HL Deb 24 October 1945 vol 137 cc448-68

2.50 p.m.

LORD HANKEY rose to move to resolve, That the health of the population should be the guiding principle to govern the nutritional policy of the Government, and that in applying that principle to the case of bread, the health of the consumer should be the primary factor, and milling and other interests should be developed in harmony with this policy.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Resolution which stands in my name takes its origin from the remarkable debate on bread initiated by my noble friend Lord Teviot on February 28 last. Remarkable because nine out of the ten speakers in the debate—that is to say, all except the speaker for the Government—supported a return to the 85 per cent. extraction bread; remarkable for the consternation in health circles, not excluding Government circles at the Government's attitude; and remarkable, too, for the interest that it aroused in the country. The first stock of Hansard was sold out almost at once. There were leading articles in many important daily and weekly newspapers and other periodicals, including the Lancet, from which I shall quote in a moment, and the British Medical Journal, whose article headed, "The Political Loaf" caused many a chuckle. There was also a discussion on the B.B.C.

During the debate, it was recalled that the adoption of low-extraction flour—white bread, in fact—at the end of the last century had been followed by an increase in anæmia, much subnormal health, a grave deterioration in the teeth of the nation and a consequent increase in digestive troubles; that successive Governments had disregarded the warnings of their experts, until in March, 1942, my noble friend Lord Woo1ton crowned his great nutrition policy by introducing 85 per cent. extraction bread. It was; shown that that bold step had been followed by many improvements in health among them a decrease in anæmia, less constipation, and many other improve-merits mentioned by my noble friends. Lord Horder and Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The gravest doubts were expressed. however, as to the wisdom of the later whiter bread policy, which involved a reduction of the extraction rate first it the autumn to 82½ per cent. and then at the beginning of the new year to 80 per cent., the present bread. The admission that this latter reduction was made before the Government had received figures to show whether the commercial application of the new method of milling safe caused grave concern. The failure to secure any categorical statement of the view of the Government's experts, and especially their health experts, increased the general uneasiness of those present. No wonder that my noble friend Lord Teviot said, at the end of the debate, that he was very far from happy at the situation.

But my noble friend did secure two important undertakings from the Government. The first was: If we find we are wrong"— that is about the reduction to 80 per cent.— we shall have no hesitation in saying we are wrong and in going back"— that is to 82½per cent. The second undertaking was: We will not reduce the extraction Tate below 80 per cent. until we are satisfied that it will not be detrimental from the nutritional point of view. In the last eight months, since those undertakings were given, a number of official figures and facts have been published which suggest, first, that to go below 80 per cent. is unthinkable, and, second, that the Government were wrong and that we ought to go back as soon as we can to 82½ per cent. or, better still, 85 per cent., though that is not included in my Motion. Official figures that I shall give to support these claims are based on the seventh report of the Scientific Adviser's Division, Ministry of Food, which was published in Nature on June 16 of this year, checked by a memorandum on Nutritive Values of War-time Foods, published by the Medical Research Council about the same time. I may say that I have all these reports with me.

But before proceeding I must recall that at the fag end of the debate of February 28, it leaked out that 80 per cent. is not an exact description of the present national bread. It is a euphemism. There is flour of 80 per cent. extraction milled in this country from home-grown and imported wheat, but before it is made into bread it is mixed, in proportions that are liable, for perfectly understandable reasons, to vary at different times and different places, with imported flour of 75 per cent. extraction. The resultant mixture, according to the answer to the question which I put on May 8, provided an over-all national flour for breadmaking of 79.25 per cent. extraction all over the country, except for what is known as "batch bread"—which is a Scottish mystery that I know nothing about—where it may fall to 78.6 per cent. In a sentence, the so-called 80 per rent. bread was, in May, nearer 79 per cent. bread, and the extraction rate had fallen to a level almost midway between Lord Wool-ton's nominal 85 per cent. and the actual 72 per cent. or 73 per cent. "poverty" white bread of pre-war days. There has been a good deal of increase of 75 per cent. flour in bread since then, and it is probably well below 79 per cent. now, though I have no figures.

