THE ANALYST. 67 ON THE WORK DONE BY PUBLIC ANALYSTS UNDER THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS’ ACT DURING 1878. BY G. W. WIGNEB, F.C.S. Read before the Society of Pu6lic Analysts, on 19th Mmch, 1879. FROM the information kindly furnished by most of our members, and by some gentlemen who are not members, I am again enabled to lay before the Society a very fair summary of the amount of work done during the past year, under the above Act, in nearly the whole of the districts in the country.The number of districts the returns I have re- ceivedrelate to, is 168, as against 127 districts for 1877. The percentage of adulteration calculated upon the whole number of samples examined shows a slight improvement, and this I think will be test seen by putting it in tabular form. During the time of the Lancet commission the percentage of adulteration was :- During 1872 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.0 ,, 1877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 ,, 1878 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.68 It is of course very satisfactory to find that, notwithstanding the obstruction caused in various parts of the country by the I‘ prejudice to purchaser ” question, the percentage of adulteration is still gradually decreasiag.As compared with 1877, the number of samples analysed shows a slight increase, In the two years ending December, 1876, the total number examined and reported to us was 15,989; in 1877, 14,785; and in 1878, 15,107. The next most interesting point is probably to see in what way the per centage of adulteration has altered in different kinds of samples, and perhaps the best mode of showing this is to place side by side the results for the years 1877 and 1878, the figures in each case being the percentage of adulterated samples found, Calculated on the total number of that particular sample purchased.,, 1875-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.0 We thus get the following results :-- 1877. Milk . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . Groceries . . . . . . . . . 13.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . Drugs, &c. . . . . . . . . 23.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . Wines, &c. . . . . . . . . . 47.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . Bread and Flour . . . . . . 6.84 .. . . . . . . . . . Sundries . . . . . . . . . 21.63 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1878. 18.38 13-23 12.89 35.77 29.31 2.97 14.98 I n the returns for 1877 the worst place was occupied by wines and spirits, but this year drugs appear as the worst on the list. From some of the statistics it appears only too probable that this is not by any means the fault of the chemists and druggists, but that it arises from some inspectors having purchased samples of so-called drugs from grocers’ shops, or at other places where drugs had no business to be sold ; and as will be seen by the remarks iu the table, the list includes a large number of samples of violet powder. It would be much more satisfactory if it were possible to state what proportion of these drugs were really pharmacopeia druga, and how many were articles in reference to which a difference of opinion does exist, whether it is justifiable or not.Next on the list this year comes wines and spirits, but with a very great reduction from the figures of last year. Milk also shows a reduction of more than seven per cent,, and in faot I think for the first time since returns of this kind have been collected it falls68 THE ANALYST.below 20 per cent., or one-fifth of the samples purchased. Butter appears to be fractionally worse, but it seems not at all improbable that this slight increase may be due to the more universal adoption of efficient methods of carrying out the analysis. Bread and flour and groceries show a decrease, but it is even now a very serious thing that on a standard article of food like bread three per cent.of the samples examined should be found adulterated. The sundries also show a decrease, but, unfortunately, these in eo many cases include water, which when condemned as unfit for drink, is included in the colnmn for adulterated samples, that no special deducion can be drawn from this item. Looking at the returns in another light, and taking the percentage of adulterated samples of each kind included in the total number of adulterated articles only-that is, there were 2,208 adulterated samples, the deecription of wbich has been partioularly reported-I find that :- Milk .. . . . . . . . . . . formed ... 42.21 per cent. Butter . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ... 3.35 ,, Groceries.. . . . . . . .. . . ,, ... 18.07 ,, Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ... 6.53 ,, Bread . . . . . . . . . . . . ), ... 