New Manufacturing Processes. These are being
continually invented and applied to existing industries-
The attitude of public analysts toward such new depart-
ures has been much divided. In some cases they have
strongly insisted on their immediate employment, and
have regarded their non-adoption as a criminal matter.
In others they have just as strenuously opposed the
introduction of the new invention, and have advised
legal proceedings against those who are using the
same. Their view in each case has evidently been
governed by their opinion as to whether the new
process tells in favour of purer and better articles of
food or the reverse. Examples follow of such support
and opposition respectively.
Starch in Yeast. Yeast has long been used for
the fermentation of bread, and for that purpose is
usually obtained from either the brewer or distiller, of
whose manufactures it is a bye-product. The yeast
is skimmed or otherwise removed from off the top of
the fermenting vessels and set aside for sale. As thus
obtained, yeast is a more or less sirupy liquid, consist-
ing of minute cells of yeast suspended in water. In
the earlier half of the last century this was the
common and only known form of commercial yeast.
At a later period it occurred to some continental
distillers that if they could prepare their yeast in a
solid condition there would be an extensive market
for what was in the immediate locality of its produc-
tion practically a waste product. But yeast as then
manufactured was a very slimy body, and this
rendered its separation from water by filtration
extremely difficult. Ultimately the plan was adopted
of mixing in starch with the yeasty fluid and then
filtering off the water. The starch, as a result of its
granular, porous nature, overcame the sliminess of the
yeast, and the result was the production of a solid
cake consisting of a mixture of starch and yeast. Not
only was the yeast thus rendered portable, but its
keeping qualities were improved, and a large trade
was done in this " compressed " yeast over the greater
part of Europe. Weight for weight, of course, com-
pressed yeast contained many times more yeast cells
than the old liquid yeast, and was proportionately
more effective as a fermentative agent. But as first
prepared, and during a considerable period of the
history of its manufacture, compressed yeast was
universally and invariably a mixture of yeast and
starch. The proportion of starch present varied for
different reasons. In some districts a very light-
coloured yeast was desired, and to meet this demand a
larger proportion of starch was used. Some manu-
facturers were more capable than others, and could
succeed in filtering their yeast with the addition
of less starch. Others, no doubt, found that starch
was cheaper than yeast, and loaded up their
product with starch, not for the purpose of better
filtration, but simply to fraudulently increase its
weight.
Early in the 'seventies Pasteur commenced his classical
researches on fermentation ; and one of the first results
was the discovery that, when brewers' and distillers'
saccharine liquids (worts) were allowed to ferment,
what went on was the life growth and development not
only of yeast but also of foreign ferments or bacteria.
Side by side with the growing yeast was a whole
assemblage of bacterial weeds, hindering and choking
the growth of the true yeast, and forming deleterious
products. Efforts were made to free the yeast from
these bacteria, and both brewers and distillers succeeded
in obtaining and working with a much purer yeast.
Now one of the characteristics of some bacteria is the
formation of slime, and to this the sliminess of ordinary
yeast was largely due. With this improvement in
bacteriological purity, the yeast became much more easy
to filter. In consequence, some of the more advanced
manufacturers found themselves able to make a com-
pressed yeast without any addition of starch at all.
They were not able to press the yeast quite so dry, but
nevertheless had the advantage of being able to adver-
tise it as " pure yeast." For some time pure and mixed
yeasts were in the market together ; but gradually the
mixed was ousted by the pure, until now, in this
country at least, there is little if any mixed yeast sold.
At the time when both were being offered, the mixed
yeasts attracted the attention of those responsible for
the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts, and
there was a number of prosecutions for selling yeast
adulterated with starch.
The following is the history of a case which occurred
in South Wales in 1894. A local vendor, whose trade
was with small outlying villages and farms among the
hills, had a sample of his yeast taken and analysed.
It was found to contain starch, and he was warned by
the local authorities. He communicated with the
London dealer from whom he obtained the yeast, and
the latter undertook to supply him with starch-free
yeast at the same price. But the keeping properties of
this yeast were not so good, and some of his customers
who bought yeast only once a week complained that it
went bad before they could use it. He fell back once
more on the mixed yeast, and found it to satisfy his
customers. As a result, the yeast was again analysed,
and this time a prosecution followed, the charge being
that he had sold yeast which was adulterated with
starch to the extent of 20 per cent. For the defence,
the facts already mentioned were proved, and chemical
evidence was called to the effect that samples of the
same manufacturer's yeast, unmixed and mixed, had
respectively the following composition :
Unmixed. Mixed.
