Lords Sitting of 13 November 1917

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS (POWER AND HEATTNG) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUGAR SUBSTITUTES.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name
Whether it is a fact, as stated in the public Press, that the leaflet of the Board of Agriculture recommending the use of glucose, salicylic acid, and coal tar, saccharine, or saxin as sugar substitutes in jam, has been condemned by the Kensington Public Health Committee on the ground of possible danger to health, and whether the public analyst told the Committee that glucose is liable to contamination with arsenic, that salicylic acid was a dangerous drug which should be administered only under medical direction, and that the use of saccharine, except under medical supervision, had been recently prohibited in America, and was entirely prohibited in France in certain commodities, including preserves; and, if the above be facts, what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to warn the public against the use of these drugs in the preservation of food.
During the course of the war the instructions issued by the Department have on more than one occasion been modified or actually withdrawn in consequence of fuller knowledge and a more complete grasp of the effects of such instructions. In view of the somewhat severe criticism which has been made in the public Press in regard to certain recommendations of the Board of Agriculture in the matter of the preservation of food, I desire to give His Majesty's Government an opportunity of modifying or withdrawing those recommendations should there be occasion to do so, or, on the other hand, of assuring the public that they support the recommendations and that compliance with them will in no way endanger the public health.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (THE DCKE OF MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, as most of the points which the noble Earl has raised in his Question are of a somewhat technical character, involving the opinion of chemists, I shall, I think, do him the best service if I read the opinion of our expert chemists on the points which he has brought to the notice of the House.
First with regard to glucose. Glucose has long been used in the manufacture of jam and for other food purposes. Its value as a food is well recognised. It may be home-made or imported. The manufacture in this country is in the hands of a few firms, and samples of their products are systematically taken and tested for arsenic at the Government Laboratory. The samples also include invert sugar prepared from cane sugar with acid. Samples of glucose and brewing sugar are also taken at breweries and examined for arsenic. These samples include glucose manufactured in this country as well as glucose imported. Additional samples of foreign glucose are also occasionally examined on importation. During the last three years over 800 samples from the above sources have been examined in the Government Laboratory, and in no case has arsenic exceeding one-hundredth of a grain per lb. been found to be present. The quantity of one-hundredth grain per lb. was suggested by the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning as the limit below which no action should be taken under the Food and Drugs Acts. Therefore the point raised that there may be danger to the well-being and health of the British public seems to be somewhat dissipated by this statement from an eminent chemist. The manufacturers are aware of the systematic examination of the finished glucose, and, in consequence, exercise great care with regard to freedom from arsenic of the acid used in its manufacture. Much of the imported glucose comes from the United States; and a Committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences some years ago to ascertain whether there is any danger attending the use of glucose as food reported, among other things, that—
"The processes which it (the manufacture of starch sugar-glucose) employs at the present time are unobjectionable in their character and leave the product uncontaminated; and the starch sugar

957
(glucose) thus made is of exceptional purity and contains no injurious substances."
The Board of Agriculture suggests that inasmuch as glucose is sold by retail tradesmen for the purposes of human food it comes within the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, and is consequently subject to public examination by analysts throughout the country. The public is therefore doubly safeguarded.
I now come to salicylic acid. The leaflet referred to in the noble Earl's Question (Food Production Leaflet No. 4) does not advise the use of salicylic acid for jam-making, but recommends the addition of a little of this substance to the spirit used for sterilisation of the paper covers employed to protect jam from the air. Used in this way salicylic, acid helps in preventing the development of mould on the surface of the pots and the consequent spoiling of the jam. A Committee of the Local Government Board, appointed in 1899 to inquire into the use of preservatives in the preparation of food, took evidence with respect to the use of salicylic acid, particularly in the preservation of wine and jam. In their Report they did not think it necessary to prohibit its use entirely, as in the case of formalin, but suggested that the quantity should be restricted to less than one grain per pint in liquids and one grain per lb. in solids. The quantity recommended in the leaflet for use with the paper covering the pot would certainly not convey anything like one grain per lb. to the jam. Salicylic acid is frequently used to-day for preserving non-alcoholic wines and cordials, and action is not taken under the Food and Drugs Acts unless the quantity exceeds one grain per pint.
The use of coal tar in jam-making is not advocated nor referred to in the leaflet. It is, however, suggested in the leaflet that the artificial sweetening material, saccharine (or saxin), which has been extensively used for many years for sweetening purposes, should be employed in cases in which cane sugar is not obtainable, and where some additional sweetness is required. Before recommending the use of the small quantities of saccharine required for this purpose, inquiry was made into the present state of knowledge concerning the physiological effects of this substance. The result of this inquiry was to show that saccharine, although an intensely sweet, is a peculiarly inert, substance. It
958
is also stated by physiologists that saccharine undergoes no change in the body, and the view is generally accepted that it is not absorbed by the body. Saccharine is a constituent of some of the sugar substitutes used to-day, and, when employed in this way, a much larger quantity is liable to be taken into the system than from jam made according to the leaflet. Such jam would contain in 1½ lbs. about the quantity of saccharine present in one tablet of saxin, of which one or two are frequently employed in sweetening a cup of tea.
The Department has no precise knowledge as to the reasons which have led to the alleged prohibition of the use of saccharine in America and in France. It would appear, however, probable that this prohibition, if it exists, is due to fiscal reasons. The issue of saccharine "under medical directions" does not imply that it is itself harmful; but, on the contrary, that it is useful as a substitute for cane sugar, which, as is well known, is injurious to persons suffering from diabetes and other complaints. I trust that this statement, which the noble Earl will realise has been carefully drawn up by expert chemists, covers all the points which he has brought to the notice of the House.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Duke for the careful way in which he has gone into this matter, and I am sure it will relieve a great many minds to hear that, in the opinion of these eminent chemists, there is really no danger in using these substances. It is, of course, of the greatest importance that they should be used, because we cannot preserve our fruit without some substitute for sugar, as we cannot get sugar in sufficient quantities. I hope that the public, therefore, will accept what the noble Duke has said, and not be afraid of using these substances for the preservation of food.

