*
42
VI.
C. T. Lehmannn, Manufacturer of Condensed Milk, Representing the Condensed Milk Defence Association, in answer to Prof. Thorpe
"10435. You will not change my views at all, but I confess I have considerable - sympathy with the movement which has been initiated largely by the Medical Officers of Health in this country protesting against the widespread diffusion amongst the poor people of an article which, as far as its solid content goes, approaches to two-thirds of its weight of sugar, which has to be so largely diluted with water before anything can be done with it in the way of feeding an infant, and which practically is almost a starvation diet to a child? -But I do not think much of it is used for the feeding of infants."
VII.
G. Lewin, F.I.C., Superintending Analyst of the Inland Revenue Branch of the Govern- ment Laboratory, in answer to Prof. Thorpe :--
K
10631. Is there anything else you desire to bring to the notice of the Committee? In regard to sugar in condensed milk, I am more than ever convinced that something ought to be done, after hearing the evidence this afternoon, in the way of a limitation of sugar in condensed milk. I think that the taste of the public has been largely vitiated in that way, and that it is detrimental to the public interest that so large a proportion of cane sugar should be permitted in condensed milk. One of the difficulties of using condensed milk for children is that you cannot dilute it to such a point, to such a small dilution as would give you milk that would be palatable on account of its sweet- ness; but if the amount of cane-sugar were considerably reduced you might then dilure condensed milk containing sugar to such a proportion as would give you good milk such as could be given to a child. At the present time, when you add to the cane-sugar, which is nearly 40 per cent., the 13 or 14 parts of milk sugar, you get something like 53 or 54 per cent. of total sugar in something which only contains total solids equivalent to 75 per cent. I think that is out of all proportion, and it would be greatly to the public interest, if you could limit the cane-sugar under the provisions of the 4th Section, which I think. you can, because it speaks of "extraneous matter".
VIII.
A. II. Allen, F.I.C., F.C.S., Public Analyst for Sheffield, etc., in answer to Mr. Cow in:
"4728. Can you give any information with respect to condensed milk?—Yes, there is no condensed milk on the market that is condensed more than three down to one – I should say three parts of milk to make one part of condense i milk. Very often a portion of the fat has been removed because it is easier to condense. I would incline to insist that where skimming is not indicated on the label the fat in the condensed milk should be not less than the amount of proteids as ascertained by any modification of Kjeldahl's test-in fact, the amount of proteids properly ascertained. That means this, that you have in the amount of proteids a measure of the concentration, and, without having to know what the original milk was, how far it has been concentrated. The proteids must increase as the water is evaporated off, and the fat will increase also; and, as there is normally at least as much fat as proteids in milk, the fat ought to be there afterwards. That should be the standard of fat in condensed milk; it should be not less than the proteids in the same milk-which relieves you
of any calculation as to concentration, and of any trouble due to added sugar, and so on.
I would say that the labels on condensed milk are most misleading. There is one of the best known condensed milks the makers of which say on the label that for the purpose of feeding children it should be diluted with from twelve to fourteen parts of water. Now, seeing that it never was concentrated more than three down to one-hot twelve 'or fourteen down to one-it means that the children who are served with that milk diluted to that extent, in accordance with the directions of the manufacturers, are starved. They do not get all the fat; they only get a third of the important proteids of the milk-they only get a mere fraction of what they ought to get. It is necessary to dilute it to that extent, because it is mixed with a very large amount of cane sugar, and if only diluted again with water to the orignal measure it is as thick as treacle. If it is diluted to be used at the ordinary tea service with seven or eight parts of water then it is as thick as cream, although it has not got the fat of cream, and has only got about a third of the fat which exists in the original milk. I wish there was a means of preventing false labelling; it is doing much more harm than actual adulteration in many directions.'