Starch, ... OOO per cent. 19'20 per cent.
Water, ... 72*88 6040
The unmixed yeast therefore contained 12.48 per
cent, more water than the mixed sample, which latter
contained 19.20 per cent, of starch. Of this starch,
therefore, 1248 per cent, simply replaced water, leaving
a surplus of 6 '72 per cent, of starch, which had gone to
increase the weight. A test was made of the gas
evolving power of the two yeasts, with the result that
the unmixed sample yielded 440, and the mixed sample
443 volumes of gas in four hours. Following the case
of James v. Jones, 1894, 1 Q B., 304, in which baking
powder was held not to be an article of food, the point
was raised that yeast also did not fall within the
definition of food contained in the Act. Ultimately
the magistrate held himself bound by that decision,
and dismissed the case.
There was, however, a considerable number of
prosecutions, followed in many cases by convictions,
the ground apparently being that the addition of starch
was not a necessity. The point of interest is that
about this time a development occurred in yeast manu-
facture, the consequence of which was that what had
been a necessity ceased to be one as the result of the
application of improved methods.
Improvements in Vinegar Manufacture. It was
for a long time found that the presence of certain
natural products of manufacture in vinegar, namely,
phosphoric acid and albuminoids (proteids) very much
impaired the keeping properties of vinegar. In con-
sequence, vinegar brewers devised methods of removing
these objectionable -bodies. This treatment of vinegar
became the subject of discussion at a meeting of the
Society of Public Analysts. Widely divergent views
were expressed, both sides being represented in the
following opinions of high chemical authorities :
Hehner " Wished to protest against the removal of
phosphoric acid or albuminoids from vinegar, and
thought that the manufacturer had absolutely no right
to effect such a removal. The removal was prejudicial
to the purchaser. . . . Here again he was of opinion
that the long-recognised and legitimate modes of manu-
facture should be adhered to, and the introduction
of chemical meddling with food materials resisted.
It should not be left to the discretion of the manu-
facturer of articles of food to say which constituents
were valuable and essential and which were not, and
in no case should such removal be effected without
due notice to the purchaser."
Allen " entirely disagreed with Mr. Hehner that a
vinegar manufacturer was not at liberty to remove
things prejudicial to vinegar. It was in his opinion
the manufacturer's business to make good vinegar,
and, so long as he sold it for what it was, he was at
perfect liberty to remove any objectionable con-
stituents which impaired its keeping qualities."
It is only fair to remember that the manufacture of
vinegar, in common with that of most other com-
modities, has been slowly progressive in its develop-
ments, as the result of the application of improve-
ments devised by the manufacturers themselves. It
would therefore seem scarcely logical to step in at any
moment and say vinegar shall consist of a body made
by the methods so far devised and gradually adopted
by the makers; but they, the manufacturers, shall not
be permitted to employ any further improvements
they may invent or discover.
