First report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into arsenical poisoning [1900] from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink.

Great Britain. Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning

Date:: 1901-1903

Credit: First report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into arsenical poisoning [1900] from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

117/872 page 31

$III majority of eases it is possible to di^ t'ligu'-.-li, exctpt by the history of arsenical poisoning. 656. WitJi regard to tii& prdcess of mak'img beer whioli you refer to, you compare the different dangers wliidi may ensue, whether from the use of iaavert sugar, glucose, or malt, from the presence of arsenic in eibher ; are you jirepared to state that it would be less dangei- as regards arsenic getting into beer through the medium of malt, than that in the case of glucose or sugar?—Yes, un- doubtedly, but I do not think that it is a danger which can be disregarded. 657. No ; I was really asldng as a question of com- parison. For instance, taking the question of adding sugar as' priming to beer when fimslied, in that case if there was any mischief it would be irreanediiaible ? It is applied to the article of consumption when it is approach- ing completion ?—Of course, dn that case there is no drminutiion whatever in the arse^nio whdcli is put in. Even allowing for the yeast picking up a ce^rtain amount tliere would not be very much dimijuution if a lai'ge quantity was added in ihe first instance befoire fermentation. I think there is some reason for supposing that if you put a very large amount of arsenic into the liquor to be fer- mented, the yeast fails to exercise its power of picking it out, to a certain extent at any rate. The yeast gets degenerated. 658. And your report tends to show, does it not, tliat there are two remedies, at all events, in regard to the quesition of malt, one of whiidli if carefully aippUed would give something lilke security to the oomsiumer, that is to say, the pitocess of screenimg and cleaning the malt, on the one hand, and the process you have alluded to with reference to tiie aibstraction of some of the podson by the yeaist 1—One cairmiot oonsiider the abstraction of the poison by yeast at all, because I thi-nk that everyone would be agreed there shoudd be noi arseiuiic whatever upon malt before it goes' into tlie masih tun. As to tiie methods by which the malt iis to be freed from arsenic, it is true I have seen an apparatus at four breweries, but I cannot profess to lay down the precise manner in which the malt is to be freed from arsenic. It may be freed by not allowing the fumes tO' pass up through tilie malt, and very proibably it may lateo be freetl by cleajiiiing processes. 659. Of course, when you refer tO' the des'irability of eliminatring all tlie possibility of ars'enic from beer materials, you would agree that in this process, as in miany other processes where you have to supply food or drink, great care is requisite ; it is a question of care on the part of those who are responsible for cann- ing out the manufacture ?—Yes, I thljnk there ought to be some security tiliat no materials are used wliich contain arsenic. 660. You examined, I see, a good many poiPtions of this malt dust?—Yes. We took a large number of samples about the Ist January of this year. 661. Have you examined since the outbreak, when spwial attention was called to this' poilsoning, any beer which you have ascertained has been brewed purely from malt and hops ?—Yes. The beers numbered 38 and 39 are hi'ewed entirely from malt and hops, but these were both from brevveri€>s which had formerly used arseniioal saigart^, and it ds impossible to be quite certain that som^e of it may not have adJiered to the vaAs. 662. From not cleaning tlie ves'sels rproperly, or peiihap^ from a dirty cojiper, that had held th^ese otiher sub- stances ?—^Yes. 663. You cannot say to the Commission that you have examined lany beer which you are satisfied in your own mind liad been brewed from nmlfc and hops without any possible contamination such as you suggest ? —No, I cannot. I have no doulbt whatever that heev brewed in that manner with mialt that was not siufficiently dean would contain arsenic. 664. But is hot that purely a statement that if there is arsenic Ln the malt it would b^e possibly conveyed to the beer unless properly cleaned? You have not tested a sample of beer which you are satisfied had been brewed solely from mialt 'and hops?—^Yes, except in so far as Some of the arsenijc may have adhered from farmer cou- ta/minaitAon. 665. Wiith that resei'vatlon ?—With that reservation. 