Diversity of Opinion. Even among the highest
authorities great differences of opinion exist as to the
permissibility or otherwise of the use of preservatives
and colouring matters in articles of food. In view of
the great importance of the subject, it is proposed to
discuss the matter somewhat fully.
Statutory Enactments. The Sale of Food and
Drugs Act, 1875, makes no specific mention of pre-
servatives, but colouring matters injurious to health
are prohibited by section 3. There remains only the
question of whether the use of these substances may
be regarded as constituting an offence under any of
the other sections of the Act (see page 18). That is
to say, is such an addition to the prejudice of the
purchaser, is it injurious to health, is it necessary, or
is it fraudulent? The answer to these questions in
each particular case must decide whether an offence
has been committed.
Those sections of the Act of 1899 which are essen-
tially amending sections of that of 1875 are silent as
to the use of these substances ; but among the sections
which are new and additional legislation is the first,
which deals with " Precautions against importation of
agricultural and other produce insufficiently marked."
Such marking must, among other things, conspicuously
indicate that any adulterated article has been so
treated. Adulteration is defined in section 1, sub-
section 7, as follows :
"For the purposes of this section an article of
food shall be deemed to be adulterated ... if it
has been mixed with any other substance ... so
as ... to affect injuriously its quality, substance,
or nature.
"Provided that an article of food shall not be
deemed to be adulterated by reason only of the
addition of any preservative or colouring matter of
such a nature and in such quantity as not to render
the article injurious to health."
It is here very clearly laid down that for the
purposes of this section, the addition of preservatives
and colouring matter is permitted subject only to such
addition not being injurious to health. This principle
being recognised in this particular case, its guidance
may be of assistance in interpreting other sections of
the Acts.
Decomposition of Articles of Food. Most articles
of food are perishable in their natural state ; it is
therefore necessary that they be eaten while fresh, or
that certain means be taken of preserving them. It
is now well known that decomposition and putrefactive
changes are not spontaneous, but are largely due to
the action of those forms of minute life known col-
lectively as bacteria. In addition, there are various
non-living organic substances, termed enzymes, which
effect chemical changes in food compounds. As an
example of these latter may be mentioned diastase,
which possesses the property of converting starch into
maltose (malt sugar) and dextrin. At low tempera-
tures bacteria are either killed or have their functions
suspended or retarded. The action of enzymes is also
almost, if not completely, inhibited by cold; but
enzymes being non-organised bodies, there is no
question of their being killed by low temperatures.
The methods of preservation by the use of cold storage
are all of them based on this fact that cold suspends
or retards the action of agents of decomposition and
putrefaction. Such degree of cold as is now generally
used does not destroy bacteria. If they are present,
therefore, their action proceeds as before on a rise of
temperature ; and equally the food is just as liable to
decomposition if subsequently attacked by extraneous
bacteria. Eefrigeration or cold storage is, where
applicable, probably the best method of food preserva-
tion possible. It adds no foreign matter to the article
thus preserved ; and on raising the temperature to the
normal the food is practically unchanged in so far as
its susceptibility to digestive action is concerned.
Another method of food preservation consists in
subjecting it to the action of heat. Bacteria are thereby
completely destroyed, and enzymes are also so altered
as to entirely lose their power of effecting the changes
characteristic of their action. Tinned milk and meats
are preserved in this way : the food is, however, cooked,
and certain other permanent changes are also caused.
On being again exposed to the action of bacteria, such
heat-preserved foods are subject to putrefaction as
before. Again, where heat preservation is applicable,
there is comparatively little objection to its use.
Other methods of preservation consist in adding, to
the food, substances which either destroy bacteria or
suspend or retard their putrefactive functions. For
this purpose, mercuric chloride is one of the most
potent agents for complete destruction known ; but it
is also one of the most deadly poisons in existence.
Mercuric chloride is therefore absolutely unsuitable for
use as a preservative, which as a first condition must as
employed be certainly harmless to human life. There
are many substances which possess a preservative action
without being markedly poisonous. But it is necessary
to go a step further such substances should not have
any marked therapeutic action in the quantities used.
Further, digestive processes are effected by agents
analogous to those causing putrefactive and similar
changes i.e., by enzymes such as ptyalin and others
which convert starch into sugars, and bacteria which
fulfil important functions in the digestive tract. If
any preservatives, used to destroy or retard those agents
producing putrefactive changes in food, also act
similarly and with equal energy in the alimentary
canal, they may upset and disorganise the whole process
of digestion. The ideal preservative should perfectly
inhibit all decomposition of food, and yet be absolutely
harmless in all the ways just indicated when taken
into the human body.
So many articles of food are perishable, that by general
consent certain substances may be used to preserve
them ; among these are salt in foods and alcohol in
beverages. Widely different views are held as to the
admissibility of other and more modern preservatives.
Thus, to quote Lauder Brunton, " One must remember
that poisons are formed in foods by spontaneous
decomposition, which may take place after purchase.
The question to be decided comes to be whether anti-
septics are likely to be more injurious to health than
the natural products of decomposition. His own
belief is that the preservatives are the less injurious."
He further says "(1) The use of antiseptics should
not be forbidden by law. (2) It is doubtful whether
legislation should restrict the amount, as the makers
will probably use the minimum amount found
sufficient. (3) The fact of preservatives being used,
and their amount, should be stated on the label.' 1
Lancet, 1897, p. 56.
