ADULTERATION ON BEER,

Dunstan Times, Issue 683, 21 May 1875, Page 3

ADULTERATION ON BEER,

The vengeance denounced in song on him who would deprive the poor man of his beer should surely tall with double weight on those who would fradulently palm on him-a deleterious compound, instead of the grateful draught. Yet those who doubt if such things can he would do well to listen to the deputation that waited last Tuesday on Mr Sclater-Booth. “The beer sold now,” they will he told in the touching words of Prof. Redwood, ‘ ‘is not like what beer used to be. ’ Its bitternes it is trne/has been suspected before. Years ago, the great Liebig was disposed to look to strychnia for its chief clement. But the suspicions of the German chemist were found, at that time to be utterly without foundation. It is not strychnia now ithat is employed, but Cocoulus Indicus and quassia, and compounds known as “ hop supplements,” though utterly strangers to the nitrogenous flesh-producing growth of Kentish gardens,— ingredients not absolutely deadly, but capable of poisoning the smaller animals, and bringing on paralysis in the larger. And the worst of all is that we have no immediate remedy. The Excise cannot help us here, for since the Abolition of the Hop Duty it has had no further right to inspect the bitters used in brewing. The Adulteration Act might do more, but analytic chemistry with all its subtlety ihas not yet advanced so far as to distinguish with legal accuracy of proof tho parentage of one bitter from another. Government has certainly promised to make inquiries. Cocculus Indious and quassia are known to be imported in large quantities, but no one officially appears to know by whom, or for what purposes, they are used. Meanwhile, two comforts remain to the beer-drinker. The Excise still sees that there is a certain quantity of malt used in brewing, though even this is often largely adulterated with sugar. The great brewers if we could only he sure of getting the genuine liquor they supply, are quite above suspicion. Bottled Bass and Allsopp may still, we hope be accepted with confidence as a genuine decoction of malt and hops. But this is slender comfort for the poor —above all in country districts—who can only spend a few pence on the liquid manufactured by the smaller brewers, and if of “nervous” temperament often “ become infuriated after imbibing but a small quantity of the so-called beer,” or for the hopgrowers, whose profits are seriously affected by the increasing use of artificial compounds in lieu of the genuine produce of the bine If only for the sake of these two classes, we would hope that Government inquiries may for oncelead to some effective measure, ■or chemistry descend from investigations of milk and water to give us some test whereby to know whether our beer is flavoured with quassia or with hops. The following is the colonial point of view of the same subject:—“/Egles,” in a Melbourne contemporary, makes the following suggestive remarks :—There is one curious contrast which I think the colonial brewers would do well to explain. It would he more satisfactory than any chemical analysis. Population is increasing, and so is the consumption of beer. But the more beer we drink the less we import of malt and hops. Here are tho figures:— Year Malt Hops Population. Bushels. lbs. 1865 139.956 1.191 388 696.342 1874 169.363 946.416 796.059 How is this to be explained ? It might ho said more English beer is imported. That won’t do. Eor the fact is that 200,000 gallons less were imported. Again, it may be said that a great deal of colonial barley is malted. That is probably correct. But how can the brewers get over a lessened importation of hops, and in five years an increase of 100,000 consumers ?