Coming to the quality of the present 80 per cent. flour as compared with the 82½ per cent. flour of last autumn and the 85 per cent. flour of Lord Woolton, as expected there is no marked difference in the figures for proteins, fats, carbohydrates and calories. The 85 per cent. flour, however, I am assured by experts, contains a more valuable assortment of proteins than the 80 per cent. flour and this loss is something that cannot be stated in figures or corrected by enrichment or fortification. But now when we come to the protective elements, those minute substances which modern research has shown to be of such vital importance to human health, there is a much worse story to tell. Published figures do not all use the same terminology, and, in any event, comparisons in decimals of Inter- national Units or the Greek µ grammes, usually spoken of as microgrammes or in parts per million, which all appear in these different documents, are difficult to put across. So, with expert aid, I have reduced the figures of loss of these elements to percentages, which are less scientific, but which, I think, are easier to follow.

Here they are. Vitamin B. The present 80 per cent. flour shows a loss of 10.2 per cent. in Vitamin B compared with the 82½ per cent. flour of last autumn and a loss of 19.2 per cent. compared with Lord Woolton's 85 per cent. flour. That, I am assured by experts, is very serious. Riboflavin in our present flour shows a loss of 20 per cent. compared with last autumn's flour and 381 per cent. compared with Lord Woolton's flour. The combination of these losses in Vitamin B and riboflavin was described in the leading article in the Lancet on June 2 as "disturbing." Nicotinic acid in our present flour has lost 8.3 per cent. compared with last autumn's flour but only 2½ per cent. compared with Lord Woolton's flour, but in that case I am told that the comparison is rather misleading because different grists were used. If the same grists had been used the loss of nicotinic acid would have been much greater.

Now as to iron. In our present flour it is reduced by no less than 16½ per cent. compared with last autumn's flour and 21.7 per cent. compared with Lord Woolton's flour. I am advised that that loss must be taken very seriously, especially when we remember that the reduction in anæmia was one of the principal benefits which followed the introduction of the 85 per cent. flour. It is particularly undesirable to take risks in this matter because, as stated in The Manual of Nutrition, 1945, a little book published by the Ministry of Food, "it is not easy to say how little iron could safely be eaten to avoid anæmia." Apart from these vitamins and minerals there are many other substances in wheat which are removed progressively in passing from a whole wheat to 70 per cent. flour. These substances are still unknown to scientists but they can be demonstrated to be nutritionally valuable by animal experiments. It is the presence, or possible presence, of these unknown substances which provided so strong an argument against the transatlantic policy of a fortified and an enriched 70 per cent. flour, because obviously the millers can only put back what they know they have taken out. suppose we shall be reminded once more that high extraction flours contain more phytic acid than low extraction flours, but, as has often been mentioned, that is put right by fortifying with calcium, as was' done with great success in the 85 per cent. and I expect in the 82 per cent. flour too.

Besides the loss of the substances I have mentioned, about 60 per cent. of another rather useful substance has been extracted from the flour and that is bran. Lord Woolton claimed that this was an advantage. I gave his Lordship notice that I intended to raise this, but he was unable to be present. His main health reason in defence of the 80 per cent. bread was that it reduced the amount of bran and he indicated more than once "that bran is not a good thing for the human stomach." That astonished some of us. Most good things are bad in excess, but no expert with whom I have discussed this question—and I have discussed it with many—has said that the amount of bran in the 85 per cent. extraction loaf is detrimental to health. The 85 per cent. bread was supposed to be for an optimum loaf and it was recommended as such all through the war by the Medical Research Council. Is it conceivable that those experts should have agreed if the bran was detrimental to health? I cannot find a word of condemnation about bran in Sir Jack Drummond's book, The Englishman's Food. On the contrary, it contains several references to the value of bran as roughage, one of which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Glentanar in the last debate. Moreover, it is stated in the official Manual of Nutrition, 1945, that "cellulose is of some value for giving bulk to diet." Many of us have proved that for ourselves.

The net result, and I am coming to the end of these figures concerning the fall from 85 per cent. to 80 per cent., is the loss of high quality proteins, nearly one-fifth of Vitamin B, 38 per cent. of riboflavin, more than one-fifth of the iron, with a huge reduction of bran, involving the risk of an increase in anæmia, consti- pation and a lot of consequential troubles. No nutritional advantage, so far as I know, is claimed, or can be claimed, for the 3o per cent. flour—nothing except the slightly whiter apearance. As the leading article in the Lancet of June 2 says: Whether the production of a whiter loaf with less bran balanced the loss of essential ingredients is so doubtful that the Government ought to consider a return to 85 per cent. extraction at least until Britain is once more enjoying the mixed diet of peace-time.

