Quite contrary to what is generally assumed, there is not a great deal of specific legislation on food contaminants in the UK and we rely very much on the general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act. Therefore, this paper is concerned more with the UK philosophy and how various surveillance programmes, which we are responsible for, backup the UK philosophy. Statutory protection is afforded by the general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act 1955. Section I of the Act makes it an offence to add anythmg to food so as to render it injurious to the health of the consumer. Section 2 requires that food is of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by the purchaser, a term which has surely stood the test of time. Section 8 makes it an offence to sell unfit food. Section 4 of the Act gives Ministers the power to make regulations to reinforce these general provisions with more specific requirements. But, the only specific regulations applying to food contaminants are the Lead in Food Regulations 1961 (Great Britain: Parliament, 1961) and amendments and the Arsenic in Food Regulations 1959 (Great Britain: Parliament, 1959) and amendments. The impetus for these Regulations derived from serious acute poisoning episodes where food became inadvertently contaminated at high levels. These episodes involved the storage of acidic beverages in lead vessels and, in the case of arsenic, through the use of sulphuric acid to convert sucrose into glucose for brewing purposes. The sulphuric acid had been made from arsenical pyrites and was contaminated with arsenic trioxide. However, such episodes are now history. Heavy metal contamination of food The levels of heavy metal residues which have been found in food in recent times have only been detected by sophisticated developments in analytical methodology. Whereas ten, or even five years ago, the detectability and sensitivity of an analytical method was expressed in terms of milligrams, or micrograms, today, the nanogram and picogram are invoked with increasing frequency. Not surprisingly, the ease with which consumer concern can be aroused and both food manufacturers and regulatory authorities criticized increases with each succeeding report in a world striving unrealistically towards absolute purity. Much of this criticism may be ill-informed but regulatory authorities responsible for public health could be failing in their duty if they did not consider the implications for public health of both the contaminants themselves and levels at which these occur in food and the environment.
King Edward potatoes were treated with maleic hydrazide as a pre-harvest foliar spray or with a preparation containing 3% of tetrachloronitrobenzene. In neither case was there any effect on the accumulation of reducing sugars when the potatoes were stored under cool conditions. A second experiment, in which two different maleic hydrazide treatments were given, also showed no effect on reducing sugar or sucrose behaviour during subsequent cool storage of the tubers.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.