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.

17/872 (page 7)

$H.—A dministrative considerations. (26) In pursuance of the last paragraph of our reference, we have sought to ascertain how far the recurrence of such a catastrophe as the epidemic of 1900 may be avoided in future through the action of existing ^•authorities :— {a) Under the sale of Food and Drugs Acts, by the County or Borough Councils who are the authorities under those Acts, or by their public analysts; {h) X''^nder the Public Health Acts, by Town Councils or Urban and Rural District Councils, or by their medical officers of health ; (c) Under the Revenue Acts, which it is o])vious can in any case afford security only as regards articles subject to duty, by offixers of the Revenue. With regard to the above-mentioned Acts and authorities we think it well to draw attention to the following points which have come before us in investigating the circumstances of the recent epidemic :— (27) (a) Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.—We have heard of no instances in which samples of l)rewing sugar have been collected for public analysis under these Acts. After the epidemic public analysts did indeed in some cases obtain samples from breweries informally, but officers under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts appear to have no statutory powers to collect samples of brewing sugars either from the factory or from the brewery. Similarly, in the case of beer no samples have been collected for public analysis from breweries. (Officers under the Acts possess power to obtain samples only when the beer is actually on sale. In practice authorities under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts appear to have found that they possess no effective powers as against the sugar manufacturer or as against the brewer, and they have been obliged to institute proceedings against the retailer. (28) We have learnt that, until the epidemic occurred, neither the public analysts nor otliers concerned were aware of the liability of beer to contain arsenic, and conseijuently they had applied no test to beer for its discovery. It is not always recognised as a duty of a public analyst to advise his authority of the articles of food or drink which are liable to become contaminated with jtoisonous substances such as arsenic whilst in process ■ of manufacture or in preparation for sale. For the most part his duty is understood to consist in analysing articles of food or drink sent to him officially under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, in order to ascertain if they are genuine and free from adulteration. The nature and numl)er of such samples are not necessarily determined on the advice of the public analyst, but appear to depend upon a number ot varying local circumstances largely outside his control. We are also informed that it is not the practice of any Government Department or other central body to do more than tender general advice to authorities under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts concerning these matters. » (29) When the contamination of beer by arsenic became known, and public analysts had to examine large numbers of samples for arsenic and to express their results quantitatively, much uncertainty followed from the adoption of different methods and from lack of data l^y which to compare the divergent results o]:)tained. Hence demand has arisen that some authority should prescribe standard tests for arsenic, which might be adopted or used for reference by all public analysts. It does not at present fall within the province of any public authority to fornuilate standard tests such as are demanded. (30) {b) Public Health Acts.—^^ have heard of no instances in which official action under the Pul^lic Health Acts to obtain the seizure, condemna- tion, or destruction of arsenical brewing sugar on the premises of the sugar manufacturer or of the brewer has been considered practicable. Nor have we learnt of any ease in which such action has been taken in respect of arsenical beer at a brewery. In the opinion of most of the witnesses whom$