Turning from figures to facts, I invite your Lordships' attention to an illuminating report by Dr. Leslie Banks, M,P., and Mr. H. E. Magee, D.Sc., on the state of health and nutrition in the Channel Islands after the German occupation, appearing in the September issue of the Monthly Bulletin of the Ministry of Health and the Emergency Public Health Laboratory Service which works under the direction of the Medical Research Council. During the occupation milk was rationed, but the supply was not too bad. Potatoes, fats, meat, fish and sugar were all rationed and in short supply most of the time, especially in the last year of the occupation, when some of them gave out altogether. The following two points are of great importance to our subject to-day. Firstly, vegetables were unrationed and abundant, especially in Jersey, during the entire occupation, and were a staple food. Secondly, bread was rationed during most of the period and the extraction level was not 80 per cent. nor was it 85 per cent. but it was "practically l00 per cent. and it remained at this level until liberation." There is no mention of the addition of calcium to counter the effects of phytic acid.

What was the result? With your Lordships' permission I will quote a few extracts: As consumption at this level (2,000–2,500 calories per head daily) was considered sufficient to maintain health, it was not anticipated that we should find on the island anything approaching widespread malnutrition. These anticipations were fully realized. The first notable effect was, looseness of the bowels so general that practically no one escaped. This was sometimes severe. I omit technical details. The report goes on: It would seem from the experiences of all the doctors on the island that these complaints were all varying degrees of the same conditions, and that it was due, primarily, to the unaccustomed coarseness of the diet. The severity of the symptoms abated after three months or so. I omit more technical details, and the report then goes on: Constipation, which before the occupation had been one of the commonest complaints, almost completely disappeared.

After more technical details the report continues: The abatement in the symptoms of diarrhœa after the first few months was attributed mainly to the improvement in the quality of the bread. The bakers at first made a poor job of the high-extraction flour. They had little or no experience of it, and the loaves at first were moist, heavy, and rapidly became mouldy and sour. Gradually they improved their technique and after about three months they were able to produce, especially in Jersey, a really palatable bread. That is the answer to the people who complain about brown bread being sour and not lasting. Its cause is in the baking, as I know, because from a country baker I have received for perhaps twenty-five years good bread without having to complain of any of these things. Now comes a most significant passage: The great majority of people apparently came to like the loaf very much, and the entire medical profession on both islands, as well as many others, mostly officials, regretted the disappearance of the old loaf and its replacement by white bread which came in with the relieving forces. Since liberation constipation has returned in a more aggravated form than before the occupation. Then there is another passage: The incidence of appendicitis, colds and new cases of peptic ulcer was believed to have fallen considerably … in Jersey there was no epidemic of influenza. I can find nothing about influenza in Guernsey.

As to the nutritional state on arrival of the Mission, it was clear there was very little wrong with the health and efficiency of the adult population. As to the children there was no evidence of deficiency in any school in Jersey. Average heights and weights, however, were lower in 1943 than the average for 1930–40. But your Lordships must remember that many forms of food were in very short supply. The visitors—here I have something for my noble friend Lord Teviot, who is Chairman of the Committee on Dentistry— were much impressed with the excellent condition of the teeth of all the children in the island. Out of 100 children in one school whose teeth were examined, the total number of teeth, permanent and temporary, found to be carious was unusually small, probably not more than about twenty. These experiments, carried out under force majeure on a whole poulation in order to avoid actual starvation, surely provide convincing confirmation of the value of high extraction of flour. We are not asking for 100 per cent. I am a 100 per cent. man myself, but I am not asking for it to-day. The Motion does not ask for anything but we would like, at any rate, to have a higher extraction than 80 per cent.

