensed milk), cream, butter, or
cheese, shall for the purposes of the Sale of Food
and Drugs Acts raise a presumption, until the con-
trary is proved, that the milk, cream, butter, or
cheese is not genuine or is injurious to health, and
an analyst shall have regard to such regulations in
certifying the result of an analysis under those
Acts."
In pursuance of these powers the Board has adopted
the before-mentioned limits for milk of the Society of
Public Analysts. The Board does not, of course, say
that the milk shall not be regarded as genuine when
it contains less than the limit quantities, but requires
the defendant to prove that any deficiency is com-
patible with its purity and genuineness.
Milk may be adulterated in many ways, among
which occur the following :
(1) Addition of water ; this is probably the simplest.
The result is a diminution of all the constituents in
the same ratio.
(2) Abstraction of cream, which is skimmed off on
rising to the surface ; a variant of this is the addition
of separated milk to new milk. By this the fat is
diminished, while the other constituents remain com-
paratively unaltered.
(3) Carelessness in selling, whereby the cream is
allowed to separate, and the resultant poor milk sold.
In Dyke v. Gover, L.R., 1892, 1 Q.B., 220, it was Held
by COLERIDGE, L.C.J., and WRIGHT, J., that the onus
of preventing the separation of cream from milk in
the course of delivery lay on the vendor.
(4) Selling milk which is abnormal either through
disease of the cow or unusual manner of milking.
This was decided in Smithies v. Bridge, L.K., 1902,
2 K.B., 13, in which it was Held by ALVERSTONE,
L. C. J., that " If, however, the article produced,
although it is produced by the cow, is the result of
an abnormal condition of things arising either from
disease or, as here, from unsound treatment of the
cow, I think that that does amount to evidence on
which the magistrates can find the article is not of
the nature, substance and quality of the article
demanded."
Analysis of Altered Milk. In view of the fact
that milk is peculiarly liable to alteration, and that
appeals are frequently made to the Government
analytic authorities, whereby there is much delay
between the taking of a sample and its analysis, the
problem of the anatysis of an altered milk becomes
one of serious importance. In earlier days a system
of time allowances was adopted. This was based on
the assumption that the loss of non-fatty solids of a
milk proceeds in all cases at about the same rate, and
that after the first week it is fairly uniform. This
position was laid clown by Dr. Bell, the then
Principal of Somerset House, in his Analysis and
Adulteration of Foods, who there expresses the opinion
that " With a carefully conducted analysis, . . .
the error, if any, in making the allowance should
not exceed 0*10 per cent, of the non-fatty solids, and
in the case of watered milk the result should come
within 1 per cent, of the quantity of water added, as
previously estimated from the analysis of the fresh
milk." Allen showed in a table published in the
Analyst, XII. p. 231, the difference between the actual
loss of solids which had taken place in samples of milk
referred to Somerset House, and the loss calculated
according to Bell's rule. The figures showed errors in
the total solids ranging from + 0'79 to - 4*07 per cent.
The time allowance system was long a bone of con-
tention between Somerset House and Public Analysts,
and in 1894 (Analyst, p. 248) was forcibly described
by Hehner as having " been nothing short of
scandalous."
More recently, under the direction of Thorpe, the
present Principal of the Government Laboratories, a
new system of examination of altered milks has been
introduced. The fat and non-fatty solids are estimated
by recognised methods. Then determinations are made
of the more important volatile bodies into which the
non-fatty solids have been decomposed. These consist
of alcohol, acetic acid, and ammonia. From the
amount of these bodies, that of original milk solids,
which must have been destroyed for their production,
is calculated, and is added on to that found on the
determination of such solids. A communication on
the subject of this new method was made to the
Society of Public Analysts by Droop Kichmond and
Miller, and reported in the Analyst, XXXI. 317.
Their general conclusions are : " By the method used
in the Government Laboratories a satisfactory deter-
mination of the composition of the original milk can be
made, the results, except in cases of high butyric
fermentation and other abnormal decompositions, not
being more than 0.2 per cent, from the truth." Thorpe,
Principal of the Government Laboratories, who was
present, rejoined : " In actual practice, however, we
find the cases extremely rare in which the volatile
acids exceed 0*27. . . . The conclusion of Messrs.
Kichmond and Miller is that in general a substantially
accurate determination of the original solids of the milk
can be made by the method in use at the Government
Laboratories."
Milk Calculations. Although very simple, the
calculation of "added water" appears frequently to
present considerable difficulties even to advocates and
the Court when adjudicating on milk cases. The first
point to recollect is that all such calculations are based
on the adoption of some minimum standard such as the
8*5 and 3*0 per cent, limit. If for any reason the Court
refuses to apply the standard to a particular milk, all
calculations based thereon must of necessity fall to the
ground. But if the standard be accepted and applied,
then suppose a milk contains only 8*0 per cent, of solids
not fat, as 8*5 parts are contained in 100 parts of the
poorest pure milk, then 8*0 will be contained in 94*1
parts according to the following calculations :
In 100 parts of such milk, 94'1 may be regarded as
consisting of milk of the lowest limit, and evidently
100 -- 941 = 5.9 parts
must be regarded as consisting of added water.
Another point of difficulty is in the return of the
amount of fat in the milk. If an analyst finds only
2.95 per cent, of fat in a milk, when there ought to be
at least 3*00 per cent., there is evidently a deficiency of
0-05 per cent. That is to say, 100 Ibs. of the milk
contain only 2.95 Ibs. of fat, whereas such quantity
ought to contain 3 '00 Ibs. ; and the fat is deficient in
the milk to the extent of 0'05 Ibs. in the 100 Ibs.
Many analysts, however, elect to also express their
results in terms of percentage of the minimum amount-
of fat that ought to be present. Thus, in the case being
considered, the following calculation is made :
As 3-00 : 2-95 : : 100 : 98*33
2-95 x 100
3-00
= 98-33
That is to say only 98'33 per cent, of the least
amount of fat that ought to be in the milk, 3 '00,
is found, and therefore there is a deficiency of
100 - 98-33 = 1-67 per cent, of the total fat that
ought to be present. If it be remembered that this
figure is only a percentage of a percentage, no harm is
done ; but this is not quite realised by many chemical
laymen (among whom magistrates are included). They
are consequently apt, when told there is a deficiency of
1-67 per cent, of the fat, to assume that, as the minimum
fat should be 3-00 per cent, the milk contains only
3'00 - 1 67 = 1'33 per cent, of actual fat, whereas, of
course, the correct figure is 2'95 against 3'00 per cent.
Care should be taken by both the prosecution and
defence (and especially the latter) to ensure that the
justices quite understand the meaning of this mode of
expressing the results of an analysis.
Butter. The most important adulterations of butter
are those of the addition of excess of water, and of
fats other than that derived from the milk of the
cow.
One of the most interesting and instructive tests
applied to butter is that of determining the amount of
volatile fatty acids yielded by the fat of the sample
under exact conditions. There is a considerable
amount of such volatile acids in butter, while they
are practically absent in beef fat and cottonseed oil,
two frequent adulterants. To separate and exactly
determine the whole of these volatile acids is a some-
what difficult and tedious operation. But when the
fat is treated in a specified way, and distilled in an
apparatus of a specified kind, a fraction of the volatile
fatty acids distils over, which is constant for the
same fat. This distilled fraction is estimated by
noting how many volumes of an alkali of known
strength (decinormal) are required to neutralise it.
Without any other calculation such number of
volumes is termed after the inventors of the process,
the "Keichert Meissl (RM.) value." Butter has an
RM. value of about 28'0, while nearly all other oils
and fats have less than 1-0. The principal exceptions
are fish oils, the RM. value of which ranges from 45'0
to 65'0. From their odour and taste, these however
cannot be used as adulterants of butter. Cocoanut
fat has an RM. value of about 7*0, and that of palm
nuts of about 5'0. Both of these latter may be used
in butter substitutes.
If this mean R.M. value of butter fat at 28'0 were
absolute, then in the case of an unknown sample
giving 28, the butter fat would be regarded as free
from all foreign fats (except the impossible fish oils).
If the sample gave 14*0, this might possibly indicate
50 per cent, of pure butter and 50 per cent, of fat
with no E.M. value. In the same way E.M. values,
to 28 would correspond with to 100 per cent, of
butter fat. This is the principle of all such methods
of analysis. There may, however, be complications,
such, for example, as the presence of cocoanut fat.
Thus, suppose a mixture to consist of
Butter fat - 40 parts.
Cocoanut fat - 40
Beef fat 20
100
Such a mixture would also have an K.M. value of
14*0. There is, therefore, this element of uncertainty,
and further tests would be required to prove the
presence or absence of cocoanut fat. This uncertainty
is of no help to the defence, for with an RM. value of
14 the adulteration must be at least 50 per cent., and
if cocoanut fat were used the amount would, of
necessity, be larger, as is the case in the mixture
suggested.
Variations in R.M, value. But the EM. value of
butter fat is not constant. The values on record range
from as low as 19*8 for an Italian butter to so high as
33*1 for an Austrian butter. The extreme figures, in
most cases, are due to exceptional circumstances
which do not usually occur. These variations may
be caused by alteration in the mode of feeding the
cows, by the period of lactation, and other circum-
stances. This leads to the consideration of fluctuations
in such standard values. Taking 28 as a mean for
RM. value, the fluctuations in the case of butter fat,
may easily range anywhere between 26 and 30
without being in any way abnormal. Heading
analytic results in the light of this fact, any butter
coming within these extremes must be regarded as
pure. It becomes necessary, then, to fix a minimum
standard. As a matter of fact, anything below 26 is
suspicious, but obviously some margin must be
allowed. As an official minimum R.M. value for butter
fat the figure 24 is adopted in England, France, and
Germany. This operates considerably in favour of
the vendor ; for butter with a very high R.M. value
will bear 20 per cent, adulteration with foreign fat,
while an ordinary butter will take 10 per cent,
without falling below the minimum. (It must not be
understood to follow that such adulteration may not
be detected by other tests).
Of necessity any minimum, such as is here adopted,
must be of a somewhat arbitrary nature. In this
there is a loophole for defence. It may be argued
that if a butter with R.M. value as low as 24-0 is to
be regarded as pure, then a butter at 23-9 is not
necessarily impure. It must, of course, be admitted
that the 23'9 butter may be pure. But the chemists
position is based on the fact that a very generous
margin has already been allowed, hence it is a prac-
tical certainty that the 23*9, or even 24' 0, sample is
not pure. This minimum falls well below all normally
pure samples of ordinary origin, and all excluded
butters should be regarded as impure, unless some
good cause for such irregularity is shown by the
defence. Voelcker, referring to Siberian butters, says
they " are made under certain conditions of climatic
temperature, &c., vastly different from those of our
own country . . . this butter has been found to give
results as regards the volatile and non- volatile fatty
acids, of quite abnormal nature." Analyst, XXVII., 85.
Where facts of this kind are clearly proved the
defence should succeed; and in fact, analysts them-
selves take carefully into consideration the country of
origin of the butter before deciding as to its adultera-
tion. It follows that this should be ascertained and
stated when possible. When a purchase of butter is
made, the source of origin of which is unknown, the
difficulty of rightly interpreting the results of analysis
is undoubtedly increased by the abnormally low E.M.
value of Siberian butters. Probably the best course
is to apply certain other well-known tests, and if
these confirm the deductions drawn from the low
K.M. value, to regard such butter as adulterated,
allowing the defence to raise and prove the country of
origin and consequent purity of the butter. As a
measure of precaution, the retailers of such butters
will be wise to obtain from the wholesale vendors a
warranty of the country of origin.
Right of Purchaser to Normal Article. In such
cases the prosecution is usually strengthened by the
right of the purchaser to have a normal article. The
article sold must be "of the nature, substance and
quality of the article demanded." The presumption is
that the purchaser requires an article of fair normal
quality. When that sold falls below a minimum
standard, is the purchaser prejudiced ? The deficiency
may be due to the addition of an adulterant, or to
abnormal modes of production, such as making butter
from the milk of improperly or carelessly managed
cows. Now deficiency of fat in milk is clearly of
prejudice to the purchaser, but is it so with deficiency
of volatile fatty acids in butter ? The following is an
important expression of opinion. He, Hehner, " could
not see with his present knowledge of the subject how
anyone who obtained a smaller proportion of soluble or
volatile fatty acid in his butter was prejudiced, as the
quality of the butter appeared to be independent of the
composition as regards soluble and insoluble fatty
acids," Analyst, XVIII. 12.
In passing, it may be mentioned that margarine
manufacturers have informed the author that they
prefer for mixing purposes butters having a high K.M.
value, as they regard such butters as possessing
stronger flavouring properties.
Errors of Experiment on Border Line. Still
taking the butter case of 23'9 as against 24*0 RM.
value, the defence may allege that the errors of experi-
ment may be as great as the stated deficiency. In
such near cases the analyst should be prepared with
duplicate analyses showing agreement. If possible, it
is well to show that the error of experiment must be in
favour of the vendor. The analyst ought to be able to
say " I have taken such precautions as will prevent any
sensible error of experiment, and even if there were
any minute error, it is in the direction of over-
estimating the essential constituent." The defence
may insist strongly on liability to error. Thus, in a
milk prosecution, it may be said the milk contains only
2*5 per cent, of fat. A chemist for the defence may
reply, no, it contains 3'1 per cent, of fat, which I have
extracted and can produce. Obviously one cannot
obtain more than is there, but it is possible to use a
process which fails to extract all there is present.
Within the author's personal knowledge, duplicate
samples of the same substance have been sent to an
analyst under different marks; the returned results
have differed from each other by a greater amount
than the deficiency on which he, the analyst, had
advised a prosecution.