Another view is presented by Hehner "If pre-
servation could not be effected without the addition
of some foreign material, the benefit to mankind of
preventing good food substances from decomposition
would doubtless be greater than the slight physio-
logical evil effect of the antiseptic itself. But, as
preservation of any article of food is possible without
addition of chemicals, it seems to me that the time has
come for public analysts generally to set their faces
against the present practice of allowing the addition
of any antiseptic which the dealer in food may choose
to make." Analyst, XV. %%1. And, again, " Granted
that, in at least 99 per cent, of food, preservatives did
no harm, the addition, being unnecessary, was illegal
under the Sale of Food Act." Ibid, 234.
The latter expression of opinion was written before
the passing of the Food and Drugs Act, 1899. Neither
of the processes of heating or refrigeration is effective
against Brunton's apprehension of poisonous changes
taking place spontaneously after purchase, while
chemical preservatives properly used are continuous in
their action and do prevent such changes.
Properties of Permitted Preservatives. Among
these, salt and alcohol have been already mentioned.
Others of the group are saltpetre (potassium nitrate),
vinegar, wood-smoke, and sugar. The following de-
scriptions of these preservations are given principally
on the authority of Thresh and Porter on Preservatives
in Food (This source is indicated by the initial letters,
T. and P., and the page). Salt is the oldest preservative
known. Butter has been known to contain as much
as 15 per cent. {Allen's Commercial Organic Analysis,
Vol. II., p. 150.) Now, mild butters contain only 2
per cent. The difference in this extreme case is a gain
of 13 per cent, in true butter constituents. Salt has
the disadvantage that large quantities are necessary
to be effective. These " produce ill effects, [it] is contra-
indicated in certain diseased conditions, and may
render food less amenable to digestive processes."
It is claimed that the salt used for preserving
purposes serves also as an article of food, and there-
fore is in a different category altogether to other
preservatives. Hutchison can scarcely be said to
support this theory " Of common salt most people
consume about 20 grams daily, which is probably at
least ten times as much as is really necessary to meet
the needs of the body. ... It may be admitted for
the experience of those who refuse to add any salt to
their food amply proves it that the amount of salt
contained in a natural form in ordinary foods is quite
sufficient for our needs ; but there is no proof that an
extra addition of salt in the form of a condiment is in
any way injurious to health. On the other hand, it is
equally far from being proved that such addition
conduces in any way to the well-being of the body."
Saltpetre is largely used in salted meats, e.g., hams,
&c. It has the power of inducing inflammation of
mucous membranes, and renders meat more difficult
of digestion in the stomach. " It is fairly obvious,
however, that if long custom had not sanctioned the
use of this drug as a preservative, such use would be
strongly condemned by those who have the supervision
of the purity of our food supplies."
Vinegar " used in moderation is ... not likely to
produce injurious consequences ; nevertheless, if it
were not one of the oldest preservatives in use, objec-
tions would be raised to its introduction . . . and its
use probably condemned."
Smoke from smouldering wood or sawdust, and
crude pyroligneous acid obtained by the destructive
distillation of wood, are both used as meat and fish
preservatives. In smoke, "creosote is probably one
of the active antiseptic agents. It is a very poisonous
substance, and doubtless a great outcry would be
raised were anyone to attempt to use it for preserving
food, but so long as it is introduced into the food in
an old-fashioned manner no objections are raised. It
is only when someone wishes to improve upon ancient
methods that the effect of prejudice and conservatism
makes itself felt. It has never been alleged, so far as
we are aware, that smoked meat is unwholesome,
though its digestibility is almost certainly impaired.
Any modern system of preserving which affected the
digestibility to a similar degree would be strongly
condemned."
Again " Had it [smoking] been a recent introduc-
tion there can be no doubt it would have been
received with a howl of execration, and the evidence
adduced of the poisonous nature of the antiseptic
would have sufficed to put an end to the practice
speedily."
Such are the conclusions of two of the highest
authorities on recognised and admitted preservatives.
New Preservatives. With the progress of scientific
knowledge, new preservatives have been discovered.
Among these are Boric acid and its compounds. Their
advantages are that smaller quantities are efficient, and
that they are tasteless in food. As the result of a
series of tests made by the Limerick butter manufac-
turers, they found that one per cent, of boric acid
preservative kept butter good for nine months; whereas
with six per cent, of salt the butter was uneatable and
rancid at the end of that time.
Alleged disadvantages. " Boric acid is foreign to the
human body ;" but it shares this property with
saltpetre, vinegar, smoke, and even cane sugar. " Boric
acid retards certain processes of digestion;" but it
shares this property with salt and saltpetre. " Boric
acid produces distinct therapeutic effects." Tunnicliffe
made a series of experiments on three children, aged
from 2J to 5 years. Boric acid was administered to
them for three weeks. The final conclusion was that
"Neither boric acid nor borax in any way affected
the general health and well-being of the children."
The author suggests, as a true test, a comparison of
boric acid, as the newer substance, with common salt,
the accepted preservative. Given a certain quantity of
salt necessary for preservation, is the quantity of boric
acid necessary for the same degree of preservation any
more injurious to health than the required quantity of
salt? To this question no answer in the affirmative
seems yet to have been given.
Preservatives in Beverages. Like other articles
of food, beverages, unless used immediately after pre-
paration, require to be subjected to some process of
preservation. In wines and beers, alcohol is present in
considerable quantity.
