PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS. AN ordinary meeting of this Society was held at Burlington House, on Wednesday, the 8th June, the President, Mr. A. H. Allen, in the chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. On the ballot papers being opened the following gentlemen were declared to be As asscci- elected: As member:---We T. MacAdam, public analyst for Portobello. ate :-T. W. Cbss, assistant to Dr. T. Redwood. The following papers were read and discussed :- (( Notes on the Logwood Test for Alum in Bread, etc.,” by W. C. Young. Quantitative determination of Pepper Mixtures,” by A. W. Stokes. Note on Pepper Adulteration,” by T. Stevenson. Dr. Muter’s paper The President then referred to On the American Methods of Manufacturing Oleomargarine, and the laws on the subject in the United States,” was taken as read. THE BILLS FOR DEALING WITH BUTTER SUBSTITUTES.The PRESIDENT said :- A Committee of the House of Commons is now sitting, under the presidency of the Right Hon. G. Sclater-Booth, to consider the two Bills proposing to deal with butter substitutes that were published in the last number of THE ANALYST. As you are aware, the Council have had the Bills under very careful consideration, and Mr. Hehner and myself have attended the meeting of the Committee on the two occasions on which wit- nesses have been examined. The first witness was SIR FREDERICK ABEL, who commenced by describing the process of manufacturing butterine, as he had seen it carried out in Holland. He drew124 THE ANALYST.a sharp distinction between butterine and oleomargarine, stating that the former was the finished product and ordinary article of commerce, while the latter was merely a manufacturer’s intermediate product, and not sold retail at all. In fact, he described butterine as a mixture of 50 to 60 per cent. of oleomargarine (the more fluid portion of animal fat), with ground-nut oil or sesame oil, churned milk or strongly-flavoured butter, and annatto or other harmless colouring matter. By an oversight he omitted to mention salt. Sir Frederick considered the term ‘‘ butterine ” preferable to “ oleomargarine ” aa a generic name for finished butter-substitutes. He considered butterine perfectly whole- some and unobjeotionable. When asked some questions relating to the analytical examination of butter, the witness stated that he had had no experience in that direction, and recommended that the inquiry should be made of an expert analyst. Mr.HERBERT P. THOMAS, the principal clerk of the Local Government Board in charge of the Public Health Department, was the next witness. He doubted the necessity for any special legislation on the subject of butter-substitutes, believing the existing laws were sufficient, provided that they were better administered. There was a great disinclination on the part of many of the local authorities to carry the Sale of Food Act into operation, and the fines inflicted were generally insufficient. He was not prepared to recommend that any minimum number of samples per 1,000 of population should be collected annually.The analysts had generally been exceedingly well-selected and performed their duties in a satisfactory manner. The witness thought the existing provisions respecting the declaration of the nature of mixtures were sufficient. He had known instances in which the last three letters of the word ‘‘ butterine ” had been covered up with a price label. I was the next witness called. I handed in a draft bill, drawn up by me after con- sultation with the Council of this Society. This draft wholly omitted the clause relating to informers, made the labelling of all butter-substitutes sold retail compulsory, and ren- dered an invoice equivalent to a warranty. In place of the unwieldy provisionsrelating to the employment of Inland Revenue officers, the draft contained a clause exactly similar to that in the Sale of Food Amendment Act, dealing with examination of milk in transit.Another clause of the draft bill was one which the Council agreed with me in con- sidering of great importance, and which ran as follows :- ‘‘ I n the event of any sample analysed under this Act being referred to the chemical officers of the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House, under the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the chemical officersaforesaid shall, in their cer- tificate, state whether the sample had, by keeping or other muse, undergone any change that would interfere with the analysis, or the correct interpretation of the results of the analysis, and shall set forth fully their analytical facts and figures, and the r w n s for their conclusions ; and, in the event of their being unable to confirm the certificate of the public analyst, shall also state definitely whether they are in a position positively to con- tradict his conclusion; and in the event of the certificate of the chemical officers of the Inland Revenue Department failing substantially to support the certificate previously given by the public analyst, the public analyst may insist on being examined, and the prosecutor may require the attendance, for cross-examination, of the officer or officers of the Inland Revenue Department who made theanalysis, and the court shall take his or their evidence and that of the public analyst, into consideration in deciding on the caw.’’ Unfortunately, I was allowed no opportunity of explaining the unsatisfactory natureTHE ANALYST.125 of the present system of reference to Somerset House, although it is evident that the successful working of any Act dealing with butter-substitutes will be largely dependent on this point. Sir Richard Paget, who held a copy of Dr. Bell’s book in his hand, asked if it were not the case that the methods of detecting and determining butter-substitutes were based on the differences of specific gravity, of the percentage of soluble and insoluble fatty acids, and on the differences of the melting points. I replied that they were good as far as they went, but if relied on exclusively, 35 to 40 per cent. of adulteration might be overlooked. The method of Dr. Bell, based on specific gravity, which had done good service in its day, was only a rough test, and there were two other tests which, nowadays, no analyst would think of omitting.These were the methods of Koettstorfer and Reichert, the latter of which gave the sharpest existing distinction between butter and butter-substitutes. I n answer to Sir Henry Roecoe I described these processes in outline. Much of my examination was devoted to the question of the desirability of abolishing the word ‘‘ butterine ” in favour of ‘‘ margarine ” or ‘‘ oleomargarine.” I stated that all were equally unscientific, and that ‘‘ butterine ” being now a generally accepted name for butter-substitutes, I saw no reason for prohibiting its use, provided that a clause were inserted in the Bill making it illegal to cover up or hide in any way the terminal letters.I stated that, according to my recollection, (( oleomargarine ” was the original name given to the finished article or factitious butter, though it might now be employed to designate an intermediate product. Still, “ oleomargarine ” is recognised as the ordinary name for butter-substitutes in America, and has recently been made compulsory all over the United States. Hence we have the anomaly that an article will be exported from New York as oleomargarine," and on arrival at Liverpool the same name, according to Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Lovell, has ceased to be applicable to it, is not correctly descrip- tive of it, and the article henceforth becomes “butterine.” Whatever name be ultimately legalised for finished butter-substitutes generally, it is evident that the name ‘( oleomar- garine ” is not obsolete, and has not the limited application attributed to it.In the course of my examination I expressed the opinion that special legisla tion with respect to butter-substitutes was desirable, as there was no other article of an exactly parallel nature, except factitious wine. Thus, mixed coEee, adulterated pepper, and watered milk, contained some of the article under the name of which they were sold ; but butterine often contained no real butter, except perhaps the trifling pro- portion added to give it a characteristic flavour. He stated that the mixhgof butter with butter-substitutes was a manufacturer’s operation, and was rarely praclised by the retailer, and in instances within his knowledge the retailer had been misled by the wholesale dealer as t o the nature of the article supplied to him.Mixtures con- taining a considerable proportion of real butter had recently become very common, and these mixtures he would wholly prohibit, asmuch increasing the tendency to fraud. He would not allow real butter to be added to a butter-substitute, except in the trifling pro- portion in which i t is employed to communicate a butter flavour. I do not know how the trade would regard this, but it would certainly get rid of a11 difficulties for the analysts. A similar provision is contained in the German Butter-Substitutes Bill now under consideration. Our friend Mr. OTTO HEHNER was the next witness. Dr. JAMES BELL, of the Inland Revenue Laboratory, was the first witness examined on the re-assembling of the Committee on June 7th. He considered the retailer should always be the person proceeded against, even if he could shorn that he had been deceived126 TEE ANALYST.by the wholesale dealer. He recommended that an inspector should ham the power to go into any butter-store, either wholesale or retail, and take a sample for analysis of any article of the character of butter, which was not distinctly labelled by the name which might be eventually adopted for butter-substitutes. In other words, the failure to label a butter-substitute as such should be made an offence, even when no sale took place. This appears to me a very valuable suggestion, and it is satisfactory to find that it met the