Spent Ginger, This despicable form of fraud is
perpetrated by taking ginger from which the essential
flavouring constituents have been extracted, mixing it
in with more or less fresh ginger and selling the whole
as pure ginger.
An interesting case was tried at Newport, Salop, in
September, 1896. Blunt, public analyst, for the pro-
secution, reported a sample of powdered ginger as
adulterated with spent ginger to the extent of 25 per
cent., on the following data :
Total ash 274 per cent.
Soluble ash 1'24
Cold water extract . . 6'20
He based his view that the sample was adulterated on
the fact that it contained too little of the above, which
are the characteristic constituents of ginger.
For the defence, Collingwood Williams, analyst, was
called. He deposed that he " found it to be genuine
ginger of high quality, and absolutely free from spent
ginger. . . . Would have detected spent ginger by
changed shape of starch granules." (This is dependence
on an alleged difference in microscopic appearance
caused by the act of extraction). ..." Further chemical
tests showed presence of 6 per cent, resin and T25 per
cent, of essential oil, being perfectly normal quantities."
(These were estimations of essential constituents
brought forward to traverse the low figures advanced
by the prosecution). This case was dismissed by the
Court of summary jurisdiction.
Blunt reported the result of the trial to a meeting
of the Society of Public Analysts, and denied the
possibility of deciding whether or not spent ginger was
present by means of the microscope.
C. Williams was written to asking him to communi-
cate his views on the case to the Society. This he
declined to do on the principle that it was not right to
re-try a decided case in that way in the absence of the
accused. But writing generally on the analysis of
ginger, he re-affirmed that microscopic examination
often has the advantage of affording direct evidence
[of extraction] as distinguished from the circumstantial
evidence of chemical analysis. He admitted, however,
that ginger could be exhausted by alcohol without
affecting the microscopic appearance. When exhausted
by rectified spirit the extraction is not detectable by
estimations of total ash, soluble ash, and cold water
extract, but when extracted by water or very dilute
spirit, soluble ash, alcoholic extract, and essential oil
will be reduced ; and invariably a greater or less change
in microscopic appearance will have been produced.
Cold water extract is of little value as evidence, but
analysts should be careful to avoid being misled by
same, as the amounts vary very much in different kinds
of genuine ginger. Low soluble ash and total ash,
when nothing else is low, may indicate a high class of
ginger and not a fraudulent sample. Chemical evidence
is the most important and truest, but only when the
analyst's mind is impressed by the important ingredients
rather than by the unimportant ingredients.
Allen had analysed the same sample as Blunt, and
also genuine Cochin ginger, said to be the same as the
Newport sample [i.e. before exhaustion]. He obtained
the following results :
Cold Water
Total Ash. Sol. Ash. Extract.
Newport sample
Allen, ... 2-65 1-30 6 -20
Blunt, ... 274 1*24 6-20
Cochin ginger, ... 4'62 2'64 10-20
He regards soluble ash and cold water extract as
among the most useful data in examining gingers, as
it was evident that they would be materially diminished
by any process of maceration, whereas such treatment
would not necessarily affect the essential oil and resin.
He regards these latter figures as having no practical
value, and was satisfied that the Newport sample
contained a notable proportion of exhausted ginger.
(Analyst, XXI., 309).
On the analytic data, the general consensus of opinion
of the Society was that the sample in question had
been adulterated.
Lard Analysis. Lard is the rendered (melted down)
and clarified fat of the pig. The fat surrounding the
kidneys is much harder than that of the whole carcase,
and makes a firmer and better quality lard. To the
soft or whole hog lard, beef stearin, the harder part of
beef fat, is sometimes added as an adulterant. There
can be little doubt that the lard for many purposes is
improved thereby. If sold as mixed or hardened lard,
there could be no objection to this treatment ; but when
sold as best or hog kidney lard, an offence is committed,
as such mixed lard cannot be regarded as of the sub-
stance of the article demanded. An interesting query
may here arise. The principal difference between the
kidney fat lard and that of the whole animal is that
the former contains a higher proportion of lard stearin
(the harder part of lard), while the latter contains an
excess of the oily constituent of lard. It is possible to
harden whole hog lard by expressing some of the lard
oil therefrom, and thus making it closely resemble, if
not identical in composition with, the kidney lard-
The lard would be thus improved, but would such
treatment be adulteration ? If sold as kidney lard, the
answer must be in the affirmative. But if sold as
" lard," it is not easy to give a definite answer. Where
there is nothing present but hog fat, the removal of a
portion which deteriorated the quality, and thus im-
proved the remainder, would not be likely to be
regarded as an act of adulteration.
In the analysis of lard, crystals of the stearin or harder
fat are separated out and examined micros copically.
Those of lard, as commonly obtained, have characteristic
chisel shaped ends, while beef stearin crystals are needle
shaped. Hehner and Mitchell have investigated the
shape of these crystals by several times re- dissolving
and re-crystallising the stearin. They found the first
crystals had characteristic chisel shaped ends. On re-
crystallisation they were more needle shaped, but still
had distinct chisel shaped ends. On being again re-
crystallised they were hardly distinguishable in form
from beef stearin crystals. The difference in " form of
the beef crystals is solely due to a larger proportion of
stearic acid than can be obtained from a pure lard by a
single crystallisation." (Analyst, XXI., 328).
Hehner reports a further experiment in which he
melted out in his laboratory from pig's flare some lard
with iodine absorption of only 45*6 "Crystals from
this sample are indistinguishable from those of lard
largely admixed with beef fat." (Analyst, XXVII., 165).
It would seem therefore that the different microscopic
appearance of lard and beef stearin crystals is not due to
any inherent difference between the two stearins, but
only to the fact that beef stearin contains a larger
proportion of stearic acid than can readily be obtained
from lard stearin.
Dyed Sugar. Sugar as refined in this country
consists usually of colourless crystals, and is largely
prepared from beet roots. Sugar in the West Indies is
obtained from the juice of the sugar cane. Although
this sugar may also be refined until white or colourless,
considerable quantities are or have been imported in
the form of large yellow crystals and sold under the
name of " Demerara sugar." Chemically speaking, both
beet and cane sugar are identical in character and
composition. Using the word cane as an adjective to
indicate a particular chemical variety of sugar, both
sugar-cane and beet-root sugars are equally cane sugar,
or "sucrose" in more strictly chemical nomenclature.
From whichever source, when pure, it is doubtful if they
can be distinguished by any ordinary means. There is,
however, one great difference between them : the whole
juice of the sugar-cane consists of pleasant smelling
and tasting substances. In consequence, when the
sugar has been crystallised out from the juice during
evaporation and concentration, the residual liquid has
a sufficiently pleasant flavour to find a ready sale under
the name of treacle or molasses. With beet-root juice,
on the other hand, the associated substances in the juice
are unpleasant in flavour and smell. On the removal
of the sugar, therefore, the remaining body is devoid of
the pleasant character of cane-sugar molasses. As a
result it is desirable to separate beet root sugar as
thoroughly as possible from the other substances in the
juice, while in the case of cane sugar these bodies are
not only unobjectionable, but may add a character to
the sugar which some purchasers actually prefer. The
public appreciation of sugar of the " Demerara crystals "
type is largely based on the view that it is genuine
sugar-cane, and not beet-root, sugar, and that it is
coloured by the natural colouring matter of the sugar-
cane juice.
Cassal communicated a paper to the Society of Public
Analysts on the subject of "Dyed Sugar." In this
paper he states that "large quantities of dyed sugar
are sold in London and elsewhere generally as
Demerara sugar." The crystals are dyed on the
surfaces. The purchasers' impression is that they are
having genuine cane sugar, whereas they are thus
getting beet sugar externally dyed. It is generally
admitted that weight for weight under ordinary con-
ditions of use, beet sugar does not give the same
sweetening as cane sugar.
On the other hand Demerara sugar itself, in the
course of manufacture, is dyed before crystallisation.
Cassal, nevertheless, contends that the dyed crystals are
adulterated. A warning is given not to state too
specifically the nature of the dye used, as the defence
might be able to state that the particular dye was not
present.
Stokes, in discussion, stated that almost all Demerara
sugars contain about a third of a grain of stannous
chloride per Ib. Most other sugars are artificially
coloured with aniline colours. [White sugars are in-
variably "blued."] He suggested that fictitious
Demerara sugar should be stopped by the "Merchandise
Marks Act." Demerara retains the natural aroma,
tint and flavour of the sugar cane ; stannous chloride
is used as a mordant for the purpose of fixing these.
Heron. Demerara manufacturers used stannous
chloride to improve inferior sugars, so as to make them
look of better quality than they really were, and cause
them to simulate the higher qualities. The home-
dyeing of crystals was not done to give a fictitious
value, but to meet the public taste.
Hehner considered that the public analyst has to
disregard popular wishes and raise the standard of
purity of food, if necessary, against the popular wish.
Cassal in reply insisted that Demerara was cane
sugar, and dyed crystals beet sugar, Analyst, XV., 141.
There were here some interesting differentiations of
sophisticated articles. No one urged that dyed
Demerara should be prosecuted. In the Analyst, XV.,
199, there is a letter on the subject by Scand, chemist
to the Colonial Sugar Company. He states that
stannous chloride is added to the magma of crystals
and mother liquor, for the purpose of fixing the natural
colour of the cane juice on the sugar. Beet sugars are
changed here into " refiner's yellow crystals " as imita-
tions, and it is a fraudulent substitution.
The crux of the whole matter seems to be contained
in Cassal's reply, namely, that Demerara sugar is
sugar-cane sugar, and that the dyed crystals are
beet-root sugar, whereas when the public ask for
Demerara it is really sugar-cane sugar they demand
and think they are getting. Hehner's conception of
the duty of the public analyst to raise, if necessary,
the standard of purity of food against the popular wish
suggests the interesting question of whether you can be
acting to the prejudice of the purchaser when you give
him exactly what he demands, Per contra if the
purchaser prefers "dyed sugar," and asks for dyed
sugar, would not the sale of natural sugar, however
much better it would be for him, be a sale to the
prejudice of the purchaser ?
One curious result of the campaign against dyed
sugar is that the name "Demerara" as applied to sugar
has for retail purposes gone almost entirely out of use.
The sale of Demerara crystals involved grocers in such
risk of prosecution for adulteration, of which they
were often unaware, that they have largely decided
to run no risks and to discontinue stocking the
article.
No legal Standard of Manufacture. This point
arose in the case of Smith v. Wisden, 1902, 66 J.P.,
150. The appellant, a grocer, sold a pot of marmalade,
which was certified by the public analyst to contain
"the parts as under or the percentage of foreign
ingredients as under,
Starch glucose ... 13 per cent."
It was proved before the Court of Quarter Sessions
that starch glucose is composed of 40 per cent, of
dextrose, 40 per cent, of dextrin, and 20 per cent, of
water. That dextrose is sugar to all intents and
purposes, but that dextrin is a gummy substance and
has not any sweetening property whatever. The
Court of Quarter Sessions found, inter alia, that in
asking for orange marmalade the purchaser desired to
buy a substance composed of oranges cooked or pre-
served with cane or beet sugar, and had not consented
to be served with a preserve to which starch glucose
was added. They, therefore, affirmed the conviction
by the magistrates. A case was stated and heard
before ALVERSTONE, L.C. J., DARLING and CHANNELL, J.J.
In course of judgment ALVERSTONE, L.C.J., said " I
should not have come to the same conclusion, that
a man, when he asked for " marmalade," thought he
was going to get fruit and beet or cane sugar. I
think there are many other things that might properly
be put in good marmalade that a man asking for it
would not know of, or would not form any opinion
about . . . What have the magistrates found ? It
was proved that glucose had been used in the manu-
facture of marmalade for a period of fifteen years by a
large number of manufacturers, but not by all. There-
fore it is plain that they found as a fact that it was
an alternative ingredient in marmalade. They say
there was a general and common understanding that
marmalade was composed of fruit boiled with cane or
beet sugar, but that there was no legal standard for
the making of marmalade, and that manufacturers
varied in the recipes they used. Now, so far, we get
a certain thing found, viz., that there is no standard,
but a frequent but not uncommon use of glucose
varying the recipe. Then they find this, that the use
of glucose to the extent contained in the analysed
articles was not injurious to health, that it prevented
the marmalade from crystallising, and had a tendency
to prevent mildewing and fermenting. Now, looking
at the thing fairly, and not endeavouring to construe
this Act, so that it be a weapon of oppression or
otherwise than a proper protection of the public, what
does that amount to ? ... The purchaser . . . got an
article given to him which, if it was different at all,
was different in the sense that it was rather better.
. . . There was no evidence of any inferior quality or
of any adulteration in the ordinary sense of the word.
The appeal must be allowed and the conviction
quashed." DARLING and CHANNELL, J.J., agreed.
Where there is no legal standard for a manufactured
article, it may be taken that the addition of an
ingredient which does not lower the quality, and does
not constitute adulteration in the ordinary sense of
the word, is not in itself an offence.
for the purpose of ensuring the purity of Food and
Drugs is that entitled " The Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1875." There is also an amending Act, entitled
" The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899," in which
certain important alterations are made. Food and
Drugs are defined in the following words in section 2
of the 1875 Act:
" The term ' food ' shall include every article used
for food or drink by man, other than drugs or
water.
" The term ' drug ' shall include medicine for
internal or external use."
In the Act of 1875, sections 3 to 9 deal with the
description of offences under the Act. Sections 3 and
4 prohibit the mixing of injurious ingredients with
articles of food and drugs, and also prohibit the
selling of ' same. The following important sections-
are set out in full :
Prohibition of the sale of articles of food and
of drugs not of the proper nature, substance, and
quality.