Alcohol. It is there recognised as a natural pre-
servative, and no question of adulteration arises on its
use. In composition, wine is a liquid containing in
solution, sugar, dextrinous matters, organic acids, ethers,
and alcohol. To prevent decomposition of the unstable
bodies, a minimum quantity of 5 per cent, of alcohol is
stated to be required in still wines, and a lesser quantity
in sparkling wines. Wine is said to be made of almost
anything, sometimes even of grapes. At any rate,
there are certain wines known as British wines. These
are avowedly sold as manufactured imitations of port
and other grape wines, and consist of sugar, dextrinous
matters, organic acids, and flavouring matters. To give
character to these, and to preserve them, alcohol is
added. However strongly fortified, no proceedings are
ever taken under the Adulteration Acts on the ground
that alcohol is injurious to health.
Notwithstanding this legislative inaction, the Total
Abstinence section of the community regard alcohol as
the most insidious and dangerous poison known. Apart
from the extreme view, there is a general consensus of
opinion that anything beyond a very moderate use of
alcoholic beverages causes most serious injury to health.
The natural result is a less consumption of beverages of
the alcoholic type and an increased demand for non-
alcoholic beverages, both from total abstainers and also
other sections of the community.
The popular forms of such beverages contain, as
their fundamental ingredients, the same class of bodies
as wine, but minus alcohol. The result is a beverage
containing a group of unstable bodies without alcohol
as a preservative agent. Manufacturers generally find
that they require to use some substitute for the alcohol.
One most frequently adopted is salicylic acid, traces of
which occur naturally in strawberries and almost every
other variety of ordinary fruits. Methyl salicylate
constitutes about 90 per cent, of oil of wintergreen, an
essential oil used in beverages and confectionery.
Salicylic^' acid is therefore a natural product, entering
widely, though in minute quantities, into natural and
artificially- prepared articles of food. It may be intro-
duced in beverages either as a component of a fruit
constituent or as a natural essence for flavouring
purposes.
Salicylic acid is prepared synthetically; the earlier
product contained injurious impurities, which now,
however, are practically eliminated in manufacture.
Pure salicylic acid is, however, a powerful drug, and its
use has been strongly objected to. The subject has
been investigated by McAlister and Bradshaw, who say
that salicylic acid is alleged to be injurious on three
grounds :
1. It is liable to destroy digestive ferments. To this
they reply A saturated solution of the acid retards
artificial gastric digestion only to the same extent as a
solution of common salt of equal strength, and not at
all digestion of starch in alkaline solution of pancreatic
juice.
2. After absorption it interferes with nutrition.
Eeply The investigators made personal experiments
on selves and children : no ill effects were produced.
3. It is an irritant, and apt to injure the mucous
membrane of the stomach and intestines. Reply Pure
salicylic acid is certainly not more harmful to epithelium
than pure hydrochloric acid. The latter acid, diluted to
the same extent (1 in 500) as a saturated solution of
salicylic acid, is a constituent of normal gastric juice.
In temperance beverages "some antiseptic is necessary!'
Lancet, 14th. March, 1903.
The question of injury to health is the most im-
portant consideration. Is the preservative more harmful
than the alcohol for which it is used as a substitute ?
As in the case of boric acid against salt, there seems
to be no affirmative answer given to this question.
Wiley's Researches. Acting on behalf of the
Government of the United States of America, Wiley
has made a most extensive series of investigations as to
the effect of preservatives en the health of the con-
sumers. The opinions he has formed are directly
opposed to any use of preservatives whatever. The
case against such use has been presented most strongly
by Wiley; and the following abstract of a paper read
by him shows very clearly the conclusions at which he
has arrived, and the reasons on which they are based :
Preservatives and colouring matter are not condi-
mental, but on the contrary possess neither appreciable
taste nor odour in the quantities employed. Their
use is quite of recent date. Thirty to forty years ago
food supply was practically free from them. Their
purpose is either to cheapen the product or to sell it
at a higher price than it really should command.
In regard to the supposed preference for artificial
colour, the great majority of American consumers
prefer uncoloured foods. A test was made by
supplying during the winter months, when natural
butter is almost white, natural and coloured butter
mounted in the same form and placed upon the
same plate. In four or five months nine-tenths of the
users were using uncoloured butter and expressed a
decided antipathy to that which was coloured. The
use of the artificial colour, therefore, is to simulate
for winter butter the colour of the butter in June,
and thus to conceal what is at least believed to be
inferiority.
The real reason which manufacturers have for
using chemical preservatives is to cheapen the cost
of production. Presumably this would lower the
price to the consumer. If the food product were of
equal nutritive value and equal wholesomeness, such
a process should meet with the approbation of all.
Chemical preservatives inhibit the fermentative action
giving rise to decay and putrefaction, but have not
the same restrictive influence on those processes
resulting in the general degradation and decay of
organic matter, due chiefly to that class of chemical
reactions which is represented by the term hydrolysis.
Those ferments which break down nitrogeneous tissues
into more soluble and finally more dangerous forms of
combination are not so particularly inhibited.
The most important problem is, what is the chief
effect of these preservatives upon the health of those
who constantly use them and upon the metabolism
resulting from the normal functions of the body ?
The Bureau of Chemistry has systematically investi-
gated this problem. A selected number of young men
were dieted under certain precautions. During the
first part of the experiment they had a generous diet
of such articles of food as they preferred (within limits).
Studies were made of the food ingested and of the
excreta. Having established normal conditions of body,
what was called the "fore period ".was brought to a
close. The "preservative period" then commenced,
during which various preservatives, and in different
quantities, were administered. The period lasted for
from twenty to sixty days. The state of health, the
gain or loss in weight, and other conditions were noted
and studied. Exhaustive analyses were made of ingesta
and excreta. At the close of the preservative period
came the " after period," during which the preservative
was no longer used, but only the normal diet given.
During this time the after effects, if any, of the pre-
servative were studied.
