The Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the use of preservatives and colouring matters in the preservation and colouring of food, have now issued their report, and the large amount of evidence which is recorded therein will be found to be of the greatest interest to those concerned in striving to obtain a pure and unsophisticated food‐supply. It is of course much to be regretted that the Committee could not see their way to recommend the prohibition of all chemical preservatives in articles of food and drink; but, apart from this want of strength, they have made certain recommendations which, if they become law, will greatly improve the character of certain classes of food. It is satisfactory to note that formaldehyde and its preparations may be absolutely prohibited in foods and drinks; but, on the other hand, it is suggested that salicylic acid may be allowed in certain proportions in food, although in all cases its presence is to be declared. The entire prohibition of preservatives in milk would be a step in the right direction, although it is difficult to see why, in view of this recommendation, boric acid should be allowed to the extent of 0·25 per cent. in cream, more especially as by another recommendation all dietetic preparations intended for the use of invalids or infants are to be entirely free from preservative chemicals; but it will be a severe shock to tho3e traders who are in the habit of using these substances to be informed that they must declare the fact of the admixture by a label attached to the containing vessel. The use of boric acid and borax only is to be permitted in butter and margarine, in proportions not exceeding 0·5 per cent. expressed as boric acid, without notification. It is suggested that the use of salts of copper in the so‐called greening of vegetables should not be allowed, but upon this recommendation the members of the Committee were not unanimous, as in a note attached to the report one member states that he does not agree with the entire exclusion of added copper to food, for the strange reason that certain foods may naturally contain traces of copper. With equal truth it can be said that certain foods may naturally contain traces of arsenic. Is the addition of arsenic therefore to be permitted? The Committee are to be congratulated upon the result of their labours, and when these recommendations become law Great Britain may be regarded as having come a little more into line— although with some apparent reluctance—with those countries who regard the purity of their food‐supplies as a matter of national importance.

If additional evidence were needed of the connection between food supply and the spread of infectious disease, it would be found in a report recently presented to the Finsbury Borough Council by its Medical Officer of Health, Dr. GEORGE NEWMAN. It appears that in the early part of May a number of cases of scarlet fever were notified to Dr. NEWMAN, and upon inquiry being made it was ascertained that nearly the whole of these cases had partaken of milk from a particular dairy. A most pains‐taking investigation was at once instituted, and the source of the supply was traced to a farm in the Midlands, where two or three persons were found recovering from scarlet fever. The wholesale man in London, to whom the milk was consigned, at first denied that any of this particular supply had been sent to shops in the Finsbury district, but it was eventually discovered that one, or possibly two, churns had been delivered one morning, with the result that a number of persons contracted the disease. One of the most interesting points in Dr. NEWMAN'S report is that three of these cases, occurring in one family, received milk from a person who was not a customer of the wholesale dealer mentioned above. It transpired on the examination of this last retailer's servants that on the particular morning on which the infected churn of milk had been sent into Finsbury, one of them, running short, had borrowed a quart from another milkman, and had immediately delivered it at the house in which these three cases subsequently developed. The quantity he happened to borrow was a portion of the contents of the infected churn.

The question has been recently raised as to how far the operation of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts of 1875, 1879, and 1899, and the Margarine Act, 1887, is affected by the Act 29 Charles II., cap. 7, “for the better observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday.” At first sight it would seem a palpable absurdity to suppose that a man could escape the penalties of one offence because he has committed another breach of the law at the same time, and in this respect law and common‐sense are, broadly speaking, in agreement; yet there are one or two cases in which at least some show of argument can be brought forward in favour of the opposite contention.

At a recent inquest upon the body of a woman who was alleged to have died as the result of taking certain drugs for an improper purpose, one of the witnesses described himself as “an analyst and manufacturing chemist,” but when asked by the coroner what qualifications he had, he replied : “I have no qualifications whatever. What I know I learned from my father, who was a well‐known ‘F.C.S.’” Comment on the “F.C.S.” is needless.

The decision of the Wolverhampton Stipendiary in the case of “Skim‐milk Cheese” is, at any rate, clearly put. It is a trial case, and, like most trial cases, the reasons for the judgment have to be based upon first principles of common‐sense, occasionally aided, but more often complicated, by already existing laws, which apply more or less to the case under discussion. The weak point in this particular case is the law which has just come into force, in which cheese is defined as the substance “usually known as cheese” by the public and any others interested in cheese. This reliance upon the popular fancy reads almost like our Government's war policy and “the man in the street,” and is a shining example of a trustful belief in the average common‐sense. Unfortunately, the general public have no direct voice in a police court, and so the “usually known as cheese” phrase is translated according to the fancy and taste of the officials and defending solicitors who may happen to be concerned with any particular case. Not having the general public to consult, the officials in this case had a war of dictionaries which would have gladdened the heart of Dr. JOHNSON; and the outcome of much travail was the following definition: cheese is “ coagulated milk or curd pressed into a solid mass.” So far so good, but immediately a second definition question cropped up—namely, What is “milk?”—and it is at this point that the mistake occurred. There is no legal definition of new milk, but it has been decided, and is accepted without dispute, that the single word “milk” means an article of well‐recognised general properties, and which has a lower limit of composition below which it ceases to be correctly described by the one word “milk,” and has to be called “skim‐milk,” “separated milk,” “ milk and water,” or other distinguishing names. The lower limits of fat and solids‐not‐fat are recognised universally by reputable public analysts, but there has been no upper limit of fat fixed. Therefore, by the very definition quoted by the stipendiary, an article made from “skim‐milk” is not cheese, for “skim‐milk” is not “milk.” The argument that Stilton cheese is not cheese because there is too much fat would not hold, for there is no legal upper limit for fat; but if it did hold, it does not matter, for it can be, and is, sold as “Stilton” cheese, without any hardship to anyone. The last suggestion made by the stipendiary would, if carried out, afford some protection to the general public against their being cheated when they buy cheese. This suggestion is that the Board of Agriculture, who by the Act of 1899 have the legal power, should determine a lower limit of fat which can be present in cheese made from milk; but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it is by the adoption of the Control system that such questions can alone be settled to the advantage of the producer of genuine articles and to that of the public.