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.