The following preservatives were thus investigated :
Boric acid, borates, salicylic acid, salicylates, benzoic
acid, benzoates, sulphurous acid, sulphites, formal-
dehyde, sulphate of copper, and potassium nitrate.
[The desired quantity of each preservative was
administered in the separate state, enclosed in a
capsule with each meal.] The following medical and
clinical notes were made of the effects of certain of
these preservatives. Borax and boric acid loss of
appetite, nausea, headache, depression; salicylic acid
and salicylates hunger, slight headache and abdominal
pain, symptoms not general; sulphurous acid and
sodium sulphite headache, dizziness, pain in stomach,
weakness, depression ; benzoic acid and benzoates
nausea, headache, lassitude ; formaldehyde headache,
abdominal pains, sometimes nausea and rash; copper
sulphate pains in stomach and abdomen, nausea,
indigestion, headache, nervousness; potassium nitrate
slight headache, pains in epigastrium.
The following are the summarised conclusions as to
yarious preservatives :
Boric acid and borates. The administration of boric
acid to the amount cf 4 or 5 grams per day, or borax
equivalent thereto continued for some time, results in
most cases in loss of appetite and inability to perform
work of any kind. In many cases the person becomes
ill and unfit for duty. The normal man cannot go
beyond 4 grams per day, and could not long continue
to receive 3 grams per day. . . . The administration of
borax and boric acid to the extent of one-half gram
per day yielded results markedly different from those
obtained with larger quantities of the preservatives.
On the whole, the results show that one-half gram per
day is too much for the normal man to receive
regularly. On the other hand, it is evident that the
normal man can receive one-half gram per day of
boric acid, or of borax expressed in terms of boric
acid, for a limited period of time without much
danger of impairment to health. It appears, there-
fore, that both boric acid and borax, when continually
administered in small doses for a long period or
when given in large quantities for a short period,
create disturbances of appetite, of digestion, and of
health.
Salicylic acid and salicylates. There has been a
general concensus of opinion among scientific men,
including the medical profession, that salicylic acid
and its compounds are very harmful substances, and
the prejudice against this particular form of preserva-
tive is perhaps greater than against any other
material used for preserving foods. This is due not
only to the belief in the injurious character of
salicylic acid, but perhaps is especially due to the
fact that it has in the past been so generally used as
an antiseptic. That salicylic acid should be singled
out especially for condemnation among preservatives
does not seem to be justified by the data which are
presented and discussed in this bulletin. That it is a
harmful substance, however, seems to be well
established by the data taken as a whole, but it
appears to be a harmful substance of less virulence
than has been generally supposed. In the light of
the data which have been obtained, salicylic acid may
be said to increase the solubilit} 7 and absorption of
the food in the alimentary canal, so that larger parts
of the nutrients taken into the stomach actually enter
the circulation. The same data also indicate that the
general effect upon the system is depressing, in that
the tissues are broken down more rapidly than they
are built up, and thus the normal metabolic processes
are interfered with in a harmful way. The final
conclusion, therefore, is that the unenviable position
which salicylic acid has heretofore held among pre-
servatives, in being regarded as the most injurious of
all, is to a certain extent undeserved. It has a
tendency to diminish the weight of the body and to
produce a feeling of discomfort and malaise, which,
while not marked, is distinctively indicative of injury.
In some cases these symptoms of malaise approach
illness, and while not always diagnostic are sufficiently
common to point unmistakably to the salicylic acid
as their origin. It places upon the excretory organs,
especially the kidneys, an additional burden which
they are not able to bear, and which cannot possibly
result in any good, but on the contrary must
necessarily finally result in injury, though perhaps
with the use of very small quantities of the preserva-
tive, these organs would continue to perform their
function for many years before finally breaking down.
An unbiassed study of all the data recorded leads to
the inevitable conclusion that salicylic acid is a
substance which, when added to food even in small
quantities, exerts a depressing and harmful influence
upon the digestion and health and the general meta-
bolic activities of the body. Further, there appears
to be no necessity for its use, as food can be preserved
in unobjectionable ways without its aid. Its indis-
criminate use would tend to carelessness in the
quantities employed, thus increasing the dangers to
which the consumer is subjected. Also, its use in the
preservation of foods tend to induce carelessness and
indifference on the part of the manufacturer, as when
a chemical antiseptic is employed many of the
processes necessary to the proper selection, cleaning,
and -preservation of foods may be omitted. The
addition of salicylic acid and salicylates to foods is
therefore a process which is reprehensible in every
respect, and leads to injury to the consumer, which,
though in many cases not easily measured, must
finally be productive of great harm.
Sulphurous acid and sulphites. The verdict which
must be pronounced is decidedly unfavourable to the
use of these preservatives in any quantity or for any
period of time, and shows the desirability of avoiding
the addition of any form of sulphurous acid to products
intended for human food.
Benzoic acid and benzoates, The administration of
benzoic acid, either as such or in the form of benzoate
of soda, is highly objectionable and produces a very
serious disturbance of the metabolic functions, attended
with injury to digestion and health. There is only one
conclusion to be drawn from the data, and that is that
in the interests of health both benzoic acid and benzoate
of soda should be excluded from food products.