" 6. No person shall sell to the prejudice of the
purchaser any article of food or any drug which
is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the
article demanded by such purchaser, under a penalty
not exceeding twenty pounds ; provided that an
offence shall not be deemed to be committed under
this section in the following cases ; that is to say,
(1.) Where any matter or ingredient not injurious
to health has been added to the food or
drug because the same is required for the
production or preparation thereof as an
article of commerce, in a state fit for car-
riage or consumption and not fraudulently
to increase the bulk, weight, or measure
of the food or drug, or conceal the inferior
quality thereof ;
(2.) Where the drug or food is a proprietary
medicine, or is the subject of a patent in
force, and is supplied in the state required
by the specification of the patent ;
(3.) Where the food or drug is compounded as in
this Act mentioned ;
(4) Where the food or drug is unavoidably mixed
with some extraneous matter in the pro-
cess of collection or preparation."
Provision for the sale of compounded articles of
food and compounded drugs.
" 7. No person shall sell any compound article of
food or compounded drug which is not composed of
ingredients in accordance with the demand of the
purchaser, under a penalty not exceeding twenty
pounds."
Prohibition of the abstraction of any part of an
article of food before sale, and selling without
notice.
" 9. No person shall, with the intent that the
same may be sold in its altered state without
notice, abstract from an article of food any part of
it so as to affect injuriously its quality, substance,
or nature, and no person shall sell any article so
altered without making disclosure of the alteration,
under a penalty in each case not exceeding twenty
pounds."
Section 5 affords protection to persons in certain
cases on proof of absence of knowledge on their part.
Section 8 makes an exemption in favour of vendors
who affix to their goods a label distinctly setting out
that the food or drug is mixed.
In the case of James v. Jones, 1894, 1 Q.B. 304,
it was Held that baking powder was not an article
of food, and that the sale of it was not an offence
within section 3, Food and Drugs Act, 1875. In
course of his judgment HAWKINS, J., said : " We are
clearly of opinion that the baking powder in question
is not an article of food, and that neither the sale of it
nor the admixture of it with an article of food, unless
such article is intended for sale, is prohibited by the
statute." No doubt, as a result of this decision, the
definition of food is extended as follows in section 26
of the Act of 1899 :
" 26. For the purposes of the Sale of Food and
Drugs Acts the expression "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 flavouring matters and condiments."
This Act further in section 8 restricts the amount
of butter fat in margarine :
" 8. It shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell,
expose for sale, or import any margarine, the fat of
which contains more than ten per cent, of butter
fat ; and every person who manufactures, sells,
exposes for sale, or imports any margarine which
contains more than that percentage, shall be guilty
of an offence under the Margarine Act, 1887 ; and
any defence which would be a defence under
section seven of that Act shall be a defence under
this section, and the provisions of the former
section shall apply accordingly."
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES AND CASES.
The following examples indicate something of the
general scope and operation of the Food and Drugs
Acts. They have also been chosen so as to illustrate
so far as possible points of interest which arise in the
administration of these laws.
Milk. Unless otherwise specified, by milk is under-
stood that of the cow in its natural and unaltered
state. Milk consists essentially of fatty matter,
sugar of milk (lactose), proteids (casein, etc.), and
mineral matters (ash), suspended or dissolved in
water. The following table, based on the authority
of Vieth and Richmond, gives the average composi-
tion of pure new milk :
Fat, ... ' 4-0
Sugar, 4'5
Proteids, 3*6
Ash, 07
Total non-fatty solids, 8*8
Water, ... S7'2
100-0
From the analysis of a large number of samples, the
following maximum and minimum percentages of
fat, and solids not fat, have been found:
Fat, Solids Not Fat,
per cent. per cent.
Maximum, ... 12'52 10'60
Minimum, ... T04 4'90
Droop Richmond states that these samples were all
undoubtedly genuine.
By the removal of fat, what is called " separated
milk" is produced. In this the percentage of other
solid bodies is slightly increased, and separated milk
has about the following average composition :
Fats, 0-3
Sugar, 4-6
Proteids, 37
Ash, 0-7
Total non-fatty solids, 9'0
Water,... 907
100-0
With a substance varying so widely in composition
as does milk, it becomes necessary to fix certain
standards or limits, below which a milk shall be
regarded as adulterated. Fortunately, although the
milk of individual cows may differ so largely, the
mixed milk of a herd is much more constant in
composition, and so a standard is the more readily
fixed which shall not be unjust to the vendor, and
yet shall protect the public from gross imposition.
In the early days of its existence, the Society of
Public Analysts resolved that milk should contain
"not less than 9*0 per cent, by weight of milk solids
not fat, and not less than 2'5 per cent, of butter-fat."
With improved methods of analysis, more fat was
obtained from the same milk, and accordingly these
figures were modified by the Society in 1886, which
then resolved that in future milk should not be
passed as genuine unless it contained : " Total solids
11 '5 per cent., consisting of not less than 3 per cent,
of fat, thus leaving not less than 8*5 per cent, of
non-fatty solids."
Allen is of the opinion, based on a very wide
experience, that " the limits of 8'5 for non-fatty solids
and 3*0 per cent, for fat are as low as is consistent
with the interests of the public, and are not liable to
occasion injustice to the milk vendor, provided they
are applied with the discretion which a public analyst
is presumed to possess." Vieth, in discussing this
standard, has written: "I think it is very judi-
ciously fixed, but, in upholding the standard of
purity, it should not be forgotten that the cows have
never been asked for nor have given their assent
to it, and that they will at times produce milk below
standard. A bad season for hay-making is, in my
experience, almost invariably followed by a particu-
larly low depression in the quality of the milk
towards the end of the winter. Should the winter
be of unusual severity and length, the depression will
be still more marked. Long spells of cold and wet,
as well as of heat and drought, during the time when
cows are kept on pasture, also unfavourably influ-
ence the qualit} 7 and, I may add, quantity of milk."
Droop Richmond regards the limit of 3*0 per cent, for
fat as certainly reasonable for the mixed milk of
a whole herd. But, in his view, "a milk should
never be pronounced as watered on the evidence of
the solids not fat alone, unless this is well below 8*0
per cent. ; a determination of the total nitrogen and
of the ash at least should be made in addition ; a
judgment formed on these determinations will be in
all probability correct."
Instead of standards or limits, the adoption of a
scheme of valuation of milks has been suggested on
various occasions. Thus Estcourt in 1883 proposed to
give marks to a milk on the results of analysis. His
suggestion was that 8*5 per cent, of non-fatty solids
should count as 200, and 3'0 per cent, of fat as 100.
From these he deduced the factor 7'85 for non-fatty
solids, and 11*10 for fat, and proposed that a milk
which contained such a percentage of non-fatty solids
and of fat as would, when multiplied by their
respective factors, together produce 100, should be
considered of full value, and consequently not liable to
condemnation. Therefore a milk containing 8*5 of
non-fatty solids and 3*0 per cent, of fat would have
a value of 100, for
8-5 x 7-85 = 667 and
3-0 x 11-10 = 33-3
100-0
The values given to the fats and non-fatty solids
are arbitrary, and have evidently been selected so
as to bring the awarded marks into line with the
approval or condemnation of a milk by the Society
of Public Analysts' standard.
There is another aspect of this question, and one
which it may be well to consider in conjunction with
the problem of milk adulteration. For commercial
purposes, a direct estimate of value is of more im-
portance than knowing whether or not a particular
sample of milk passes the limits of the public analyst.
Thus milks containing respectively 3 and 4 per cent,
of fat would, so far as the fat is concerned, be passed
as free from adulteration ; but evidently the former
sample has only three-fourths the value of the latter.
For some years this subject of the valuation of milks
engaged the attention of the author, who suggested
the appended scheme in a lecture delivered before the
Society of Arts in 1901. He had then for some
considerable time employed a standard of valuation
worked out on the following lines : From an ex-
amination of a large number of commercial milks an
average conventional standard of quality was first
determined, the aim being not to go so low as the
legal limit for adulteration, but to take figures which
a buyer might reasonably demand to be reached in
milks supplied to him. These were ultimately taken
as being for
New Separated
Milk. Milk.
Total solids, ... 12-5 9-3
Fat, 3-5 0-3
Non-fatty solids, ... 9'0* 9-0
At the time when these figures were adopted, the
approximate wholesale prices of milk were, new, lOd.
per gallon ; separated, 2J (2'5)d. per gallon. New
milk differs essentially from separated in that it
contains an excess of 3*2 per cent, of fat. According
to the wholesale prices this excess of fat has a market
value of 7'5d., and in the same proportion 3'5 per cent,
of fat is worth 8'2d. From this the value of con-
ventional standard samples can be expressed in terms
of their constituents :
New Milk. Separated Milk.
Fat, 3-5 = 8-2d. 0'3 - 07d.
Non-fats, ... 9'0 = l'8d. 9'0 = l'8d.
Per Gallon, 10'Od. 2'5d.
If the value of standard new milk be called 100,
then the value of any other sample can from the
analysis be expressed in terms of percentages of the
standard from the following table :
This figure is in reality too high for the non-fatty solids in an
average milk, but as it was desired to make the comparison between
new and separated milk as simple as possible to those not familiar
with analytic calculations, the same figure was adopted for each.
The difference between 9.0 and 8 '8 (the more correct figure) does not
practically affect the valuations.
VALUATION OF MILKS.
Fat in Terms of Standard.
Milk with 26 per cent, ol
added water
Milk deprived of 40 per
cent, of its cream
Old Somerset House limit,
below which milks were
considered adulterated
Average composition of pure new milk
Very rich milk slightly watered
High quality sample of separated milk...
Attention is drawn to the fact that milk No. 7,
although of highest value in terms of standard, shows,
nevertheless, evidence of having been watered, and
might possibly be made the subject of a prosecution
if analysed for the purposes of the Food and Drugs
Act. The public analyst is concerned simply with
adulteration, while the commercial user is more vitally
interested in the question of intrinsic value. The fact
of such a milk as this being exceptionally rich in fat
is not necessarily a defence to a prosecution for
adulteration by the addition of water. The actually
high value is nevertheless a fact which the defendant
will do well to bring before the Court in view of a
case, the report of which follows :
Milk exceptionally good though water had been
added. In Banks v. Wooler, (1900, 64 J.P. 245), it
was stated in the certificate of the public analyst
that the "sample of milk . . . contained the parts
as under : Fat, 3*55 parts ; non-fatty solids, 7'4G
parts ; water, 88*99 parts ; total, 100. I am therefore
of opinion that this milk contains 10 per cent, of
added water. This opinion is based upon the above
analytic result in conjunction with the fact that
natural milk contains not less than 8'5 of non-fatty
solids." It appeared to the justices that the milk
was exceptionally good, the butter fat being above
normal ; and, having regard to all the circumstances,
they thought that, though the charge was proved,
the offence was of so trifling a nature that it was
inexpedient to inflict any punishment, and they
therefore dismissed the information. It was Held
by CHANNELL and BUCKNILL, J.J., that " This case
must be remitted to the justices with the intimation
that, if the milk had been exceptionally good after
adulteration, they might have considered the offence
too trifling to convict ; but if the milk was only
exceptionally good before adulteration the offence
vras not trifling, and they should convict."
On setting out the value of this sample from the
analysis, according to the table previously given, the
following figures are obtained :
Fat, 3-55 ... ... ... 8217
Non-fatty solids, 7*46 ... 14'90
Value in terms of standard ... 97'07
per gallon ... ... 9'7d.
This milk is therefore intrinsically worth 9*7d., as
against 8'7d. as the value of milk of the lowest legal
limit. The fact of milk being exceptionally good,
even after being watered, entitles the justices to
consider the case on its merits and dismiss it if they
think the offence too trifling for which to convict.
Exceptionally good quality, even in event of con-
viction, would almost certainly be regarded as a
palliation of the offence, and its proof result in a
mitigation of the penalty.
Board of Agriculture Regulations. Certain
powers have been conferred on the Board of Agri-
culture by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899,
these being embodied in :
"Section 4. (1.) The Board of Agriculture may,
after such inquiry as they deem necessary, make
regulations for determining what deficiency in any
of the normal constituents of genuine milk, cream,
butter, or cheese, or what addition of extraneous
matter or proportion of water, in any sample of
milk (including condensed milk), cream, butter, or
cheese, shall for the purposes of the Sale of Food
and Drugs Acts raise a presumption, until the con-
trary is proved, that the milk, cream, butter, or
cheese is not genuine or is injurious to health, and
an analyst shall have regard to such regulations in
certifying the result of an analysis under those
Acts."
In pursuance of these powers the Board has adopted
the before-mentioned limits for milk of the Society of
Public Analysts. The Board does not, of course, say
that the milk shall not be regarded as genuine when
it contains less than the limit quantities, but requires
the defendant to prove that any deficiency is com-
patible with its purity and genuineness.
Milk may be adulterated in many ways, among
which occur the following :
(1) Addition of water ; this is probably the simplest.
The result is a diminution of all the constituents in
the same ratio.
(2) Abstraction of cream, which is skimmed off on
rising to the surface ; a variant of this is the addition
of separated milk to new milk. By this the fat is
diminished, while the other constituents remain com-
paratively unaltered.
(3) Carelessness in selling, whereby the cream is
allowed to separate, and the resultant poor milk sold.
In Dyke v. Gover, L.R., 1892, 1 Q.B., 220, it was Held
by COLERIDGE, L.C.J., and WRIGHT, J., that the onus
of preventing the separation of cream from milk in
the course of delivery lay on the vendor.
(4) Selling milk which is abnormal either through
disease of the cow or unusual manner of milking.