All the information I have given up to date seems to me to combine to show that the late Government were wrong and that we ought to go back to 82½ per cent. or 85 per cent. in accordance with the noble Lord, Lord Woolton's pledge. The present Government have to take that decision, like many other decisions, in peculiarly critical circumstances. Experience in 1918–19 showed that after a long, exhausting war the human race was exposed to two enemies as deadly as war itself—famine and pestilence. Those two grim spectres have now made their appearance in many lands. To combat them we have already thrown in reserves of food, reductions have been made in our rations, and I dare say there will be more. That surely makes it much more important to maintain and improve the quality of bread because, as was wisely realized in the Channel Islands, when the nutrient value of supplies as a whole falls off, that of bread, the food of the poor people, becomes more important than ever. That is a new factor in the situation which does not seem to have been foreseen. Perhaps it could not be foreseen when, more than a year ago, long before the sudden collapse of the enemy was in sight, whiter bread was adopted. I feel that this greatly increases the responsibility of the Government.

I understand that the late National Government set on foot inquiries into this bread position on the level of high officials, medical and nutrition experts and other interests concerned. I am not reflecting in the smallest degree on the bonâ fides of those who took part in the inquiry when I remind the present Government that the inquiries were initiated by a Government which, rightly or wrongly, was committed publicly to a policy of whiter bread. I suggest that that was a point to be taken into account by the officials. I am an old official myself and I do not want to cast any reflection on officials, but they were bound to have that announcement in mind. One would suspect that they would feel obliged to direct their efforts to discover, not the best bread for the health of the people, as suggested in the Motion before the House, but what was the lowest bread extraction which would avoid disaster. In other words, I think they most have advised a minimum instead of an optimum loaf such as Lord Woolton's 85 per cent. bread was intended to provide.

I would earnestly ask the Government to bear this consideration in mind before rushing blindly into the policy of their predecessors, even if it involves some delay. I would also beg them to ask their medical and their nutritional experts to advise them what really is the optimum bread from the point of view of national health, even if, as in the case of milk and water, as shown in previous debates, it could not be reached yet. I would also ask that they should publish the opinion of their scientific advisers so that our people, who are becoming intensely interested in nutrition, should at last be told the truth, for when the 85 per cent. bread was announced in this House hardly a word was said about the health aspect. If there are overriding reasons why an optimum rate of extraction could not be achieved, the reasons should be given quite frankly. Again, as my noble friend Lord Horder suggested in the February debate—a suggestion that commended itself to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton—there should be a bread specification, or perhaps two bread specifications, an optimum as the target and another for the moment. I think it is only fair to say that the Government may require more time for the study of this question, because they have inherited great difficulties. The whiter bread policy had unfortunate consequences. So long as we held to 85 per cent. bread which was generally accepted we were safe, but when the rate fell, first to 82½ and then to 80 per cent. we were on a slippery slope. We risked a landslide. Hopes were raised among the mass of ill-informed people that the pre-war "poverty" white bread was going to be restored. The health aspects, which had never been properly explained, were forgotten.

All that was bound to react on the trade interests—millers and bakers for example—the former of whom, though I do not think the latter, have, in my opinion, received a lot of unmerited abuse. As was made clear by Sir Malcolm Robertson, the Chairman of Spillers, and reported in The Times of June 7: The millers do not regard themselves as arbiters on dietetics and as in the past are ready and willing to use their best endeavours to manufacture flour of such a nature as may best conform with customers' demands and public health. I have heard many tributes to their splendid work—from Lord Woolton among others, and I am pretty certain my noble friend Lord Llewellin will support him—in carrying out the 85 per cent. policy, but when the policy of whiter bread was introduced they were confronted with a new situation. For example, I learn from one authority on the subject that in order to obtain 85 per cent, of flour from average wheats the miller necessarily had to scrape into the Hour bag every particle of flour that he could find in the grain of wheat, including all the dietetically desirable substances. But at 80 per cent. he was in a position to choose whether he should please the baker, his voluntary customer, by milling for baking quality, or whether he should please the scientific expert by milling for dietetic merit. At 80 per cent. I am told, the two points of view—baking quality versus vitamins—are utterly opposed.

The miller can hardly be blamed if, in a world of competition and encouraged by the Government's announcements of a whiter bread policy, he sought to please the baker customer rather than the scientist, and I have recently heard that self-preservation has now compelled many firm, to do this. The extreme whiteness of the bread in many places bears that `out. The desire of the baker for whiter bread is, I gather, due to two causes. First, as we saw in the case of the Channel Islands, the baking of brown bread is much more difficult than that of white bread, and that is aggravated at the present time by the shortage of skilled labour. The second reason is that many bakers, themselves in competition with their rivals, naturally sought, in the present lack of guidance on the health aspect, to please the majority of their customers by producing the nearest approach to white bread that the law allows. Of one thing, however, I have no doubt—namely, that if the Government find that 82½ or 85 per cent. extraction is necessary for public health, the interests of the millers and the bakers can be "developed in harmony with this policy"—to quote the phraseology of the Motion.

