WHAT WE EAT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2694, 5 October 1871, Page 2

WHAT WE EAT.

(From the Lgttelton Times) By our last files from Victijpia, we observe tbat a charge of adulterating bread has been brought against the Melbourne bakers. It seems that the Corporation there employ what is called a health officer, whose duty it is to look after this matter of adulteration, along with others of an analagous character. He is an exceedingly active man, it would appear, for he has made “raids.” in various directions within the last-pix or eight months, and is popularly believed to have-established a sort of “funk” among evj 1-doers of the adulterating class. Whether this is really the case or not—whether Melbourne enjoys greater immunity from unwholesome food and drink than other cities—we are not prepared to say. Possibly all the adulterated articles of merchandise are now sent on to New Zealand or the Fijis. The Melbourne health officer pounced upon sixteen bakers, and though they were not tried in a batch—which would perhaps have been appropriate —they all appeared in Court together on a charge of selling adulterated bread. The chief witness against these bakers was a gentleman who is designated the Government Analytical Chemist. He told the Bench, that, in one case, where he had analysed four ounces of bread cut from the centre of a loaf, “he found eight grains of phosphate of alumina, which would be equal to about eleven grains of the common potash alum of the shops to eleven pounds of bread. That is to say, this precious baker had been dosing his customers with common alum at the rate of one grain to every pound. On being cross-examined by the defendant in the case, the Analyst admitted tbat the foreign matter he had detected was “ not in the state of alum iu the bread.” Further, he said, “it might possibly have been in the constituent parts of the wheat being ground up with clay containing alumina. Then it might come out of the clay, but it- is unlikely such a large quantity would thus arise.” Very unlikely, indeed, we should say. After hearing the case at great length—it having been arranged that the decision in one should apply to all whom the Bench granted a postponement, on the ground that tine reliability of the Analyst’s evidence had; been seriously impugned by other chemists, all of were believed to be equally expert in that branch of their profession. For instance, a witness said that, having obtained three samples of the same flour, he gave two to the Government Analyst and- one to another chemist of repute. The former found forty* seven grains of alum in one case, and three grains iu the other to the pound ; the latter •found the flour perfectly pure. In another case, the Government Analyst found bread from flour, which a brother chemist pronounced pure, to be highly adulterated. It is clear that the Beflch could not convict on such evidence as tbiaand clear also that very great difficulty will be experienced in getting a conviction at all, -jyTne presiding magistrate suggested that|Brfciona of the flour and bread left by the Government Analyst, after be had completed his analysis, should be given to two other chejpists.- . If they detected adulteration, the evidence would be. strong against the accused; if they did not, the presumption would be that a mistake had been made. After a long argument among the lawyers for the prosecution and defence, it was ultimately agreed that samples of the “purest” flour should be obtained by the magistrate, and adulterated by him with alum and powder. Samples of the flour would then ha given to five chemists, including ilia Government Analyst, who would work sepa* rately and be subject to cross-examination: “ ItAvould then be seen whether they agreed with the Government Analyst, or otherwise one with another.” Here, we take it, are the elements of a pretty scientific quarrel. But what we desire particularly to point out is, that the Melbourne Corporation consider it necessary to employ an officer whose duty it is to inspect all articles of food and drink, and have them properly tested if he should have reason to believe there has-been any adulteration. When tradesmen are liable to be pounced upon at any .moment by an offieef of this soft, asd vheU they ki}oV aisp that their wares may h e cpenufially tested, 'tHe probability is' that they will bg a little mope capeful in their dealing* with the public.