What is Whiskey? In November, 1905, there
were prosecutions by the Islington Borough Council of
Wells and of Davidge for selling, as " Irish Whiskey "
and " Scotch Whiskey " respectively, articles which
were in fact neither Irish nor Scotch whiskey. By
arrangement the two cases were taken together. The
public analyst, Dr. Teed, was called, and defined
whiskey in the terms " Whiskey should consist of
spirit distilled in a pot-still derived from malted
barley mixed or not with unmalted barley and wheat
or either of them." Whiskey, in common with other
potable spirits, consists essentially of ordinary or
ethyl alcohol ; admixed with which are more or less
"impurities" or "secondary products" which impart
to the spirit its typical flavour and character. It was
further explained that spirits may be distilled in stills
of two different types. The older of these is known
as the pot-still, and is a comparatively primitive
appliance. A species of kettle has a pipe leading
away from its upper or steam space, which com-
municates with a worm or spiral of metal tubing
enclosed in a vessel of cold water. On heating the
kettle or pot, the steam from the contained liquid
passed over into the worm and was condensed
once more to the liquid form. The whole object
of this apparatus was to separate bodies which
boiled at a lower temperature from those which
boiled at a higher, and a fortiori from those which
did not boil at all, being solid. The separation
is, however, imperfect, for if between two bodies thus
mixed there is only a comparatively small difference in
the boiling point, that which is most volatile will distil
over first, but it will be accompanied by some portion of
the less volatile substance. Thus when a fermented
mixture containing alcohol and water is put in the
still, the spirit which distils over consists not only of
alcohol, but also of accompanying water. These are the
primary products, but the spirit also contains those
bodies which are more volatile than alcohol. In
addition, more or less of compounds of even higher
boiling temperature than water are carried over and
condensed with the spirit. These latter bodies con-
stitute the impurities or secondary products before
referred to. The proportion of secondary products
found in the yield of the pot-still is higher than is
deemed desirable. Accordingly some portion of these
is removed by the employment of one or more of the
following methods: re-distillation, some modification
of the form of the still, or the use of absorbent
chemicals. The alterations in the form of the still
take the shape of introducing a length of condensing
surface between the still and the condenser, at such an
angle that any liquid which condenses " returns " again
into the pot. Naturally the least volatile bodies thus
condense first, and, by running back, cause the spirit
which does come over to be less charged with such
substances. The spirit thus produced contains com-
paratively large proportions of secondary products, and
in flavour and general properties is greatly affected by
the nature and character of the grain used in preparing
the fermented mash put into the still. In new pot-
still spirit, the secondary products are of such a nature
as to render the spirit at first practically undrinkable.
It is accordingly stored and allowed to mature in oak
casks, and after the lapse of years the secondary pro-
ducts become so modified as to impart the delicate
flavour and aroma to the spirit recognised as those
of " old whiskey."
The other form of still mentioned was that known
as the Patent or " Coffey " still from the name of the
patentees, by whom it was invented about 1831.
The patent still is a somewhat intricate contrivance,
but the essential principle is the full utilisation of the
principle of return condensation. The less volatile of
the rising vaporised bodies are continually being
condensed and returned to the body of the still. In
this way a muchjmore complete separation of bodies
of different degrees of volatility is possible than with
the pot-still. This separation, it is asserted, may be
carried so far as to produce an alcohol so devoid of
secondary products as to be termed " silent" spirit.
Such spirit, bar more or less water, is practically pure
ethyl alcohol. Since the 'seventies of last century
the patent still has been used for the manufacture of
spirit to be sold as whiskey. The spirit thus pro-
duced contains a lower proportion of secondary
products than pot-still spirit, and apparently can be
used with a wider range of grains and yet produce a
spirit of a whiskey character.
Teed examined 38 samples of pot-still spirit and
found a minimum of 378*3 parts of impurities or
secondary products per 100,000 of absolute alcohol.
From this he took the figure of 380 parts per 100,000
as the lowest most convenient figure for calculation.
He also examined 11 samples of patent still spirit,
and found the maximum of impurities to be 203*8
parts per 100,000 of absolute alcohol. In the Irish
whiskey the subject of the prosecution 174*5 parts of
secondary products per 100,000 were obtained on
analysis, and in the Scotch whiskey 110*5 parts. On
these data the analyst regarded both whiskeys as
being entirely patent still spirits and containing no
pot-still spirit. The defendants alleged that the
whiskeys sold by each of them respectively as Irish
and Scotch whiskeys consisted of 10 per cent, pot-
still and 90 per cent, patent still spirits.
Prior to 1870, whiskey was apparently mostly
produced in a pot-still, and a full-flavoured spirit
requiring age for its proper maturation was the
result. The consensus of London opinion seems to
have been that such spirit was too full flavoured for
local tastes. Subsequent to 1870, patent still whiskeys
of a milder character have been made and sold either
separately or blended with pot-still. Simultaneously
with this supply of a milder whiskey, the popular
taste for whiskey in London has materially developed.
The point for decision by the magistrate was whether
or not this mild whiskey produced in whole or in
part in the patent still and from a range of grains
wider than that included in Teed's definition, is
entitled to be sold as Scotch or Irish whiskey re-
spectively.