That is only the fringe of one small and most complicated aspect of the subject, crudely expressed as best I can in the time at my disposal. I have only mentioned it to show some of the difficulties of the problem which the Government have inherited. Of course, the first and indispensable thing is to stop the rot, and I should welcome even 80 per cent. as an instalment, though it is an absolute minimum with no margin of safety if, then, my noble friend in his reply cannot yet announce an advance beyond the present 80 per cent. bread—and I am confident he would not announce anything less—while regretting it, I shall not complain, provided he can assure us that it is not the Government's last word and that they intend to pursue their investigations with a view to providing an adequate margin of safety and with an optimum bread as the target, and that when they have satisfied themselves as to the truth about bread, they will spread it among the people as has been done with such admirable results in the case of milk, orange, tomato and carrot juice and cod liver oil, to say nothing of T.B., V.D., and the common cold. By those means a great deal has been accomplished, especially in giving young children a better start in life. But as they grow older their teeth are rotted by white flour and white sugar, both robbed of their most important elements without any compensation whatsoever.

Between the wars the Army suffered terribly in its recruiting, from 50 to 60 per cent. of the recruits being rejected every year for physical and medical reasons, mostly concerning teeth. A tremendous lot has got to be done for adults, especially in promulgating the facts. Get your nutrition right—and that will cost you very little—and a lot of other things will come right too. It will substitute prevention for cure. It will, in a short time, reduce considerably our inordinate expenditure on hospitals and curative measures. By reducing subnormal health, by raising the general standard of health, you will promote the mens sana in corpore sano, and get less discontent and unrest.

All that was said in the debate on February 28, and all I have tried to add to-day, point to the need for a principle to govern nutrition, and the only possible principle is that the health of the population should govern the nutritional policy of the Government, as stated in the Motion. The idea originated with a very leading scientist on nutrition and it has much support in scientific circles. The acceptance of such a principle will provide a safeguard against the apathy and mistakes of the past. It should be a great help in the coming difficult months and years and provide a foundation of bedrock for the Government's efforts to give guidance to the people as to what is best. I submit the Motion from a Cross Bench point of view. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That the health of the population should be the guiding principle to govern the nutritional policy of the Government, and that in applying that principle to the case of bread, the health of the consumer should be the primary factor, and milling and other interests should be developed in harmony with this policy.—(Lord Hankey.)

3.30 p.m.

LORD HORDER

My Lords, I support the noble Lord's Motion, heart and soul, as it stands on the Order Paper. Indeed, it is very difficult to believe that there can be any disagreement both in respect of the major premise and the minor premise in the noble Lord's Motion. A great Tory statesman is credited with having said that "The health of the citizen is the nation's greatest asset." I feel sure that my right honourable friend and former colleague, the Leader of the House, who, I understand, will reply on the Government's behalf, will still consider, though it did emanate from a Tory, that Disraeli's dictum is worth following. Moreover, my Lords, the Government are surely committed to support this Motion. The gracious Speech from the Throne referred to the importance of nutrition as a contribution to the health and happiness of the nation. This country has signed, at the Hot Springs Conference, recommendations which deal very largely with matters of food in their relation to nutrition. May I quote on these recommendations? A sound food and nutrition policy must be adopted by each Government if national diets are to be progressively improved, specific deficiency diseases eliminated, and good health achieved. That is recommendation No. 7 of the Hot Springs Conference. Clearly we cannot escape the obligation inherent in the noble Lord's Motion.

