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.

    42/400 (page 32)
    matters, was of opinion that in that particular the Food 1 Mar, 1901... amd Drugs Act should be.amended. We have, of course, Pow - mo power at present to pass from the retail dealer to the Mg 5 - jo brewery, and» that entails not merely a failure in. the deal with operations of the Food and Drugs Act, but it prohibits contami- «U8 from being able under the Public Health Acts to seize beer which is grossly contaminated with arsenic, and have it destmoyed. Therefore, I am in entire agreement with this recommendation. 677. That is to say, if you seize upon a sample of beer and find it to contain arsenic, you desire power to secure the destruction of the whole of. that batch of beer of which -it was a part ?—There is no meams of getbing at the batch. It is obvious you cannot go under the Public Health Acts into the brewery and seize beer at random ; pecause it might be entirely different beer from that used by the retailer. The only way in which you could do it would be by having power to follow up the beer taken from the retailer, examine it, and finding that it was nated beer at the brewery. Otherwisé you have no power to proceed to the destruc- tion of the contaminated article. 678. (Sir William Church.) In estimating the number of persons who have been affected, you told us that you sent out a paper of questions to 558 medical practitioners. Does that 358 represent all the regustered medical practitioners in Manchester ?—Yes. 679. The whole of them ?—Yes.. 680. I suppose ‘many ‘of ‘them practice chiefly among what one’ might call ‘the poorer classes°of the population, and keep’ open dispensaries *—I.do not think I) follow your question. us “681. I mean keep dispensaries to which the public can go by paying a very small fee, and obtain advice and medicine ?—A man in very good, practice indeed may have a dispensary of that kind as a public official. There is a body ‘which deals with the establishment of such dis- pensaries and governs them, and who have powers of appointing medical officers to them, and these medical officers very often have a good practice outside the dis- _ pensary practice. 682. I did not mean. officers. attached to a public dis- <-pensary, but rather those who’ keep what T might call an open shop, where they dispense both advice ana medicine at a low rabe?—Of that kind of practitioner there are a ~ few, I should say four or five. I may say of one of those practitioners whom I know, that his judgment may be fairly relied upon. 683. I only ask, because I thought a large number of those who were only slightly affected might in the first instance apply to such dispensaries?—I think that a number of people would go to those practitioners. 684. Did. you get answers. from practitioners who had that sort of practice ?—Yes, from: four or five of them. +685; I understood you ‘to say ‘that there were only four or five in Mamchester ?—Nio, four or five answens from ‘ ptactitioners doing that kind of practice. 686. But there would be a much larger number doing tliat sort of ‘practice in Manchester +-Yes ; but I do not know the number. 687. Would one be right in considering that the larger yuimbér of those who were likely to see the slight cases in the first instance would be some of those who did: not communicate with you ?—I think so, if it were for nothing else; for the! reason ‘that they hayeavery large number of cases, and have not very much time. 688. You told us some of the distinctions between arsenical poisoning and alooholic neuritis, and I think I understovd you to say that this outbreak of supposed arsenical poisoning was remarkable from. the absence of the ordinary symptoms of arsenical poisoning, such as vomiting, diarrhoea, and lachrymation tin the ‘sases sean in the public institutions, and in his answer to the circular which I sent out, Dr. Brooke was good enough tw take. some trouble in stating that in the larga number of skin cases he saw that was also a noticeable feature that they had not running at the eyes or sickness in the first instance. That a good deal of sickness was caused I feel sure. Many of the practitioners who answered perceived the onset of sick- ness and running at the eyes. ; 689. I asked you because the other. day it was told us in evidence that a certain number of persons had ceased drinking beer, because it made them so ill ?— I was told by a brewer that that was so, that he had heard that a good many people had stopped drinking Class of per- sons _ attacked. Earliest symptoms observed, because they were taken sick, and I have heard the Mix,JAN same thing from other quarters. 3 4 Niall NLAE< 690. (Chairman.) Was that before the alarm had a reached the medical practitioners ?—Yes. 691. (Sir' William Church.) So that the absence of the ordinary ‘symptoms of sickness and diarrhoea, and what we call ‘catarrhal sickness, in the pigmented cases, were rather calculated to put. medical men off he suspicion of arsenic?—As far as it goes, undoubt- edly. ; 692. You mentioned the rashes, but you did not tell A ffectio us at all what sort of rashes they were. There are the skin certain rashes which are more or less known to be associated with arsenical poisoning?—The rashes have been extremely various; and my own experience is somewhat limited in that matter. But the eruptions which I myself have seen haye been imflammatory lumps with bulle on the top, erythematous eruptions, and eruptions more or less resembling psoriasis, while the same person exhibited the -different types of eruptions. ._In one case I have seen distinct pemphigus and herpes zoster has béen reported to me by, a number - of practitioners who answered my circular, anda surgeon at the Infirmary states that he had seen about a dozen cases of herpes zoster: amongst his cases. faints fh 693. That would be rather secondary to the nerves when it takes the form of herpes zoster ?—Herpes zoster I suppose is a nervous eruption, but the erythe- matous rashes would, I presume, be at a very early stage of the illness, because a number of these were certainly present without peripheral neuritis.° I have myself seen a few cases in which there was’ no peri- pheral: neuritis corresponding to these rashes. | 694. Of bulle 2—Yes, or very, distinetly .erythema- thous. In fact in one ease a man was sent down to me by a practitioner covered with plaques, of a bright red, somewhat scaly looking; eruption over the whole of his trunk. That was the kind of case that was absolutely distinctive. One has to take the indications of tue dermatologist in this matter as to what. the rashes meant. 695. Have you any suggestion to offer why should have been a year in which alcoholism and results appears: to have been so markedly. less than. in the: years immediately preceding or the years follow- ings ‘You will see the number of deaths in 1898. are only 48, which is much smaller than in, the years im- mediately preceding or following ?—I do not know the explanation of that. Me ; 696. Is there an increase in peripheral ‘neuritis ?— Yes, but not a sufficient increase to cover the decrease of deaths from alcoholism. 697. Looking at the gastritis numbers there is again a very great difference. In 1899 you ‘will see it is only 11, and one would have expected that if arsenic _ had ‘been playing a part in 1899 and 1900 gastritis = ‘would have been figuring higher than it .does?—It arsenic in large amounts due to: arsenical sugars had been playing a part; but I do not know that one’ would draw the same conclusions with regard to the amounts which might have been derived from malt for instance. Very possibly these deaths from peripheral ‘neuritis represent a slower and less acute process than the deaths occurring in 1900, so that it might be quite com- patible, with an increase in arsenical’ poisoning, to have a smaller number of deaths from alcoholism and an increased number of deaths from peripheral neuritis. That is assuming that there was a certain amount of arsenic in the sugar also. 698. I think you used the term that you thought the yeast might degenerate. Have you any knowledge from the breweries that the yeast’ has nob developed in the wort?—1 was informed by one brewer that his yeast had. gone dead; that it had degenerated. p 699. (Chairman.) It had ceased to be effective as fer- ment?—Yes; it declined ‘to rise properly, and had been visibly affected. 700. (Sir William Church.) And have they had to get fresh wort into the brewery instead of going on with the old?—I presume they did, but I cannot say. 701. (Professor Thorpe.) Are we to gather from you that you think the epidemic, if we may so call it, is practically at an end?—I think so. 1898 Statisti its Manche before 1 702. And you know of no fresh cases coming in ?— No; not which one could reasonably ascribe to the recent outbreak. Fresh deaths occur.