THE ANALYST. 11 THE WORKING OF THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, DURINa 1875 & 1876, BY (3. W. WIGNER, F.C.S., &ad before the Xocietg of Public Alzalysk, at BwZington HOZGSB, PiccadiZ&, on the 14th Barch, 1877. I HAVE much pleasure in laying before the Society this evening a large number of returns, which have been most courteously communicated by the Members of this Society, and by some Public Analysts who do not yet belong t o us, showing the degree of success or otherwise which has attended the working of the present Anti-Adulteration. Act.The returne possess many features of great interest, but the most important point is the percentage of all the samples which were found to be adulterated. During the well-known investigations of the Lancet Commission, Dr. Hassall and others found that about 65 per cent.of the samples purchased were adulterated. Under the Act of 1860, the amount of work done was so small that it would be worthless as a comparison. The Act of 1572 made a change, although it was not universally enforced ; yet in the course of Rome sixteen months nearly 15,000 samples of food were analysed, and even then the striking result was shown that 26 per cent.of the whole number were adulterated. These samples, it must be remembered, were not purchased by private consumers, but in nearly every case by a public official, who was well known and therefore presumably well served. The returns I hold in my hand show the first results of the Act of 1815, which it must be borne in mind is still simply a permissive, and not a compulsory Act, and, at the first glance, the result is gratifying, for we find that while in 103 districts 15,989 samples have been analysed, only 2,895 have been found to be adulterated, or 18.10 per cent.of the total number, thus showing an improvement of 8 per cent. in two years. The improvement thus shown is probably below rather than above the truth, since the processes in use for analysis have been perfected, and many samples which would have been passed as pure two years since, would now be condemned.There are, however, some very unsatisfactory features to set against this, for instance the number of samples of adulterated milk has actually increased from 1066 to 1483, in other words from 28-24 per cent. t o 51.22 per cent.of the total number of adulterated samples. This would certainly indicate that the milk trade has not thus far been rendered moral by Act of Parliament. It has not been possible to procure the exact list of samples purchased in each case, but in nearly all the Districts the analysts have kindly furnished the names of the adulterated articles, and calculating these on the total number of samples purchased, we find that :- 9.28 per cent.were Adulterated Milk. 5-27 ,, I ? Groceries. 4 1 $ 9 ,, Drugs. 1.09 ,, 9 3 Beer, Wine and Spirits. -50 9 , ?? Flour and Bread. 1.55 ,, ?, Sundries. 18.10 ,, Total. During the previous period the adulterated milks were only 7.31 per cent. of the total samples.12 THE ANALYST. On viewing the matter in another light, we find that the adulterated samples alone may be divided as follows :- Milk ...... ... ... 61.22 per cent. Groceries . , . ... ... ... 29.15 ,) Drugs ... ... ... ... 2.27 ,, Beer, Wine and Spirits ... ... 6.04 ,, Flour and Bread ... ... ... 2.76 ,, Sundries ... ... ... ... 8.56 ,, 100*00 What with watering and skimming therefore, milkmen are responsible for more than half the adulteration which at present goes on; grocers for nearly three-tenths, and even chemists and druggists, though their goods are but comparatively seldom examined (in fact not one-tenth as often as they ought to be) figure nearly as high as the bakers, who expect a periodical visit from an inspector. Thia state of things is not as it should be.% From the general view of the subject we pass to the specific, and here the permissive and, consequently, uncertain character of the Act is well exemplified.Thus, a1 though competent analysts have been appointed for Cambridgeshire, Denbigh- shire, Meath, Wexford, Westmeath, Cornwall, Gravesend, Falkirk, S tiding, Beverley, and Rye, not a single sample has been submitted for analysis in any of the eleven districts. While in the Counties of Kent, Huntingdon, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Montgomeryshire, Down, Leitrim, Waterford, Wicklow, West Sussex and East Suffolk including the tovns of Ipsmich and Colchester, eleven counties in all, only forty-six samples have been analysed, or a fraction more than four per county.I t is not to be wondered at that one third of these samples were adulterated, or that all the four samples submitted from Carlow, Down, Leitrim, and East Suffolk were so.I t is not in human nature t o avoid selling impure things where the vendors know they will escape, but it certainly appears t o me a clear indication of the necessity of altering the Act so as to make some provision for such cases as these. A careful examination of these returns points out clearly another defective feature in the Act.I n the County of Kent only eight samples were taken, but all were pure. The reason is not far to seek, for we find they were all purchased by policemen in uniform. In Mile End Old Town, where it is not generally considered we should find the purest articles, only one sample out of 7 2 was adulterated, at Hampstead, one out of 59, and at Hackney, nine out of 214 ; in each case the inspectors who purchased the samples were well known local men.Scotland presents an unfavourable figure in the returns, only 633 samples have been examined, but 248 or more than 39 per cent were adulterated. London (although our returns here are even now incomplete) counts for more than 25 per cent. of the total number of samples, and the percentage of adulteration actually shown is only 10.08 per cent.of the samples of which 219 or 5.32 per cent. are milk. It is singular that such towns as Salford and Qlasgow, although both fortunate in securing the services of competent men as analysts, stand worst in the returns, the former showing 46.70 per cent. adulterated, of which 21.98 per cent. were milk, and the latter 53.20 per cent.of which 39.20 per cent. were milk. The remedy is obvious. * In reference to the author’s remark, we draw attention to a letter from Dr. Dupr6 appearing in this number, -EDITOBB’ ~ A L Y B T .THE ANALYST. 13 From all these figures the inference that the Act needs amendment is clear. It is radically wrong that nearly a third of the counties should be entirely or practically exempted from the action of a salutary Act such as this is.We also see clearly the evil effect of well known men purchasing samples. I think two more inferences may fairly be drawn. 1st. The trivial fines generally imposed in milk cases are quite insufficient to prevent adulteration. It is more profitable to dilute and pay the fines, laying the blame on to the man who takes the milk out, than t o carry on business honestly. Of all articles they should be the most piire, yet, I believe, that if I could, in each district, find the number of drugs purchased for examination, the resulting per ceritage found impure would be startling. I hope to bring the matter before the Society again at our next meeting, with a view of our making some representation t o the Government on the matter. 2nd. Drugs need much more attention than has hitherto been given to them.