Formaldehyde. Apart from the injurious effects of
formaldehyde itself, its use as a food preservative would
be specially inadvisable in milk or cream, because its
addition in dilute solution prevents the growth of acid-
forming bacteria, but has no effect in retarding the
action of many harmful organisms ; in other words, the
milk is prevented from becoming sour and thus indi-
cating its age and the danger signal is thus removed,
while the other organisms which are capable of pro-
ducing disease continue to multiply in the milk with
practically the same degree of rapidity as if the
formaldehyde was not present. Formaldehyde causes
a uniformly increased absorption of the proteid elements
of the food, which would lead one to expect a gain in
the body weight. This expectation, however, is not
realised, although the losses in weight are so slight as to
be practically negligible. That the change of weight
was slight may be accounted for by the inhibiting or
retarding effect of the preservative upon the nitrogen
and sulphur katabolism. It cannot be maintained,
however, that a retarded katabolism is beneficial to
health. On the contrary, a more rapid renewal of the
tissues within the limits of heathy activity would be
more likely to preserve a normal condition. The old
tissues cannot be expected to functionate as perfectly
as those which are newer, and hence, within reasonable
limits, a change of the tissues of the body must be
considered as necessary to a healthy condition and the
maintenance of a normal vitality. The final con-
clusion, therefore, is that the addition of formaldehyde
to foods tends to derange metabolism, disturb the
normal functions, produce irritation and undue stimula-
tion of the secretory activities, and, therefore, it is never
justifiable.
Sulphate of Copper. The final conclusion, based on
the medical and clinical data and on the study of the
effect of the copper sulphate upon metabolism, is that
the administration of this salt is prejudicial to health.
Potassium Nitrate. There are some foods which
naturally contain small quantities of potassium nitrate.
While, however, the data which have been accumu-
lated are not such as to warrant a sweeping con-
demnation of potassium nitrate in foods, they are
sufficiently indicative to justify the conclusion that
its presence in foods is undesirable and open to
suspicion.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
There can be no justification of the process of add-
ing chemical preservatives to human foods. Success-
ful manufacturing establishments have demonstrated
that better, more wholesome, and more permanent
forms of food products can be produced without the
aid of any preservative whatever. Sterilisation will
preserve sweet cider better than benzoate of soda.
Proper care in the manufacture of preserves will
make a more palatable product, and one that keeps
better than the use of salicylic acid. Careful curing
of meats and proper care in transportation will pre-
serve these meats better than boric acid. There is no-
single food product which is not more palatable and
of equal if not better keeping qualities when made
carefully without the use of preservatives. It is
urged by those who employ these bodies that even
though considerable quantities of them are injurious
to health, which no one denies, yet in the minute
quantities in which they are used in foods they
cannot be regarded as in any way deleterious. It is
easy to show that such an opinion is without scientific
basis. It is quite impossible for any expert who
holds this opinion to indicate any point in the
addition of the preservative to food at which it
remains harmless, or the point at which it begins to
be harmful. Unless such a point could be fixed and
demonstrated upon reliable experimental data, it is
evident that no scientific reason can be urged for the
use of limited quantities of a preservative, which is-
acknowledged to be harmful, on the ground that in
such quantities it is not injurious. Inasmuch as a
preservative is not a food, and as it is necessarily
eliminated by the excretory organs of the body, thus
imposing upon them an unnecessary and injurious
burden, it is evident that the argument which would
permit their use in small quantities is wholly
illegitimate.
The fallacy of the argument that small quantities
of an injurious substance are not injurious may
perhaps be best represented graphically. The chart
which accompanies the paper shows theoretically the
normal and lethal dose of a food and a drug or, as in
this case, a chemical preservative. Taking food, the
normal dose of food is represented on a vertical scale
as 100 : the injury done by an insufficient quantity is
indicated by a curve extending downwards and
toward the horizontal direction as the quantity is
diminished, reaching the zero line when no food at all
is given. The actual curve is, or closely approaches
to, a segment of a circle. The diminution of food
from 100 to 80 shows on the curve very little injurious
effect. From 20 to zero of food the curve is approach-
ing the horizontal, and indicates a very much greater
proportionate injury. There is a precisely similar
diagram representing the action of a preservative; 100
at the top represents the lethal or fatal doze. The
normal doze is 0, and is shown at the bottom or zero
end of the curve. A very minute quantity of the
preservative causes but a slight ascent from the
horizontal base, indicating that comparatively little
injury is being effected. But as the quantity increases
the injurious effect increases still more rapidly, and
the curve approximates more closely to the vertical,
until at length the 100 point is reached. It is easy
to 'show by mathematical data that no matter how
small the quantity of an injurious substance or
preservative is, it will still produce an injurious effect,
which may be infinitely small if the dose be infinitely
small. It follows then as a mathematical demonstra-
tion, that any quantity of an injurious substance
added to a food product must of necessity be injurious,
provided it is in the nature of a drug and the body is
in a perfectly healthy normal condition.
Hence the argument which has been so persistently
urged in favour of a chemical preservative that, if in
small quantities, it is harmless is shown to be wholly
untenable. Where there is no necessity for the addition
of a harmful substance, where no particular benefit is
secured thereby, and where there is no disturbance of
the normal state of health there can be no possible
excuse of a valid nature to offer for the exhibition of
even minute quantities. That these minute quantities
would not be dangerous, in so far as producing any
fatal effect effect is concerned, is conceded, but that, in
the end, they do not produce any injury, even in these
small quantities, is certainly to be denied.
The course of safety, therefore, in all these cases
is to guard the opening of the door. If the use of
small quantities is permitted, then there can never be
any agreement among experts or others respecting the
magnitude of the "small quantity," and continued
litigation and disagreement must follow. On the other
hand, when the harmfulness of any substance which it
is proposed to add to food is established and no reason
for its use can be given other than the convenience,
carelessness, or indifference of the manufacturer, the
exclusion of such bodies entirely from food products
follows as a logical sequence and a hygienic necessity.
