摘要:

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS. SPECIAL REPORT OF A YEETING TO DISCUSS THE BILLS RELATING TO THE PURITY OF FOOD NOW BEFORE PARLIAMENT. A meeting of this Society was held at Burlington House, Piocrtdilly, on Wednesday, the 11th ult., 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 it was announced that the following gentlemen had been elected : As members :--.R. H. Davies, public analyst j Bertram Blount, analyst. As ctssociate :-T. Hunter, assistant to Mr. Davies. The following gentlemen were proposed for election, and will be balloted for a t the next meeting:-W. T. MacAdam, public analyst for Portobello; T. W. Glass, aasistant to Dr. Redwood. The President opened the meeting by calling attention to the bills now before the Home of Commons, affecting the food supply of the Country.These bills are as follows :- A BILL FOR BETTER SECURING THE PURITY OF BEER (A.D. 1887). WHEREAS it is expedient, with a view to enable the public to distinguish between beer brewed from hops and malt from barley and beer composed of other ingredients, to amend the law relating to the sale of beer : Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament aesembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : [Short title.] [Dedcwation of ingredients on selling beer.] 1. This Act may be cited as the Pure Beer Act, 1887. 2. Every person who sells or e~tposes for sale, by wholesale or retail, any beer brewed from or containing any ingredients other than hops or malt from barley shall keep conspicuously posted a t the bar or other place where such beer is sold or exposed for sale a legible notice stating what other ingredients are contained in such beer.Any person who sells or exposes for sale any such beer as aforesaid without complying with the above enactment shall be liable to a fine not exceeding in the cam of the first offence j v e pounds, and in the case of the second or any subsequent offence twenty pou.nds. Any fine incurred under this section may be recovered summarily by any informer, and one half of the fine shall in every c888 be paid to the mformer.100 THE ANALYST. ~~ [Dejnition of Beer.] [Comrnencernent of Act.] 3. In this Act the term " beer " includes beer (other than 4. This Act shall come into operation on the first day of black or spruce beer), ale, and porter. January me thowand eight hudred and eight-eight.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN887120099b

出版商:RSC    

年代:1887

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

A BILL TO REGULATE THE IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, AND BE it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and con- sent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : SALE OF BUTTER SUBSTITUTES. (A.D. 1887.) [Short title.] [De&itim.] 1. This Act may be cited as the Butter Substitutm Act, 1887. 2. In this Act the word “ butter ” shall mean such article produced from unadulterated milk or cream unmixed with any other fatty or oleaginous substance whatsoever. The words (‘ margarine ” or ‘‘ oleomargarine ” shall mean any imitation of butter whatsoever, or any compound of butter with animal fat, or any compound of butter and animal or vegetable oil. 3. From and after the passing of this Act any peraon or persons importing, manufacturing, or offering for sale any margarine or oleo- [Nu& brand ctw paokages distinctly.]THE ANALYST.101 ~ margarine shall muse to be stamped or branded distinctly and durably on every tub, firkin, box, or case containing the same intended for sale the word ‘‘ margarine ” or 6‘ oleomargarine ” in letters not less than one inch in length. Any person or persons acting in contravention OF the provisions of this section shall, on summary conviction, be each and severally liable for the first offence fo a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, for the second offence to one month’s imprisonment or a fine of jifty pounds, and for any subsequent offence to aix month’ imprisonment. 4. Every manufactory of ‘( margarine ” or 6‘ oleo- margarine ” within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall be re&tered with the clerk of the union in which such manufactory is situated, and shall be open at all reasonable hours to inspection by the inspectors appointed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. [Pedty.] Any person or persons carrying on the manufacture of margarine or oleomargarine without having caused the premises in which the same is carried on to be registered, in compliance with the provisions of this section, shall be liable, on summary ctonviction, to a penalty not exceeding Jive pounds for every day in which such manufac- ture is carried on without the registration hereby directed.5. Every manufacturer of and every wholesale dealer in margarine or oleomargarine shall clearly state on every invoice of such article that the goods therein invoiced are sold as margarine or oleomargarine.Any person or parsons who shall neglect to comply with the provisions of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine of one hundred pozunds, and shall not be entitled to recover from the purchaser the value of goods not invoiced as herein directed. [Retail deders shall inform p r c b e r s . Penalty.] 6. Every retail dealer in margarine or oleomargarine shall in every case inform the purchaser of any quantity of the Same that the article sold is margarine or oleomargarine, and every retail dealer acting in contravention of the provisions of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable, for the &t offence, to a fine of ten, pounds, for the second offence to a fine of twenty pounds, and for the third or any subsequent offence to owe month’s imprisonment without the option of a fine.7. Any person giving such infor- mation as shall lead to a conviction under this Act shall be entitled to and receive half the amount of the fine imposed. 8. All proceedings under this Act shall be the same as prescribed by sections twenty, twenty-one, twenty- two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and all officers employed under that Act are hereby empowered and required to carry out the provisions of this Act. [Regulations for describing correctly on forwarding by public carrying companies.] 9.Any person or persons forwarding any consignment of margarine or oleomargarine by steamship, railway, canal, or other public conveyance shall state clearly on the bill of bding, way-bill, or other consignment ticket the true description of such goods as herein- before mentioned, and every steamship, railway, canal? 01: other public Crtrrying company [Pendty,] [Manufmtories to be registered.] [Invoichg.] [PemZty.] [Reward for information, securing co/nuiction.] [Proceedirtgs same CM wnder Sde of Food amd Drugs Act, 1875.1102 THE ANALYST. shall enter the same on their books, manifestoes, and other entries or document under that description. Any person or persons acting in contravention of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of ten shiZZing8 for each package on every consignment not booked a required by the provisions of this section. 10. Custom House and Inland Revenue officers shall be entitled to examine goods in transitu for the purpose of ascertaining that the provisions of this Act are not violated, and to employ experts, if neoessary, in cases of urgency. [Pedty.] [Goods in trawlafitzt m y be examined.]