This was decided in Smithies v. Bridge, L.K., 1902,
2 K.B., 13, in which it was Held by ALVERSTONE,
L. C. J., that " If, however, the article produced,
although it is produced by the cow, is the result of
an abnormal condition of things arising either from
disease or, as here, from unsound treatment of the
cow, I think that that does amount to evidence on
which the magistrates can find the article is not of
the nature, substance and quality of the article
demanded."
Analysis of Altered Milk. In view of the fact
that milk is peculiarly liable to alteration, and that
appeals are frequently made to the Government
analytic authorities, whereby there is much delay
between the taking of a sample and its analysis, the
problem of the anatysis of an altered milk becomes
one of serious importance. In earlier days a system
of time allowances was adopted. This was based on
the assumption that the loss of non-fatty solids of a
milk proceeds in all cases at about the same rate, and
that after the first week it is fairly uniform. This
position was laid clown by Dr. Bell, the then
Principal of Somerset House, in his Analysis and
Adulteration of Foods, who there expresses the opinion
that " With a carefully conducted analysis, . . .
the error, if any, in making the allowance should
not exceed 0*10 per cent, of the non-fatty solids, and
in the case of watered milk the result should come
within 1 per cent, of the quantity of water added, as
previously estimated from the analysis of the fresh
milk." Allen showed in a table published in the
Analyst, XII. p. 231, the difference between the actual
loss of solids which had taken place in samples of milk
referred to Somerset House, and the loss calculated
according to Bell's rule. The figures showed errors in
the total solids ranging from + 0'79 to - 4*07 per cent.
The time allowance system was long a bone of con-
tention between Somerset House and Public Analysts,
and in 1894 (Analyst, p. 248) was forcibly described
by Hehner as having " been nothing short of
scandalous."
More recently, under the direction of Thorpe, the
present Principal of the Government Laboratories, a
new system of examination of altered milks has been
introduced. The fat and non-fatty solids are estimated
by recognised methods. Then determinations are made
of the more important volatile bodies into which the
non-fatty solids have been decomposed. These consist
of alcohol, acetic acid, and ammonia. From the
amount of these bodies, that of original milk solids,
which must have been destroyed for their production,
is calculated, and is added on to that found on the
determination of such solids. A communication on
the subject of this new method was made to the
Society of Public Analysts by Droop Kichmond and
Miller, and reported in the Analyst, XXXI. 317.
Their general conclusions are : " By the method used
in the Government Laboratories a satisfactory deter-
mination of the composition of the original milk can be
made, the results, except in cases of high butyric
fermentation and other abnormal decompositions, not
being more than 0.2 per cent, from the truth." Thorpe,
Principal of the Government Laboratories, who was
present, rejoined : " In actual practice, however, we
find the cases extremely rare in which the volatile
acids exceed 0*27. . . . The conclusion of Messrs.
Kichmond and Miller is that in general a substantially
accurate determination of the original solids of the milk
can be made by the method in use at the Government
Laboratories."
Milk Calculations. Although very simple, the
calculation of "added water" appears frequently to
present considerable difficulties even to advocates and
the Court when adjudicating on milk cases. The first
point to recollect is that all such calculations are based
on the adoption of some minimum standard such as the
8*5 and 3*0 per cent, limit. If for any reason the Court
refuses to apply the standard to a particular milk, all
calculations based thereon must of necessity fall to the
ground. But if the standard be accepted and applied,
then suppose a milk contains only 8*0 per cent, of solids
not fat, as 8*5 parts are contained in 100 parts of the
poorest pure milk, then 8*0 will be contained in 94*1
parts according to the following calculations :
In 100 parts of such milk, 94'1 may be regarded as
consisting of milk of the lowest limit, and evidently
100 -- 941 = 5.9 parts
must be regarded as consisting of added water.
Another point of difficulty is in the return of the
amount of fat in the milk. If an analyst finds only
2.95 per cent, of fat in a milk, when there ought to be
at least 3*00 per cent., there is evidently a deficiency of
0-05 per cent. That is to say, 100 Ibs. of the milk
contain only 2.95 Ibs. of fat, whereas such quantity
ought to contain 3 '00 Ibs. ; and the fat is deficient in
the milk to the extent of 0'05 Ibs. in the 100 Ibs.
Many analysts, however, elect to also express their
results in terms of percentage of the minimum amount-
of fat that ought to be present. Thus, in the case being
considered, the following calculation is made :
As 3-00 : 2-95 : : 100 : 98*33
2-95 x 100
3-00
= 98-33
That is to say only 98'33 per cent, of the least
amount of fat that ought to be in the milk, 3 '00,
is found, and therefore there is a deficiency of
100 - 98-33 = 1-67 per cent, of the total fat that
ought to be present. If it be remembered that this
figure is only a percentage of a percentage, no harm is
done ; but this is not quite realised by many chemical
laymen (among whom magistrates are included). They
are consequently apt, when told there is a deficiency of
1-67 per cent, of the fat, to assume that, as the minimum
fat should be 3-00 per cent, the milk contains only
3'00 - 1 67 = 1'33 per cent, of actual fat, whereas, of
course, the correct figure is 2'95 against 3'00 per cent.
Care should be taken by both the prosecution and
defence (and especially the latter) to ensure that the
justices quite understand the meaning of this mode of
expressing the results of an analysis.
Butter. The most important adulterations of butter
are those of the addition of excess of water, and of
fats other than that derived from the milk of the
cow.
One of the most interesting and instructive tests
applied to butter is that of determining the amount of
volatile fatty acids yielded by the fat of the sample
under exact conditions. There is a considerable
amount of such volatile acids in butter, while they
are practically absent in beef fat and cottonseed oil,
two frequent adulterants. To separate and exactly
determine the whole of these volatile acids is a some-
what difficult and tedious operation. But when the
fat is treated in a specified way, and distilled in an
apparatus of a specified kind, a fraction of the volatile
fatty acids distils over, which is constant for the
same fat. This distilled fraction is estimated by
noting how many volumes of an alkali of known
strength (decinormal) are required to neutralise it.
Without any other calculation such number of
volumes is termed after the inventors of the process,
the "Keichert Meissl (RM.) value." Butter has an
RM. value of about 28'0, while nearly all other oils
and fats have less than 1-0. The principal exceptions
are fish oils, the RM. value of which ranges from 45'0
to 65'0. From their odour and taste, these however
cannot be used as adulterants of butter. Cocoanut
fat has an RM. value of about 7*0, and that of palm
nuts of about 5'0. Both of these latter may be used
in butter substitutes.
If this mean R.M. value of butter fat at 28'0 were
absolute, then in the case of an unknown sample
giving 28, the butter fat would be regarded as free
from all foreign fats (except the impossible fish oils).
If the sample gave 14*0, this might possibly indicate
50 per cent, of pure butter and 50 per cent, of fat
with no E.M. value. In the same way E.M. values,
to 28 would correspond with to 100 per cent, of
butter fat. This is the principle of all such methods
of analysis. There may, however, be complications,
such, for example, as the presence of cocoanut fat.
Thus, suppose a mixture to consist of
Butter fat - 40 parts.
Cocoanut fat - 40
Beef fat 20
100
Such a mixture would also have an K.M. value of
14*0. There is, therefore, this element of uncertainty,
and further tests would be required to prove the
presence or absence of cocoanut fat. This uncertainty
is of no help to the defence, for with an RM. value of
14 the adulteration must be at least 50 per cent., and
if cocoanut fat were used the amount would, of
necessity, be larger, as is the case in the mixture
suggested.
Variations in R.M, value. But the EM. value of
butter fat is not constant. The values on record range
from as low as 19*8 for an Italian butter to so high as
33*1 for an Austrian butter. The extreme figures, in
most cases, are due to exceptional circumstances
which do not usually occur. These variations may
be caused by alteration in the mode of feeding the
cows, by the period of lactation, and other circum-
stances. This leads to the consideration of fluctuations
in such standard values. Taking 28 as a mean for
RM. value, the fluctuations in the case of butter fat,
may easily range anywhere between 26 and 30
without being in any way abnormal. Heading
analytic results in the light of this fact, any butter
coming within these extremes must be regarded as
pure. It becomes necessary, then, to fix a minimum
standard. As a matter of fact, anything below 26 is
suspicious, but obviously some margin must be
allowed. As an official minimum R.M. value for butter
fat the figure 24 is adopted in England, France, and
Germany. This operates considerably in favour of
the vendor ; for butter with a very high R.M. value
will bear 20 per cent, adulteration with foreign fat,
while an ordinary butter will take 10 per cent,
without falling below the minimum. (It must not be
understood to follow that such adulteration may not
be detected by other tests).
Of necessity any minimum, such as is here adopted,
must be of a somewhat arbitrary nature. In this
there is a loophole for defence. It may be argued
that if a butter with R.M. value as low as 24-0 is to
be regarded as pure, then a butter at 23-9 is not
necessarily impure. It must, of course, be admitted
that the 23'9 butter may be pure. But the chemists
position is based on the fact that a very generous
margin has already been allowed, hence it is a prac-
tical certainty that the 23*9, or even 24' 0, sample is
not pure. This minimum falls well below all normally
pure samples of ordinary origin, and all excluded
butters should be regarded as impure, unless some
good cause for such irregularity is shown by the
defence. Voelcker, referring to Siberian butters, says
they " are made under certain conditions of climatic
temperature, &c., vastly different from those of our
own country . . . this butter has been found to give
results as regards the volatile and non- volatile fatty
acids, of quite abnormal nature." Analyst, XXVII., 85.
Where facts of this kind are clearly proved the
defence should succeed; and in fact, analysts them-
selves take carefully into consideration the country of
origin of the butter before deciding as to its adultera-
tion. It follows that this should be ascertained and
stated when possible. When a purchase of butter is
made, the source of origin of which is unknown, the
difficulty of rightly interpreting the results of analysis
is undoubtedly increased by the abnormally low E.M.
value of Siberian butters. Probably the best course
is to apply certain other well-known tests, and if
these confirm the deductions drawn from the low
K.M. value, to regard such butter as adulterated,
allowing the defence to raise and prove the country of
origin and consequent purity of the butter. As a
measure of precaution, the retailers of such butters
will be wise to obtain from the wholesale vendors a
warranty of the country of origin.
Right of Purchaser to Normal Article. In such
cases the prosecution is usually strengthened by the
right of the purchaser to have a normal article. The
article sold must be "of the nature, substance and
quality of the article demanded." The presumption is
that the purchaser requires an article of fair normal
quality. When that sold falls below a minimum
standard, is the purchaser prejudiced ? The deficiency
may be due to the addition of an adulterant, or to
abnormal modes of production, such as making butter
from the milk of improperly or carelessly managed
cows. Now deficiency of fat in milk is clearly of
prejudice to the purchaser, but is it so with deficiency
of volatile fatty acids in butter ? The following is an
important expression of opinion. He, Hehner, " could
not see with his present knowledge of the subject how
anyone who obtained a smaller proportion of soluble or
volatile fatty acid in his butter was prejudiced, as the
quality of the butter appeared to be independent of the
composition as regards soluble and insoluble fatty
acids," Analyst, XVIII. 12.
In passing, it may be mentioned that margarine
manufacturers have informed the author that they
prefer for mixing purposes butters having a high K.M.
value, as they regard such butters as possessing
stronger flavouring properties.
Errors of Experiment on Border Line. Still
taking the butter case of 23'9 as against 24*0 RM.
value, the defence may allege that the errors of experi-
ment may be as great as the stated deficiency. In
such near cases the analyst should be prepared with
duplicate analyses showing agreement. If possible, it
is well to show that the error of experiment must be in
favour of the vendor. The analyst ought to be able to
say " I have taken such precautions as will prevent any
sensible error of experiment, and even if there were
any minute error, it is in the direction of over-
estimating the essential constituent." The defence
may insist strongly on liability to error. Thus, in a
milk prosecution, it may be said the milk contains only
2*5 per cent, of fat. A chemist for the defence may
reply, no, it contains 3'1 per cent, of fat, which I have
extracted and can produce. Obviously one cannot
obtain more than is there, but it is possible to use a
process which fails to extract all there is present.
Within the author's personal knowledge, duplicate
samples of the same substance have been sent to an
analyst under different marks; the returned results
have differed from each other by a greater amount
than the deficiency on which he, the analyst, had
advised a prosecution.
Spent Ginger, This despicable form of fraud is
perpetrated by taking ginger from which the essential
flavouring constituents have been extracted, mixing it
in with more or less fresh ginger and selling the whole
as pure ginger.
An interesting case was tried at Newport, Salop, in
September, 1896. Blunt, public analyst, for the pro-
secution, reported a sample of powdered ginger as
adulterated with spent ginger to the extent of 25 per
cent., on the following data :
Total ash 274 per cent.
Soluble ash 1'24
Cold water extract . . 6'20
He based his view that the sample was adulterated on
the fact that it contained too little of the above, which
are the characteristic constituents of ginger.
For the defence, Collingwood Williams, analyst, was
called. He deposed that he " found it to be genuine
ginger of high quality, and absolutely free from spent
ginger. . . . Would have detected spent ginger by
changed shape of starch granules." (This is dependence
on an alleged difference in microscopic appearance
caused by the act of extraction). ..." Further chemical
tests showed presence of 6 per cent, resin and T25 per
cent, of essential oil, being perfectly normal quantities."
(These were estimations of essential constituents
brought forward to traverse the low figures advanced
by the prosecution). This case was dismissed by the
Court of summary jurisdiction.
Blunt reported the result of the trial to a meeting
of the Society of Public Analysts, and denied the
possibility of deciding whether or not spent ginger was
present by means of the microscope.
