ALUM IN BAKING POWDER.

Observer, Volume XI, Issue 753, 3 June 1893, Page 13

ALUM IN BAKING POWDER.

The Chemist and JDi-vggist reports that at the Pontypridd Police Court on February 15, before Mr Ignatius Williams stipendiary, and other magistrates, James James, an assistant employed at the Co-operative Stores, Treherbert, was summoned by Superintendent Jones, under section 3 o the Food and Drugs Act, for having sold to him a packet of baking powder, which was mixed with alum, thereby rendering it injurious to health. The Excelsior Baking-powder Company, the manufacturers of the article in question, were the real defendants, and were represented by counsel. Several other summonses for like dffences had been served on other tradesmen, but it was agreed that the decision in this case should rule in the other case.

Superintendent Jones proved the purchase of the baking-powder, and produced the certificate of the analyst, who declared that ' 100 parts of the sample contained 39 parts of alum, and, in his opinion, the use of alum in bread was prejudicial to health.' Witness gave it as his opinion that the consumption of bread among the working classes in that distriot amounted to, 2}bs per day per adult. The cost of alum wa6 5s 9d per owt, while the price of tartaric aoid, for which alum was substituted, was about £6, and be estimated the cost of the penny packet which he purchased at one-twentieth of a penny. Taking the analyst's certificate as correct, he estimated that a person using 21bs of bread made with this powder would consume 117 grains of alum per day.

Dr. W. Morgan, of Swansea, the county analyst, gave the ingredients of the packet analysed (omitting fractions) as .39 per cent, alum, 22 per cent, bicarbonate of soda, and 37 per cent, rice-flour. There was no tartario aoid in it at all. Cross-ex-amined, witness admitted that it was an open question amongst medical men whether alum in bread was injurious to health.

Dr. W. Williams, medical officer of health r for the county' of Glamorgan, co roborated. In cross-examina-tion this witness produced a small glass tube containing a few grains of hydrate of alutnina, which he said was the residuum from lib of bread made with this bakingpowder. Witness, however, declared that even that quantity would be harmful.

Corroborative evidence was given by Dr. Howard Davies, Pontypridd ; Dr. T. H. Morris, Tylorstown ; Dr. Alfred Evans, M.A., Pontypridd; Dr. W. E. Thomaß, Tetrad ; Mr W. H. Key and Mr Matthews, chemists, Pontypri33.

For the defence, it was contended that the baking-powder was not an article of food within the meaning of the section further, that the alum could not be said to be the ingredient mixed with ' the article of food,' inasmuch as in this case the baking-powder without the alum could not exist as baking-powder.

Mr Francis Suiton, F.C.S., analyst for the county of Norfolk, was called, and said he had used alum baking-powders for the last thirty years, and he had never known of a case in which health was injured by their use. He generally disagreed with the evidence given by the medical witnesses called for the prosecution.

Corroborative testimony was given by Dr. Wynter Blyth, Marylebone ; Dr. A. P. Luff, official analyst to the Home Office ; Dr. Hunter and Dr. Leckie, Pontypridd ; and Dr. Warburton, Treherbert.

The Magistrates, after a lengthy consultation, found that the case for the prosecution had been proved, and inflicted a penalty of £2 and costs. Notice of appeal was given.

Wilh reference to this case, we would direct attention to the numerous brands of Baking Powder which are now being offered in New Zealand at such low figures as- to prove the impossibility of the ingredientß being of the best or even of such a nature as shonld only be used in the preparation of that necessary household preparation—Baking Powder. The ' Moa ' brand (manufactured by Sharlsnd and Co. Ltd.) is, however, entirely free from any suspicion of being anything but of the most proper materials, all of the very best quality