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN887120100b

出版商:RSC    

年代:1887

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

102 THE ANALYST. A BILL FOR THE BETTER PREVENTION OF THE FRAUDULENT SALE OF OLEOMARGARINE. (A.D. 1887.) WHEREAS it is expedient that further provision should be made for protecting the public against the sale as butter of oleomargarine or other substances made in imitation of butter, as well as of butter mixed with any such substances. Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : [,!j‘hrt title.] [Definition.] 1. This Act may be cited as the Oleomargarine Act, 1887. 2. The word (( butter” shall mean the substance usually known as butter, made exclusively from milk or cream,.or both, with common salt, and with or without additional colouring matter.The word “ oleomargarine ” shall mean all mbstances, whether compounds or other- wise, prepared in imitation of butter, and whether mixed with butter or not, and no such substance shall be lawfully sold, except under the name of oleomargarine, and under the conditions set forth in this Act. 3. Every person dealing in oleomargarine, whether wholesale or retail, whether a manufacturer, importer, or as consignor or consignee, or tw commission agent or otherwise, who is found guilty of an offence under this Act, shall be liable on summary conviction for the first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and for the second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. [Harking of ome~.] 4.Every person dealing in oleomargarine shall conform to the following regulations : Every barrel, tub, packet, or case, whether open or closed, and containing oleo- maxgarine, shall be marked (‘ Oleomargarine ” on the top, bottom, and sides, in large, printed capital letters, and if such oleomargarine be exposed for sale in any open plate or vessel, there shall be attached to such open plate or vessel, so as to be clearly visible to the purchaser, a label marked in large printed capital letters “ Oleomargarine.” And every person selling the same shall in every case inform the purchaser at the time of sale that the substapce sold is not butter. [Presumption agaimt vefidor.] 5. Every person dealing with, selling, or exposing, or offering for sale, or having in his possession for the purpose of sale, any quantity of oleomargarine contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be liable to conviction for an offence against thk Act, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court before whom [Penalty,]THE ANALYST.103 he is charged that he purchased the article in question as butter, and with a written warranty to that effect, that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the article was other than butter, and that he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it, and in such case he shall be discharged from the prosecution, but shall be liable to pay the costs incurred by the prosecutor unless he shall have given due notice to him that he will rely upon the above defence. 6. Any person giving such information as shall lead to a conviction under this Act shall be entitled to and receive half the amount of the fine imposed.7. All oleomargarine imported into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall be duly entered as such by the officers of Her Majesty’s Customs, and all oleomargarine, whether imported or manufac- tured within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, shall, whenever forwarded by any public conveyance, be duly consigned as oleomargarine ; and it shall be lawful for any officer of Her Majesty’s Customs or Inland Revenue, if he shall have reason to believe that the provisions of this Act are infringed on this behalf, to detain and examine any barrel, tub, packet, or case, and ascertain, if necessary by analysis, whether an offence against this Act has been committed.8. Every manufactory of oleomargarine within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall be registered from time to time in such manner as the Local Government Boards of England and Ireland respectively may direct, and every person carrying on such manufacture without being duly registered shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. 9. All proceedings under this Act shall be the same as prescribed by sections twelve to twenty-eight inclusive of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and all officers employed under that Act are hereby empowered and required to arry out the provisions of this Act. [Beward for information.] [Oleomargarine imported or manwfmtured.] [Registration of manufmtory.] [Proceedings.] I n reply to the circular letter on the subject of ‘‘ Beer,” which had been sent out by instructions of the Council, Mr.Hehner read the following communications, viz. :- Mr. F. M. RINNINGTON writes :-In my public capacity of analyst I have had to examine many samples of beer, and must confess that it is most dScult to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion respecting the nature and character of the bitter principles employed. I n the first place the amount of any active principle contained in the substance used as a hop-substitute will be extremely minute in a pint of the malt liquor ; 80 that unless a large quantity is operated on nothing tangible is obtained. When hops are used there is no difficulty in recognising the presence; but if substitutes are used it is an impossibility with our present knowledge to isolate and identify the bitter principles of such agents as gentian, chiretta, quassia, calumba, etc.The process I generally adopt is to evaporate a measured portion of the sample to the consistency of an extract, and then to digest this with alcohol, and evaporate the solution to dryness, and treat the residue with ether, chloroform, or amylicalcohol-this residue I generally emmine microscopically. Respecting the question of healthfulness of such substances as I have named above, as substitutes for the hop in beer, I am quite of opinion that they are as wholesome, if not more so, for such a purpose, as the hop itself, which is known to possess narcotic properties-of course I limit this opinion to the substances named ; and very good beer is brewed without hops.104 THE ANALYST.Dr. STEVENSON writes :-With reference to the Council’s questions (1) and (2), I have to remark that, in my opinion (1) the leading substances used, or alleged to be used, in brewing as substitutes for hops cannot be detected and identified with such certainty as is demanded in a court of law by chemical analysis alone. They may, however, be detected and identified with certainty when such analysis is supplemented by physiological experiments. There are some substances thus used, or alleged to be used, which cannot, I believe, at present be detected with certainty by these means con- jointly. (2) I know of no evidence to show that the effect on health of the habitual use o€ small doses of such hop-substitutes as are now used is injurious. That they are injurious when taken in much larger doses than could be well introduced into beer, and that they are injurious to the lower animals, does not prove them to be injurious in habitual and minute doses to man.We need good observations and experiments in this direction. A difficulty is created by “The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876,” commonly known as the Vivisection Act. It is an error to suppose that this Act merely prohibits-except under license--operations on living animals. The best legal authori- ties tell me that the administration of any substance to an animal, if the administration is calculated to give pain, is penal, provided the experiment be made by way of experiment. Any administration of hop-substitutes to any vertebrate animal with the view of testing the effects of the substance is likely to bring the experimenter under the lash of the law.And even a licensed person cannot test the quality of a beer by such experiments, for the Act restricts the experiments to the advancement of physiological know- ledge, the saving or prolonging of life, and the alleviation of suffering. No one, 1 believe, has power under the existing statute to grant a license or permission to experiment on animals in the carrying out of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. I think this word of warning is necessary, as I know of instances where public and other analysts have unwittingly infringed the law in the discharge of their duties, Mr. A. W. SMITH, Rye, Sussex, writes:--In the first place I am of opinion that very little of so-called hop-substitutes is used in the southern counties, the probable sub- stitutions being more to economise in malt than in hops.The price of hops during the past few years has been abnormally low, and therefore no advantage can be gained by using anything else. Again there is no other vegetable bitter with which I am acquainted so pleasant to the taste, nor so grateful and soft to the palate, as the hop, nor is there one, that I am aware of, which will keep so well. As the chairman of a local committee, appointed to inquire into and report upon the ‘‘ Depression of Trade ” for the Royal Commission, the hop question came before me, as it is upon the cultivation and price of hops that we in Sussex so much depend, and I naturally feel some interest in the matter.I have,ltherefore, taken the opportunity- when’ever it has offered-of endeavouring to ascertain whether substitutes were really much in use, and if so, what they were composed of. The only sample I have seen consisted mainly of quassia-wood, with a small portion of gentian and valerian roots finely ground and mixed. There is no doubt that saccharine substances of various kinds (sugar, glucose, and an article called saccharine, etc.) are used in making cheap beers, but these of course do not furnish the bitter principle. I fear also that various articles, used ostensibly as ‘‘ fininga,” are not altogether free from objectionable characteristics, such, for instance, as tartaric and salicylic acids, both of which in some persons cause uneasiness in the stomach and bowels.Some beers again appear to have diuretic and aperient properties, but I have never attempted to ascertain the cause; probably carbonic acid gas would be responsible for the latter.THE ANALYST. 105 No. 1. Ale, malt, and hops only. If any bitter other than hops is used, I have no doubt it would be either quwia, gentian, chiretta, or calumba (or perhaps a mixture of them), but I think these (the latter excepted) can easily be detected by Tr. Ferri Perchlor. I append a table showing the results of a few experiments in this direction. Bisulphide of lime is extensively used for scouring and cleansing vats and vessels, and it is more than probable that some of it finds its way into the lower grade of beers as a preservative agent.But I happen to know for a fact that brewers of fine ales not only use hops exclu- sively, but obtain the very best samples our country produces, and one gentleman I know, who is a grower, and grows good East Sussex hops too, and many more than his brewery requires, yet buys still better hops for his choicest ales. There are, however, people still insane enough to believe that strychnine is yet used by some. When searching for salicylic acid, it is well to heat the sample under examination in a test tube, so as to cause some froth at the top, the violet colour showing much more definitely in the white beads. TABLE SHOWING RESULTS OF SAMPLES OF ALES TREATED WITH THIS REAGENT (TR. FERRI PERCHLOR) :- No. 2. Malt, hop, and N ~ . 3, Malt and qnassia.NO. 4. Malt, hops, and quaseia. gentian. Dark grey discoloura- tion and cloudiness, with deposit. I I Greyish discolourat ion Colour intensified- Blackish discoloura- and cloudinem. cloudiness, and grey tion, much cloudi- flocculent deposit. ness, and deposit. No. 6. Malt, hops, and chiretta. No. 6. Malt and hop-sub- No. 7. Malt and -1- No. 8. Malt, hops, and SdiCyliC Wid, I stitutes. umba. ~~ Black discolouration, much cloudineas, and dark deposit, Dr. SEATON read the following notes upon recorded observations respecting the physiological effects of hops, quassia, gentian, chiretta, and chamomile :- All the above-mentioned bitters are used for medicinal purposes, and are contained in the British Pharmacopceia. The infusion and tincture of hops are mild but agreeable aromatic tonics.They sometimes prove diuretic, or, when the skin is kept warm, sudorific. They are said to be narcotic, but the existence of narcotic qualities has been strongly denied by Bigsby, Majendie, and others. Majendie tried the different preparations of hops on animals, and did not observe any narcotic properties, although, as he observes, the narcotic property is one which is most strikingly displayed in experiments on animals." Gentian in full doses has a laxative effect upon the bowels, and may produce vomiting. Majendie swallowed two grains of gentianin dissolved in alcohol, but only observed extreme bitterness and a slight feeling of heat in the stomach, But Planche has shown that the distilled water of It is doubtful whether it possesses narcotic effects.Very decided dark, No particular change, Violet discolouration, discolouration and but normal colour cloudineas, and de- cloudineas, with slightly intensified. posit. black deposit,106 THE ANALYST. gentian causes violent nausea, and within three minutes a kind of intoxication. Buchner, in his toxicology, has a record of a narcotic effect produced in Prussia by the medicinal use of the drug, although the presence of foreign matter could not be detected. But the deleterious effects said to have resulted from the use of gentian may have been due to a foreign root intermixed with it. Chiretta possesses the same qualities as gentian in its tendency to relax the bowels. There is no record OF its possessing any narcotic qualities. Quassia, aays Pereira in his Materia Medica, in the usual medicinal doses is a stomachic and tonic-that is, it is bitter to the taste, promotes the appetite, and assists the digestive functions.It is devoid of all irritant stimulant and astringent properties, and has been, therefore, sometimes taken as a type of the simple or pure bitters. It is more powerful than, but in other respects analogous to, gentian in its operation. I‘ We can find nothing in this wood,” says Dr. Cullen, “ but a pure and simple bitter.” There is evidence to show that it has a narcotic effect on animals. Does it act as a narcotic on man as on other animals ? Pereira says, ‘‘ I have employed, and seen others administer, quassia most extensively, but never had grounds for suspecting any effect of the kind alluded to.” Quassia, like other bitters, checks putrefaction, and is said to be superior to other bitters in this respect.Chamomile infusion has an effect upon the alimentary canal. Thus, given in large doses, it is sometimes used to assist the action of emetics. It is also, according to Ringer, useful in checking the summer diarrhoea of children in the early stage. It appears, therefore, that the bitters-quassia, gentian, chiretta, and chamomile (which are all in the pharmacopoeia)-possess some of the qualities of hops, but are less decidedly medicinal. Quassia is not diuretic, and has neither laxrttive nor astringent action on the bowels; and there is no evidence of its being narcotic. Gentian and chiretta are only slightly laxative, and there is no evidence of their being narcotic.Chamomile, in certain conditions of the mucous membrane of the bowels, has a slight astringent effect, but is otherwise innocuous. Mr. C. HEISCH says :-With respect to bitters those which are knowrz to be injurious we can deal with at present ; those which are most commonly employed, such as gentian, crtlumba, chamomlle, and chiretta, there is every reason to believe are at least as whole- some aa hops. Moreover, I know of no way of speaking with certainty ae to either of them in the quantities of beer which we could work on, or in the time we could give to the examination. It seems to me that the use of bad glucose, containing large quantities of chloridea, often purposely produced by acting on starch with hydrochloric acid, and simply neutraliaing with either potash or soda, and boiling down, is much more of a fraud than the general run of hop-substitutes; thongh Mr. Bannister, in his remarks at the Society of Arts, speaks of ales containing 120 grs. of chlorides derived either from the water or malt adjuncts as of no consequence. I believe a return to the old rule of not permitting more chlorine than is equivalent to fifty grs. chloride of sodium would be a good thing, would stop the use of much bad water in brewing, and also the use of such glucose as mentioned above; but I see no reason to atop the use of sugar or other wholesome ma16 adjuncts properly prepared. The following papers were then read and discuased :-