Criticisms of Wiley's Researches and Conclu-
sions. Wiley's experiments and the conclusions he
draws have by no means been generally accepted. They
have recently been exhaustively criticised by Liebreich,
who examined the building in which the dietetic re-
searches were conducted, and also had access to the
whole of the documents relating to the investigation.
Liebreich came to the conclusion that "no injurious
effect was produced by the administration of the boron
preservatives," and further, that " the administration of
the preservative that is, of borax and boric acid in
capsules allows of no conclusions as to the effect of
borates when added to food."
In the course of some comments on Wiley's method
of experimenting on preservatives by administering
them in capsules, the following remarks are made by
Thresh in The Lancet of 20th. February, 1909 :
"Two drachms of common salt administered in a
capsule would undoubtedly produce discomfort and in
many instances actual vomiting. The same quantity
distributed throughout the food taken during the day
would have no such effect. The person adopting the
former method would conclude that common salt was
distinctly injurious to health, whilst anyone adopting
the latter method would arrive at the opposite conclu-
sion. As to which would be right the common sense
of your readers can decide."
Liebreich principally devotes himself to a criticism
of the boron compounds results. It need scarcely be
said that chemists and medical men quite recognise
that the alleged harmlessness of certain preservatives
does not necessarily absolve others from the charge of
being injurious and objectionable.
Reviewing the foregoing abstract; it will be noticed
that the whole of the substances examined are
unreservedly condemned, though not always for quite
the same reasons. Thus in dealing with salicylic
acid, the objection is taken that "the tissues are
broken down more rapidly than they are built up,
and thus the normal metabolic processes are interfered
with in a harmful way." This hastening of the
removal of old tissues is here condemned ; but when
reviewing the effect of formaldehyde, Dr. Wiley's
apprehensions had apparently been allayed. This
latter preservative retards the breaking down of the
tissues, though only very slightly. On this, Dr.
Wiley remarks : " It cannot be maintained, however,
that a retarded katabolism is beneficial to health.
On the contrary, a more rapid renewal of the tissues
within the limits of healthy activity would be more
likely to preserve a normal condition."
Touching on some of the illustrations given in the
" general considerations," it is said " sterilisation will
preserve sweet cider better than benzoate of soda."
This statement, however, cannot be employed in this
country as a generalisation. The subjection to a
sufficiently high temperature to produce sterilisation
impairs the flavour of certain beverages, and for that
reason is regarded as an objectionable form of treat-
ment by manufacturers. In the case of lemonade
and other liquors put up in gallon jars and drawn off
from time to time through a tap, the effect of sterilis-
ation is gone as soon as the first glass is drawn off
and air comes in contact with the liquid. Again, the
reader is told that "careful curing of meats and
proper care in transportation will preserve these
better than boric acid." What is understood by the
"curing of meats?" Does it include their treatment
with salt, and the smoking of hams ? If so, where is
the difference between treatment with one preserva-
tive and another? The paper under examination
does not attempt to compare salt and boric acid as
preservatives of meats, nor alcohol and salicylic acid
as preservatives of beverages. To give one instance,
the experience of Limerick manufacturers with
butter (page 99) does not agree with Wiley's view
that "there is no single food product which is not
more palatable and of equal if not better keeping
qualities when made carefully without the use of
preservatives." Most people again, prefer the flavour
of modern mild boric acid cured breakfast bacon to
the intensely salt and pickled product of some years
ago.
Dr. Wiley proceeds to prove "the fallacy of the
argument that small quantities of an injurious sub-
stance are not injurious," by methods that in them-
selves seem utterly fallacious. In the first place, the
view of his opponents would not be expressed as
Dr. Wiley states it. They 'would prefer to say
" certain substances are injurious in excessive quan-
tities, and harmless or even beneficial in moderate
and proper quantities." Take food in general, and
any article of food whatever in particular, it is a
truism to say that it is injurious if taken in excess.
The evils of over-eating are very real evils, and are
patent to every one; gout and a number of other
diseases follow in its train. Food in excess is indis-
putably an injurious substance; then applying Dr.
Wiley's argument, it is a fallacy to say that smaller
quantities of food are not injurious. An ordinary
individual requires each day for the maintenance of
his bodily equilibrium, a certain weight of nitrogenous
foods, and a certain weight of fatty or starchy foods.
The weights vary according to the amount of work
he does, the surrounding temperature, and other con-
ditions. These kinds of food are obtained in practice
from a mixed diet, and naturally one or other is
usually taken in excess. But for such inevitable
irregularities nature has made provision; within
reasonable limits the excess of either is carried off
with other ejecta of the body. Xot only are the
constituents of food in varying proportions, but
practically all food stuffs contain more or less matter
which is innutritions and not food at all ; as for
example, fibrous and other insoluble substances in
vegetable products. The natural machinery of the
body carries off and disposes of this waste matter
also; it can scarcely be contended that in normal
quantities these do the eater the slightest harm, and
yet, if one were compelled to eat such matter in
excess, the effect would be most injurious. The
human body is provided with adequate machinery
for the purpose of discarding substances which
have filled their purposes, or which it does not
require. So long as the substances taken into
the body do not exceed the limit of what it can
naturally, and without over-strain, eliminate; it is
submitted that no proof has been afforded that such
substances are necessarily doing an injury because
in large quantities they are injurious. The degree of
concentration may altogether change the effect of a
substance on the human economy. Concentrated
hydrochloric acid is a most corrosive body, and the
swallowing of even a moderate quantity might cause
death by destroying the mucous membrane of the
stomach. Concentrated hydrochloric acid is therefore
a most injurious substance, yet a dilute solution of it
is a necessary constituent of the fluids of the stomach,
or gastric juice. Being necessary, it is certainly in
the small quantity not injurious. It is utterly im-
possible to accept Dr. Wiley's statement that " it is
easy to show by mathematical data that, no matter
how small the quantity of an injurious substance or
pervative is, it will still produce an injurious
effect." To argue in this manner is just as logical as
to say To attempt to walk a hundred yards through
water six feet deep would drown an ordinary man ;
therefore, to walk one hundred yards through water
three feet deep would half drown him, and to walk
two hundred yards through water three feet deep
would completely drown him.