1.54 ,, Sundriea . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 , ... 6-97 ,, Wines and Spirits . . . . . . ,, ... 23.33 ,, 100*00 Here we have an increase in the case of milk from 36.6 to 42.23 per cent., of drugs from 4.2 to 5-92 per cent., and a decrease in the case of wine, bread, and sundries from 57.6, 3 1 and 7.7 per cent.respectively, to 23.35, 1.53 and 5.97 respectively. We will next look at the percentage of adulterated samples in different districte. Bmthampton heads the list with 53.4 per cent. of the samples purchased. Yorkshire (East Riding) and Hull and Liverpool follow closely after, each of them having more than 40 per cent. Lancashire, Warwickshire, Londonderry and Yorkshire (West Riding) have more than 23 per cent.; Cheshire, Lewisham, Antrim, Belfast, Donegal, Tyrone, Surrey and St. Pancras more than 20 per cent. Guildford, Hants, Westminster, Durham, Siaffordshire, Cork, and Sheffield more than 15 per cent. ; while some of the remaining districts are perhaps sufficiently interesting aa showing the greater purity prevalent there as to justifiy their being separately tabulated.Thus we find that Gloucester and Hereford show 1.4 per cent., Leeds 2.3 per cent., Dublin 2.6 per cent., Bedfordshire 5.9 per cent., Wands- worth, Lambeth, &c., 8.7 per cent., Devon 9.7 per cent., Hampstead 11.1 per cent,, Cardigan, Carmarthen and Swansea 12.4 per cent., Somersetshire, Bristol, &c,, 1268 per cent., Hackney 14.2 per cent., and Greenwich 15.0 per cent.St. Hartin’s-in-the- Fields has only so recently been put into the efficient handa of Mr. Heaton that it ie perhaps scarcely fair to notice that he has not yet come across any adulterated samples, Referring now to another very important feature in these returns I find that in Bmnsley, Chesterfield, Glossop, Denbighehire, Oban, Montgomery shire, Lancaster, Cavan, Dumbarton, Paisley, Ashton-under-Lgne, Pontefract, Wakefield, King’s Lynn, Deal, Faversham, Margate, Sandwich, Stratford-on -Avon, Warwick, Gloucester, Herefordehire, Huntingdon, Falkirk, Fifeshire, Brecon (city and county), Tenterdcn, West Suffolk, Maidenhead, Beverley, Monmouth, Norfol.k, Reigate, Kilmarnock, Renfrewshire, and Sutherlandshire, or altogether 10 counties and 27 towns, with a population of close on 2,0@0,000, no samples whatever have been analyscd, and this is perhaps one of the most atriking proofs of the neceReit3- of amending the Act, so as to render its working Preston and North Derbyshire are between 40 and 30.- 14 3 - - Nearly all the sundries were waters.Ditto. No arrangements made for 14 - - 40 25 30 ,230 L05 10 9 24 11 30 9 33 35 5 42 9 1 40 17 25 5 1 1 6 - - - - 4 - 6 55 58 12 - - - 43 25 - - 11 84 10 3 - - 6 3 - - 15 - - 4 7 7 45 14 40 - - 12 - - - - - - - 19 24 6 17 1 4 li 6 7 5 17 3 7 2 6 - -. - - - - - 2 12 6 16 14 64 21 ;7 87 52 2 - - - - - 2’7 45 27 15 32 - - - 8 4 4 98 59 34 58 27 - - 3 3 2 2 56 20 31 13 3 i068 - - - -- 7 7 17 1 44 19 5 7 12 4 8 4 3 6 3 25 3 1 18 5 4 2 1 1 6 - - - - - - 4 - 1 42 19 85 3 4 28 1 - - - 6 16 7 38 - - - - - - 5 - - - 7 3 17 8 3 i 22 20 - - - 7 8 27 6 46 4 5 ? 5 4 - - 21 11 18 129 73 32 1649 120 17 25 75 15 46 9 44 56 39 53 29 16 56 143 58 22 22 7 14 30 - - - 14 1 22 47 113 4 38 57 9 146 43 - - - 56 125 10 34 38 15 3 - - - 15 - - 27 20 45 54 71 145 - - 86 176 24 3 1 9 471 43 76 4 12 902 6 66 14 17 14 64 6 7 2 48 100 34 12 62 296 55 274 38 45 400 263 32 - - - - - - - - - - - - 55 52 47 15 25 3 11 1015 11 118 34 196 451 120 145 74 4 16 6 2 4 175 102 122 83 18 5107 - - - - .- - Carlow (County) ...........Cavan ,, ........... Drogheda (Town) ........ Dublin (City) .............. 1 ) (County) ........... Fermanagh (County) .... Gal w ay ....................... Kerry (County) .............. Leitrim (County) ...........Limerick (City). ............. (County) ........ Mayo , , ........ Preston ....................... Clare ,, ........... Down l l ........... Kildare .............. Kilkenny $ity & County) Loniford ........ Meath ,) ........ Queen’s ,) ........ Roscommon ), ........ Sligo ,, ........ Tipperary ........ (County) ........ Wesikeath ), ........ Wexford ), ........Wicklow ,, ........ Dumbarton ................. Helmsburgh ................ Paisley ....................... Cornwall .................... Waterford (Ci’ty) ........ ... C. A. Ca)&aoN ...... 9, 71 9 9 19 77 17 91 9 9 ...... 1 ) 7 9 ...... 11 9 , 9 , 11 ...... 7 7 9 7 7 1 9 7 9 97 7 ’ ) I Y, 7 7 19 19 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ............ ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... J. CLARK ............... J. H. COLLINS ......... 1 ) ............... ,, ............... Sundries all 9 9 i l 9 9 1 waters. Sundries all waters. 9 , 91 97 19 9 , 11 ?’ 