666. I asked this question of Dr. TatrtersaH : You state clearly in your report that if beer had been brewed from mialt and hops alone no serious danger from poison wiitih arsenic could have oocurred. His reply was: That is my distinct opinibn. I further asked hiiim: You also say that under no cdrcumstances could beer brewed from malt and hops alone contain more than one- Iwo hundredth grain per gallon—that is ,provided certain ]\ir.J. Niven. things are done —of course, meaning that the malt — was i>roperly cleaned. Have not you refeiTcd once or 1 Mar. IJKil. twice to the fact of one-twenty-tifth of a grani of arsenic being 'ddscwered in malt ?—Yes. Malt and hops are not always properly cleaned. 667. I think you have referred in your evidence once or twice to the fact of one-twenty-tifth of a grain of arsenic being present ?—Supposing the malt were turned into beer, and no arsenic had been abstracted on the way, there would be one-twenty-fifth of a grain per gallon in the beer. 663. Providing no steps had been taken lin the interim t'O clean the malt and abeitract tlie arsenic?—Providing tiiat the malt had not ibeen cleaned in the meantime. All malt is not sufBoiently cleaned. 659. And lliis estimate you make was taken from malt, not from malt duist?—Taken from the malt, as it comes from tiie maLtings before it has been touched by tlie brewers. I may say that I show ooi page 40 in the ca&Q of two samples the results of the operattions of tlie brewer upon malt. On the second operation you will see that aikhough the arsendc was apparently diminished it was not reduced below the limit -of something like one-twenty- fifth of a giadn per gallon, perhaps actually less. 670. You examined a great quantity of this malt dust. Malt dust, did you not?—Yes ; we took a large number of samples of tJie dust—that is tlie soft dust. I might explain one form of the apparatus. The grain shoote' down into a circular screen, which consists of two or three portions with different siized meshes. In the first part of the screen as it revolves, the malt culms are either broken off or brushed off, and fall through the meshes of tire screen. Then the grain pasfees on to a second part where it receives a Little brushing, but it makes really no material difference. Finally, the grain passes througli, gioing to one of the rollers, and passes on until the coarser grains go through the meshes of tlie third portion of tlie circular screen, which is revolving, and frouL these lost two portions' a quantity of soft dust ds thrown off. In a good form of apparatus that dust is carried off by means of fans, or to a less extent by estiracitdon tubes, but if tliere is no proper apparalus it will fall down and mix witli grain going on to the mash tun, and that does occasionally happen. The dust that lias been examined is the soft dust wliich is given off in the s'ubsequent part of the process in the revolving screen, not that passing through with the culms. 671. If this process has the result of taking the poison out of the mait, I presume on exaiiiiination j-ou would find it in the dust?—There is an indication that a certain amount has bee-ii taken out, but in some cases, unfor- tunately, it is reiurmed. 672. But is it not a fact that you examined a great deal of this dust which was the result of more than one brewing ?—Yes, this dust was deposited for a long period. It shows tlie opeaiations of the brewery for a very con- eidierable tiane. 673. Supposing the dust you collected and in wliicJi you Tound this poison repriesemts ten malitings, you would have to divide the resuilt by ten to represent the poison for any one malting ?—No. 674. I oraly WMit to know by what process you got aA it ?—^Perhaps the dusit collects over six or seven weeks, and suppoisfing the malt were all the samie malt, tliien there would be sinipily so mucli dust oollectted after each process, whiich would all contain the' samC' amotiait of arseniic. Suipposing you could coHeot the dust of oaie daiy it would j^lst contain as much arsenic as the dust of 100 days proportional to the toteil am'ounit. There would be no accumulation of arsenic. 675. I siee in your precis of evidence you say, It is, lict certain hoiwever that a slow process of poisoning might not result from tire aanount of arsenic found to be presient in malt ; is that your opinion ?—^That is my opinion. 676. You conclude tliis document witHi several sugges- <5ii(» .ggted tioes as to what shoxiJd be done to secure the puiMic frvim amendment this poison. You allude in No. 5 to the de'sii-aibility of of F. and D. amending the Food and Drugis Act so as to insure tliat in Acts. case of any deleterious contamination occurring in beer or stout it miay be possible to trace the source of the con- tamination, and so secure the destiructtiion of tJie dele- terious article. Have you anything to say upon that?— The Sanitary Commiittee of the City of Mandhestor were of opinion that further legislation is necessajry ^or tlie protection of the pulblic, and I tJiougiht it well imdiei- tliose oircumstanoes to consult witli the Town Clerk,$