C. Williams was written to asking him to communi-
cate his views on the case to the Society. This he
declined to do on the principle that it was not right to
re-try a decided case in that way in the absence of the
accused. But writing generally on the analysis of
ginger, he re-affirmed that microscopic examination
often has the advantage of affording direct evidence
[of extraction] as distinguished from the circumstantial
evidence of chemical analysis. He admitted, however,
that ginger could be exhausted by alcohol without
affecting the microscopic appearance. When exhausted
by rectified spirit the extraction is not detectable by
estimations of total ash, soluble ash, and cold water
extract, but when extracted by water or very dilute
spirit, soluble ash, alcoholic extract, and essential oil
will be reduced ; and invariably a greater or less change
in microscopic appearance will have been produced.
Cold water extract is of little value as evidence, but
analysts should be careful to avoid being misled by
same, as the amounts vary very much in different kinds
of genuine ginger. Low soluble ash and total ash,
when nothing else is low, may indicate a high class of
ginger and not a fraudulent sample. Chemical evidence
is the most important and truest, but only when the
analyst's mind is impressed by the important ingredients
rather than by the unimportant ingredients.
Allen had analysed the same sample as Blunt, and
also genuine Cochin ginger, said to be the same as the
Newport sample [i.e. before exhaustion]. He obtained
the following results :
Cold Water
Total Ash. Sol. Ash. Extract.
Newport sample
Allen, ... 2-65 1-30 6 -20
Blunt, ... 274 1*24 6-20
Cochin ginger, ... 4'62 2'64 10-20
He regards soluble ash and cold water extract as
among the most useful data in examining gingers, as
it was evident that they would be materially diminished
by any process of maceration, whereas such treatment
would not necessarily affect the essential oil and resin.
He regards these latter figures as having no practical
value, and was satisfied that the Newport sample
contained a notable proportion of exhausted ginger.
(Analyst, XXI., 309).
On the analytic data, the general consensus of opinion
of the Society was that the sample in question had
been adulterated.
Lard Analysis. Lard is the rendered (melted down)
and clarified fat of the pig. The fat surrounding the
kidneys is much harder than that of the whole carcase,
and makes a firmer and better quality lard. To the
soft or whole hog lard, beef stearin, the harder part of
beef fat, is sometimes added as an adulterant. There
can be little doubt that the lard for many purposes is
improved thereby. If sold as mixed or hardened lard,
there could be no objection to this treatment ; but when
sold as best or hog kidney lard, an offence is committed,
as such mixed lard cannot be regarded as of the sub-
stance of the article demanded. An interesting query
may here arise. The principal difference between the
kidney fat lard and that of the whole animal is that
the former contains a higher proportion of lard stearin
(the harder part of lard), while the latter contains an
excess of the oily constituent of lard. It is possible to
harden whole hog lard by expressing some of the lard
oil therefrom, and thus making it closely resemble, if
not identical in composition with, the kidney lard-
The lard would be thus improved, but would such
treatment be adulteration ? If sold as kidney lard, the
answer must be in the affirmative. But if sold as
" lard," it is not easy to give a definite answer. Where
there is nothing present but hog fat, the removal of a
portion which deteriorated the quality, and thus im-
proved the remainder, would not be likely to be
regarded as an act of adulteration.
In the analysis of lard, crystals of the stearin or harder
fat are separated out and examined micros copically.
Those of lard, as commonly obtained, have characteristic
chisel shaped ends, while beef stearin crystals are needle
shaped. Hehner and Mitchell have investigated the
shape of these crystals by several times re- dissolving
and re-crystallising the stearin. They found the first
crystals had characteristic chisel shaped ends. On re-
crystallisation they were more needle shaped, but still
had distinct chisel shaped ends. On being again re-
crystallised they were hardly distinguishable in form
from beef stearin crystals. The difference in " form of
the beef crystals is solely due to a larger proportion of
stearic acid than can be obtained from a pure lard by a
single crystallisation." (Analyst, XXI., 328).
Hehner reports a further experiment in which he
melted out in his laboratory from pig's flare some lard
with iodine absorption of only 45*6 "Crystals from
this sample are indistinguishable from those of lard
largely admixed with beef fat." (Analyst, XXVII., 165).
It would seem therefore that the different microscopic
appearance of lard and beef stearin crystals is not due to
any inherent difference between the two stearins, but
only to the fact that beef stearin contains a larger
proportion of stearic acid than can readily be obtained
from lard stearin.
Dyed Sugar. Sugar as refined in this country
consists usually of colourless crystals, and is largely
prepared from beet roots. Sugar in the West Indies is
obtained from the juice of the sugar cane. Although
this sugar may also be refined until white or colourless,
considerable quantities are or have been imported in
the form of large yellow crystals and sold under the
name of " Demerara sugar." Chemically speaking, both
beet and cane sugar are identical in character and
composition. Using the word cane as an adjective to
indicate a particular chemical variety of sugar, both
sugar-cane and beet-root sugars are equally cane sugar,
or "sucrose" in more strictly chemical nomenclature.
From whichever source, when pure, it is doubtful if they
can be distinguished by any ordinary means. There is,
however, one great difference between them : the whole
juice of the sugar-cane consists of pleasant smelling
and tasting substances. In consequence, when the
sugar has been crystallised out from the juice during
evaporation and concentration, the residual liquid has
a sufficiently pleasant flavour to find a ready sale under
the name of treacle or molasses. With beet-root juice,
on the other hand, the associated substances in the juice
are unpleasant in flavour and smell. On the removal
of the sugar, therefore, the remaining body is devoid of
the pleasant character of cane-sugar molasses. As a
result it is desirable to separate beet root sugar as
thoroughly as possible from the other substances in the
juice, while in the case of cane sugar these bodies are
not only unobjectionable, but may add a character to
the sugar which some purchasers actually prefer. The
public appreciation of sugar of the " Demerara crystals "
type is largely based on the view that it is genuine
sugar-cane, and not beet-root, sugar, and that it is
coloured by the natural colouring matter of the sugar-
cane juice.
Cassal communicated a paper to the Society of Public
Analysts on the subject of "Dyed Sugar." In this
paper he states that "large quantities of dyed sugar
are sold in London and elsewhere generally as
Demerara sugar." The crystals are dyed on the
surfaces. The purchasers' impression is that they are
having genuine cane sugar, whereas they are thus
getting beet sugar externally dyed. It is generally
admitted that weight for weight under ordinary con-
ditions of use, beet sugar does not give the same
sweetening as cane sugar.
On the other hand Demerara sugar itself, in the
course of manufacture, is dyed before crystallisation.
Cassal, nevertheless, contends that the dyed crystals are
adulterated. A warning is given not to state too
specifically the nature of the dye used, as the defence
might be able to state that the particular dye was not
present.
Stokes, in discussion, stated that almost all Demerara
sugars contain about a third of a grain of stannous
chloride per Ib. Most other sugars are artificially
coloured with aniline colours. [White sugars are in-
variably "blued."] He suggested that fictitious
Demerara sugar should be stopped by the "Merchandise
Marks Act." Demerara retains the natural aroma,
tint and flavour of the sugar cane ; stannous chloride
is used as a mordant for the purpose of fixing these.
Heron. Demerara manufacturers used stannous
chloride to improve inferior sugars, so as to make them
look of better quality than they really were, and cause
them to simulate the higher qualities. The home-
dyeing of crystals was not done to give a fictitious
value, but to meet the public taste.
Hehner considered that the public analyst has to
disregard popular wishes and raise the standard of
purity of food, if necessary, against the popular wish.
Cassal in reply insisted that Demerara was cane
sugar, and dyed crystals beet sugar, Analyst, XV., 141.
There were here some interesting differentiations of
sophisticated articles. No one urged that dyed
Demerara should be prosecuted. In the Analyst, XV.,
199, there is a letter on the subject by Scand, chemist
to the Colonial Sugar Company. He states that
stannous chloride is added to the magma of crystals
and mother liquor, for the purpose of fixing the natural
colour of the cane juice on the sugar. Beet sugars are
changed here into " refiner's yellow crystals " as imita-
tions, and it is a fraudulent substitution.
The crux of the whole matter seems to be contained
in Cassal's reply, namely, that Demerara sugar is
sugar-cane sugar, and that the dyed crystals are
beet-root sugar, whereas when the public ask for
Demerara it is really sugar-cane sugar they demand
and think they are getting. Hehner's conception of
the duty of the public analyst to raise, if necessary,
the standard of purity of food against the popular wish
suggests the interesting question of whether you can be
acting to the prejudice of the purchaser when you give
him exactly what he demands, Per contra if the
purchaser prefers "dyed sugar," and asks for dyed
sugar, would not the sale of natural sugar, however
much better it would be for him, be a sale to the
prejudice of the purchaser ?
One curious result of the campaign against dyed
sugar is that the name "Demerara" as applied to sugar
has for retail purposes gone almost entirely out of use.
The sale of Demerara crystals involved grocers in such
risk of prosecution for adulteration, of which they
were often unaware, that they have largely decided
to run no risks and to discontinue stocking the
article.
No legal Standard of Manufacture. This point
arose in the case of Smith v. Wisden, 1902, 66 J.P.,
150. The appellant, a grocer, sold a pot of marmalade,
which was certified by the public analyst to contain
"the parts as under or the percentage of foreign
ingredients as under,
Starch glucose ... 13 per cent."
It was proved before the Court of Quarter Sessions
that starch glucose is composed of 40 per cent, of
dextrose, 40 per cent, of dextrin, and 20 per cent, of
water. That dextrose is sugar to all intents and
purposes, but that dextrin is a gummy substance and
has not any sweetening property whatever. The
Court of Quarter Sessions found, inter alia, that in
asking for orange marmalade the purchaser desired to
buy a substance composed of oranges cooked or pre-
served with cane or beet sugar, and had not consented
to be served with a preserve to which starch glucose
was added. They, therefore, affirmed the conviction
by the magistrates. A case was stated and heard
before ALVERSTONE, L.C. J., DARLING and CHANNELL, J.J.
In course of judgment ALVERSTONE, L.C.J., said " I
should not have come to the same conclusion, that
a man, when he asked for " marmalade," thought he
was going to get fruit and beet or cane sugar. I
think there are many other things that might properly
be put in good marmalade that a man asking for it
would not know of, or would not form any opinion
about . . . What have the magistrates found ? It
was proved that glucose had been used in the manu-
facture of marmalade for a period of fifteen years by a
large number of manufacturers, but not by all. There-
fore it is plain that they found as a fact that it was
an alternative ingredient in marmalade. They say
there was a general and common understanding that
marmalade was composed of fruit boiled with cane or
beet sugar, but that there was no legal standard for
the making of marmalade, and that manufacturers
varied in the recipes they used. Now, so far, we get
a certain thing found, viz., that there is no standard,
but a frequent but not uncommon use of glucose
varying the recipe. Then they find this, that the use
of glucose to the extent contained in the analysed
articles was not injurious to health, that it prevented
the marmalade from crystallising, and had a tendency
to prevent mildewing and fermenting. Now, looking
at the thing fairly, and not endeavouring to construe
this Act, so that it be a weapon of oppression or
otherwise than a proper protection of the public, what
does that amount to ? ... The purchaser . . . got an
article given to him which, if it was different at all,
was different in the sense that it was rather better.
. . . There was no evidence of any inferior quality or
of any adulteration in the ordinary sense of the word.
The appeal must be allowed and the conviction
quashed." DARLING and CHANNELL, J.J., agreed.
Where there is no legal standard for a manufactured
article, it may be taken that the addition of an
ingredient which does not lower the quality, and does
not constitute adulteration in the ordinary sense of
the word, is not in itself an offence.
ADULTERATION OF DRUGS
Drug- Adulteration Cases. The author is indebted
to the Chemist and Druggist for the majority of the
following cases in illustration of the application of
the Food and Drugs Acts to the adulteration of
drugs. Many of the cases are only decisions of
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and therefore can-
not be quoted as authority. They serve, however, to
indicate what is the general trend of magisterial
opinion in the matters referred to.
Acetic Acid. In April, 1895, an Islington chemist
is reported to have been summoned for selling 117
per cent, acetic acid as "diluted acetic acid." This
acid was of higher strength than standard " diluted
acetic acid," and the question arose whether or not
such sale was "to the prejudice of the purchaser,"
since that supplied was in one sense of better quality
than that demanded. The magistrate held himself
bound by Knight v. Bowers, 1885, 14, Q.B.D., 845, in
which it was decided that if the article supplied, even
though unadulterated, was wholly different from that
demanded by the purchaser, an offence had been
committed. (C. and D., 16th. April, 1895.)
It cannot be said that a somewhat stronger
acetic acid is a wholly different article, but it must
be remembered that the standard to be applied
to drugs is a different one from that applied in
the case of food. It can scarcely be imagined that
any purchaser would feel himself prejudiced by the
sale of milk containing twice the usual quantity of
cream ; but if a drug be supplied of twice its proper
strength, its administration may be most harmful
instead of beneficial to the patient.
Arsenical Soap. There have been several prosecu-
tions for the sale of soap as " arsenical soap," which
contained little or no arsenic. At Brentford con-
victions were obtained on the ground that the soap
was a drug, and did not contain an essential quantity
of that which was represented as the actual con-
stituent. In the case of HougJiton v. Taplin, 1897,
13, Times L.R., 386, there was an appeal to the Court
of Queen's Bench. WEIGHT, J., held that the soap
was a compounded drug within the meaning of S. 6,
s.s. 3 of the Act, and therefore was within the proviso.
HAWKINS, J., held that the soap was not a drug per se.
The magistrates had refused to convict, and their
decision was therefore upheld on appeal.
British Pharmacopoeia as a Standard Drugs
asked for by popular names do not necessarily mean
the articles so designated in the British Pharmacopoeia,
but prima facie it is assumed by judges that they do
until the contrary is proved. The Acts lay down no
standards for drugs, but the majority of decided cases
favour application of British Pharmacopoeia standards
to articles sold under British Pharmacopoeia names.
