Minutes of evidence and appendices. Vol. 1, Evidence received in 1901, together with appendices 1 to 15, and index (Being part 2 of the First report of the Commission) / Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning.
Date:
1903
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Minutes of evidence and appendices. Vol. 1, Evidence received in 1901, together with appendices 1 to 15, and index (Being part 2 of the First report of the Commission) / Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    17/400 (page 7)
    H. vil. 901 40. I just wished to know that, and to have our minds disabused of the idea that there was any wilful reti- cence on their part /—I should not like to say there was. 41. Referring to page 31, and the table, I see that you refer to the beer brewed from Bostock’s sugar containing on the average 1-32nd of a grain of arsenic per pint. Casting one’s eye over the numbers in the table giving would be valuable. The strongest indication that there has been a great amount of illness beyond what we know of is in the great dropping off in the amount of beer drinking. It became a’ joke in the workshops in. the He when men fell ill that they had been drinking beer. 56. (Chairman.) There was evidence: of that before of the quantities per gallon, there being 8 pints in a November or December ?—This was two months at least 2 €=s-_ gallon, ome-eighth part of the numbers in Table I. would before I had any knowledge that there was any specia show the numbers on which the average 1-d2nd is illness. founded ?—Not quite, because, for instance, some of the r i it Wei, i discov y more sehiatnndviated beers are beers ‘that are sold most ane dstude ti a ae a = oe found there was @iscovered largely in the borough, and that statement otf 1-d2nd slip uM if oF BSO ya gely im gh, ‘ . : sen cannot be said to be a scientific average at all. It is 58. Did they drink other beer, or give up drinking simply a rough average from a general consideration of beer /—They drank whisky, I think. all the conditions. 59. (Sir William Hart-Dyke.) But previously to that 42. And to form a correct average, of course, one is it not possible that in very many cases, where a person would need to weigh the figures given in Table 1 with ™@V have felt he had drank more than he ought to have factors depending on the quantities of the particular drank, he may have attributed any illness he suffered samples that were produced and consumed ?—Yes. from to excess, and therefore have been rather averse . ‘ to approaching a medical man?—As I say, I heard of 43. A factor for the quantity would need to be multi- no cases except amongst the poorer classes of the popu- plied into the numbers here before taking an average? ation. I do know that members of other classes have —It would. | suffered, and I am quite confident that the few cases I 44. I wish to be clear on that point. We may think ‘know of are by no means isolated ones. But at the same of 1-32nd of a grain of arsenic per pint as being an time people in that position in life would not themselves approximate average ?—Yes, that is so; it does not pro- give any information, and would be strongly averse to fess to be anything more than approximate. Iam their medical men giving any information with respect personally of opinion that it is putting it at a to their illnesses. minimum. Some of the beers have certainly been 60. You refer a little later to the question of brewing Py;mer much more contaminated than others. The beers from from malt only, and you very rightly say that the large knowledge of ile same brewery vary at different times, and I believe quantity used makes any impurity in it a very serious )jability of that if we had had nore beer to go on, we could have matter. I suppose you have never had the least suspicion «lucose to be done better. The difficulty is that all the beer has gove of the possibility of malt containing arsenic ?—I have ar-enical. as far as we ate concerned. We have not been able to obtain any of the beer since the beginning of December, and our inquiry into it has been limited somewhat in that way. But I believe more would have been found if we could have had more beer to work on. That is simply an opinion—it is not worth much. 45. It is certain that in many cases the quantity was more than 1-d2nd of a grain per pint ?—It is. 46. (Sir William Hart-Dyke.) You, of course, wish the Commission to understand, so far as this lanze ‘and not. When this inquiry began, I may say that the possi- bility of the presence of arsenic in beer never occurred to my mind in the first instance, although it is referred to in Dr. Wynter Blyth’s book, and there are researches by Clouet and others. Still it was not a recognised thing. 61. (Professor Thorpe.) Dr. Wynter Blyth’s book makes no reference to beer, does it?—-No. It makes reference to glucose, and of course knowing that glucose was used in beer; 1t is not in the article on beer in Dr. Wynter Blyth’s book, to which I referred, but in the article on sudden mortality was concerned, that ihe cause was clearly defined by the limit which you give of December $lucose; had I seen that reference I should have pro- THe io. ' bably suspected arsenic earlier. As I did not, and I ere odicattidina’ inti’ the’ aut! bes never heard of arsenic being in beer, I did not Be } think of it. ject, and the alarm that was caused, and the large dis- : ee ; wict which was supplied with this drinking material, 62. (Sir William Hart-Dyke.) You state clearly in pick from you can point to December 1st as a date which in- YOU report that if beer had been brewed from malt arsenic much dicates clearly no doubt as to what the special mortality and hops alone, no serious damage from poisoning with less in all- came from at that pericd ?—That is so. arsenic could have occurred?—That is my distinct malt beer ' . f opinion. than in beer 48. You point rather, do you not, on page 12 of your EoeAnd i ie res . brewed from , report, to the possibility that for many years past, or - And you also say that under no circumstances “as {or a considerable period, the type of disease which has could beer brewed from malt and hops alone contain been called alcoholic neuritis may have been miscaleu- ™0re than zo grain per gallon?—That is provided : lated by medical mem, and it may be possibly that it certain things are done. al proceeded from other causes, that is to say, from the 64. One being the use of anthracite fuel in the pre- presence of arsenic in the beer ?—I think that for this reason: that when this particular attack, which I think is clearly traceable to one particular lot of arsenic con- tained in one particular substance—which is arsenic per se—when this occurred, the medical practitioners did not recomise it, and they did not recognise it for the simple reason that it was practically the same thing they had been treating before which had gone by another name. 49. (Chairman.) What called their attention to it was the great increase in such illnesses ?—Quite so. 50. There was an abnormal increase?—Yes. It ran ‘or five months before anyone thought of investigating it. 51. (Sir William Hart-Dyke.) You said further on in the report that there could be no doubt that only a portion of the total number of cases came to your know- ledge or to the knowledge of medical men ?—I mean that to my knowledge. 52. I suppose you have been medical officer for some years ?—For three years. 53. And you have an intimate knowledge of the dis- ‘trict 7—Yes. 54. And you know a great deal also of the habits of the people ?—Yes. 55. Have you any notion as to what proportion of cases have probably escaped altogether?—I have not. It is a problem on which I have thought a great deal, ‘put I can see no way of geiting at any information thet paration of malt and subsequent brushing and polish- ing?—If proper means are taken to make the malt free from arsenic, there is no reason why any beer should contain more. We did not find in any beer brewed from malt of that description more than 3}9 grain per gallon. 65. And you think that complete security can be obtained by a very simple process?—I do. 66. You think in fact that with the commonest care on the part of the brewers the consumer would have complete security ?—I do. to it earlier than 1886, but from 1886 onwards it became generally known to the medical practitioner that peri- pheral neuritis was often alcoholic. 68. It would be 1885 or 1886—I would not be certain of the year—that it first appeared in the nomenclatute of disease ?—That is so. 69. Then for a considerable number of years few deaths would have been probably registered under that term /—That is so. 70. So that it is quite possible there might have been more deaths in 1890 and 1891 from that cause than appears in this table ?—I am inclined, as far as an opinion is anything, to think that that small rise shown in 1893 may be considered to correspond with