§ Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether the Board were taking any steps through the medium of the medical officers of health of the local authorities, or otherwise, to demonstrate the high nutritive value, especially to young children, of unpolished as compared with polished rice, and the unwholesome character of the latter when, as often happened, a high percentage of the talc, steatite, or gypsum employed in the polishing process was left in the finished product as sold in this country; and (2) whether, in consequence of Dr. J. M. Hamill's report to the Board in 1909 on facing and polishing rice, he had taken or proposed to take any steps, by propounding an official definition of genuine rice for the purposes of the Food and Drugs Acts or otherwise, to prevent the deleterious effects upon public health of the consumption of rice adulterated in the process of polishing by talc or some other glazing agent or in the process of rendering it translucent by petroleum or arachis oil?
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns)Copies of the report made by Dr. Hamill, of the Local Government Board's Food Department, have been circulated to the local authorities concerned in the administration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, and I find that action has been taken by them in accordance with the recommendations in that report. As a result, a considerable reduction has been made in the amount of extraneous matter left on the 1033 rice after the process of facing, and it does not seem necessary to take further action at the present time. I may explain that the process of polishing or facing does not remove any of the nutritive elements of the rice.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDoes not that reply apply only to local authorities in London?
§ Mr. BURNSCopies of Dr. Hamill's report published in 1909, to which the question relates, were circulated to all the local authorities in England and Wales.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTBut action has been taken only in London, I think?