The following are the more important High Court
(English) decisions:
White v. Bywater. The Sheffield Medical Officer of
Health bought 3 oz. of tincture of opium, which on
analysis was found to be deficient both in opium and
spirit when compared with that specified in the
British Pharmacopoeia. On appeal to the Queen's
Bench Division (Q.B.D.), it was Held that the re-
spondent ought to have been convicted although the
purchaser had not specifically asked for tincture of
opium prepared according to the British Pharmacopoeia
-(1887), 19, Q.B.D., 582.
Beardsley v. Walton & Co., Ltd. Camphorated oil
containing 8 per cent, of camphor was sold, and
W. & Co. were summoned under Section 6 of the
1875 Act. The justices found that the oil is a
"compounded drug" (Section 6, Sub-section 3), and
therefore that proceedings should have been taken
under Section 7. Held in the Q.B.D. that there is no
definition in the Act of what is a drug " compounded
as in this Act mentioned," so that no meaning can be
given to the words in Sub-section 3. Camphorated
oil is not a drug "compounded as in this Act
mentioned," and the prosecution was properly brought
under Section 6. (1900), 2, Q.B.D., 1.
Dickins v. Randerson. A chemist managing a branch
of Taylor's Drug Stores, Ltd., was asked for " mercury
ointment," and supplied an ointment containing 12'5
per cent, of mercury instead of 48*5 per cent., as in
the British Pharmacopoeia. He was convicted under
Section 6. On appeal to the K.B.D. it was Held that
the appellant was properly convicted under Section 6,
as, in the absence of a prescription by a medical
practitioner, he ought to have sold the article according
to the standard in the Pharmacopoeia ; and that he
might probably have also been convicted under Section
7 of selling a " compounded drug which is not com-
posed of ingredients in accordance with the demand
of the purchaser." (Section 15 of the Pharmacy
Act, 1868, as to compounding British Pharmacopoeia
medicines according to the formularies thereof was
held to be proof that there is no standard for mercury
ointment different from the Pharmacopoeia). (1901)
1, K.B.D., 437.
Hudson v. Bridge. Vinegar of squills was sold. It
contained less acetic acid than is prescribed in the
British Pharmacopoeia formula, and the seller was
convicted, although evidence proved that in the
vinegar, even if properly kept, a change! or decom-
position takes place which reduces the quantity of
acetic acid. On appeal it was Held that the justices
were wrong, as there was no evidence that the pur-
chaser in asking for vinegar of squills demanded the
proportion of acetic acid in new vinegar of squills,
and that the hypothetical standard set up by them
could not be supported. It was further held that as
the vinegar is liable to decomposition the public
analyst should have mentioned the fact in his cer-
tificate. (1903), 19, Times L.E., 369.
Boots Cash Chemists (Southern), Ltd., v. Cowling.
The appellants sold methylated soap liniment, and
were convicted under Section 6, the magistrate refusing
to receive evidence that there is a commercial standard
for liniment of soap different from that prescribed by
the British Pharmacopoeia. The magistrate relied on
Dickins v. Eanderson. The K.B.D. (ALVERSTONE, L.C.J.,
and WILLS and CHANNELL, J. J.) Held that the evidence
as to commercial standard is admissible, and that
PHILLIMORE, J., " never meant to lay down in that
case that nothing could be looked at except the
British Pharmacopoeia. On the other hand, if it was
the sale of some drug recognised by a special name in
the British Pharmacopoeia, a very strong prima facie
case would be made out as to what the drug ought to
contain." (1903), 19, Times L.E., 370.
Bandy v. Lewis. An unqualified assistant of
respondent was asked for 4 oz. of paregoric, and
supplied a liquid free from opium, striking out the
word " poison " on a paregoric label and replacing it
with " substitute." The purchaser (Bundy) observed
this when dividing the sample, but prosecuted under
Section 6, 1875, and the justices dismissed the sum-
mons on the grounds (1) that the sale was not to the
prejudice of the purchaser, and (2) that the respondent
was protected by Section 8, 1875, by the label dis-
closing the fact that the article was paregoric
substitute and not paregoric. On appeal, Held by the
K.B.D. that the sale was not to the prejudice of the
purchaser. (1908), 72, J.P., 489.
It is an interesting fact that when the Food and
Drugs Act, 1875, was drafted as a bill, it contained a
provision making the British Pharmacopoeia the
standard for the quality of drugs, but this provision
was eliminated from the bill before it became law.
Dr. J. Attfield, the editor of the British Pharmacopoeia,
pointed out at the Pharmaceutical Conference, July,
1899, that that work is not specified in the Sale of
Food and Drugs Acts as the standard for drugs.
Castor Oil Pills. A chemist was summoned for
selling as " castor oil pills," pills which were certified
by the public analyst to contain rhubarb, aloes, ginger,
&c., but no castor oil. In cross-examination the analyst
admitted that there might be 1*5 or 1'75 per cent, of
castor oil in the pills, but that he should call that
amount equivalent to none. For the defence it was
alleged that it was usual to name compound pills
from one of the ingredients, and that the name here
implied that the effects were similar to those of castor
oil. There could be no idea of fraud, because the
other ingredients were much the more expensive.
The magistrates convicted. (C. and D., 15th. April,
1879.)
A shopkeeper was summoned under Section 6 for
selling castor oil pills, certified by the analyst to
be composed of ingredients other than castor oil.
The pill boxes were wrapped in a handbill stating
that they " contained the finest cold-drawn castor oil,
together with the choicest Pharmacopoeia ingredients,
compounded so as to produce the effect as nearly
approaching that of castor oil itself as possible without
any of its unpleasantness. We wish it to be under-
stood that the purgative effects are not caused by
castor oil alone, as that would be impossible, but by
the choicest ingredients of the Pharmacopoeia." This
label was held to be a sufficient disclosure of the
composition of the pills to secure the dismissal of the
summons. (C. and D., 25th. May, 1895.)
Chewing-gum. This is a well-known American
confection, and consists of paraffin or wax, com-
pounded with sugar and various flavouring ingredients.
The object of the preparation is to provide something
that shall be chewed and not swallowed in the solid
state, the residual wax being finally spat out. In
Shortt v. Smith, the appellant purchased at the re-
spondent's shop three sticks of chewing-gum. These
were labelled " For chewing only ; not to be eaten."
Upon analysis it was proved to contain 35 per cent,
of paraffin wax. The public analyst gave evidence
that he was of opinion that the use of such a mixture
might prove injurious to the consumer. Gums equally
as insoluble as paraffin wax could be used. The
paraffin wax would not dissolve in the mouth, but
some portions might be swallowed, and, if so, it would
be injurious to health. The appellant contended that
during the chewing some portion would be swallowed
and the article thereby rendered an article of food.
The respondent argued that the article was regarded
by the public as a chewing-gum or wax, and sold
accordingly. Having regard to the label, and that
the wax would not dissolve in the mouth, the justices
decided that the article was neither a food nor a
drug, and dismissed the case. An appeal, CAVE and
WRIGHT, J.J., decided that the justices were right in
finding that this was not an article of food, and dis-
missed the appeal. (1895) 2, Times L.R., 325.
The case is of some interest because of the quibbling
around whether or not this was an article of food. If
gums equally as insoluble as paraffin wax were used,
they would equally be likely to cause injury to health
if swallowed. No doubt the chewing-gum contained
sugar in considerable quantity, and to that extent was
really a food. But what was sold in this case was an
article specially prepared to meet a particular require-
ment, that being a pleasant flavoured confection that
shall be capable of being chewed and yet remain in
the mouth. If, in response to a demand for chewing-
gum, a substance of the type of a gelatin lozenge
were sold, the sale would be in fact one to the pre-
judice of the purchaser, as the article would be unfit
for the purpose for which required.
Citrate of Magnesia. This is the popular name of
a well-known granular effervescent preparation, in
which little or no true magnesium citrate is present.
A Greenock chemist was prosecuted for selling as.
citrate of magnesia an article alleged to be adulterated
with carbonate of soda, tartaric acid, sugar, and
sulphate of soda. The defence proved that the sub-
stance sold was what is known commercially as-
" citrate of magnesia," and medical evidence was also-
given that when the witnesses prescribed citrate of
magnesia they meant the article as sold by the
defendant. On this evidence the magistrate found
the defendant not guilty. (C. and D., 15th. November?
1875.)
Dispensing, The price charged for making up a
prescription is usually governed by the skill requisite
in dispensing, rather than the actual cost of the
ingredients. Any gross inaccuracy in so dispensing
is an offence against Section 7 of the Act, whether the
ingredients be either in excess or in deficit of those
demanded by the purchaser. Where, however, the
drugs are expensive, occasions happen in which a.
deficiency in the actual drug may be a considerable
source of extra profit to the vendor. The following
are representative cases of prosecutions for incorrect
dispensing.
A chemist was fined for dispensing a mixture found
to contain 36 instead of 120 grains of iodide of
potassium. The defendant submitted that the medi-
cine as ordered was too strong, and that he had
reduced it in the exercise of his discretion. (0. & I).,
15th. June, 1885.)
A Buxton chemist was summoned for selling a
10-oz. potassium iodide mixture, which contained 142J
instead of 160 grains of the iodide. The defence was
that 160 grains had been put in and the bottle filled
up, so that it was possible that the analyst, taking a
small measured quantity, would find less in the
portion, although the whole was right (owing to bottle
inaccuracy). The medicine was to be given in parts.
Evidence in proof of this, and the purity of the iodide
was adduced. The magistrate dismissed the summons,
remarking that " the custom of filling the bottles up
from the tap is, to say the least of it, lax." (0. and D.,
12th. January, 1890.)
It is a well known custom in the dispensing of
medicines to direct that, say, "an eighth part is
to be taken" for a dose. To meet this form of
prescription, bottles are made in which one-eighth
divisions are shown by lines across the side. If
in the case in question the bottle taken had really
held 11 instead of 10 oz., then assuming 160 grains to
have been dispensed, each eighth part would still have
contained 20 grains of the iodide, although each 1| oz.
(the eighth part of 10 oz.) would only contain 18*2
grains. Eight times 18-2 is 147'6, so that if the error
in the bottle had been as much as 1 oz., the deficiency
would not thus be accounted for. It is exceedingly
doubtful whether any ordinary medicine bottle would
have an error of anything like an ounce in ten of its
nominal capacity. The analyst might have taken for
his analysis the measured quantity shown by the
divisions on the bottle, but it is extremely unlikely
that an analyst would adopt such a rough and ready
method of measurement. Where a medicine is directed
to be taken in eighths or other number of parts, it is
difficult to see what arrangements could conveniently
be made for dispensing, other than putting all the
ingredients in a bottle and then filling it with
water.
A chemist, who had contracted to supply medicines
to the local Union, was summoned and convicted for
dispensing a mixture which should have contained
2 grains of sulphate of quinine per oz., and was found
on analysis to contain only 0'64 grains per oz. (0.
and D. y 15th. May, 1881.)
A London chemist received a prescription for 66
grains of iodine and 99 grains of potassium iodide in
3 oz. of water. He dispensed it, and the analyst
reported that the solution showed a deficiency of 14*5
per cent, of iodine and an excess of 9*3 per cent, of
potassium iodide. The chemist was summoned, and
his defence was that the prescription was accurately
prepared. The reserve sample was referred to the
Government Chemists, who reported that the sample
contained iodine in the proportion of 924 grains, and
potassium iodide 103'8 grains per 3 fluid oz. (The
figures, it will be noticed, are considerably in excess of
the quantities prescribed.) The certificate suggested
that the iodine had not been fully dissolved before the
solution was divided, so that the three parts were
unequal in strength. On that ground the magistrate
dismissed the summons. (G. and D. y 18th. April, 1896.)
The medical officer of health for Fulham wrote the
following prescription, which was taken to most of the
chemists in the neighbourhood to be dispensed :
" Potassii iodidi, - - 3 i y -
Syr. aurantii, - j
Aq. ad, - vj.
M. Ft. mist."
Several of the dispensers were summoned, under
Section 7 of the Act of 1875. In one case the potassium
iodide was stated to be 16 grains in excess. Dr.
Attfield found only 2 grains in excess. The magistrate
dismissed the case, as he was not satisfied on the
evidence that the trifling amount over the prescription
mattered in the slightest, and Section 7 should be read
in the light of the preceding and succeeding lines of the
Act. (G. and Z>., 14th. October, 1899.)
Glycerin. A Birmingham chemist was summoned
and convicted for selling Id. bottles of glycerin which
was certified by the analyst to be adulterated with 45
per cent, of glucose syrup. (C. and D., Wth. February,
1897.)
There have been a few prosecutions for selling
glycerin containing small percentages of water. In
one such case the analyst certified to 9 per cent, of
water. The reserve sample was sent to the Govern-
ment chemists, who reported that the specific gravity at
60 Fahr. was 1*2492, and as the British Pharmacopoeia
standard was 1*25, they were of opinion that the sample
contained no excess of water. The summons was dis-
missed with costs. (0. and D., 10th. April, 1897.)
Glycerin and Lime-juice. There are a number of
preparations for the hair to which this generic name is
applied. Neither lime-juice nor glycerin is a very suit-
able component of a hair-wash or lotion, and if a mixture
were made of the two it would in practice be unusable
for such a purpose. Nevertheless these preparations
have a certain vogue, and the public well know the
kind of article they in fact require when they ask for a
hair- wash by this name. The actual preparations are
mostly oils and lime-water, with a little glycerin and
some perfume. No doubt the term lime-juice has been
applied as a misnomer for lime-water. Chemists as a
whole would probably prefer the use of some name
which was not so incorrect as lime-juice, but the public
have acquired the habit of asking for the particular
preparation they require under this name. There have
been a number of prosecutions for the sale of this
article, without any glycerin being present, and in many
cases convictions have followed. The following is one
of the most important, and was heard at Brentford.