THE PRICK OF BARLEY.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether—

1. It is the case that brewers are allowed to give 5s. more per quarter of barley than are millers;

959

2. This does not hamper millers in the addition of the compulsory ingredients of flour for baking; and

3. Consequently bakers from supplying the most wholesome bread;

4. What object is gained by the prohibition; and

5. Whether protests have been lodged by War Agricultural Committees.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matters which I have put in the form of Questions might safely, I think, have been put as matters of fact; and, assuming that this is the case, and that under the authority of the Department concerned brewers are entitled to give 5s. more per quarter for barley than are millers, I hope the noble Lord who is in charge of the Department will be able to tell the public why there should be any preference given to one trade more than to another. I understand that the position is that holders of good barley, who are entitled to try and get the higher price from the preferred trade, are naturally withholding their best barley in order to get that price; whereas the miller, who, for the first or at any rate the second time in recent history, has been compelled to use barley as a substitute for wheat in making up the 20 per cent. of substitutes for standard flour, is prevented by this prohibition from getting the best quality of standard flour. The baker, in turn, is thereby prevented from producing the best quality of standard bread. I am advised that there is a great deal of indignation felt at this Order. I hope that the noble Lord (Lord Rhondda) will be able to give your Lordships a satisfactory explanation of an arrangement which it is certainly difficult to understand. One knows, of course, that before the war, and before this Executive action became necessary, brewers were always prepared to give the very best price for the very best barley, but in those days it was not necessary for the miller to buy the best barley in order to make the very best bread. He did not want it then, but he does now; and he does not understand why, in the case of such a very necessary article of consumption as bread, the miller and the baker should be prevented from producing the very best article.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, the Questions put by the noble Lord raise matters of considerable public interest, and my Department
960
has had a number of inquiries made in reference to them. I have had a special Memorandum prepared on the subject, because I regard it as a matter of great importance that the public should know exactly the reasons that have actuated my Department in the action it has taken; and with the indulgence of the House I propose to read the Memorandum. I do not know that it will altogether satisfy the criticism made by the noble Lord, but at any rate it is the considered reply of the Ministry of Food on the points which he has raised
The answer to the first Question is, of course, in the affirmative. The Grain (Prices) Order (August 14, 1917) provides that where barley is bought by a person requiring and holding a licence from the Food Controller granted for the purpose of enabling him to use barley for a manufacturing business carried on by him, or by a recognised dealer specifically buying for re-sale to such a person, the maximum price shall be ascertained by adding 5s. 3d. per quarter to the standard rate. The prices mentioned in the Order were fixed in agreement with the Board of Agriculture, and the object of this permitted addition was to encourage farmers to continue to grow the types of barley which, under normal conditions, have always fetched the highest prices. Some such provision was necessary, as these types of barley do not necessarily produce the heaviest yield per acre, and it was thought that if all barley was sold at one price certain types might go out of cultivation and the stock be lost to the country.
The types of barley for which maltsters and brewers have been accustomed to pay the highest prices are not necessarily the types most suitable for use by millers. Maltsters and brewers attach considerable importance to the colour of barley. The colour, combined with the quality of the skin, indicates the quality of the extract that it may be expected will be obtained from the resulting malt. In practice, maltsters and brewers have always paid highest prices for bright, thin-skinned barley of fine quality, and have attached more importance to the quality, as judged from the brewing standard, than to the size of the berry or the quantity of extract yielded by the malt. On the other hand, the type of barley most suitable for milling is a large-berried barley of mild quality, even if the barley be weathered and stained, as it is