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8871200102

出版商:RSC    

年代:1887

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

THE ANALYST. 107 AN IMPROVED METHOD OF DETECTING QUASSIA AND CERTAIN BY ALFRED H. ALLEN. Read at the Meeting, May, 1887. HITHERTO, the detection of hop-substitutes in beer has had for English analysts little more than an academic interest. There has been no definition of beer, nor standard of strength or quality, and hence the brewer has been free to employ any hop-substitute that could fairly be regarded as non-injurious. Now, however, that there are two Bills before Parliament, both of which aim at rendering the employment of hopsubstitutes illegal, unless duly acknowledged, the question has acquired considerable practical importance. I f the Bills in question ever become law, it will devolve on the public analyst to certify to the presence or absence of hop-substitutes, but, as was recently pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation which waited on him, it would be of no use to pass an Act forbidding the unacknowledged use of hop- substitutes, unless it was possible to detect infringements of the law.Hence it has become important for public analysts to see how far the more important hop-substitutes can be definitely detected in beer, or at any rate distinguished from hops. Beer itself is a highly complex and variable product, and some of the normal constituents add to the difficulty of detecting hop-substitutes. The problem is further complicated by the possible presence of several substitutes simultaneously, together with actual hops. Then the bitter principles, to which the hop-substitutes owe their employment, have in some cases been very imperfectly studied, and belong to a class of bodies by no means distinguished for strong chemical -ties or for characteristic reactions.In fact, the most general and striking property of the majority of hop-substitutes is $he intensity of their bitter taste, a character which materially increases the difficulty of detecting them owing to the very moderate amount employed to give the beer the desired flavour. There is one other complication of practical importance, and that is the very considerable quantity of beer usually recommended to be used for the analysis. Thus if two litres be used for the main examination, as is recommended by Dragendorff, at least twice that quantity should be submitted to the analyst, and hence twelve litres would have to be purchased.The necessity of pumhaaing so large a quantity as two and a half gallons of each beer would almost certainly render the Act abortive. In looking into the question, therefore, I have aimed at reducing the amount of beer employed as low as possible. In the last number of the ANALYST I gave a list of references to articles in English periodicals, etc, connected with deteotion of hop-substitutes in beer. These I have carefully studied, and they have formed the foundation of the following statements and proposals. Dragendorff, who has published a very elaborate method for the recognition of a large number of possible hop-substitutes (Jour. Chem. SOC. d, 818 ; xlii, 103), operates on two litres of beer, precipitates the concentrated liquid with basic acetate of lead, further concentrates the filtrate and adds a large volume (1000 to 1200 c.c.) of absolute alcohol 1 The spirit is subsequent!y driven off', and the various principles extracted by a systematic employment of immiscible solvents.OTHER HOP-SUBSTITUTES I N BEER. The problem in qubtion is by no means a simple one.108 THE ANALYST. Wittstein (Jour. Chem. SOC. xxix, 767) operates in a similar manner, but works on one litre, and omits the treatment with acetate of lead, as indeed did Dragendorff in his older method. In the method described by me in my Commercial Organic Analysis ” (vol. i., page 97), based on a process of Enders, one litre of beer is employed, the concentrated liquid treated with alcohol, the filtrate precipitated with ether, and the filtered liquid evaporated, the residue redissolved in alcohol, treated with water, and the solution precipitated with acetate of lead.Several of the writers on the subject state that on precipitating a beer with basic acetate of lead the hop-bitter is wholly precipitated, and hence, if the concentrated filtrate still have a bitter taste, the presence of some hop-substitute is certain.* This difference seemed to me so important that I have very carefully investigated it, and find it perfectly in accordance with the fact. I prefer, howsver, to employ neutral acetate of lead instead of the basic or ammoniacal acetate, as the latter reagents are liable to precipitate certain bitter principles not removed by the first. On the other hand, the hop-bitter is very perfectly precipitated by neutral lead acetate, and this statement is equally true of an infusion of hops purposely prepared and of a beer in which hops is the sole bitter used; but I have some reason to think that basic acetate of lead is liable to effect a less perfect separation of the hop-bitter.In attempting to improve these processes, I have endeavoured to dispense with the use of alcohol, and yet separate the bitter principles from the sugar and other bodies which disguise the bitter taste and interfere with application of chemical tests, and find that a very satisfactory product for further treatment can be obtained by the following simple method. One litre of the beer is evaporated to about 300 c.c., and is then precipitated while hot with a solution of neutral acetate of lead.The precipitate is filtered 06 the filtrate allowed to become cool, and any further precipitate is also removed. The excess of lead is then removed from the filtrate by sulphuretted hydrogen, and the liquid filtered and further concentrated to about 160 C.C. I prefer sulphuretted hydrogen to sulphuric acid or a sulphate, as the lead sulphide seems to carry down a notable quantity of colouring matter. The treatment with lead acetate removes all tannin, phosphates, etc., and th hop-reain and Iu,pfin are &so completely precipitated, while all or nearly d l hop-substitutes reman in solution. The next object is to separate the sugar, dextrin, and mineral constituents of the beer as perfectly as possible from the active principles of the various hopsubstitutes.Instead of precipitating the carbo-hydrates, etc., by excesa of strong alcohol, I prefer to remove the bitters from the aqueous liquid itself by agitation with suitable immiscible solvents. The object being to extract as many active principles aa possible in the simplest possible way, leaving their mutual separation and recognition for further consideration, * This distinction between the bitter principles o€ hops and hop-substitutes is referred to in the woIk entitled “ Chirt.ry applied to ths Ads and lKawfaotw8~,’’ edited by Chas. Vincent, and often described as the “ New Edition of Muspratt’s Chemistry.” The process is also described in Wynter Blyth’s work on the ‘‘ Analysis of EIuodYy’ and forms an essential part of Ended method of detecting bitter substances, so that there is a very general consensus of opinion as to the value of the test.THE AJYALYST.109 I employ chloroform, as having the most general solvent action. It separates with tolerable ease from the aqueous liquid, and should be employed as long as it leaves a notably bitter residue on evaporation. I n many of my experiments I relied on the traces of lactic and other acids naturally present in beer to produce the requisite degree of acidity, but I am now of opinion that the addition of a little dilute sulphuric acid is advantageous, if not actually necessary, in some cases. The extraction with chloroform being complete, ether should next be used, the treatment being repeated as long as any notably bitter principle is extracted.Finally, the aqueous liquid is rendered alkaline with ammonia, and agitated with chloroform or ether-chloroform, to extract any alkaloids, The following arrangement shows the behaviour of the more important bitter principles when the aqueous liquid is agitated in succession with chloroform, ether, and ammonia and ether-chloroform. I have personally verified the behaviour of the substances to the names of which asterisks are attached. 