11 I1 91 17 31 No sampcs collected since the Scotch A case was dismissed because saiiiple Sample was bad. “ prejudice*’ question.to be marked, Bench ruled could not be marked-only the Peiizance .................... Mile End Old Town ........ Norwich .................... Westminster.. ............... Durham.. .................... Gateshead .................... hhwn-under. Lyne ........ Macclesfield ................. Manchester ................. Leeds.. ........................ Pontefract ...................Wakefield .................... Bath .......................... Derby Borough) ........... l l [s.) (county).. ...... Gravesend .................... King’s Lynn ................. Lincoln ...................... Deal ......................... Faversham ................. Folkestone ................. Margate ....................... Sandwich .................... St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields Ryde .......................... Lewisham ....................Yorkshire (N.R.) ........... Canterbury ................. Isle of Wight .............. St. John’s, Uampstead ..... Birmingham ................. 1 , (County ) ........ Antrim (County) ........... Belfast (Borough ........... strat ford-on-Avon ........ Warwick (Borough). ....... Donegal County1 .......... T roue (bounty) ...........Jouceater (City) ........... ,, (County). ....... Halifax ..................... Huddersfield ................. Kidderminster .............. Lich6eld .................... S taffordshire ................. Walsall ...................... Hereford (County) ...... Wolverhampton ........... Edinburgh ................. Cambridge.. .................. H un tingdon .................Londonderry (City) ........ 1 ) (County) ..... Ely .......................... Falkirk ....................... Stirling ....................... Airdrie ....................... Fife .......................... Stewarton ................... Cumberland ................. Brighton .................... Brecon (City atid County). Cardigan .................... S wansea ..................Lambeth .................... Botherhithe ................. Tent erden ................... Wands worth.. ............... W. Suffolk ................. Cork .......................... Maidenhead ................. Exeter ....................... Beverley .................... Monmouth ................. Reading. ...................... Paddington ................. , Bolton .......................Bridgewater ................. Bristol ....................... Salisbury ................... Somersetshire .............. Norfolk ....................... Yarmouth .................... Bedfordshire ................. Reigate ....................... St. Leonard, Shoreditch .. St. Pancras, Middlesex .. Cardiff ....................... Ayr .......................... Glasgow ....................Johnstone .................... Kilmamock ................. Lanark ....................... Renfrew shire ............. Rutherglen ................. Sutherlandshire ........... St. Marylebone.. ............ Greenwich and Deptford .. Plumstead .................... Woolwich .................... Parsonstown ................. Carmarthen (Borough). .... ,) (County) .....Bermondsey ................ St. George, Southwark.. ... Surrey ....................... Hackney .................... Newport .................... 1 ) ........ M. COBSER ............ W. G. CROOK ......... A. DUPRE‘ ............ A. J. EDGER ......... 9 , ......... C. ESTCOURI! ......... 11 *l ....... ......... T. FAERLEY ............ , , ............ ,) ............. ,, ............I. W. GATEHOUSE ... I. G OODE.. ............. I. H. GKAMYHAW ... W. M. HAMLET ...... C. HARRISON ......... 8. HALLVEY ............ ,, ............... .............. 7, ............ ,, ............ ,) ............ 9 , ............ C. W. EEATON ...... 0. HEHNER ............ C. HEISCH ............ ALFRED HILL ......... A. BOSTOCK KILL ... ,, ............ 1, ............ 11 1 ...... J. F. HAQES ......... J. ~oafsLEY ........... 11 7 9 7 ......... ......... ......... ,, ............ ,) ............ J. JABMAIN ............ Appointment made at latter end of L L Prejudice ” question stopped purchnse Only waters were examined, and all ‘‘ Prejudice ’* question stopped purchase One case of diseased milk. One case of diseased milk. Six starches ,, ............E. W. T. JONES ...... ‘I‘hese were potted beef and beer 9 9 9 , 91 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... J FAL~ONER KING.. . J. WEST KNIQHTS ... J. R. LEEBODY ...... R. MCALLEY ......... J. M. MILNE ......... J. W. MONTGOMERY 9 9 11 ... ... 11 ...... 91 ......... 9 9 9 , ........ ......... - 1 ‘ The Scotch decision stopped collection 1 r 29 - - 11 4 11 23 16 19 5 9 22 13 16 - - - - - 4 17 14 86 1 D 1 3 7 12 38 D3 17 15 23 a - - - 5 1 - - - 2 26 13 20 13 3 50 - - No samples collected now.No samples collected now. It:. n. Moore ............ W. MORGAN ......... ¶, 9, 9’ ......... ......... ......... 9, ......... J. MUTER ............... Sundries were all waters. ,, ............... ,, ............... ,, .............. ,, ............... Appointed late in 1878. ,, ...............J. NAPIER ............ C. 0‘ EEEFFE ......... W. PEABCE ............ F. PERKINS ............ W. PROCTER ......... R. A. RIDOUT ......... J. SHEA ............... A. W. STOKES ......... E. SE~~QEANT ......... W. W. STODDART ... 71 91 11 ... ... ... F. SUTTON ............ T. STEVENSON ......... 77 ............ Sundries were all waters. Appointment only made in December, Sundries were all waters. Appointed late in 1878.I , 71 ......... ......... 9 1 ......... J. THIPE ............... T. W. THOMAS ...... 9 1 ...... W. WALLACE ......... WALLACE, TATLOCK, The drugs were all violet powders. and CLARK ........ : 9, ?, 1 9 P l >, ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... 12 ......... J. WBITMOBE ......... G. w. WIGNER ...... ?7 ...... $ 9 ......T. WOODS ............... Sundries were all waters. TOTALS.. .........THE ANALYST. 69 compulsory. While in 23 more towns, with a population altogether of about 850,000, only 271 samples, or an average of less than 13 per town, have been examined, although these include such populous places as Edinburgh, Cambridge, Parmouth, and a t least one of the London Districts, Mile End Old Town.There are also 13 counties, viz., Carlow, Rildare, Leitrim, Fermanagh, Westmeath, Queen’s County, Wexford, Cornmall, East Riding of Porkshire, South Derbyshire, Done- gal, Londonderry and Tyrone, with a united population of about one and three-quarter millions, in which only 205 samples have been analysed, or an average of about 16 per county. In Scotland hardly anything has been done, owing to the decision given there on the I n Ireland 3,495 were examined, of which 312 were adulterated, or 9-18 per cent.This, of course, is largeIy due to Dr. Cameron’s enormou8 number of 2,785 samples; 203 of these, or 7.28 per cent. being adulterated. There were four cases of diseaaed milk reported, one from each of Mr. Heisch’s districts, and two from one of my own.Mr. Heisch also examined some samples of starch, which can hardly be considered as a food, and Dr. Barclay reports having examined gas containing carbonic acid. The prejudice question seems to have been raised in about 30 places, and in no less than 9 it has been upheld by the Magistrates. As this decision may have a very important bearing on the results previously referred to, it is as well to note that these places are Canterbury, Derby, Southampton, Glasgow, Cornwall, Sheffield, Cumberland, Lancashire, and York, and as the practical result, inspectors have ceased taking sample8 in Newcastle, Southampton, Derbyshire, Cambridge, Brighton, Parmouth, Cumberland, Hull, Durham, Dumbarton, Maidstone, and in Scotland generally, In West Suffolk the Magistrates are of opinion that the police have enough to do already, and therefore they have never collected any samples at all.Adulteration is reported to be on tho increase at Southampton, which figures highest in the table, Qla~gow, King’s Lynn, Sheffield, Yarmouth, and Hull, at most of ahich places the Act is practically a dead letter. In reference t o spirits, if the adulteration is simply a dilution with water the Magistrates mill not convict at Bristol, Londonderry, Hackney, or Stockton, while a t Hull and Cork it has been decided that no prosecutions shall be undertaken until a standard has been fixed.The Magistrates a t Cardiff have given the unique decision that the exact price of the article purchased must be tendered by the inspector, and no chauge be required, and as another equally amusing illustration of Magistrates’ wisdom, I may mention that Mr. Collins reports that in Cornwall, a case was dismissed because the certificate stated that the ‘‘ sample of milk ” was marked, and the Bench decided that it was impossible to mark a sample of milk, but only the bottle containing it! prejudice” question. Only 96 samples mere examined as ;t,oainst 350 in 1877. I n the discussion which ensued, Dr. Bartlctt said they might consider that for some time past the Act had been a dead letter where it had previously been an advantage, and adulteration was now more or kS8 in the ascendant in consequence. He thought the returns showed the advantage that a better constituted Act would create, and also the uecessity for making the Act compulsory, Dr. Muter said that he thought the returns did not tell the truth about drugs; what some people deemed an adulterated drug, other people did not. There was nothing that a standard was so much wanted for as drugs, and if there was to be an amendment in the Act, he hoped there would be one as to druge.