961
this type that yields the highest percentage of flour and from which it is most, easy to mill the flour.
Under normal conditions the largest supply of barley comes to market in the month of November, so that there would ordinarily be now offering sufficient quantities to enable maltsters and brewers to select those samples most suitable for their trade, and millers to obtain ample supplies of good, sound barley of the type most suitable for milling. Owing to the lateness of the season and the shortage of labour threshing has proceeded this year more slowly than usual; and it is for this reason that maltsters and brewers have appeared to take an undue proportion of the barley now offered for sale. Maltsters are naturally anxious to obtain their strictly limited supplies of barley as early as possible, especially as, owing to the wet harvest, the barley has to be kiln-dried and stored for several weeks before it is fit for malting. It does not, however, appear that this temporary difficulty has seriously affected the supplies required for admixture with wheaten flour, and millers have been notified that if they experience any difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies of home-grown barley of the 1917 crop they can be supplied with kiln-dried barley of the 1916 crop or with barley imported by the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies.
It is expected that, so soon as threshing becomes more general, any difficulty experienced by millers in obtaining an adequate supply of barley will disappear. In any case the quantity of barley which maltsters and brewers will be licensed to use during the cereal year will be strictly limited to the quantity required to produce the permitted output of beer. Maltsters and brewers are not permitted to pay higher prices than millers for any barley in excess of the quantity they are licensed to malt, so that as soon as they have secured their licensed quantity millers will have the market to themselves.
In answer to Lord Harris's last point, I am informed that only two War Agricultural Committees have drawn the attention of my Department to the fact that maltsters and brewers are permitted to pay a higher price for barley than millers.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the explanation to which we have just listened is a highly technical one, and I confess
962
that I do not see that the noble Lord has given any satisfactory explanation why the miller should not be allowed to buy the best barley if he wants to do so. It is obvious from the communications which have been received from, at any rate, two Agricultural War Committees that there are millers who want to buy the best barley. Why, then, should not they be allowed to do so? There is nothing in the noble Lord's answer which gives any explanation of the reason why his Department, on its own initiative, has chosen to give preference a thing which stinks in the nostrils of every Government Department. Why has this Department of the Government chosen to give preference to this abhorred trade, enabling brewers to buy a better quality of bailey than millers are allowed to buy, although the latter are providing the most necessary article of food for the public? I confess that the answer of the noble Lord seems to me most disappointing.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to support the plea which has just been made by the noble Lord, my neighbour in the County of Kent. Surely at this moment nothing is more necessary than that there should be an ample supply of barley for the millers, in order that there may be a sufficiency of bread in the country. The colleagues of the noble Lord are constantly telling us that it is most important that we should be economical in our consumption of bread. Yet here is the noble Lord himself encouraging the brewers to buy the barley which, surely, would be much better used in the manufacture of bread.
The noble Lord gave us no indication that he had the least sympathy with his colleague of the Ministry, Sir Arthur Yapp, whose admonitions yesterday all members of this House will be only too anxious to obey. At the same time the noble Lord must acknowledge that it is very difficult for us to realise, while anxious for economy in the consumption of bread, that the Department itself entertains the same anxiety, seeing that it encourages the brewers to use this barley, which could be so much better employed. I venture to hope that the noble Lord will give some indication to the House that he is willing to reconsider this matter, and perhaps to issue an amended Order before it is too late.
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, as far as I understand the noble Lord at the head of the Food Control Department, the reason why there were two prices given for the barley was that there were two sorts of barley required, and that the larger price was given in order to prevent what we might call the "pale ale" barley going out of cultivation; but that the barley required for bread was not of the same class, and of that there is no deficit. The requirements
964
of the brewer are earlier and are bought earlier. I understand from the noble Lord the Food Controller that there is no deficit and will be no deficit of the barley more suitable for bread but unsuitable for pale ale.
LORD RHONDDA LORD RHONDDA nodded assent.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.