But I should like to make a few not lengthy references to the minor premise in this Motion—namely, the part of it which relates to bread; and, with your Lordships' permission, I will take a step hack and quote my final contribution to the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred, on February 28 this year. I said: Finally, what is it we want in regard to this vital food, bread? We want a bread that contains the highest possible content of natural nutriment, and we want a loaf which is of good quality and is generally acceptable to the citizen. To achieve this desirable object we need the combined efforts of the milling industry, the bakers, the research workers and the administrators. Although I am bound to say that I think the timing of the present drop of 5 per cent. in the extraction rate is open to criticism, I am prepared to consider that an 80 per cent. extraction rate may be justified in the light of our increased knowledge as applied to milling technique, but I do plead with His Majesty's Government not to make the extraction rate lower than this … I plead for one other thing, and that is, that an effort should be made by the Government to correct a very obvious anomaly—namely, that they should effect a specification of the loaf as a long-term post-war policy. The specification, obviously, will be changed from time to time, but let us have a post-war specification based upon all the knowledge at present available. The Minister of Reconstruction who replied on behalf of the Government at that time was amenable to this appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said: I liked the noble Lord's idea that we should have a specification, and that that should be published so that the country would know what scientific opinion was on the subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has reminded us, there has been, since that time, a conference on the post-war loaf, attended by representatives of the four Government Departments concerned—the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Department of Health for Scotland—and by representatives of the Medical Research Council, of the milling and baking industries, and of the flour importers. To get all those people round the same table, for a full and frank discussion, was no mean achievement, and, if I may say so, I think we did some very useful work. I would like to attribute that fact—if it be a fact, as I think it is—to the wisdom and patience of that distinguished oivil servant, Sir Henry French, who was chairman of the conference. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has doubted whether, at the time of that discussion, we had before us, as our aim, the optimum loaf. I had already spoken in your Lordships' House about what ideal was. The ideal is the best bread, not the breed Mr. Smith likes and Mrs. Jones hates, but the best all-round bread for the nation. The work of the administrator has not been easy in this bread business. There are, on the one hand, the people who say: "We won the war; why cannot we have the bread we like?" On the other hand, there are people who say: "This is the best bread for you cat it." I do not think, up till now, that the administrator has done too badly, faced as he is with those extremes. But, as a result of this lengthy, careful discussion, I think, now, the Government, the administrator, and the Ministers are faced with not so difficult a problem because, behind them, they will have not only a consensus of opinion from scientists and medical men, and certainly not only from the milling industry, but—and they already have, I understand—recommendations sent unanimously from that very mixed body.

We found ourselves in agreement on three very important matters. First, that there could be specified, definitely, three essential token nutrients present in the wheat berry. Secondly, we were in agreement that the amount of those present in flour could be assayed without difficulty; they could be determined by the ordinary analyst. Thirdly, we were in agreement that a minimum quantity of each of these token nutrients should be required to be present if bread were to remain, what we all believe that it has been during the past four years, the main contributory factor in the nation's health. Assuming that the Government will decide to continue to regulate the character and quality of flour, and, therefore, of bread, after the present emergency control comes to an end—and we must surely believe the Government will do this—then the Ministers have, as I said just now, a basis upon which they may provide regulations requiring the minimum amounts of these important substances to be present in flour.

At this round-table conference we discussed a number of other matters in connexion with flour and bread—whether, for example, granted the acceptance of the minima to which I have referred, these substances should come from the natural wheat berry, as at present in this country they do; that is, whether we should stick to our present policy of obtaining them from the natural source, or whether we should lower the extraction rate and make bread a medium for the dispensing of these substances artificially produced. Speaking for myself, I am a strong advocate of the natural sources of these substances. Evidence accumulates that the more we tinker with natural foods the less nutritious do they become. That does not refer only to the wheat berry.

It is true that our American friends have adventured considerably in this field. They are great adventurers, but their present attitude reveals quite convincingly to me that they consider that our policy in Britain is a sounder one than theirs has been. I should like to give your Lordships two short but illuminating quotations from no less prominent authorities than two successive Chairmen of the Food and Nutrition Board of the U.S.A. National Research Council. That is the Board which has made recommendations to the Federal Government which have been acted upon in this matter. The first pronouncement was made last year by Mr. Russell Wilder, who, with Mr. R. R. Williams, prepared a statement on the enrichment of flour and bread as against long extraction, considering these matters from the point of view of public health. In this country we obtain our essential nutrients on the long extraction principle. In the United States they have a low extraction rate, and a policy of reinforcement was applied to that.