1. Extracted by chloroform from acid solutions :- Absinthin (wormwood). *Anthemin (chamomiles). Colchicine (colchicum), imperfectly. "Colocynt hin (colocy nt h, or bitter apple), imperfect 1s. "Calumbin, and probably some berberine (calumba), bright yellow, and "Gentipicrin (gentian), very imperfectly. "Picric acid (artificial), yellow, imperfectly."Quassiin (quassia wood). *C hiratin (chiretta). "Colocynthin (colocynth, or bitter apple). "Gentipicrin (gentian). "Picric acid, yellow, "Picrotoxin (cocc~lus indicus). "Berberine (calumba root). highly fluorescent. Picrot oxin (coccuZ~s idicus), with diEcul ty. 2. Subsequently extracted by ether from acid solutions :- 3. Subsequently extracted by ether-chloroform from alkaline solutions :- Colchicine (colchicum). By evaporating off the solvent, warming the residue with a little alcohol, and then adding water, solutions are obtained, which will be bitter if any of the above substances be present. A very small quantity of the substance is required for this test ; indeed the use of too large an amount must be carefully avoided, or the sense of taste will be found to be wholly paralysed, for the remainder of the day at any rate.It will be seen that chloroform or ether extracts from acidulated aqueous liquids almost the whole of the above bitters. The subsequent treatment with ether-chloroform in alkaline solution is usually unnecessary, as the principles of calumba and colchicum are in part extracted by acid chloroform. Seeing that the bitter principles of hops are entirely precipitated by neutral acetate of lead, the presence of some hopsubstitute is absolutely certain, ;f the chloroform or ether residue has a marked bitter taste. This can be ascertained in the course of a few hours, by the simple method above indicated, and half a pint of the beer is amply sufficient for the purpose,110 THE ANALYST.~ ~ -~ The presence of a hop-substitute being proved by the marked bitter taste of the ohloroform or ether extract, it will of course be very desirable to ascertain its nature, and in some important cases this can, fortunately, be effected very satisfactorily. In others we may expect future investigation to afford the necessary assistance. I have made special endeavours to ascertain the possibility of definitely recognising qumia, which is one of the most important of the hop-substitutes actually employed. For this purpose I prepared quassiin in a moderately pure state by exhausting quassia wood with hot water, and treating the decoction with acetate of lead and chloroform, in the manner recommended for beer. The quassiin was obtained with some diiliculty in a distinctly crystalline state, and otherwise it presented a close general resemblance to the description of it given by other observers.The following characters and tests were specially verified. Quadin is intensely and persistently bitter, sparingly soluble in cold water, more readily in hot, and easily soluble in alcohol. Its best solvent is chloroform, which extracts it readily from acidulated solutions. An aqueous solution of quasEjin does not reduce Tehling’s solution, or ammonio- nitrate of silver. The solid substance gives no coloration (or merely yellow) when treated with strong gulphuric acid, or with nitric acid of 1.25 sp. gr. ; nor is any colour produced on warming. These four negative reactions are important; for picrotoxin reduces Fehling’s solution, and gives an orange-red d o u r with sulphuric acid ; gentipi- orin and menyanthin reduce ammonio-nitrate of silver, and the former gives a red colour, and the latter a yellowish-brown, changing to violet-red when warmed with sul- phuric acid ; and other bitters mostly give more or less characteristic reactions. The reaction is used by Christensen, Oliveri, and others to isolate quassiin from its solutions, and by Enders to separate it from picrotoxin.I n my hands the reaction has not proved satisfactory. The liquid is very difficult to filter, and the filtrate still retains an intensely bitter taste, showing that the precipitation is very incomplete. As an analytical method the reaction is useless, but it is of some value as a qualitative test.* The test must be made in a uold solution.The reaction is best observed by moistening a quassiin residue in porcelain with a few drops of a weak alcoholic solution of ferric chloride, and applying a gentle heat. A fine mahogany-brown coloration is produced. The most delicate and characteristic test for quamiin is based on an observation of Christensen. On treating quassiin With bromine a derivative is obtained, which is stated to be more bitter than the original substance. On adding caustic soda the bitter taste is said to be destroyed, but a product of a fine yellow colour is obtained. I am unable to confirm the destruction of the bitter taste, at least entirely, but the coloration is marked and characteristic. The substance to be tested for quassiin is dissolved in a little chloroform, or if a liquid is agitated with chloroform, A solution of quassiin gives a white precipitate with tannin.Quassiin gives a brown coloration with ferric chloride. The following is the best way of applying the test. ~ ~ * Possibly more complete precipitation of quassiin by tannin could be effected in an alcoholic solution.THE ANALYST, 111 and the aqueous layer separated. The chloroformic solution is then treated with bromine water until the yellow colour remains after agitation, showing that the bromine haa been used in slight excess. The aqueous liquid is then removed (or if small in volume may be neglected), and the chloroform agitated with ammonia. This produces immediate destruction of the colour due to the bromine, and if quassiin be absent both the chloroform and ammoniacal liquid will be colourlees.I n presence of quassiin the ammonia will be coloured a bright yellow. The chloroform-residues from camomiles, calumba, colocynth, cocculus, and chiret ta do not give any similar reactions with bromine and ammonia. The ether-residue from chiretta gives a straw-yellow coloration gradually changing to a dull purplish-brown, but the fact that no such reaction is yielded by the chloroform solution of the drug renders confusion with quwia impossible. Picric acid yields a solution in chloroform which is but slightly coloured compared with the deep yellow liquid produced on subsequent agitation with ammonia ; but if its presence be suspected it can be readily and completely removed by agitating the chloroformic solution with soda or ammonia, and separating the alkaline liquid before employing bromine.With a view of ascertaining how far the foregoing reactions of quassiin were likely to be of service in practice, I added to one litre of a mild beer, which had been previously proved to yield no bitter principle to chloroform after treatment with acetate of lead, suilicient infusion of quassia to make a perceptible difference in the flavour. The liquid was concentratad, precipitated with neutral lead acetate, the filtrate treated with sulphuretted hydrogen, and the refiltered liquid further concentrated and agitated with chloroform. On evaporating the chloroform a residue was obtained which had an intensely bitter taste, and yielded a solution which gave a white precipitate with tannin, but did not reduce ammonio-nitrate of silver.The residue gave no colour on warming with con- centrated sulphuric acid, but gave a well-developed mahogany-brown colour with ferric chloride. The amount of residue obtained would have sufficed to obtain all these reactions several times, so that it may be considered established that quassia can be detected with certainty and faccility in a moderate quantity of beer containing it. The employment of chiretta as a hop-substitute has been repeatedly recorded by pre- vious observers, but no tests are given for it by Dragendorff or others who have worked on the subject. I found it in quantity in two hop-substitutes I recently examined, and suspect its presence in a third. The active principle (chiratin, c,5H&) is intensely bitter, sparingly soluble in cold water, rather more so in hot, and is readily dissolved by alcohol and ether, the latter solvent readily removing it from its aqueous solution. On the other hand, chloroform removes but little bitter principle from an aqueous infusion of chiretta. Chiratin is a neutral substance, decomposed by dilute acids into ophelic acid and chiratogenin. It does not reduce Fehling’s solution, gives a copious precipitate with tannin, and is not precipitated by neutral lead acetate. The reaction of the ether- residue from infusion of chiretta with bromine and ammonia has already been described. It is evident that our knowledge of the chemistry of the vegetable bitters avail- able as hop-substitutes is very incomplete, and it is only by its further study we can hope to fully solve the problem of their detection in beer. But I believe we can already By the bromine and ammonia test it gave a strong yellow coloration.112 THE ANALYST. distinguish with certainty and facility between ‘‘ hops ” and ‘‘ not hops,” and that ought to suffice in many cases. When we examine butter we are content to define the admixture as “foreign fat,” and we make no attempt to specify the exact nature or origin of the foreign fat employed. I submit that we are fully able to take a similar position with respect to hops and hop-substitutes.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8871200107