approval of a subsequent witness, Mr.Lovell, who spoke on behalf of the wholesale butterine merchants. Dr. Bell did not approve of the proposed employment of Inland Revenue officers, and saw no object in providing for the taking of samples in transit. He thought it unnecessary to insist on any general name for butter-substitutes, and would not take the responsibility of suggesting one. Some questions were put to Dr. Bell by Mr. Mchren, relative to a letter of mine in the St. James’s Gazette, describing the objections of public analysts to the present system of reference of perishable articles to Somerset House. The portion of my letter bearing more particularly on the point was a9 follows :- “But a far graver cause of the inefficiency of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, especially with regard to milk and butter, is the position of the Somerset House chemists, who are appointed referees under the Act.These gentlemen are placed in a very disagreeable and invidious position. Thus, they are required to certify whether the condemnation of a sample by a public analyst was correct, when it very frequently happens that they are not in a position to certify either one way or the other, But, instead of stating this in their certificates, these gentlemen consider it their duty to give the benefit of any doubt which may exist in their minds to the vendor of the article. The wording of their certificates has commonly been that they were ‘ unable to affirm that the sample in question was adulterated ; ’ thus leaving $he magistrates to imagine that they affirmed it to be unadulterated, whereas what they actually meant was that, from decomposition or other circumstances, they could not form any positive opinion on the matter.That this is frequently the case is evident from the fact that it has often been five or six weeks before the sample in dispute has reached their hands. Naturally, under such circumstances, no reliable analysis of milk has been possible; and, although the referees have attempted to avoid the difficulty by making an allowance for change in the milk according to the number of days it has been kept, it is evident that, without a knowledge of the circumstances and temperature under which it has been kept, whether the bottle was wholly or partially filled, and whether the milk was originally watered or not, any such corrections are of a wholly worthless character.Similarly, Dr. Bell, the head of the Somerset House laboratory, has published figures which show that a genuine butter is liable, by keeping for six or seven weeks, to undergo such changes as to make the analyrsis unreliable. It is, therefore, much bo be regretted that the chemists appointed as referees under the Act should not definitely state these facts in their certificates, instead of leaving it to be inferred that the analyst who analysed the milk or butter when in a fresh condition had been in error. I may point out also, with every personal respect for the Somerset House chemists, that the assumption that they are bound to give the benefit of any doubt to the defendants is not in accordance with their position &s impartial referees.It is their duty to state fairly the result of their analysis, and whether from it they believe the milk to have been adulterated. I f they cannot speak with certainty, they might speak of probabilities; and, if they cannot make up their minds a t all, they should say so candidly, and leave the course of giving the benefit of any doubt to theTHE ANALYST. 127 Bench in the usual manner, and not exercise the prerogative of mercy them- selves. “ It must further be borne in mind that the number of cases in which the analysts’ certificates are disputed, and which therefore are referred to the Somerset House chemists, are very small, amounting only to a dozen or two of all kinds per annum. Hence the experience of Somerset House of such kind of work is necessarily limited, and the chemists there have no incentive to keep themselves en rapport with the advance of food analysis, in which public analysts are so much interested.One of the practical effects of this is that the Somerset House chemists habitually express themselves ‘ unable to affirm the fact of the adulteration ’ of butter with butterine when it occurs to a less extent than 35 to 40 per cent. j whereas public analysts are able to detect with absolute certainty something like half this proportion. Bearing in mind, however, the damage to his reputation caused by a failure of the Somerset House chemists to confirm his certificate, the ordinary public analyst is often compelled in self-defence to give a certificate on which no proceedings can be taken, when he is perfectly aware in his own mind that the sample should not be allowed to pass.” On the subject of this letter Dr.Bell gave the following ‘evidence :- “ Q. 551. You have issued statistics yourself, I think, to show that genuine butter is liable by keeping six or seven weeks, to undergo such changes as to make analysis qnreliable ?