In the course of giving judgment the learned
magistrate said "Dr. Teed analysed the samples,
and, after setting out the result of his analysis,
certified as to each sample that it ' consists entirely of
patent still, silent, or neutral spirit. Whiskey should
contain a spirit distilled in a pot-still derived from
malted barley, mixed or not with unmalted barley
and wheat, or either of them. Such whiskey contains
at least a co-efficient or total of the above-mentioned
impurities of 380 parts per 100,000 fluid parts of
absolute alcohol. Patent still spirit contains from 89
to 204 parts of total impurities with an average of
140 parts per 100,000 fluid parts of absolute alcohol/
To be clear, I will remark that the impurities here
referred to are impurities chemically only, such as
acidity,aldehydes,furfural, ethers, and higher alcohols."
"The contention of the Prosecution is that Irish
and Scotch whiskey are different kinds of potable
spirits, each made by a definite method from definite
materials, and both containing definite chemical
properties ; that both Irish and Scotch whiskey must
be the result of distillation in Ireland or Scotland
respectively by the pot-still, derived from cereal grains
indigenous to Ireland and Scotland. This cereal
grain, the Prosecution contends, in the case of Irish
whiskey must be chiefly malted barley, to which has
been added smaller quantities of barley, wheat, oats,
and rye, or any of them, and in the case of Scotch
whiskey, malted barley alone. The Defendants, on
the other hand, say, through Counsel, that Irish
whiskey is a spirit distilled in Ireland from grain,
and Scotch whiskey a spirit distilled in Scotland
from grain. . . . The questions I have now to decide
are . . . whether the fluids sold by the Defendants . . .
were respectively Irish and Scotch whiskey. Before .
I can decide this I must find what is understood in
this country by the word ' whiskey.' ... Of the
many witnesses called before me some say whiskey is
the produce of the pot-still only. None say that it is
the produce of the patent still only. Some say it
may be made either by the pot or by the patent still.
All say it can only be made from grain, but they do
not all agree as to the kind of grain. ' Whiskey,' I
have no doubt, is a word derived a century or so ago
from the word ' Usquebaugh,' which signifies a spirit
distilled in a form of pot-still in Ireland or Scotland
from grain grown and generally malted in Ireland or
Scotland. Until some 45 years ago, all that which
was drunk as whiskey was so made. Then the
patent still came into use, and . . . to-day there is an
immense output of patent still spirit made, with very
few exceptions, from a mash composed largely of
maize. . . . That part of the output of the patent
still which is consumed in this country by the public
is not generally sold to them alone, but mixed with
more or less of pot-still spirit, and then it is sold as
whiskey. The evidence given before me does not
satisfy me that the public generally does now, or ever
has, accepted the product of the patent still alone as
whiskey certainly not when maize is used. . . .
Though I find that the patent still spirit alone is not
whiskey, there is evidence before me that when mixed
with a considerable proportion of pot-still spirit, or
whiskey derived from malted barley, such mixture
has long been sold to, and accepted by, the public in
immense and increasing quantities as whiskey. . . .
Whether I should hold such mixtures to be whiskey
or not, I am not called upon to say, and I express no
opinion as to that. ... In both Ireland and Scotland
from earliest times . . . whiskey has been distilled by
pot-stills. It certainly was so made when it was
first known as Irish whiskey and Scotch whiskey, and
I must hold that, to be Irish and Scotch whiskey now,
the spirit must be obtained in the same methods by
the aid of the form of still known as the pot-still.
The produce of the patent still, unmixed with pot-
still whiskey, cannot be Irish or Scotch whiskey,
although made in Ireland or Scotland. The patent
still is not used to obtain spirit by the method known
as Irish and Scotch. As to the material to be used to
produce Irish or Scotch whiskey, it must be such as
has been always used in the Irish and Scotch form of
still respectively. This I find from the evidence I have
heard is, in Irish whiskey, barley malt, as to about 75
per cent., and as to the rest of the mash, barley, wheat,
oats, and rye, or any of them ; and in Scotch whiskey
it is wholly barley malt." . . .
" On the evidence I heard, I find that what Wells
and Davidge sold as " Irish " and " Scotch " whiskey
respectively was patent still spirit, made largely from
maize, to which had been added a dash not 10 per
cent. of Irish or Scotch whiskey. ... I find the
sales . . . were both to the prejudice of the pur-
chaser. . . . The defendants . . . will each pay a fine
of 20s. and costs."