出版商:RSC    

年代:1887

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

112 THE ANALYST. NOTE ON THE COMPOSITION OF SOME PREPARATIONS SOLD AS HOP- SUBSTITUTES. BY A. H. ALLEN AND W. CHATTAWAP. Read at the Meeting, May, 1887. THE detection of hop-substitutes in beer is so intimately connected with the question of the nature of the hop-substitutes actually employed, that we have thought it of import- ance to examine some of those preparations most extensively advertised. We have been struck with the great difference in the price and the physical appearance of the advertised hop-substitutes. Time has not allowed us to make so full an examination of the chief advertised preparations as we could have wished, but the following observations will be of interest. In sample A, by examination with a lens, quassia, chiretta, and hops were recognised without difficulty.There was also present a seed not unlike that from a cruciferous plant, the exact nature of which was not identified. Sample B was of a very extraordinary character. It consisted largely of rosin mixed with catechu or cutch, or some closely analogous tannin extract. Considerable quantities of fish-gelatin and chiretta were also present, and sodium sulphite ms detected in addition. Whatever may be the value of fish-gelatin, sodium sdphite, and tannin, in the manufacture of beer, they can hardly be legitimately termed “hop- substitutes.” The object of adding rosin is not very apparent; possibly it may have been an attempt to replace hop-resin, in which case truly a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The proportions of the several constituents of this sample may be inferred from the following statement of the results of its treatment by solvents, etc.:- Moisture, driven off at 100°C. .. .. .. , , 8.5 per cent. Ether extract, consisting of nearly pure colophony . . . . 36-3 ,, ,, Alcoholic extract, chiefly tannin and other constituents of cutch 16.6 ,, ,) Aqueous extract . . .. .. .. .. . . 27.3 ,, ,, Insoluble matter (by difference) . . .. .. . . 11.3 ,, ,, 100-0 9, ?, - Ash .. .. . . 10.0 per cent. We have examined the other samples of advertised hop-substitutes less completely. Quassia was distinctly recognised in the decoctions of two, and other bitter substances were also present. Pyrethrum (“ Persian insect powder ”) was almost certainly a constituent of one preparation. A curious difference is observable in the prices charged by the manufacturers of No picric acid or calumba was present in any case.THE ANALYST.113 the advertised hop-substitutes. Thus the equivalent of 16 lbs. of hops was 3s., 4s., 4s., 4s. 2d., and 9d. respectively. So f a r as we can judge from the extent of our examina- tion, the quality and suitability of the advertised hop-substitutes for their intended purpose is by no means to be gauged by the relative amounts charged for them. With regard to the alleged injurious character of hop substitutes we are not in a posi- tion to offer any personal opinion. Picrotoxin, the active principle of COCCUZUS indicus, we all know to have marked poisonous properties, and we should probably agree in regarding picric acid as an objectionable addition to beer.It is within our knowledge that picric acid formed an ingredient of a well-known hop-substitute some years since. Of course, its detection in beer presents no difficulty. There is no recent authentic record of the use of picrotoxin in beer, but there are some curious facts which go in that direction. There is no legitimate use for COCCUZUS indicus in the arts or medicine,* and we are not aware of ita receiving any application as a poison for the lower animals, except by fish poachers. According to Dragendor6 who was formerly chemist to the St. Petersburgh police, coccuZus indicus has been largely used for adulterating beer in Russia, and brewers have been frequently fined for the practice and the beer confiscated. Schubert, of Wurzburg, has stated that Bavarian beer has been often adulterated with COCCUZZCS ~ndikus.We find the statement that in a discussion in the House of Commons (date not stated) Lord E. Cecil said that the quantity of COCCUZUS idicus imported into England in 1857 amounted to 68 cwt. ; in 186’7, the quantity had increased to 689 cwt. ; and ‘‘ last year,” that it amounted to 1064 cwt. These amounts are not large, and may possibly have received some legitimate application, but the greater part was probably re-shipped, AS to quassia, there seems to be a general opinion in its favour as one of the least objectionable of hop-substitutes. Systematic experiments with quassiin are, however, almost wanting, except those of Campardon, referred to in the following extract from page 1264 of the ‘‘ National Dispensatory,” by Still4 and Maisch :-- “ Qultssia is fatal to flies, and is sometimes used to preserve botanical collections from the ravages of insects.Rabbits and dogs have been killed by a concentrated preparation of the drug, the latter even by its application to the raw skin, and when its effects were not fatal it produced a partial paralysis of the limbs. Its bitter taste is more intense than that of most other stomachic tonics ; like them, it excites the appetite for food and quickens digestion, but if too long continued it produces derangement of the stomach. Quassia may exhibit poisonous qualities, as in the following case :-A concentrated infusion of the drug waa by mistake given in enema to a child four years old. Within an hour the child became unconscious and collapsed, the head was thrown back and the pupils were contracted, the respiration was inaudible, and the pulse could not be felt.It was restored by alcohol, ether, and ammonia (Medical Record, xviii. 404). The following concluaions were reached by Campardon in regard to quassiin-crystallised and amorphous (Bull. de ThZr. ciii. 385). In moderate doses it increases the secretion of the saliva, the bile, the urine, and perhaps of the milk. It stimulates the excretory ducts of the several organs producing these secretions. In appropriate cases of sickness it quickens the appetite, renews the strength, facilitates the excretions, renders defecation * It is an ingredient of an ointment which finds st very limited use.114 THE ANALYST. easier, and hastens the expulsion of renal and biliary calculi.Its toxical action resembles that of the convulsing poisons. 28 grains (gm. 0.15) of amorphous, or 4 grain (gm. 0.015) of crystallised quassiin will occasion the following symptoms :-A burning in the throat and aesophagus, and a sense of constriction in the former ; frontal headache ; epigastric weight and pain ; nausea, vertigo, confused viaion, extreme restlessness and feverish impatience ; unsteadiness of mind ; frequent urination, loose stools, and vomi- ting ; cramps and spasms in the muscles of the lower limbs.” Considering the small proportion of quassiin which is required to impart a bitter taste to beer, it is questionable if it would ever be taken in practice in sufficient quantity to produce toxic effecb.We have ascertained by experiment that a solution of 1 part of crystallised quassiin in 500,000 parts of water has a strong and persistent bitter taste. DISCUSSION. Dr. ADAMS said that he worked on the question of hop-substitutes some ten or twelve years ago, and hs found no dBculty in distinguishing between the bitter of hop and the substitutes used for it. The method he found most useful was the precipitation by sub-acetate of lead, and there was no difEculty at all with the ordinary bitters such as quassia, calumba, gentian, chiretta, and wormwood, all remaining in solution, whilst the bitter of hop, and also the bitter of the camomile, which behaves like the hop, g? down and leaves the solution bitterless. He had specimensof all the hop-substitutes in use in England at that time, and without a single exception the solution remained bitter after treatment with the sub-acetate of lead. After having separated the filtrate and evaporated it down, there was no difficulty in defecting the bitter; but he did not think there was any possibility of distinguishing between the individual bitters, considering the minute quantity present, and one could only positively say there was another bitter present besides that of the hop.Dr. MUTER said that, with regard to the question of the detection of bitters in beer, he would say a t once that he did not quite share the President’s views as to there being no difficulty in detecting and identifying them. It was a subject that he had worked at in former years in connection with his book on Materia Medica.He had made numerous experiments himself, and he had repeated many of the published experiments, and he could prognosticate that, as the President went along, he would meet with several published reactions, which were partially incorrect and perfectly misleading. Although a few bitters would be found to be comparatively easy of detection-quassia, for instance, was a bitter which spoke very much for itself-many of them were, to a great extent, involved in difficulty and obscurity at the prwnt time. There was no branch of chemistry that so much undesirable matter had been published about as that relating to Materia Medica, and many of the older researches were incorrrect. No doubt one cause of this was that nowadays they had much better analytical appliances than the men who made these experiments.He did not for a moment mean to say that they were now cleverer than past observers, but for instance, they could not wash lead and other similar intractable precipitates in former days as one could now do by the aid of the filter pump, and the colour reactions for more than one proximate principle, which were given in books, were really not due to the principle at all, but to the traces of reagents and other matters that remained with them owing to the imperfect washing, which was almost certain to occur befare the days of filter pumps. He was afraid that until the President, and others who might take the subject up,THE ANALYST. 