-A. No, certainly not. If butter is kept for a considerable time it depre- ciates ; but the extent to which it depreciates within the month that it requires to be sent up to us is so infinitesimal that it would not affect any analysis.” “ Q . 552. Is it not the case sometimes that four or five weeks elapse before you make the analysis after the thing is first sent up by the public analyst ?-A.No, not four or five weeks after we receive it.” Q. 553. After it is taken, I mean ?-A. I think that under the present law they are required to send it up within the month.” “Q. 554. Can butter be kept a month and not affected at all ?-A. Not to any appreciable extent .” “ Q . 555. Except as regards flavour ?-A. Yes.” ‘‘ Q. 556. For analysis it is just as good ?-A. Practically the same.” This evidence makes one rub one’s eyes to be sure of being awake! It is simply astounding that Dr. Bell should be so little conversant with that part of the Act for the working of which he is directly responsible as not to know that the interval of time between the purchase of a sample and his receipt of a portion of it in w e of dispute is commonly six or seven weeks, I do not suggest for a moment that Dr.Bell desired to mislead the Committee, but his reply certainly had that effect. Dr. Bell seems to have confounded in an unaccountable manner, the provision in the Sale of Food Amendment Act, under which proceedings in the case of perishable articles must be commenced within twenty-eight days from the time of purchase, with the length of time before he receives a portion of a disputed sample. He wholly ignores the fact that after the issue of the summons a period of not less than seven days must elapse before the hearing, and that in disputed cases there is very frequently an adjournment of the hear- ing for a fortnight or longer before it is decided to refer the sample to Somerset House. And the twenty-eight days allowed for taking out the summons is by no means an excessive time in practice, seeing that many sanitary authorities meet only once a fort- night and do not allow proceedings to be taken except under a special resolution passed by them.128 THE ANALYST.But if Dr. Bell was mistaken as to the provisions and working of the Act, what shall we say of his statement about the change of butter by keeping, in the face of the experiments he records on page 71 of his book 011 the “ Analysis and Adulterations of Foods, Part II,”? There he gives the following data, ( I showing the amount of depreciation which different samples of butter have undergone in the respective times stated ” : - 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 6. Insoluble acids; original butter. 87.30 87.80 85.50 87.40 87.72 87.65 ?, ,, after keeping .. 88.97 90*00 85-72 87.97 88 40 88-00 $9 ,, increase . . 1.67 2.20 0.22 0.55 0 68 0.35 ------ ------ Length of time kept, in weeks . . 12 7 7 6 8 6 In the most striking case, No. 2, a butter kept for seven weeks showed an increase of 2 20 per cent. in the insoluble acids, the specific gravity at looo Fahr. a t the same time falling from 911-58 to 909.19. It would be interesting to learn from Dr. Bell how in the face of such a result he can state that he has never issued statistics showing that genuine butter, by keeping for six or seven weeks, is liable to undergo such changes as to make analysis unreliable, and that the depreciation in a month is so infinitesimal that it would not affect any analysis. Of course all analysts know that such figures as were obtained by Dr.Bell, after keeping No. 2 sample for seven weeks, are such as indicate a notable adulteration, but having obtained them it is easy to understand how it comes that Dr. Bell fails to detect adulteration of butter even in cases where the admixture may exceed thirty per cent. Personally, I have no confidence in the figures in question, and doubt if butter is liable to undergo the rapid change found in the case of No. 2 sample; but Dr. Call is in a different position. I f he maintains the accuracy of his reply to Q. 561 it is a distinct repudiation of his analyses on page 71 of his book. Dr. Bell’s examination then proceeded as follows :- “ Q . 557. Is it the case that the wording of the certificate from Somerset House frequently is simply that you are unable to affirm that the sample in question is adulterated ?-A.That is so in the case of milk; we have not a certificate in the case of butter worded in that form.” I confess that this reply surprised me, as I was not aware that the objectionable ‘‘ Q. 558. A certificate like that of course leaves the whole thing perfectly vague 1 -A. It leaves the magistrates to deal with the question.” “ Q. 559. Does it not rather give a presumption against the local analyst ?-A, No, I do not see that it does; the terms are rather in favour of the public analyst.” “ Q. 560. 1: should have thought they were against him ?-A. Decidedly not ; it leaves the magistrates either to accept our certificate or not.” “ Q . 