Incidentally, these authors correct, as your Lordships will sec, a misunderstanding as to what it was that our American friends were after by adopting the enrichment method. They say: Enriched flour is not primarily designed to be a growth-producing food. The primary purpose in enriching white flour is not to produce better bread, but rather to make use of white flour to distribute vitamins with which the diet as a whole is inadequately supplied. The second statement, in my judgment, is a more telling one as to the change of view which has recently taken place in the American mind on this matter. Mr. Wilder was succeeded as Chairman of the Food Nutrition Board last year by Mr. Boudreau, who made this pronouncement in his report: It must be recognized that synthetic vitamins and vitamin concentrates are expedients that cannot form the basis for a sound nutrition programme. In the last analysis, good nutrition must be built upon a foundation of an optimum diet of natural foodstuffs. In our conference we left this question of the source of the token nutrients open for further research. There is a number of questions which require fuller and more detailed investigation. We were unanimous in considering, however, that in the meantime, whilst the researches continued, we should stick to the 80 per cent. extraction, because it has synchronized with such good health in this nation. I ought to say that 80 per cent. extraction can give the minimal quantities of the essential nutrients to which I referred. But it may not do so; it can do so, but it may not. Whether it does give them in the hands of a certain section of the milling industry is another matter, and can be judged only by the constant surveys which take place and the analysis of specimens of bread obtained here and there in the country.

I say that it can, but may not, because I should like to remind your Lordships that there is no strict relation between the nutritive quality of flour and the extraction rate. The nutritive value of flour, and therefore of the loaf, is not a mere expression of a percentage rate of extraction. Our present knowledge of how these important nutrients are distributed in the wheat grain is of very recent origin; it is a matter more of months than of years; but it is sound knowledge. It has been confirmed again and again by different observers. This knowledge enables us to improve the technique of milling to such an extent that we know at which part of the milling process it is vital that the results should not be thrown away, or even given to pigs and poultry, and we know at what points it is relatively immaterial to the human being whether that is done or not. In short, we can now, by the technique of milling, direct into the flour the things that we really want in order to make a good loaf. I agree that bran is useful, but there is coarse bran and fine bran. The coarser fibre can be diverted elsewhere, and in proportion as that is done the loaf is whiter and becomes more acceptable to the average citizen.

Finally, I should like to plead for publication of the result of this conference. I am not very optimistic that it will allay contention, which has been a serious factor, perhaps, in the whole of this bread question; but if it will not allay contention at least it will inform the citizen who wishes to know exactly what the position is. With the recommendations of this conference and the result of the debate in this House last February, and of Lord Woolton's successor, Lord Llewellin's effort at getting round the table the representatives of the bodies concerned, the Government can safely go ahead with courage and with confidence.

3.49 p.m.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, if you do not mind, I should like to speak now. At the outset I should like to express our appreciation of the form of the Resolution which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I am sure that we were all glad to hear also the informative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Horder, who was a member of the conference to which much reference has been made. In the first place, I should like to direct your attention to the wording of the Resolution, which is: That the health of the population should be the guiding principle to govern the nutritional policy of the Government … I think it is exceedingly well put, and I have no hesitation whatever in expressing complete agreement. I cannot imagine that any Government, doing their duty to the people and with any power over nutritional policy, could have any other purpose. I am very glad that the noble Lord has expressed it in such terse and emphatic words, and I may say at once that so far as that statement in principle is concerned I have not a moment's hesitation in accepting it.

It may, perhaps, be appropriate to say a word on the results of this country having established a Ministry of Food during the war, and I am glad that we have the advantage of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who had the distinction of holding the office of Minister for a considerable time. I think—quite apart entirely from the fact that the Ministry of Food has been responsible for providing the nation with its supplies—that this country owes a great debt to the Ministry of Food and its successive Ministers, for emphasizing the importance of nutritional policy as underlying its supply policy. That had a very great effect upon the health of the people, and I hope, at all events, and the Government hope, that we shall not be so foolish as to throw away the benefits which have already arisen through that policy. I am saying that we, the Government, regard it as an essential part of our national economy that there should be an organization which takes cognizance of the food that the people require, and makes it its business to see that that food is available for them in proper quantities. Therefore, the Government accept the necessity for the continuance of the Ministry of Food.