115 had had time to work it out by the aid of modern appliances, it would be going too far to say they could swear positively that a sample contained no hop-substitute.Mr. ALLEN said he thought they could tell whether it contained hops or a substitute for hops. Dr. MUTER said then in that case how would they get on in cross-examination, seeing that they could not name the substitute? He did not remember how he first became acquainted with the lead process, but he believed that he could put his hands on it now. It must be quite thirteen or fourteen years ago since it was first published. Immediately it was brought out he had made experiments upon it, working on large quantities. Since that there had really been no other process that he knew of. He himself had used a process very similar to that mentioned, viz., precipitation with sub-acetate of lead, syphoning off the clear liquor after settlement, removing the excess of lead from this liquid, concentrating and tasting, and then extracting with immiscible solvents.Now came a difficulty which shook his faith in his powers as an analyst as regards hop-substitutes. He had always believed in the process-from practising upon beer with various added bitters-until some time ago he got a beer which he was privately wured by the maker to have no bitter other than hops. This sample he put through the process, and he got a bitter out of that beer with chloroform after lead. He worked on a fairly large quantity, but the process here showed bitters other than hop, although he was assured that the sample represented as pure a beer as could possibly be obtained. Another difficulty was the quantity they might have to work on.Supposing an inspector brought them one-half or one-third of a pint, where was the process they could use? He had put bitters in the beer and worked on such quantities and failed to find them. In a case he knew of some time ago, there was some difficulty about some strychnine that was put in beer ; he was aware of the very small quantity that had been put in bemuse the chemist who had been stupid enough to lend himself to such a transaction had informed him of it. He made up some beer and divided it into two portions ; tried for extraneous bitters in one portion by the regular beer way and there was not a sign of it; he then tried the other portion with a, special toxicological process for strychnine and found it.He had, even then, to use eight ounces of the beer for this purpose, to get a really satisfactory ordinary reaction. In the present state of chemical knowledge, it would not be, in his opinion, safe to say they could detect any amount of added bitters to beer, however small, and go to the length of naming those bitters on the quantity they would have usually brought to them by an inspector. With a gallon of beer and an unlimited fee covering many days’ work, they might, how- ever, be able to do something satisfactory towards it. Dr. DUPRE said he wished to protest strongly against the idea that a public analyst was always bound to make an analysis on only a few ounces of beer. He ought to have auch a quantity as would enable him to certify the result with moral certainty.In his district he had only to write and get any quantity he wished for. No public analyst could be requested to make an analysis with a quantity which he himself believed to be utterly inadequate, and if any private person brings an insufficient quantity it is the analyst’s plain duty to tell him so. As to strychnine, he might point out a case which occurred to him some years ago. A man, who had been wounded in India some time before, drank a glass of beer ; he felt ill directly after, and went to a doctor, ab whose house he had several tetanic convulsions. All he (Dr. Duprb) had fo examine wm the handkerchief with which the man had wiped his mouth, and the question was, had any strychnine been in the beer or not? He cut out wme spots which looked like dried saliva, and worked upon them by the usual toxicological methods, but failed to detect116 THE ANALYST.strychnine. He next added a minute fragment of bichromate to a portion of the suspected extract, and carefully evaporated it on a microscope slide, and finally, while looking at it with a 1-inch power, he added a drop of sulphuric acid, and the strychnine came out most beautifully. Referring to the microscope, Dr. Duprh said that he wm afraid chemists, as chemists, were not in the habit of using it as much as they ought. DR. MUTER, in reference to Dr. Duprh’s remarks, begged permission of the chair to say that if the majority of public analysts acted in the way indicated by him, they would find themselves in very bad odour with the local authorities.If an inspector were told to always buy a gallon or two of beer, instead of the usual pint or quart, he would reply that thevendor would at oncesuspect him, and declare the article, and so the purchase would be rendered nugatory for the purposes of the Act, and the money of the public wasted. As regards the application of delicate and tedious toxicological processes to beer in evsry case, there would then have to be a revision of the fee of 10s. 6d. per analysis laid down by the Act. It was one thing to analyse directly for a specifically suspected poison, and quite another matter to generally examine an article for adulteration for 10s. 6d. Mr. SALAMON said that he should like to hear some views about the varying extractive influences of different brewing-waters upon hops.It was well known, for instance, that waters containing sulphate of soda had a different influence to waters containing sulphate of lime, and he thought it would be well for them, before dogmatising upon what would be a public question (because analysts would be called upon to distinguish these bitters), to ascertain, if possible, whether the varying salts in waters did exercise any influence upon the bitter itself. It might not be improbable that the case which Dr. Muter had mentioned fell within that category, and that it was an altogether different bitter which was extracted by the two waters. With reference to the question of tannin, he might state, with accuracy, that not only had he to analyse a number of products coming from brewers, but he also had to go to the breweries and actually inspect the beer in process of manufacture.In the year of the hop famine (1882) no doubt hop-substitutes were used to a large extent, but at present he did not know of a single brewery that used them, and it would be idle for them to do so with hops at the price at which they now were, but what they did use in a good many instances was tannin. He knew of some breweries where they used the most expensive hops they could buy ; and yet, in producing a beer full flavoured, round on the palate, and low in alcohol, and in order to get the nitrogenous matter out of the beer, he had known extract of cutch, or catechu, to be used, for the purpose of precipitating the nitrogenous or albuminous matter, but that could not be termed a hopsubstitute.Another point they must bear in mind; he did not want to take a political side on the question at such a meeting, but the low price of hops waa not produced by hop- substitutes, but by competition from abroad. There was a general opinion among brewers, which was borne out by Dr. Graham, that hops had more to do with the drowsiness produced by beer drinking than alcohol, and there was consequently a tendency to reduce the amount of hops which they used, and to do that they sometimes used the cutch to which he had alluded. In his opinion, this was rather a question as between brewers and hop-growers. I f the brewers cared to come to a compromise with the growers- if the brewers like to say they will help their friends, the hop-farmers, then by all means let them do so.They should be very careful in trying to compel brewers to use hops, whether they liked it or not. It would be absolutely impossible for thom, m a body of chemical analysts, to prove that these hop-substitutes were more injurious than the hop itself.THE ANALYST. 117 Medial men would say that all these hop-bitters were less injurious to the system than the hop-bitter itself. It was evident from the present state of their knowledge that hop- substitutes are little used, and if used at all are harmless in beer, and he would recommend that the question should be threshed out as between the brewers and the hop-growers. Mr. R. NORTON, M.P. for Tunbridge, as a visitor, expressed the great pleasure it had afforded him to be present, and, in reference to Mr.Salamon’s last remarks, said that was not the position which waa being taken up by the counties of Kent and Sussex. They felt that for a long time they were getting baer bittered with hops, but that now substitutes were used when hops were dear. The generality of the public were under the impression that the beer was bittered with hops. It might be right or wrong, but a t any rate they were under that impression, and in accordance with the Act tho article should be supplied as demanded by the purchaser. He wished that when a man went into a public-house, he should know whether the beer wm bittered with hops or quaesia; that was the point. He had listened with great pleasure to the debate there that night. He, now, understood, first, that it was possible to say whether there was any other ingredient than the hop present, and secondly, if so, whether that ingredient was quassia or not.They would now be in a position to take half a gallon of beer from any brewery, and say, ‘‘ This is not bittered with hops.” That was the main thing they had been con- tending for-they did not care whether analysts were able to say what the bitter was, whether camomile or gentian. They had reason to know that quassia has been very largely used. Analysts could help him and his friends to that extent, if they were unable tocome to the friendly compromise with the brewers which they were trying for. There were three or four millions of capital embarked in the hop industry, and they desired to know whether hops were wanted or not.I f every time hops were over a certain low standard of value the brewers were to use substitutes, it was obvious that a crop which cost 240 an acre to produce, could not be continued under these conditions. Mr. ALLEN, in reply : I f he had an insufficient quantity of any sample, he certified that the quantity was insuillcient for him to form an opinion. He understood Mr. Norton to consider it of great importance that they should be able to distinguish between ‘‘ hops ” on the one side, and “ not hops ” on the other ; this he believed could be done with certainty, ease, and on a very moderate quantity of beer. As to the identification of the various hop-substitutes, he did not profess to be able to distinguish all, but he thought he could already positively recognise calumba, quassia, colocynth, and some other bitters, including picric acid and picrotoxin, and if the matter became important he believed in a year or two public analysts would have devised methods for the detection of the other bitters, just as they had conquered other analytical dificulties when the occasion arose. With butter they did not say with what fat it was mixed, but simply that it contained foreign fat ; and they could do similarly with beer-that is, certify that it was beer; it contained a foreign bitter. As to tannin he would not admit that it was a bitter ; it was an astringent, and if used in excess would simply make the beer nasty, It was not a hop-substitute; then why should it be used as an ingredient of a hop- substitute ? It just showed that those gentlemen who were buying hop-substitutes did not get what they expected.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8871200112