If Sir Lauder Brunton's view, that preservatives in
moderate quantity are less injurious than the natural
products of decomposition whose formation they pre-
vent, be accepted as correct, then a certain duty falls
on chemists and physiologists. That duty is to
ascertain which preservatives are most suitable for
use, indicating especially those which are particularly
injurious. Having selected those which may be
regarded as permissible, the minimum quantities that
are efficient for the purpose should be ascertained, and
rules laid down for the guidance of those who manu-
facture and vend articles of food.
Departmental Committee. An attempt to solve
this problem has already been made in this country
by the appointment of a Departmental Committee of
the Local Government Board in 1899. The Eeport of
that Committee was presented to the Houses of
Parliament in 1901. The duty of the Committee was
to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring
matters in food, and to report " whether the use of
such materials, or any of them, for the preservation
and colouring of food, in certain quantities, is injurious
to health, and, if so, in what proportions does their
use become injurious." The Committee prefaced their
conclusions hy some introductory remarks, of which
the following is an extract :
"It should be borne in mind that under the
conditions in which the population of Great Britain
lives, and more particularly that portion of it
inhabiting the large towns, some preserving agent,
not necessarily chemical, appears to be needed in
the case of no inconsiderable portion of its perish-
able food supply. It is common knowledge that
the food-producing capabilities of this country do
not suffice in all particulars for the needs of its
population. Under these circumstances the total
prohibition of preserving methods would clearly be
likely to be attended with serious results to the
public health, in that large quantities of food
possessing highly nutritive value might in effect
either be withheld from the poorer classes or be
liable to be consumed by them in a condition of
incipient putrefaction."
The conclusions themselves are too voluminous to
permit of their being quoted in their entirety, but are
well summed up in the Committee's official recom-
mendations, of which the following is a copy :
"RECOMMENDATIONS.
Based upon the foregoing conclusions, we beg to
make the following recommendations :
(a) That the use of formaldehyde or formalin, or
preparations thereof, in foods or drinks be absolutely
prohibited, and that salicylic acid be not used in a
greater proportion than 1 grain per pint in liquid
food and 1 grain per pound in solid food. Its
presence in all cases to be declared.
(b) That the use of any preservative or colouring
matter whatever in milk offered for sale in the
United Kingdom be constituted an offence under
the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.
(c) That the only preservative which it shall be
lawful to use in cream be boric acid and borax, or
mixtures of boric acid and borax, and in amount
not exceeding 0*25 per cent, expressed as boric acid.
The amount of such preservative to be notified by
a label upon the vessel.
(d) That the only preservative permitted to be
used in butter and margarine be boric acid or
mixtures of boric acid and borax, to be used in
proportions not exceeding 0*5 per cent, expressed
as boric acid.
(e) That in the case of all dietetic preparations
intended for the use of invalids or infants, chemical
preservatives of all kinds be prohibited.
(f) That the use of copper salts in the so-called
greening of preserved foods be prohibited.
(g) That means be provided either by the estab-
lishment of a separate Court of Keference or by
the imposition of more direct obligation on the
Local Government Board, to exercise supervision
over the use of preservatives and colouring matters
in foods, and to prepare schedules of such as may
be considered inimical to the public health."
A minority report was issued by Dr. F. W.
Tunnicliffe, who disagreed with recommendation (f).
That gentleman regards the presence of small quan-
tities of copper in preserved vegetables such as peas
as being harmless, provided that an excess is not
employed. He therefore recommends "that the
presence of copper in these preserved vegetables be in
every case declared, and that its amount be restricted
to half a grain of metallic copper per pound."
No action has as yet been taken on the report of this
Committee, and its recommendations are therefore not
at present binding, The appointment of such a Court
of Keference could not fail to be of service in removing
much of the doubt and uncertainty which now exist.
Such regulations as it from time to time prescribed
would be a guide both to manufacturers and vendors of
articles of food and also to those who are responsible
for the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts.
The Court should hear and investigate representations
from parties interested, and either increase in stringency
or relax its regulations as necessity arose.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.
The following are two illustrative cases on the use of
preservatives:
Belfast Ginger Wine Case, September, 1904 The
magistrates convicted, and the defendant appealed
to Quarter Sessions. In support of the conviction
it was proved that the wine contained 7'2 grains
of salicylic acid per pint, and 12 '2 per cent, of
alcohol (probably proof spirit). O'Neill and other
doctors alleged that the alcohol was sufficient to pre-
serve the wine, and that salicylic acid was a dangerous
drug. For the defence, Huxtable, analytical chemist,
stated that a preservative was essential, and that the
presence of salicylic acid to the extent of 7*2 grains per
pint was harmless. Even 16 to 20 per cent, of proof
spiritwould not preserve from fermentation. Sir William
Whitla, Professor of Materia Medica, Queen's College,
Belfast, stated that salicylic acid was preferable to
alcohol as a preservative, and would do the drinker less
harm than alcohol. The EECORDER, in giving judgment,
said, if unnecessary, the acid should not be introduced.
