Minutes of evidence and appendices. Vol. 2, Evidence received in 1902-3, together with appendices 16 to 32, and index (Being part 2 of the Final report of the Commission) / Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning.
Date:
1903
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Minutes of evidence and appendices. Vol. 2, Evidence received in 1902-3, together with appendices 16 to 32, and index (Being part 2 of the Final report of the Commission) / Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    45/404 (page 33)
    tr. G8. 8879. The fumes go, containing all the ingredients hompson. unchanged, including what arsenic there may be, through all the floors?—Yes; the hot air will go April 1902. through all the floors undoubtedly. 8880. Am I correct in calling it green malt ?—Yes ; it-is barley when fully grown; when it is first put on to the kiln to dry we call it green malt. 8881. In that moist condition at the top floor the fumes from the furnace do go through it?—Yes; un- doubtedly the hot air reaches it after passing through the hot-air chamber and the two floors of malt. 8882. Has there been any investigation to test whether or not the malt is free from danger of arsenic by this arrangement ?/—Yes ; we have tested it periodi- cally, and we have only had a very slight trace of it after coming off the bottom floor, and that was before it was screened and brushed. When it is taken off the bottom floor it is screened and brushed before it goes into’ the bin. It is then screened and brushed again before going into the mash tun. recent 8883. You have no means of testing differentially nge in ihis process from your previous process in respect to ir . freedom from arsenic ?—We have had this all along. struction. J¢ is not a new idea at all. _ $884. It is not a new method then?—No; the kilm was erected about 1896. 8885. (Sir Wiliam Hart- Dyke.) I should like a little explanation of this. If there be contamination it takes place on the first floor you say /—No, on the top floor. We maintain that if there is any contamination takes place it would take place while the malt is green, in its moist state. 8886. That is on the top floor ?—Yes; but before our malt leaves the top floor it is dry; before it reaches the furnace fumes it is practically malt. The ordinary kiln has only one floor. 8887. That is why I am questioning you, because I am. aware what the ordinary kiln is. It is only in this certain stage that the contamination, you believe, can take place before it becomes malt on the top floor ?— Yes. * 8888. And this brushing takes place, when ?—After it leaves the bottom floor.. 8889. That is the concluding process?—That is the concluding process. Therefore, if there is any con- tamination it would come off in the brushing, because it would be practically dust. ’ 8890. Has this brushing process always taken place in your business ?—Yes. 8891. (Chairman.), Which is the dust chamber. re- ferred to ?—It is called there “ hot air chamber.” 8892. The lowest part?—Yes. It is a dust chamber,. too. © - 8893. Does dust settle in that chamber ?—Yes. 8894. And it is occasionally swept out P—Yes ; we have it cleaned out. = 8895. Cleaned: out how often?—We have had it cleaned out twice this season—once before we com- menced, and again about the latter end of January. 8896. Have you ever analysed the dust swept out from it }—Yes. 8897. Do you find arsenic in the dust swept out from the dust chamber ?—Yes. 8898. Large quantities >—No, not large quantities. 8899. Does your special malting kiln owe whatever safety it has to the dust deposited in the dust chamber ? —Yes, and by means of the fumes of the fires not coming into direct contact with the floor. They must go through the dust chamber before they reach the floor, 8900. Are there other points on which you question the statements in Mr. Hammond Smith’s report ?—I do not know of any... I think you have gone through them all. : ishing of It. cent 8901..Do. you wish to give evidence as to the pre- cautions cautions you have taken against arsenic since the Man- inst chester scare and before this Halifax outbreak ?—Well, enic. -. -.» of course, we maintain we have always taken precau- _.** ployed an analyst to analyse all the materials and the ting fuels beer. before leaving the brewery. Since the Halifax ad, scare we certainly have taken’ stronger precautions by using better fuel. ; 4576, 33 8902. Better fuel for malting ?—Yes. Mr. G. S. do you refer to specially ?—Better coke. 8904. Do you refer to a better class of fuel or a more carefully analysed and selected fuel?#—A better class Oven eoke —$—_—_ which has been submitted to analysis. now sub- ora tituted f 8905. But it is the same type of fuel ?—Yes. cha coke 8906. That being what ?—Oven coke, 8907. Not gas coke ?—No, oven coke and anthracite. 8908. Were you using anthracite and gas coke before the Halifax calamity took place +—Yes. 8909. (Chairman.) Before the Manchester scare you pytent of did not habitually have analysis of beer made ?—No. analyses © Halifax outbreak you had analyses made ?—Yes, malt. 8911. How often ?—Practically every week. 8912. By whom?—By Mr. Thatcher, of Burton-on- Trent, an analytical chemist. 8913. Had you an analyst in your own employment ?— No, we have not. 8914. What reports did you receive from the anatyst from whom you requested investigation?—Very good ones always. . 8915. Was any arsenic detected in any case ?—There have been one or two cases where there have been faint traces. 8916. Was that in the beer or the malt or sugars ?— A faint trace in the malt and a faint trace in the beer ; none in the sugar or other materials. It is only about. two occasions, and so slight that it has been impossible to approximate the quantity. 8917. Since the Halifax outbreak you have had your beer analysed by more than one analyst +—Yes. 8918. Has arsenic in such a quantity as 1-50th or 1-30th of a grain per gallon been found in any samples or sample /—The analysts vary so considerably. There are scarcely two analysts who agree upon that point, and if I have your permission I should not like to really answer that question publicly, 8919. (Sir Wiliam Hart-Dyke.) Not as to what you discovered by analysis ?—No. 8920. When you say the analysts varied, you refer to the test being applied to precisely the same sample by different analysts giving different results ?—Yes. 8921. You mean that clearly and distinctly ?—Yes, On one occasion we had it analysed by three analysts. and they all differed. - 8922. With a practically identical sample ?—Yes. 8925. Was that a sample of malt, or brewing material, or finished article ?—A sample of finished beer. 8924. And you wish the Commission to understand that in the case of one sample of finished beer three different analysts brought three distinct results %— That is so, 8925. You would rather not give the results, you say.. You do not wish for trade reasons to yive the actual figures ?—No. 8926. You could not place a concrete case before the Commission ?—No. I should not care to this morning. We came here with the’idea that this was really a private sitting, and for trade interests, which is a very serious matter to us, we should not like to divulge any- thing of that sort. We are quite prepared to give the Commission all the assistance we ean. 8927. But you acknowledgethis is an important point. Although this is a public inquiry, this is an ali important point ; that is to say, that there should be. one standard of analysis applied to all these cases ?—It. is a very important point. Certainly we brewers—I believe I am voicing their sentiment—are very dis- satisfied with the present system. 8928. Would you go so far as to say from your experi- ence with regard to analyses in general that you put ne faith whatever in analyses which produce results so contrary’—It does certainly shake our faith, but I should not like to go as far as that. ; 8929. It shakes your faith considerably, at all events, when you have results'so divergent ?—That is so. Thev all say approximate to such an amount. There is nothing definite. E