The defendant deposed that his formula was
Nut oil, ... ... ... 4 oz.
Lime-water, ... ... ... 4 oz.
Saccharated lime solution, ... 40 drops.
Perfume (lemon and bergamot oils), 25 drops.
Glycerin, J dram.
It was sold as "lime-cream and glycerin," and the
analyst certified absence of glycerin. (Note. The pre-
ferable word lime-cream is substituted for lime-juice.)
The reserve sample was referred to the Government
chemists, whose analysis confirmed the defendant's
statement. The hearing was adjourned, and Mr. Eichard
Bannister, then of the Government Laboratory, described
his process of analysis, and admitted that he was assisted
in arriving at his declaration about the preparation
containing J dram of glycerin in 8 oz. by the report in
the Chemist and Druggist. It also transpired that the
reserve sample was the lower portion of the bottle, so
that it would contain more glycerin than the other
parts. The magistrates took the latter fact as the basis
for dismissing the summons. (C. and D., 27th. March,
24th. April, and 15th. May, 1897.)
It is curious that in the cases quoted the defence
was not advanced that the preparation is not a drug
at all.
Gregory's Powder. Dr. Gregory's original formula
was : Powdered rhubarb, 2 parts ; powdered ginger, 1
part ; light magnesia, 6 parts ; mix. Magnesia is the
oxide of the metal, and readily absorbs both water and
carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere : the latter
converts the oxide into the carbonate. In one case a
chemist for the defence stated that he found Gregory's
powder to absorb 14 per cent, of carbon dioxide and
water in three days. (C. and D., 15th. October, 1898.)
For further experimental evidence in proof of this
absorption see a paper by Umney (C. and D., 24th.
September, 1898). In cases brought before the magis-
trates their decisions seem about equally divided.
Thus, the Guildford Bench Held, after hearing medical
evidence, that the sale of Gregory's powder made with
magnesium carbonate was not to the prejudice of the
purchaser. (C. and D., 23rd. and 30th. October, 1897.)
A London chemist was summoned for selling Gregory's
powder composed of rhubarb and ginger 3316, carbonate
of magnesia 32*41, and light magnesia 34*43 per cent.
The defence was that the powder was made with light
magnesia solely, and that the " carbonate " certified was
due to absorption of moisture and carbon dioxide from
the air. The magistrate convicted. (C. and D., 27th.
August, 1898.)
Olive Oil. This is one of the articles on the border
line, which may be used either in the arts or as a drug.
A chemist sold as " pure olive oil " an article which he
bought at 3s. 6d. per gallon. It was cotton-seed oil.
He was convicted, the magistrate remarking, " People
going to a chemist's shop ought to be able to get a pure
article, as their purchases are frequently required for
medicinal purposes." ( C. and D., 13th. October, 1888.)
A Battersea shopkeeper sold olive oil containing 80 per
cent, of seed oil. The prosecution was taken on the
ground that olive oil is both a food and a drug. The
defence was that it is neither; that the purchaser
should have stated when he asked for the oil what he
wanted it for. The magistrate strongly supported the
view taken by the defence, and in giving judgment said
that the oil was used also for machinery, and clearly
when so employed did not come within the Act. (C.
and />., 20th. October, 1894.)
Salad Oil. An inspector bought a pint of salad oil
from a chemist. Cotton seed oil was supplied and
labelled " Columba Salad Oil." The chemist was sum-
moned, and pleaded in defence that he asked the
purchaser if he wanted olive oil, but the inspector
indicated the kind which he got. The Bench dis-
missed the case, saying that the purchaser would have
got olive oil if he had asked for it. (C. and D., llth.
July, 1891.)
Spirit of Nitrous Ether and Sweet Spirit of Nitre.
By the British Pharmacopoeia of 1893, sweet spirit
of nitre is made a synonym for spirit of nitrous ether.
This substance is exceedingly volatile, and hence there
is a difficulty, amounting in practice almost to an
impossibility, in keeping the substance up to full
strength. Nevertheless, spirit of nitrous ether has
frequently been the subject of prosecutions. Thus at
Ashton-under-Lyne a chemist sold as spirit of nitrous
ether a spirit which was a sixth of the minimum
pharmacopoeia strength. For the defence, evidence
was called to prove the extreme difficulty of keeping
tiae spirit, and that the deficiency was the result of
natural deterioration. The Bench decided that the
purchaser had not been prejudiced, as " there was no
admixture and no attempt at cheating in any way."
(C. and D., 10th. March, 1888.) In a prosecution of a
company an interesting and successful defence was
that the divided sample was put into bottles so large
that the sample deteriorated below the minimum
standard between the time of purchase and analysis.
(C. and J)., 1st. April, 1899.)
Beeswax. In Fowle v. Fowle the respondent sold
some beeswax which on analysis was found to contain
about 50 parts of beeswax and 50 parts of paraffin.
The justices found that beeswax is not a drug within
the meaning of the Act. and dismissed the information.
On appeal, GRANTHAM, J., said that, speaking for him-
self, he could "not admit that beeswax was a drug. . . .
Everyone could think of instances where beeswax was
used not as a drug. It was sold by a grocer at a little
country shop. The grocer did not make it. He said
he did not know what its constituents were. The
justices were right." WRIGHT, J., concurred. The appeal
was dismissed. (1896) 13, Times, L.R. 12.
Importance was evidently here attached by the
Court to the kind of person from whom the beeswax
was bought. Given a substance which is commonly
used both as a drug and for some other purpose, e.g.,
castor oil : if bought from a chemist, the presumption
is that it is to be used as a drug ; but if bought by the
gallon from an oilman it is probably intended flubricating or other purposes in the arts.
to the Chemist and Druggist for the majority of the
following cases in illustration of the application of
the Food and Drugs Acts to the adulteration of
drugs. Many of the cases are only decisions of
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and therefore can-
not be quoted as authority. They serve, however, to
indicate what is the general trend of magisterial
opinion in the matters referred to.
Acetic Acid. In April, 1895, an Islington chemist
is reported to have been summoned for selling 117
per cent, acetic acid as "diluted acetic acid." This
acid was of higher strength than standard " diluted
acetic acid," and the question arose whether or not
such sale was "to the prejudice of the purchaser,"
since that supplied was in one sense of better quality
than that demanded. The magistrate held himself
bound by Knight v. Bowers, 1885, 14, Q.B.D., 845, in
which it was decided that if the article supplied, even
though unadulterated, was wholly different from that
demanded by the purchaser, an offence had been
committed. (C. and D., 16th. April, 1895.)
It cannot be said that a somewhat stronger
acetic acid is a wholly different article, but it must
be remembered that the standard to be applied
to drugs is a different one from that applied in
the case of food. It can scarcely be imagined that
any purchaser would feel himself prejudiced by the
sale of milk containing twice the usual quantity of
cream ; but if a drug be supplied of twice its proper
strength, its administration may be most harmful
instead of beneficial to the patient.
Arsenical Soap. There have been several prosecu-
tions for the sale of soap as " arsenical soap," which
contained little or no arsenic. At Brentford con-
victions were obtained on the ground that the soap
was a drug, and did not contain an essential quantity
of that which was represented as the actual con-
stituent. In the case of HougJiton v. Taplin, 1897,
13, Times L.R., 386, there was an appeal to the Court
of Queen's Bench. WEIGHT, J., held that the soap
was a compounded drug within the meaning of S. 6,
s.s. 3 of the Act, and therefore was within the proviso.
HAWKINS, J., held that the soap was not a drug per se.
The magistrates had refused to convict, and their
decision was therefore upheld on appeal.
British Pharmacopoeia as a Standard Drugs
asked for by popular names do not necessarily mean
the articles so designated in the British Pharmacopoeia,
but prima facie it is assumed by judges that they do
until the contrary is proved. The Acts lay down no
standards for drugs, but the majority of decided cases
favour application of British Pharmacopoeia standards
to articles sold under British Pharmacopoeia names.
The following are the more important High Court
(English) decisions:
White v. Bywater. The Sheffield Medical Officer of
Health bought 3 oz. of tincture of opium, which on
analysis was found to be deficient both in opium and
spirit when compared with that specified in the
British Pharmacopoeia. On appeal to the Queen's
Bench Division (Q.B.D.), it was Held that the re-
spondent ought to have been convicted although the
purchaser had not specifically asked for tincture of
opium prepared according to the British Pharmacopoeia
-(1887), 19, Q.B.D., 582.
Beardsley v. Walton & Co., Ltd. Camphorated oil
containing 8 per cent, of camphor was sold, and
W. & Co. were summoned under Section 6 of the
1875 Act. The justices found that the oil is a
"compounded drug" (Section 6, Sub-section 3), and
therefore that proceedings should have been taken
under Section 7. Held in the Q.B.D. that there is no
definition in the Act of what is a drug " compounded
as in this Act mentioned," so that no meaning can be
given to the words in Sub-section 3. Camphorated
oil is not a drug "compounded as in this Act
mentioned," and the prosecution was properly brought
under Section 6. (1900), 2, Q.B.D., 1.
Dickins v. Randerson. A chemist managing a branch
of Taylor's Drug Stores, Ltd., was asked for " mercury
ointment," and supplied an ointment containing 12'5
per cent, of mercury instead of 48*5 per cent., as in
the British Pharmacopoeia. He was convicted under
Section 6. On appeal to the K.B.D. it was Held that
the appellant was properly convicted under Section 6,
as, in the absence of a prescription by a medical
practitioner, he ought to have sold the article according
to the standard in the Pharmacopoeia ; and that he
might probably have also been convicted under Section
7 of selling a " compounded drug which is not com-
posed of ingredients in accordance with the demand
of the purchaser." (Section 15 of the Pharmacy
Act, 1868, as to compounding British Pharmacopoeia
medicines according to the formularies thereof was
held to be proof that there is no standard for mercury
ointment different from the Pharmacopoeia). (1901)
1, K.B.D., 437.
Hudson v. Bridge. Vinegar of squills was sold. It
contained less acetic acid than is prescribed in the
British Pharmacopoeia formula, and the seller was
convicted, although evidence proved that in the
vinegar, even if properly kept, a change! or decom-
position takes place which reduces the quantity of
acetic acid. On appeal it was Held that the justices
were wrong, as there was no evidence that the pur-
chaser in asking for vinegar of squills demanded the
proportion of acetic acid in new vinegar of squills,
and that the hypothetical standard set up by them
could not be supported. It was further held that as
the vinegar is liable to decomposition the public
analyst should have mentioned the fact in his cer-
tificate. (1903), 19, Times L.E., 369.
Boots Cash Chemists (Southern), Ltd., v. Cowling.
The appellants sold methylated soap liniment, and
were convicted under Section 6, the magistrate refusing
to receive evidence that there is a commercial standard
for liniment of soap different from that prescribed by
the British Pharmacopoeia. The magistrate relied on
Dickins v. Eanderson. The K.B.D. (ALVERSTONE, L.C.J.,
and WILLS and CHANNELL, J. J.) Held that the evidence
as to commercial standard is admissible, and that
PHILLIMORE, J., " never meant to lay down in that
case that nothing could be looked at except the
British Pharmacopoeia. On the other hand, if it was
the sale of some drug recognised by a special name in
the British Pharmacopoeia, a very strong prima facie
case would be made out as to what the drug ought to
contain." (1903), 19, Times L.E., 370.
Bandy v. Lewis. An unqualified assistant of
respondent was asked for 4 oz. of paregoric, and
supplied a liquid free from opium, striking out the
word " poison " on a paregoric label and replacing it
with " substitute." The purchaser (Bundy) observed
this when dividing the sample, but prosecuted under
Section 6, 1875, and the justices dismissed the sum-
mons on the grounds (1) that the sale was not to the
prejudice of the purchaser, and (2) that the respondent
was protected by Section 8, 1875, by the label dis-
closing the fact that the article was paregoric
substitute and not paregoric. On appeal, Held by the
K.B.D. that the sale was not to the prejudice of the
purchaser. (1908), 72, J.P., 489.
It is an interesting fact that when the Food and
Drugs Act, 1875, was drafted as a bill, it contained a
provision making the British Pharmacopoeia the
standard for the quality of drugs, but this provision
was eliminated from the bill before it became law.
Dr. J. Attfield, the editor of the British Pharmacopoeia,
pointed out at the Pharmaceutical Conference, July,
1899, that that work is not specified in the Sale of
Food and Drugs Acts as the standard for drugs.
Castor Oil Pills. A chemist was summoned for
selling as " castor oil pills," pills which were certified
by the public analyst to contain rhubarb, aloes, ginger,
&c., but no castor oil. In cross-examination the analyst
admitted that there might be 1*5 or 1'75 per cent, of
castor oil in the pills, but that he should call that
amount equivalent to none. For the defence it was
alleged that it was usual to name compound pills
from one of the ingredients, and that the name here
implied that the effects were similar to those of castor
oil. There could be no idea of fraud, because the
other ingredients were much the more expensive.
The magistrates convicted. (C. and D., 15th. April,
1879.)
A shopkeeper was summoned under Section 6 for
selling castor oil pills, certified by the analyst to
be composed of ingredients other than castor oil.
The pill boxes were wrapped in a handbill stating
that they " contained the finest cold-drawn castor oil,
together with the choicest Pharmacopoeia ingredients,
compounded so as to produce the effect as nearly
approaching that of castor oil itself as possible without
any of its unpleasantness. We wish it to be under-
stood that the purgative effects are not caused by
castor oil alone, as that would be impossible, but by
the choicest ingredients of the Pharmacopoeia." This
label was held to be a sufficient disclosure of the
composition of the pills to secure the dismissal of the
summons. (C. and D., 25th. May, 1895.)
