|
11. |
Notes of the month |
|
Analyst,
Volume 4,
Issue 43,
1879,
Page 196-200
Preview
|
PDF (433KB)
|
|
摘要:
196 THE ANALYST. NOTES O F THE MONTH. The great sensation of the month has been the Camberwell butter case, in which the analyst certified to the presence of 25 per cent. of foreign fat, while the chemists at Somerset House held the same article to be genuine. It is with regret that we refer to the matter at all, but, as journalists having the interests of accord among analysts at heart, we feel bound to point out one or two lamentable occurrences in the whole matter. No one for a, moment will doubt but that Dr.Bernays gave the analysis his fullest care, and reported according to the best of his judgment, even if, unfortunately, this was faulty. The allegation of carelessness is certainly unfounded. We have been privately favoured with copies of both the reports-that of the analyst, and that of Somerset House, At first Dr.Bernays found the butter to contain : Water admixed . . . . . . . . . . 12.37 .. free . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.24 Curd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.20 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.19 1 ~ 0 0 The “ actual gravity ” of the fat was -911 ; melting point 43.5 ; and the insoluble fatty acids 88.31.Judging apparently by Hehner’s original standard, the analyst reported that the butter was presumfibly mixed with about 25 per cent. of foreign fat, but he did not consider it a sufficiently bad case for prosecution. Here, then, came error the first : for, this report having been submitted to a committee of the Camberwell Vestry, that body decided to prosecute in spite of the analyst’s opinion that they oughtTHE ANALYST.197 not to do so, and requested him to give another certificate without the saving clause, whicli lie, unfortunately, did. Now it is evident, that, but for this Udue interference of persons totally unskilled in analysis, or the interpretation of analytical results, the subsequent proceedings would not have occurred.We have looked most carefully through the Act, and nowhere do we find any warrant for a committee to sit in judgment on tlie analyst’s certificates. We are aware that it is the general custom, but, it is in our opinion, in the highest degree undesirable. The secret of where the samples mere bought, and the results of their examination, are only to be known (as we read the Actj to the inspector, and if he receive a certificate that the article is genuine, he must not take any further step; but if it be a mixture, and the analyst definitely declares it to be so, then he must forthwith proceed to take out a summons.I t is, in the interests of traders, that analyses should not be communicated to persons who might themselves be business opponents, and who are therefore unfit to sit in judgment, lest they should use their position, as the analyst’s employers, to coerce him to certify against an article wlien he has doubts of the advisability of doing so.On the other hand, persons may offend and be reported against, and yet, by this secret committee system, the proceedings lviglit for some reason be stopped and the public made to suffer.The sooner, therefore, that vestries entirely give up this system of demanding all the certificates from the inspectors, to overhaul them in committee, the better, as it is not only nnrvarrantcd by tlie Act, but also renders the quarterly report of the analyst a mere farce, of telling men what they already know. The utmost that ought to be required is, that when tlie inspector receives a distinctly adverse certificate, he should mention the circumstance, and ask for the aid of the legal officers of tho vestry as a matter of course.No committee can legally take any cognizance of the number and nature of ths samples procured, and the results of their analyses, except upon the quarterly rcport of the analyst, duly provided for in the Act for their information, and which lias to be sent by them, after they have considered it, to the Local Government Board.If Dr. Bernays had seen his may to definitely assert his true position, and refuse to alter anything at tlie bidding of a body who ought never even to have seen his certificate, lie would have doiie good service, but, even as it is, he has probably done better, because, as it has turned out, the fallacy and illegality of the proceehg has been clearly manifest.We sincerely wish me could have stopped here, but must now proceed to fault number two. actual gravity ” process, that he had studied Muter’s paper on “ butter analysis,” in the first number of THE ANALYST. It is a pity that lie did not go farther, and adopt the limit therein laid clown (which is, as far as me know, thnt nov generally recoguised), namely, to calculate the admixture on 87 per cent.insoluble acids (with the proper proportion of soluble acids), but to make no report againat any sample under 89 per cent. insoluble with a proportionately low soluble. I n that paper, the conclusions of which were subsequently verified by other observers, it was shown that perfectly genuine butter might, when very old and at certain seasons, yield nearly 89 per cent.insoluble acids, and, therefore, although in the Camberwell case some admixture of fat might be probable, it was uot certain. I t is evident, from Dr. Bernays using Muter’s198 THE ANXLYST. Tlie Somerset House chemists fouiicl : Water . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.05 Curd . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1.95 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -96 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85-04 100~00 We pass over tlie discrepancies of curd a i d salt which miglit always occur, owing to imperfect incorporation, but these gentlemen go on to say :-‘‘ From a consideration of the results of a full analysis of the fat, we are of opinion that tlie butter is genuine.” Unfortunately we have not the figures of tlieir full analysis of the fat, and, owing to the official secrecy affected as to their processes and standards, wc have no real means of judging ; but, supposing they agreed in insoluble acids, &c., with Dr.Beimays, tlie perfectly safe report to have made, would have been that “ it came within the possible limits of genuine butter.” It is after all a great pity in tlie true interests of every one, both analysts, traders, and the public, that Mr.Bell nnd his colleagues were refused permission to publicly lay their processes alld stalldards before our Society, so that we might fairly discuss and adopt them. I t is true, that when individual analysts call at Somerset Hoiise, they receive the greatest courtesy, but tlie only way to avoid repetitions of tlie Camberwell case is, for tlie authorities to authorize tlie chemists at Somerset House to periodically and officially communicate to our Society tlieir ideas as to standards, so that we n a y discuss them, and substitute perfect accord for occasional discord.Anotlier lesson taught by the case is, that Public Analysts sliould attciicl the meetings and join in tlie discussions of our Society, from which Dr.Bernags was unfort~matelycompelled, by press of work, to resign some years ago. Had lie been with us, and heard all tliat has been said among us as to butter, lie would have adopted the 89 limit long ago, and saved himself much unmerited abuse niicl annoyance. Alluding to the statement made by Dr. Bernays before the Camberwell Vestry at tlie last meeting, tlie South Lonilon Observer says that : ‘‘ The spectacle of several erudite members of the Vestry solemnly checking on their blotting paper the results of the conflicting analyses was sublime, and the value of the whole scientific twaddle indulged in during the discussion was admirably demonstrated by the fact tliat one learned commentator alluded to Dr, Bermys as’ tlie ‘ analysist,’ and auotlier refuted the notion of accepting as infallible that gentleman’s ipsy dixy ! ’ ” In an article on this case, the Grocer gives tlie advice that traders should cause every analysis to be referred to Somerset House, iii the hope, doubtless, tliat they would occasionally benefit by the lower standards adopted there than by some analysts.This is a proposal we mould most cordially endorse, because it would definitely put an end to the abuse showered upon us, as a body, by certain trade organs.It would then be seen by tlic public, that our decisiqns would really be reversed in very few cafies. Indeed, we are certain that nothing like so great a percentage of our opinions would be altered as is annually done on appeals in the Court of Chancery, and, when such a reversal did occur, no one would think more of it than they do of the reversal, on appeal, of the decision of n Vice-chancellor, That is a thing tvliich happens almostTHE XXALk'ST. 199 weekly, and yet tlie judges of tlie firFjt instance arc not abused ; so wliy not accord to us tlie same amount of consideration ? Is it to be held that we ought to be more infallible tlian a Vice-chancellor ? The Grocer argues that the analyses done a t Somerset House must be more trustworthy tlian those by Public Analysts, because tho Goveriinieii t cliemists have no desire to make '' cases." This is, once more, tlie old, old story ! Why 011 earth should any analyst desire to " make cases ? " Ncitlier liis appoiiitment, nor his remuiwrntioii, in any way clepencls on such a coursc.He is not tho detective, and lie does not ewii know from whence his samples come, and so what interest can he possibly have except simply to do his duty to the best of his ability? Indeed, if interest acted in any way, it would bc in the direction of making as few cases as he could, and s3 saviiig ths nnnoyanca of attending police courts. That there should ba a Coiurt of Appeal in every matter is most desirable, atiicl, no doubt, as scicncc progresses, t!ic differences of opinion will gradually disappear.Tiiliy do not tlio trade jonriials lioriestly admit that for on9 such difference tliere are plcnty of agreements, and, instead of abusing the analysts, direct tlieir pens to persuade tradesmen to act properly up to tlie Act, and openly label and sell their mixtures as mixtures, so saving botli theinselves a d the analysts a world of trouble.There is, for instance, not a singIe case of cliicory in coffee but might be avoided by a little simple honesty in labelling 011 the part of the retailer, but if men ill sell witliout declaring they deserve no sympathy. The Act caue upon the country at a time when not more tlian three men professed special nttciitioii to food analysis.One of them (the late Dr. Letlieby) is dead, and only the otlier two still survive, and so botli Public Analysts a d the Somerset House Court of Appeal have had t:, really learn the special portion