Ginger wine existed long before the drug was known :
therefore it was not necessary. He affirmed the
conviction.
Lime Juice Cordial. Southwark, October, 1903.
The cordial contained 8 grains of salicylic acid per
pint. Magistrates Decision. The onus of proof of
injurious effects of salicylic acid as used in the propor-
tions present lay on the prosecutors, and this they had
failed to do, relying almost entirely on theoretical
evidence and the findings of the Departmental Com-
mittee. He was prepared to accept the statement of
Thresh that " the general experience is that salicylic
acid in food has been used by hundreds and thousands
of persons day by day, and no one has ever reported an
authenticated case of any sign of danger from it."
Case dismissed.
Preparation of Chemical Evidence. As an illus-
tration of the chemical evidence that should be obtained
when possible in Adulteration actions, there follows a
statement of such evidence in cases where the alleged
offence is the improper use of a preservative :
For the Prosecution, it should be proved :
I. The addition is injurious to health.
(1) Food as prepared has injured health. Instances
in way of use, or results of direct experiments.
(2) Preservative is injurious in certain doses. Eelation
of these doses to quantities in food as ordinarily consumed.
(3) Food is used by special classes of persons,
particularly susceptible to action of such preservative.
(4) Preservative is uncertain in composition, e.g.,
formalin, so excessive quantity can easily be given ; or
the preservative may at times contain injurious im-
purities, e.g., early salicylic acid.
(5) Preservative is foreign to human body, or is
outside the range of food products.
II. The addition is not required.
(1) The article is made and sold commercially
without the preservative.
(2) The article can be preserved without the
preservative, as evidenced by laboratory experiments
and manufacturing experiments on the large scale.
(3) An excessive quantity of the preservative is
used.
(4) The preservative may be used is used in
particular case to mask uncleanliness, as presence
of dirt in the milk.
For the Defence, it should be proved :
I. The addition is not injurious to health.
(1) Food as prepared does not injure health.
Cases of alleged injury. Injury is exaggerated or
non-existent is due to other and unconnected
causes, e.g., in lemonade, the citric acid will cause
injury long before the salicylic acid added as a pre-
servative is due to such abnormal idiosyncracy of
the individual as to be outside reasonable care and
precautions. Dietetic experiments should be made to
show such food does not injure health. Use excessive
quantities, if possible, on individuals of the same class.
If obtainable, produce instances of persons who have
used the same food without injury.
Note. The propriety of any experiments must
obviously depend on the amount of risk, e.g., one
would not repeat experiments with arsenical beer. On
the other hand, one might give a child J Ib. of aniseed
balls coloured by oxide of iron.
(2) Contra evidence as to injurious nature of the
preservative. Dietetic experiments if possible. Show
that the prosecution experiments were made under
misleading conditions, e.g., the preservative was ad-
ministered alone in single doses instead of being
incorporated with the food. Alumed baking powder
case witnesses for prosecution ate alumina prepared
from the powder, mixed with water and took it with
a meal. Defence. Bread was made with the baking
powder and then eaten. In both cases contents
of stomach removed and examined. The first was not
a fair method of making the test.
(3) Shew, if possible, that the special class or
classes of persons do not largely use the food.
Disprove their particular susceptibility.
(4) Purity of the preservative ; show its constancy
of composition.
(5) Certain recognised preservatives as saltpetre,
smoke, cane-sugar are also foreign to the human
body. Salt although a constituent of the body is
not necessarily present in the large amount requisite
for use as a preservative. Such necessary excess of
salt is more injurious than the small quantity of
the preservative used. The preservative is a normal
constituent of ordinary foods, as salicylic acid, which
is found in fruits.
(6) The preservative added is an improved substitute
for an old, approved, and recognised one, e.g., boric
acid in butter for salt. Prove substitution is an
improvement advantages, flavour, less weight of
preservative, etc. Absence of evidence that substitute
is any more dangerous or injurious than older and
approved preservative. On the contrary, it* possible,
evidence that the new preservative is less injurious,
e.g., interferes less with digestion, etc.
Non-alcoholic beverages. Prove that they are ex-
pressly made for those who regard alcohol as a virulent
poison. The substitution, say of salicylic acid for
alcohol, is that of a far less noxious article in the
view of abstainers it does not intoxicate with all
the alleged train of social evils. Apart from extreme
opinion the preservative is productive of far less
injury than the equivalent of alcohol.
II. The addition is required.
(1) If the article is made and sold commercially
without, it is at a high price, prohibitive to the poorer
classes. Even when so made and sold the article
frequently goes wrong.
(2) Laboratory experiments are no criterion of
manufacturing exigences. Conditions of absolute
sterilisation are impracticable in manufacture. Prove
by evidence of manufacturers of the highest standing.
Sterilised foods may undergo unsuspected injurious
changes which are better prevented by the use of
preservatives.
(3) Quantity used is governed by experience in the
particular trade even with these quantities no injury
is done.
The substance is a concentrated syrup, not to be
drunk until diluted ; the proportion is then normal.
(4) The manufacturing or other operations are
conducted with scrupulous cleanliness details of
precautions observed.
A fair argument for the defence is that in many
cases, though criminal in form, these prosecutions are
the sole means of deciding matters of great scientific
and commercial importance. No idea of fraud or other
criminal motive enters. In preservative cases the pre-
servative is only used because of urgent necessities of
the manufacture unless so compelled it would never
have been used. The general position and opinion of
a trade should have full consideration and not be
allowed to be outweighed by the theoretical opinions
of witnesses for the prosecution, however eminent.