Chewing-gum. This is a well-known American
confection, and consists of paraffin or wax, com-
pounded with sugar and various flavouring ingredients.
The object of the preparation is to provide something
that shall be chewed and not swallowed in the solid
state, the residual wax being finally spat out. In
Shortt v. Smith, the appellant purchased at the re-
spondent's shop three sticks of chewing-gum. These
were labelled " For chewing only ; not to be eaten."
Upon analysis it was proved to contain 35 per cent,
of paraffin wax. The public analyst gave evidence
that he was of opinion that the use of such a mixture
might prove injurious to the consumer. Gums equally
as insoluble as paraffin wax could be used. The
paraffin wax would not dissolve in the mouth, but
some portions might be swallowed, and, if so, it would
be injurious to health. The appellant contended that
during the chewing some portion would be swallowed
and the article thereby rendered an article of food.
The respondent argued that the article was regarded
by the public as a chewing-gum or wax, and sold
accordingly. Having regard to the label, and that
the wax would not dissolve in the mouth, the justices
decided that the article was neither a food nor a
drug, and dismissed the case. An appeal, CAVE and
WRIGHT, J.J., decided that the justices were right in
finding that this was not an article of food, and dis-
missed the appeal. (1895) 2, Times L.R., 325.
The case is of some interest because of the quibbling
around whether or not this was an article of food. If
gums equally as insoluble as paraffin wax were used,
they would equally be likely to cause injury to health
if swallowed. No doubt the chewing-gum contained
sugar in considerable quantity, and to that extent was
really a food. But what was sold in this case was an
article specially prepared to meet a particular require-
ment, that being a pleasant flavoured confection that
shall be capable of being chewed and yet remain in
the mouth. If, in response to a demand for chewing-
gum, a substance of the type of a gelatin lozenge
were sold, the sale would be in fact one to the pre-
judice of the purchaser, as the article would be unfit
for the purpose for which required.
Citrate of Magnesia. This is the popular name of
a well-known granular effervescent preparation, in
which little or no true magnesium citrate is present.
A Greenock chemist was prosecuted for selling as.
citrate of magnesia an article alleged to be adulterated
with carbonate of soda, tartaric acid, sugar, and
sulphate of soda. The defence proved that the sub-
stance sold was what is known commercially as-
" citrate of magnesia," and medical evidence was also-
given that when the witnesses prescribed citrate of
magnesia they meant the article as sold by the
defendant. On this evidence the magistrate found
the defendant not guilty. (C. and D., 15th. November?
1875.)
Dispensing, The price charged for making up a
prescription is usually governed by the skill requisite
in dispensing, rather than the actual cost of the
ingredients. Any gross inaccuracy in so dispensing
is an offence against Section 7 of the Act, whether the
ingredients be either in excess or in deficit of those
demanded by the purchaser. Where, however, the
drugs are expensive, occasions happen in which a.
deficiency in the actual drug may be a considerable
source of extra profit to the vendor. The following
are representative cases of prosecutions for incorrect
dispensing.
A chemist was fined for dispensing a mixture found
to contain 36 instead of 120 grains of iodide of
potassium. The defendant submitted that the medi-
cine as ordered was too strong, and that he had
reduced it in the exercise of his discretion. (0. & I).,
15th. June, 1885.)
A Buxton chemist was summoned for selling a
10-oz. potassium iodide mixture, which contained 142J
instead of 160 grains of the iodide. The defence was
that 160 grains had been put in and the bottle filled
up, so that it was possible that the analyst, taking a
small measured quantity, would find less in the
portion, although the whole was right (owing to bottle
inaccuracy). The medicine was to be given in parts.
Evidence in proof of this, and the purity of the iodide
was adduced. The magistrate dismissed the summons,
remarking that " the custom of filling the bottles up
from the tap is, to say the least of it, lax." (0. and D.,
12th. January, 1890.)
It is a well known custom in the dispensing of
medicines to direct that, say, "an eighth part is
to be taken" for a dose. To meet this form of
prescription, bottles are made in which one-eighth
divisions are shown by lines across the side. If
in the case in question the bottle taken had really
held 11 instead of 10 oz., then assuming 160 grains to
have been dispensed, each eighth part would still have
contained 20 grains of the iodide, although each 1| oz.
(the eighth part of 10 oz.) would only contain 18*2
grains. Eight times 18-2 is 147'6, so that if the error
in the bottle had been as much as 1 oz., the deficiency
would not thus be accounted for. It is exceedingly
doubtful whether any ordinary medicine bottle would
have an error of anything like an ounce in ten of its
nominal capacity. The analyst might have taken for
his analysis the measured quantity shown by the
divisions on the bottle, but it is extremely unlikely
that an analyst would adopt such a rough and ready
method of measurement. Where a medicine is directed
to be taken in eighths or other number of parts, it is
difficult to see what arrangements could conveniently
be made for dispensing, other than putting all the
ingredients in a bottle and then filling it with
water.
A chemist, who had contracted to supply medicines
to the local Union, was summoned and convicted for
dispensing a mixture which should have contained
2 grains of sulphate of quinine per oz., and was found
on analysis to contain only 0'64 grains per oz. (0.
and D. y 15th. May, 1881.)
A London chemist received a prescription for 66
grains of iodine and 99 grains of potassium iodide in
3 oz. of water. He dispensed it, and the analyst
reported that the solution showed a deficiency of 14*5
per cent, of iodine and an excess of 9*3 per cent, of
potassium iodide. The chemist was summoned, and
his defence was that the prescription was accurately
prepared. The reserve sample was referred to the
Government Chemists, who reported that the sample
contained iodine in the proportion of 924 grains, and
potassium iodide 103'8 grains per 3 fluid oz. (The
figures, it will be noticed, are considerably in excess of
the quantities prescribed.) The certificate suggested
that the iodine had not been fully dissolved before the
solution was divided, so that the three parts were
unequal in strength. On that ground the magistrate
dismissed the summons. (G. and D. y 18th. April, 1896.)
The medical officer of health for Fulham wrote the
following prescription, which was taken to most of the
chemists in the neighbourhood to be dispensed :
" Potassii iodidi, - - 3 i y -
Syr. aurantii, - j
Aq. ad, - vj.
M. Ft. mist."
Several of the dispensers were summoned, under
Section 7 of the Act of 1875. In one case the potassium
iodide was stated to be 16 grains in excess. Dr.
Attfield found only 2 grains in excess. The magistrate
dismissed the case, as he was not satisfied on the
evidence that the trifling amount over the prescription
mattered in the slightest, and Section 7 should be read
in the light of the preceding and succeeding lines of the
Act. (G. and Z>., 14th. October, 1899.)
Glycerin. A Birmingham chemist was summoned
and convicted for selling Id. bottles of glycerin which
was certified by the analyst to be adulterated with 45
per cent, of glucose syrup. (C. and D., Wth. February,
1897.)
There have been a few prosecutions for selling
glycerin containing small percentages of water. In
one such case the analyst certified to 9 per cent, of
water. The reserve sample was sent to the Govern-
ment chemists, who reported that the specific gravity at
60 Fahr. was 1*2492, and as the British Pharmacopoeia
standard was 1*25, they were of opinion that the sample
contained no excess of water. The summons was dis-
missed with costs. (0. and D., 10th. April, 1897.)
Glycerin and Lime-juice. There are a number of
preparations for the hair to which this generic name is
applied. Neither lime-juice nor glycerin is a very suit-
able component of a hair-wash or lotion, and if a mixture
were made of the two it would in practice be unusable
for such a purpose. Nevertheless these preparations
have a certain vogue, and the public well know the
kind of article they in fact require when they ask for a
hair- wash by this name. The actual preparations are
mostly oils and lime-water, with a little glycerin and
some perfume. No doubt the term lime-juice has been
applied as a misnomer for lime-water. Chemists as a
whole would probably prefer the use of some name
which was not so incorrect as lime-juice, but the public
have acquired the habit of asking for the particular
preparation they require under this name. There have
been a number of prosecutions for the sale of this
article, without any glycerin being present, and in many
cases convictions have followed. The following is one
of the most important, and was heard at Brentford.
The defendant deposed that his formula was
Nut oil, ... ... ... 4 oz.
Lime-water, ... ... ... 4 oz.
Saccharated lime solution, ... 40 drops.
Perfume (lemon and bergamot oils), 25 drops.
Glycerin, J dram.
It was sold as "lime-cream and glycerin," and the
analyst certified absence of glycerin. (Note. The pre-
ferable word lime-cream is substituted for lime-juice.)
The reserve sample was referred to the Government
chemists, whose analysis confirmed the defendant's
statement. The hearing was adjourned, and Mr. Eichard
Bannister, then of the Government Laboratory, described
his process of analysis, and admitted that he was assisted
in arriving at his declaration about the preparation
containing J dram of glycerin in 8 oz. by the report in
the Chemist and Druggist. It also transpired that the
reserve sample was the lower portion of the bottle, so
that it would contain more glycerin than the other
parts. The magistrates took the latter fact as the basis
for dismissing the summons. (C. and D., 27th. March,
24th. April, and 15th. May, 1897.)
It is curious that in the cases quoted the defence
was not advanced that the preparation is not a drug
at all.
Gregory's Powder. Dr. Gregory's original formula
was : Powdered rhubarb, 2 parts ; powdered ginger, 1
part ; light magnesia, 6 parts ; mix. Magnesia is the
oxide of the metal, and readily absorbs both water and
carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere : the latter
converts the oxide into the carbonate. In one case a
chemist for the defence stated that he found Gregory's
powder to absorb 14 per cent, of carbon dioxide and
water in three days. (C. and D., 15th. October, 1898.)
For further experimental evidence in proof of this
absorption see a paper by Umney (C. and D., 24th.
September, 1898). In cases brought before the magis-
trates their decisions seem about equally divided.
Thus, the Guildford Bench Held, after hearing medical
evidence, that the sale of Gregory's powder made with
magnesium carbonate was not to the prejudice of the
purchaser. (C. and D., 23rd. and 30th. October, 1897.)
A London chemist was summoned for selling Gregory's
powder composed of rhubarb and ginger 3316, carbonate
of magnesia 32*41, and light magnesia 34*43 per cent.
The defence was that the powder was made with light
magnesia solely, and that the " carbonate " certified was
due to absorption of moisture and carbon dioxide from
the air. The magistrate convicted. (C. and D., 27th.
August, 1898.)
Olive Oil. This is one of the articles on the border
line, which may be used either in the arts or as a drug.
A chemist sold as " pure olive oil " an article which he
bought at 3s. 6d. per gallon. It was cotton-seed oil.
He was convicted, the magistrate remarking, " People
going to a chemist's shop ought to be able to get a pure
article, as their purchases are frequently required for
medicinal purposes." ( C. and D., 13th. October, 1888.)
A Battersea shopkeeper sold olive oil containing 80 per
cent, of seed oil. The prosecution was taken on the
ground that olive oil is both a food and a drug. The
defence was that it is neither; that the purchaser
should have stated when he asked for the oil what he
wanted it for. The magistrate strongly supported the
view taken by the defence, and in giving judgment said
that the oil was used also for machinery, and clearly
when so employed did not come within the Act. (C.
and />., 20th. October, 1894.)
Salad Oil. An inspector bought a pint of salad oil
from a chemist. Cotton seed oil was supplied and
labelled " Columba Salad Oil." The chemist was sum-
moned, and pleaded in defence that he asked the
purchaser if he wanted olive oil, but the inspector
indicated the kind which he got. The Bench dis-
missed the case, saying that the purchaser would have
got olive oil if he had asked for it. (C. and D., llth.
July, 1891.)
Spirit of Nitrous Ether and Sweet Spirit of Nitre.
By the British Pharmacopoeia of 1893, sweet spirit
of nitre is made a synonym for spirit of nitrous ether.
This substance is exceedingly volatile, and hence there
is a difficulty, amounting in practice almost to an
impossibility, in keeping the substance up to full
strength. Nevertheless, spirit of nitrous ether has
frequently been the subject of prosecutions. Thus at
Ashton-under-Lyne a chemist sold as spirit of nitrous
ether a spirit which was a sixth of the minimum
pharmacopoeia strength. For the defence, evidence
was called to prove the extreme difficulty of keeping
tiae spirit, and that the deficiency was the result of
natural deterioration. The Bench decided that the
purchaser had not been prejudiced, as " there was no
admixture and no attempt at cheating in any way."
(C. and D., 10th. March, 1888.) In a prosecution of a
company an interesting and successful defence was
that the divided sample was put into bottles so large
that the sample deteriorated below the minimum
standard between the time of purchase and analysis.
(C. and J)., 1st. April, 1899.)
Beeswax. In Fowle v. Fowle the respondent sold
some beeswax which on analysis was found to contain
about 50 parts of beeswax and 50 parts of paraffin.
The justices found that beeswax is not a drug within
the meaning of the Act. and dismissed the information.
On appeal, GRANTHAM, J., said that, speaking for him-
self, he could "not admit that beeswax was a drug. . . .
Everyone could think of instances where beeswax was
used not as a drug. It was sold by a grocer at a little
country shop. The grocer did not make it. He said
he did not know what its constituents were. The
justices were right." WRIGHT, J., concurred. The appeal
was dismissed. (1896) 13, Times, L.R. 12.
Importance was evidently here attached by the
Court to the kind of person from whom the beeswax
was bought. Given a substance which is commonly
used both as a drug and for some other purpose, e.g.,
castor oil : if bought from a chemist, the presumption
is that it is to be used as a drug ; but if bought by the
gallon from an oilman it is probably intended flubricating or other purposes in the arts.