of their duties since the passing of tlie Act, and it is no wonder tliat things talre some time to shake down into order. We venture to say, howcver, tliat no country in Europe now contains so many redly experienced food experts as Great Britain, slid the happy coiisumrnation of perfect uniformity ~voulcl be forwarded if Mr.Bell and his colleagues were not compelled to wrap themselves 111) in nn empirical state of mystery, but were permitted to behave as scientific men should in tlie iiineteelztli ceiitury, and to communicate tlieir processcs and standards to o ~ i r Society, aiid so join in advancing tlie science of food analysis.To be in a position of originating processes and malring discoveries, aiid yet to bc clebnrrd from lnyiiig tlieir resnlts before tlieir fellov-workers is, indecil, nu unenviable positioii for ollr confwrps a t Somerset House.Ewi wlieii oficinlly written to by Dr. Berunys for tlieir limits for butter, so tliat lie might l~now in €nture, t h y w r e not permitted to p t a definite reply on paper, but liad ta give R vague ~ I ~ S I V C P , ancl offer to show Iiiui personally wlirtt tliry must not write. I t is surely time that the Boaril of I i i l n i d Reveiiue saw their way to reiuove SO cliildisli nil embargo on the publictlticm of vliat wollld, donltlcss, Le the po9fs of tlie ability of their scientific officers. Our readers will observe that some lvillr cases linve bcen dismissed ~iii..l,er the n w Act, because t h e summonses were not served within twenty-eight days from the purchase of tlie saiqles.This important point should be kept in m i d by tlie inspectors, and the law officers charged with prosecuting under the Act.200 THE ANALYST.What do the censors of the famous self-constituted Institute of Chemistry say to the following ? A would-be analyst, wlio puts F.I.C. after his signature, and whose name appears in the published list as one of the Fellows of the Institute, has Been sending letters to food manufacturers something in the following style :-‘‘ I have been examining your products and find a large proportion of copper.I shall of course act under proper advice, but I am afraid there is 110 course open to me bnt to place the matter in the hands of the proper authorities.” In one case the result of the letter was a request to analyse other samples, for which the would-be aiialyst charged a good round fee, folc?zd copper in each case, and mas pnfortunately paid.Similar samples were afterwards sllbmitted to analysts of repute, who found either no copper at all, or the infinitesimal traces which Itre present in most organic substances. We can scarcely look upon this disinterested (?) work as anything short of a species of black mail. Thank goodness the man is not a Public Analyst.We can give the censors copies of several of the letters which we have seen, and shall be curious to see how these ‘‘ elevators ” of tho profession of chemistry will act in the matter. Mr. John Parry has been appointed Public Analyst for the Borough of Peiiryn. RECENT CHEMICAL PATENTS. The following specifications have been published during tho past month, and can be obtained from the Great Seal Office, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, Lodon.1879. Name of Pntenteo. NO. 189 A. H. Allen . . . . . . . . 245 R. E. Crompton and J. W. Wi!liams 259 T. W. Grieve . . . . . . . . 269 F, M. Lyte . . . . . . . . 325 E. L. Paraire . . . . . . . . 416 J. D. Andrews.. . . . . . . 427 C. Dubos . . . . . . . . 461 G. Wieeler . . . . . . . . 469 N. J. Heclunann . .. . . . 523 E. T. dz W. R. Bousfield . . . . 594 E. G. Brewer . . . . . . . . 673 T. J. Smith . . . . . . . . 698 H. J. Smith . . . . . . . . 703 W. J. Strype . . . . . . . . 713 0. C. Ross . . . . . . . . 775 J. C. Mewburn . . . . . . 863 C.D. Abel . . . . . . . . Titlc of Pntent. Price. Treatment of Sulphurous Gases . . . . . . 4d. Lamp or Apparatus for Shading Electric Light .. Gcl. Separation of Metals from Metallic Ores by Treatinant Electrical Light Appiratns . . . . . . . . ad. Electric Lamps . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. Manufactureof Citrate of Magnesia . . . . . . Gd. Treatment of Paper and Parchment to detect Erasures 2cl. Electric Light . . . . . . . . . . . . Gd. Extracting Mucilage from Seaweed . . . . . . Gcl. Contrivance used in Processes Involving Formation, Apparatus for Manufacture of Sulphuric Acid . . Ccl. Apparatus for Cooling Fatty Acids . . . . . . Cd. Electric Lamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . G d . Apparatus Employed in Electric Lighting . . . . 2cl. with Acids, Brine, &c. . . . . . . . . 8d. Electric Lamps . . . . . . . . . . . . 2cl. Apparatus for Manufacturc of Hydrogen Gas .. Gcl. &c., of Chemical Compounds . . . . . . 6d. Production of Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . 4d. BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. The Chemist and Druggist ; The Brewers’ Gurudian ; The British Medical Journal ; The Medical Press ; The Pharmaceutical Journal ; The Sanitary Record ; The Miller ; Journal of Applied Science; The Boston Journal of Chemistry ; The Provisioner ; Thc American Dairyninii ; The Practitioner ; American New Remedies ; Proceedings of the American Chemical Society ; Le Prd,icien ; The Inventors’ Record ; New York Public Health ; Philadelphia Printers’ Circular.
ISSN:0003-2654
DOI:10.1039/AN8790400196
出版商:RSC
年代:1879
数据来源: RSC
|
|