Perhaps it may be useful to make that statement at this time, because I know that there has been a certain amount of doubt in some quarters. No one knows better than the noble Lord who spoke last that it is very easy sometimes to draw the conclusion you want from insufficient premises. So, I am not going to pretend that the whole of the improvements in national health—and they are very remarkable—that the war has witnessed are entirely due to our food policy. Nobody would suggest that—at least no careful person. But, at the same time, I think it is fair to claim that the scientific direction of our rationing policy must have contributed very largely indeed to the maintenance and improvement of the national health. That certainly is a safe statement. The improvement really has been very remarkable.

Now bread, of course, is not the only food to which the Ministry of Food has added other ingredients. I have in a report which is before me a number of illustrations of that process. I do not call the process doctoring, it is a process of what I call the addition of materials that it is advantageous should be there—that is how I would put it. For instance, vitamins have been added to margarine and I have no doubt that they have greatly improved its nutritional value. You could not, of course, describe margarine as a natural food product, but still, as I say, it has been improved. And our health statistics, at all events, largely influenced by our improved feeding, have shown a remarkable improvement notwithstanding the disabilities of the war period. I am quite sure that we owe a great deal of this to the management of our food supplies coupled with scientific knowledge applied to the rationing and distribution. I hope that this country will become accustomed to regard the existence of a Ministry of Food, performing these and other functions, as an essential and necessary part of our national economy. We are only at the beginning now; we shall learn a lot as time goes on.

Now I come to the particular case of bread. I deliberately refrained from making any observations until the House had had the advantage of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Horder, who, himself, was a member of the conference which I believe the noble Lord opposite was responsible for initiating. And I would like, at this point, to pay a tribute to the noble Lord for initiating that conference. I have here a typewritten copy of its report. It was issued quite recently. It is dated October 11, so it has the advantage of being fresh. The noble Lord who has just spoken was an important member of that conference as one of—shall I say?—the team from the Ministry of Food. Both Lord Horder and Lord Hankey have asked that this report should be published. Well, so far as we can, we want this matter to be removed from the realm of, shall we say, guess work into one of greater certainty, so we have no hesitation whatever in accepting the suggestion that the report should be published. When it is published we shall all be able to see what these scientists and other people have found out, what they do not know and what they say they do know. Then, perhaps, we shall get this discussion on, what we may call, a more sustainable level, because, quite frankly, I think it has been encumbered by a good deal of guess work—to put it no higher than that.

Now here is the report. In the conference the Ministry of Food had as representatives the noble Lord, Lord Horder, and a number of eminent gentlemen including Sir Jack Drummond, the famous scientist, and Dr. T. Moran. The representatives of the Ministry of Health included Sir Wilson Jameson. The Medical Research Council was represented by Sir Edward Mellanby, the Department of Health for Scotland by Dr. Andrew Davidson, and, quite properly, the milling and baking industries were also very adequately represented—very powerfully represented I should say looking at the list of names—as was also the National Association of Flour Millers. Well, here is the report and, as I say, we propose to publish it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Horder, has expressed the matter very well. I was not able to take clown his words but I hope that noble Lords will take note of them when they appear in the published report. He defined the kind of loaf that people require; and this Committee inquired not only into that but also into the kind of loaf which would be good for people. I have here the figures giving the amounts of nutrients in the flour as now made, and in the vital foods to which the noble Lord referred. I notice that one of them was decidedly smaller in quantity in the 80 per cent. extraction than it was in the higher extraction. He called it riboflavin. It is available and is normally taken in other foods, so the fact that it was not present in the full quantity required in the 80 per cent. flour is not of itself an objection to that quality of flour, because it is obtained from other sources.

Taking it generally I see that the committee, or the conference as it called itself, inquired into the many technical questions which were associated with the proper milling of the grain and, as the noble Lord has explained, of securing that there were left in the flour the things which were valuable and that the things which were important were not thrown out. They recommend at the end of the report that a number of researches should be made and continued, and they give quite a long list of problems. My right honourable friend the Minister of Food authorizes me to say that he will give every help in furthering these researches. The conference was unanimous in recommending that in the meantime the present national flour should be maintained with the improvements and additions which are embodied in it in accordance with the present improved methods of milling. That being the case, we propose to accept that recommendation. My noble friend authorizes me to say that just as be welcomes this report, so he welcomes the continued inquiry. So we shall persist in accepting as the guiding principle of the Ministry of Food that the health of the people should guide its policy. I have much pleasure in accepting the Resolution.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.