561. I am informed that the local analysts feel that that phrase is rather against them, and that, in cansequence, public analysts are often compelled to give certificates on which no proceedings can he taken for fear of your sending down this vague report, when, in reality, they are perfectly aware in their own minds that the sample should not be allowed to pass ?-A.The public analysts are pretty well aware inability t o affirm the fact of adulteration ” was limited to milk certificates.THE ANALYST. 129 now-a-days that they need have no dread of our interfering with their analyses, provided they have kept within a reasonable limit and made an accurate analysis.” “ Q . 562. Then you think that no damage is done to the public interest by long delay in getting the Somerset House decision.-A. No.” I intend in my next batch of quarterly reports to state that Dr.Bell considers the expression we are unable to affirm the fact of adulteration ” of milk to be rat.her in favour of the public analyst, and that it leaves the magistrates either to accept the Somerset House certificate or not. I should recommend all other public analysts to follow my example. Mr. JOHN CARP LOVELL waa the next witness. He said he had had great experience as an importer and distributor of butter-substitutes. He restricted the term oleomargarine to the manufacturer’s intermediate product. He thought the sale of butterine for butter should be put a stop to. He apparently had every confidence in public analysts, and approved of Dr. Bell’s suggestion that an inspector should be allowed to take, without purchase, sa-mples of apparent butter not having a butterine label.All butter-substitutes sold retail should be wrapped in descriptive labels, and the word ‘‘ butterine ” should be branded on all kegs and mses. By inflicting sufficiently heavy fines, and even imprison- ment for repeated offences, the fraudulent sale of butter-substitutes would soon caase. He would apply the term butterine to everything but genuine butter. The Committee will meet again on June loth, when representatives of the whole- sale and retail butter-trade will be heard.” He objected to the suppression of the word butterine. Speaking generally, the provisions of the Bills which public analysts thought mcst objectionable have little chance of becoming law, and if the suggestion of Dr. Bell with respect to taking samples without purchase be adopted, the Act will be of decided public benefit.The attention of the Committee has been directed by letter to the method of deal- ing with suspected milk in Derbyshire, for which county Mr. Hehner and myself are joint analysts. In the case of either of us having a sample of milk believed to be adulterated, he sends it without delay to the other, who also gives a certificate on it (at half fee), so that there are two independent analyses made of the fresh, or nearly fresh, milk. This course practically precludes all chance of error on the part of the analyst, and is a f a r more satisfactory way of checking him than by sending the milk to Somer- set House, when five or six weeks old, and when, therefore, it is quite impossible to make any trustworthy analysis of the sample.As an illustration of this I may state that in a recent case an analyst certified to 16 per cent. of added water in milk, and his certificate being doubted, the sample was sent to Somerset House, whence a certificate was returned stating that the milk was adulterated with 40 per cent. of added water ! The discrepancy is an indication of the value of the Somerset House “allowance for change by keeping.” Mr. HARLAND said that there are in London makers of oleornnrgarine simply, and other fims who mix oleomargarine with oil or milk and produce the articlo butterino. Recently he had had to examine a number of butters as they came into London. A good many brands had been warranted genuine and suspicion had arieen about them. * The witnesses examined on June 10th gave evidence merely of trade interest.130 THE ANALYST. As a matter of fact, more than 50 per cent. of them contained from 30 to 60 per cent. of butterine ; they were branded or warranted genuine and had the name of a respectable trader attached. Dr. MUTER said he could confirm the President’s recollection that the term oleo- margarine was originally applied to the finished product, and not limited to the intermediate article as it now is by some traders. The President announced that the country meeting of the Society would be held at Leamington, on Friday, the 22nd inst., and full particulars would be duly announced. The papers read as above noticed will be published in THE ANALYST for next month, VISIT OF THE SOCIETY TO THE FARMS OF THE AYLESBURY DAIRY CO. ON Thursday, the 9th June, the members of the Society who were in London, for the previous evening’s meeting, journeyed into Surrey, to visit the above Company’s dairy farms, when a very interesting day was spent. A full account of this visit will appear in our columns during the recess.