出版商:RSC    

年代:1887

数据来源: RSC

摘要:

118 THE ANALYST. REMARKS ON THE SO-CALLED ADULTERATION OF BEER, AND ON THE “ BEER ADULTERATIONS,” AND ‘‘ BUTTER SUBSTITUTES ” BILLS. BY OTTO HEHNER. (Red at the Meeting, May, 1887.) IN consequence of the numerous prosecutions which have lately been instituted by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and which have resulted in convictions of London publicans and the infliction of heavy fines for selling watered beer, many public analysts have received communications from the Authorities appointing them, requesting explanations of their inactivity in a matter which is, both in Parliament and out of it, exciting a great deal of attention. Public analysts have hitherto been regarded as the custodians of the purity of all articles used for food or drink by man, and with them only rested the power to issue certificates of purity or of adulteration of legal value.The public, there- fore, and the authorities appointing public analysts, are naturallysurpfised to me that in so important a matter as the control of the beer supply, the public analyst has been entirely supplanted by the Revenue officer, and the more so because the watering of beer is not a question which in any way touches the Inland Revenue. Under the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, the excise duty on beer is calculated as follows : -Upon every thirty-six gallons of worts of specific gravity of 1057, the duty of six shillings and three pence (less 6 per cent. for waste) is levied, and so on in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity-that is to say, the brewer has to pay for each barrel of an original gravity of 1057 six and three pence, but for each barrel of 1028.5, only three and one penny half penny.He can brew strong or thin, as he plemes, without limit, provided he pays for each degree of gravity per barrel 1.316 pence. It cannot, therefore, be of any detriment to the Revenue if the publican reduces the strength of the beer by the addition of water, the duty on the gravity having been paid. The brewer commits no offence .by adding water to his mash-tub in unlimited amount. How is it that the publican is held to offend grievously by doing that which is permitted to the brewer ? It might be said that, in making, say, four barrels of brewery beer into five barrels of publichouse beer, the publican causes a loss to the Revenue to the extent of one barrel, but seeing that the brewer might have made, without contributing one single penny the more to the Revenue, and with perfect legality, five barrels out of the four, such an argument falls to the ground.As well might the thrifty housewife, who fills up the family teapot with hot water, after the first decoction has been withdrawn, be accused of defrauding the Revenue, so much less tea, leaves, which pay a duty, having been used than in the ordinary course of tea- making. Of course, the addition of sugar to beer, with or without the addition of water, is an offence against the Revenue. The sugar may ferment and form alcohol; it certainly represents an equivalent quantity of malt or other saccharine substance which should pay duty. But the addition of plain water is not a Revenue offence in any sense of the term.In the case of spirits, the duty is levied upon the percentage of proof spirit ; no matter whether absolute alcohol or spirit of 35 U.P. is sold, the duty is the =me for the same amount of absolute alcohol, and no Revenue offence is committed by the addition of water.THE ANALYST. 119 The addition of water to beer, therefore, can only be oonsidered in the light of an adulteration, and as such should be punishable by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. It is notorious that it is not so punishable, simply because beer, as permitted to be brewed, is a nondescript article, of no particular composition and of no particular strength, It is simply any liquor (Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, sec.4), which is made or sold aa a description of beer, or as a substitute for beer, and which on analysis of a sample thereof shall be found to contain more than 2 per cent. of proof spirit.” That is to say, beer is anything that is sold as beer, provided it has 2 per cent. of proof spirit. If it is less strong, it cewes to be beer. Watered beer therefore is still beer, in the legal sense, and no offence is committed by watering, as the law at present stands. It would, no doubt, be an offence to sell, say, BW’S beer under that name after it had been diluted to one half its strength, because it would be no longer of the “ nature, substance, and quality demanded;” but unless a sample is sold under a specific brand, adulteration of beer by water does not exist, as far as the powers of the public analyst, as defined by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, are concerned.It will be a matter of surprise to most public analysts that within the last two years an Adulteration A d was passed by Parliament, independent of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and without regard to the existence of public analysts-an Act which, on the face of it, has nothing whatever to do with the adulteration of food, but which nevertheless is a blow at the very existence of the public analyst. It is 48 and 49 Vict., cap. 61, “The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885,” 6th August, 1885. It deals with a variety of matters affecting the Customs, with allowances to British spirits ex- ported or used in warehouse ; definition of the term beer, as given above ; an amend- ment in reference to brewers’ entries; regulation of entries, by brewers, of sugar stores and accounts of sugar to be kept; and, lastly, a prohibition against adulteration of beer by brewers for sde, and dedem and retaiZers of beer.This clause states :- (1) A brewer of beer for sale shall not adulterate beer, or add any matter or thing thereto (except finings for the purpose of clarification or other matter, or thing sanctioned by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue), before the same is delivered for consumption ; and any beer found to be adulterated, or mixed with any other matter or thing (except as aforesaid , in the possession of a brewer of beer for sale shall be forfeited, and the brewer shall incur a fine of fifty pounds. (2) A dealer in, or retailer of, beer shall not adulterate or dilute beer, or add any matter or thing thereto (except finings for the purpose of clarification), and any beer found adulterated or diluted, or mixed with any other matter or thing (except finings), in the possession of a dealer in, or retailer of, beer shall be forfeited, and he shall incur a fine of fifty pounds. It will be seen that here, in this Inland Revenue Act, the term adzclteration, which was so carefully excluded from the Sale of Food and Drugs Act is boldly used.As to the justice of such clauses, as they affect brewers and publicans, I do not allow myself an opinion ; they are the law. But I have the very strongest feeling that by their passing, the officers which for twelve years have had to look after “every article used for food or drink by man”-the public analysts-have been unnecessarily alighted, The clauses being included in an Inland Revenue Act, the Inland Revenue120 THE ANALYST.officers natwlly carried. them out, although it was not specifioally stated who were to be the persons entrusted with the analysis of the samples in question. But the very use of the term adulteration should have led to the employment of the regular officers- the public analysts. Here was a grand opportunity for harmonious action between the Revenue officers and the public analysts. The Excise officers, with their right of entry, uould have colleoted the samples as sold by the publican, and as stored in the cellar, just received from the brewery ; they should have handed them over to the inspectors acting under the Sale of Food Act, for analysis by the public analyst of the district, But that opportunity, which we public analysts would have joyfully welcomed, was lost, and in the eyes of our employers and of the public a damage was inflicted upon us whiuh no amount of explanation of ours is likely to entirely e&ce.I will not stop to enquire how it came that such a clause was passed