in a brand new way: through the lens of a microscope!
It turned out he was right. When examined under a
microscope, cofee looks nothing like chicory. Other fake
ingredients were just as easy to identify. Hassall could not
only tell whether a cofee sample was adulterated, but also
how much, and with what. Between chemistry and the micro-
scope, science could now detect most kinds of food fraud
and determine exactly how common they were. It was just a
matter of looking.
Hassall began by testing 34 diferent brands of cofee.
Only threeof these were genuine! Many samples were mostly
chicory; some contained no cofee at all. Further tests found
that 85 percent of 179 cofee samples were fraudulent. Most of
London’s cofee was fake!
Hassall presented his cofee findings to the Botanical Society.
When newspapers reported his scandalous discovery, another
doctor named Thomas Wakley rushed to contact Hassall.
Wakley was the editor of a medical journal called the Lancet.
He also knew the dangers of food fraud all too well. Wakley
had recently been the coroner in a horrifying case where
many orphans died. The orphans were malnourished with
oatmeal adulterated with cheaper and less nutritious barley
meal. This made them vulnerable to a deadly disease.
Wakley presented Hassall with a stunningly daring plan.
He wanted Hassall to keep testing London’s food, then pub-
lish the results in a series of Lancetarticles—along with
the names and addresses of the people who sold the food they
tested. This would reward honest food sellers while publically
shaming swindlers.
Hassall was amazed by the “great moral courage” of this
almost crazy plan. Public accusations would make crooked
food sellers furious!Hassall and Wakley might be ruined by
lawsuits (or worse).
But they did it anyway. The Lancetpublished Hassall’s food
test findings for five years. They were relentless, calling out
hundredsof sellers by name. To pick an example at random,
one “S. Berry, 21 Great Windmill-street, Haymarket” sold
candy contaminated with “chromate of lead in poisonous
quantity.” Take that, S. Berry! We can only imagine what his
customers had to say.Bad News Everywhere
Hassall’s research confirmed that the food supply was every
bit as corrupt as Accum had warned 30 years earlier.
For example, Hassall discovered that genuine mustard was
“scarely ever to be obtained” at any price. Every single oneof
42 mustard samples was adulterated. Certain types of tea were
“invariably adulterated,” often with poisonous substances.
About half of milk samples were watered down, sometimes by
50 percent—and the water was filthy. (Every one of the nine
London water companies sold badly contaminated water. Most
was pumped straight out of the famously polluted River Thames.)Food was often robbed of basic nutrition. More than half
of Hassall’s oatmeal samples were heavily adulterated with
inferior barley meal. This kind of fraud hurt the very poorest
people, as Wakley had seen. Hassall specifically tested the
food sold to workhouses, hospitals, prisons, and charitable
institutions. He found that food for the poor was “extensively
and systematically adulterated...to a fearful extent.”
Hassall’s tests also confirmed Accum’s warnings about
poisonous food. Every pickle sample contained toxic copper;
one in five contained “highly deleterious” or “poisonous
amounts.” Cayenne pepper was adulterated in 24 out of 28
samples; roughly half contained lead, “often in large and
poisonous quantities.” Nearly four-fifths of 26 curry powder
samples were adulterated; eight of these contained lead.
Copper was found in 33 out 35 samples of jam, sometimes in
“very large amount.” Candy was frequently poisonous, with
60 percentof red-colored candies containing lead or mercury.Something Had to Be Done
After 2,500 food tests and years of publicity, Hassall and
Wakley’s campaign finally got some results. The government
formed a committee to look into food fraud. Hassall testified
and showed samples of poisonous candy.
The evidence was clear. The food system was badly broken;
it had been for decades. Nevertheless, some people were
firmly opposed to fixing it. The committee asked one wit-
ness, “Is there not an understanding between the public and
the seller that the seller shall give to you what you ask for?”
The witness replied, “I think not; neither do I think it bene-
ficial that it should be so.”
Despite such attitudes, the tide was slowly turning. Then,
in 1858, poisonous mints suddenly sickened 200 people—
and killed 20 of them. The candymakers intended to adulter-
ate the candies with plaster. They accidentally used deadly
arsenic instead! At long last the government
agreed that something had to be done.
The Adulteration of Food and Drink Act
was passed in 1860. Stronger versions of the
law followed in 1872 and 1875. These laws made
it illegal to sell harmful food, secretly
adulterate food with cheaper ingredi-
ents, artificially increase the size or
weight of food, or lie about food in
labels or advertisements. Lawbreakers
could be punished with large fines
or even prison time. Most
important, the new laws
ordered the hiring of
food inspectors. From
now on, someone
would check that food
was genuine and safe.JUNIOR SKEPTIC No. 54 (3232)
69Image: Wellcome Collection