The defendants appealed against the conviction to
the Clerkenwell Sessions. At the hearing the justices
were equally divided, and the conviction stood. The
matter was thus left in a condition of uncertainty,
which was the reverse of satisfactory to all parties.
Accordingly in February, 1908, a Royal Commission
was appointed to investigate the question generally
as to what meaning should properly be attached to
the word " whiskey." The following were the prin-
cipal terms of reference :
" The terms of reference are : to inquire and report
1. Whether in the general interest of the consumer,
or in the interest of the public health, or otherwise, it
is desirable
(a) To place restrictions upon the materials or the
processes which may be used in the manufacture or
preparation in the United Kingdom of Scotch whiskey,
Irish whiskey, or any spirit to which the term
whiskey may be applied as a trade description ;
(b) To require declarations to be made as to the
materials, processes of manufacture or preparation, or
age of any such spirit."
The Commission held a number of sittings and
heard evidence, from the advocates for the prosecution
and defence in the Islington whiskey prosecutions, as
to the general nature of those cases and the points at
issue therein. Evidence was also given by dis-
tinguished chemists, whiskey distillers, blenders and
vendors, and members of the public as representing
the purchasing community.
In due course the Commission submitted an interim-
report, which on the 16th July, 1908, was issued as a
parliamentary paper. Of this report, the following is
an extract :
" We have held 22 sittings, and examined 74 wit-
nesses. Certain of the Commissioners have visited
distilleries in Scotland and Ireland, and have thereby
obtained much valuable information.
Whilst the labours of the Commissioners are by no
means terminated, we have arrived at certain con-
clusions, which we now humbly submit to Your
Majesty as follows :
1. That no restrictions should be placed upon the
processes of, or apparatus used in, the distillation of
any spirit to which the term "whiskey" may be
applied as a trade description.
2. That the term "whiskey," having been recog-
nised in the past as applicable to a potable spirit
manufactured from (1) malt, or (2) malt and unmalted
barley or other cereals, the application of the term
"whiskey" should not be denied to the product
manufactured from such materials. We reserve for
further consideration the question of the advisability
or otherwise of attaching special significance to
particular designations^ such as " Scotch whiskey,"
''Irish whiskey," "grain whiskey," and "malt whis-
key"; of placing restrictions upon the use of such
designations as trade descriptions; or of requiring
such designations to be used in connection with the
sale of whiskey."
In the learned magistrate's judgment in the cases
of Wells and Davidge two most important decisions
were given. In the first place, whiskey can only be
made in the pot-still. Secondly, the material used
must be for Irish whiskey about 75 per cent, of barley
malt, and as to the rest, barley, wheat, oats, and rye
or any of them ; and for Scotch whiskey, barley malt
only.
The first recommendation of the Royal Commission
is that no restriction should be placed on the processes
or apparatus used in the manufacture of whiskey. The
patent still is therefore equally admissible with the
pot-still. The second is that whiskey may be made
from malt and unmalted barley or other cereals, thus
including maize and rice as well as indigenous grains.
In effect the Royal Commission reverses the judgment
of the magistrate in these whiskey cases. .
It may be pointed out that the pot-still was first
used for the distillation of whiskey, not as the result
of any magical and inherent virtues it possessed, but
simply because it was the only kind of still known at
that time. Further, the cereals employed were those
indigenous to the country, not in consequence of these
being purer or producing a better spirit than rice or
maize, but simply for the reason that they were the
only ones commercially available.
The materials of which an article of food may be
prepared is a debateable question, which in each
instance must be decided on its merits. No one would
now allege, for example, that bread would be adul-
terated if the wh eaten flour from which it was made
had been of foreign origin. Yet at one time English
bread was made from English wheat only, and the
logical conclusion following from the whiskey judg-
ment would be to regard the use of foreign flour as an
adulteration. The restriction on the use of new
apparatus is in a different category. In every industry
inventions and improvements in manufacturing
appliances are continually being made. The
Prosecution sought to lay down that whiskey must
be made in a pot-still, and may not be made in a
patent still. By the same rule butter would have to
be made by hand, and could not be made in a modern
mechanical churn. It is a matter for congratulation
that these contentions were ultimately unsuccessful,
else old processes would have been stereotyped, and
the use of improved inventions regarded as a crime.