without ever being submitted to public analysts; it certainly could not have been drawn up without consultation with the Somerset House Laboratory officers. But it is not only the Revenue which requires protection, but very much more so the public. A satisfactory legal definition of beer and other similar beverages is a pressing necessity. A.s in the case of spirits, limits of minimum strength, or original gravity, should be laid down, and if such limits be over-stepped, be it by the brewer or by the publican, the beverage should be considered to be not of the substance, naturo, and quality demanded.It would be easy, without injury to legitimate trade, to devise such limits. How far the materials used in brewing should be defined and limited is a question which I hope to see answered by to-night’s discussion ; my own feeling is that neither hop nor malt substitutes should be prohibited as far as they are known to be non-injurious, but tht unless any sample sold be made with malt and hops as main ingredients, due notice should be given to the purchaser. Whatever the relative merits of malt and hops on the one hand, and saccharine substitutes or bitter herbs on the other, may be, the purchaser has a right to know what he is drinking, and to choose between what he often believes to be the only genuine article, and one made with so- called substitutes.Until such a definition has been laid down it is idle to talk of beer adulteration. We should refuse, meanwhile, to be used as catspaws in the interests of hop-growers, maltsters, or veiled Protectionists. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, upon which I have commented, was the thin end of the wedge driven into the interests of public analysts. That wedge is getting considerably thicker in the several Bills relating to the manufacture of beer and sale of butterine now before Parliament, and unless we public analysts bestir our- selves we will find that we have lost the right to analyse samples of beer a t all, and in many cases samples of butter.For the Bills on beer are silent as to the machinery to be set in motion for the detection of adulteration; informers are to be paid one-half of the fines recovered; not a word is said about public analysts; but, judging from analogy, I believe that it is intended to use Revenue appliances. In the whole of the discussion which is taking place, the public analyst is ignored, reference is made to Revenue officers who have nothing whatever to do with the question, but who neverthe- less silently accept the office of advisers on the same without openly and honestlyTHE ANALYST. 121 declaring that the public analysts of the country are the proper authorities to be con- sulted on matters relating to analysis of butter and malt substitutes.We fare not much better in the Butter Substitutes Bill, and the Oleomargarine Bill, in which Custom House and Inland Revenue officers are empowered to examine goods in transit, and to employ experts-of course Inkand Revenue experta-in the case of urgency. Plainly the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1879, relating to the examination of milk in transit, should be extended to the butter and butter substitutes, not the control be taken from public analysts and given to Somerset House. I f the Society of Public Analysts has any raison d’etre at all, it has clearly the duty to prevent, by all means in its power, the contraction of analysts’ rights and powers, and to take care that after twelve years of labour for the public benefit they be not overlooked when questions arise touching their very existence. DISCUSSION.Mr. ALLEN said that the author had made some strong remarks, but they all knew him, and that he felt what he said. From the newspaper reports it appeared that a man could ask at a counter for half-and-half, and be legally served, but two beers must not be mixed beforehand. A man was recently fined &30 for mixing two beers. The reason why the Inland Revenue were so anxious to prove that a man must not mix two beers was simply that it was wholly beyond their power to tell whether it was beer and water, or a mixture of a weak with a strong beer. All that of course would disappear if they fixed a minimum strength for beer the same as for spirits.The limits of strength for spirits laid down in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act of 1879 had been found to work exceedingly well, and a similar limit for beer, based on the original gravity, would protect the public against excess of watering, and the public would soon find out which public-houses sold stronger beer than others. The addition of sugar to beer was purely a matter for the Inland Revenue author- ities, and had no interest for public analysts. The promotion of the use of an excessive quantity of salt could be similarly prevented by fixing a maximum limit for the total chlorine, and this should not be too low. All they wanted could be done by putting aclause in the Bill, defining beer.But it would be much better if analysts were asked to state their views before the committee after it had p-d the second reading. The next meeting of the Society will be held at Burlington House on Wednesday, the 8th inst., when several interesting papers will be read. THE BUTTERINE BILLS. The President of the Society (Mr. A. H. Allen) and Mr. Otto Hehner gave evidence before the Parliamentary But terine Committee on the 20th ult.122 THE ANALYST. APPOINTMENT, Mr. BERKAXD DYER has been appointed Public Analyst for the City of T w o . ,BOOKS, &c., RECEIVED. ANNUAL Report of the Connecticut Experiment Station for 1886; American Analyst; American Chemical Review; American Druggist ; American Grocer ; American Journal of Pharmacy ; Chemistry for Beginners, by R.L. Taylor ; Brewer’s Guardian ; Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal ; Chemist and Druggist ; Country Brewer’s Gazette; Druggist’s Circular; Hospital Gazette ; Illustrated Science Monthly; Independent Journal; Invention; Journal of the American Chemical Society; Journal of Microscopy and Natural Science ; Justus Liebig’s Annalin der Chemie ; Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry ; Le Mouvement Hygienique ; Medical Press ; Nedical Record ; The Miller ; Monthly Magazine of Pharmacy and Chemistry ; National Druggist ; Pharmaceutical Journal ; Pharmaceutical Record ; The Polyclinic ; Popular Science News ; Repertorium der Analytischen Chemie ; San Francisco News Letter ; Scientific American ; Society of Arts Journal. Fourth Edition, illustrated by 53 Plates and numerous Woodcuts, giving figures of nearly 3,000 objects, medium 8v0, 32 12s.6d. GRIFFITH AND HENFREY’S MICROGRAPHIC DICTIONARY. A Bzlide t the Emamimtion and Inveatigai%ion of the 8tructure and Nature of Nkroscopic Objeo ts . Edited by J. W. GRIFFITH, M.D., etc,, assisted by the Rev. M. J. BERKELEY, M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S., and T. RUPERT JONES, F.R.S., F.G.S,, Professor of Geology, Sandhurst, etc.. GURNEY &*JACKSON, SUCCESSORS TO MR. VAN VOORBT, 1, PATERNOSTER Row. COMMERCIAL ORGANIC ANALYSIS. BY ALFRED H. ALLEN, F.I.C., F.C.S., pU6lic AnaZyat for the Borough of Shfletisld, ela. SEUOND EDITION, Revised and Enlarged. Volume I., price ~CS., contains :--Introduction, Wood Spirit, Alcoholometry, Wine, Beer, Spirits, Tinctures, Fuse1 Oil, Ethers, Sweet Spirit of Nitre, Chloral, Chloroform, Sugars, Molasses, Malt, Worts, Qlucose, Honey, Cellulose, Gun-cotton, Vegetable Fibres, Starches, Arrowroot, Dextrin, Gums, Plant Andy& Flour, Bread, Acetic Acid, Pyroligneous Acid, Vinegar, Acetate of Lime, Iron Liquor, Oxalic Acid, Tartaric Acid, Tartars, Citric Acid, Lime and Lemon Juice, etc., eto. Volume II., price 17s. 6d., contains :-Fixed Oils, Lard, Tallow, Butter, Waxes, Fatty Acids, Soaps, Glycerin, Hydrocarbons, Shale Oil, Coal Tar, Asphalt, Petroleum, Kerosene, Paraffin, Essential Oils, Turpentine, Camphors, Resin, Rosin Oil, Benzols and Naphthas, Naphthalene, Anthracene, Carbolic Acid, Carbolic Powders, Creosote Oils, Creosote, etc., eto. Volume III., in preparation, will contain :-Aromatic Acids and Tannins, Colouring Matters, Cyanogen Compounds, Organic Bases, Albuminoids, etc. LONDON: J. Ba A. CHURCHILL, 11, NEW BURLINGTON STREET.

ISSN:0003-2654    

DOI:10.1039/AN8871200118

出版商:RSC    

年代:1887

数据来源: RSC