can scarcely be transported without such chemicals, than because the means of maintaining them in a fresh state are lacking as yet to retailers and householders. It is, perhaps, no part of the business of a departmental committee to go outside of its terms of reference; yet the view may be expressed that had the prohibition been a trifle less sweeping it would have carried more weight.

No exception, however, can be taken to the recommendation that every substance sold as a "food preservative" shall bear a description of its contents and of their several strengths. Nor can anyone, aware of the necessity of educating the public in this matter, fail to welcome the suggestion that the presence of preservatives of any sort in foodstuffs shall be declared in such a manner as to secure the enlightenment of the buyer. The committee found a general agreement among medical men, medical officers of health and public analysts, that, if preservatives are to be allowed in articles of food, the fact should be declared by a proper label in the interest of the consumer. Thus, a doctor will be enabled to tell his patients what foods to avoid-a course which, at present, is not open to him.

The education of the public by means of statements on foodstuffs as to their chemical contents is, indeed, a most hopeful enterprise. For it must bring about a gradual change of mind and give rise to a growing sense of uneasiness. This uneasiness is the beginning of wisdom. It leads inevitably to demands for reform, and these again lead to an awakening of interest in the difficulties which must be overcome. The committee is fully aware of this and has stated :

The presence of preservatives in food, whether imported or not, should be declared in a manner to be prescribed by the Minister of Health. It is possible that there may be a few cases in which the declaration of the preservative used might be difficult to enforce, or which might result in undue harm to the industry without compensating advantage to the consumers. If this be so, exceptions might be made in their favour, but in other cases, and in particular in that of sausages, we are of opinion that the use of any preservatives in foods should be accompanied by a declaration of the nature and amount of the preservative used.

The committee is aware, too, of the effects which will follow the adoption of its recommendations. An immense number of foodstuffs, it points out, can only be kept, in the absence of

chemical preservatives, if they are sterilised and sealed up at the time of manufacture, or else kept in a sufficiently cool condition. Thus attention is devoted to cold storage and improved methods of transport, and emphasis is laid on the deficiencies now existing both in markets and private houses. These deficiencies do not strike the committee, however, as sufficient justification for the use of preservatives; indeed, they go so far as to suggest that the prohibitions they recommend will create a demand for improved arrangements. It is here, as has already been suggested, that issue may fairly be joined with the committee. In the view of the writer the public is not yet sufficiently alive to the dangers of chemically preserved food to endure the inevitable rise in prices which must follow a radical change in methods of transport and storage. Thus, instead of supporting a sudden and drastic policy of prohibition, it may turn against such a policy. In that unfortunate event the evil must be greatly increased, for the reformers will be labelled as "faddists" or autocrats, and the vested interests opposed to them will appear as the champions of the people. This is a state of matters to be avoided at all costs, since, should it be brought about progress may well be delayed for a generation.

In other words, the risks attending drastic action are very real ones. They become more formidable the longer they are considered. For an outraged public opinion is the greatest of all obstacles to any measure designed to benefit the public health. There is, indeed, no substitute for persuasion in this matter. What cannot safely be attempted to-day will be demanded by the public of to-morrow as a right.

Thus we return to the point from which we started. The recommendations of this admirable committee are such as must find agreement in every enlightened mind. They point the way to a new world, not only in the matter of food, but also in that of dust-control, smoke abatement and the general cleanliness of our cities. Further, they challenge the housewife to amend her ways and take science into her home. It is not the end, it is only the means which are in dispute. We must carry the public with us; we must not commit the fault of trying to do good by force.

In short, the educational value of this document transcends all its other values. The Ministry of Health may discover in it enlightenment, but the Board of Education must recognise the

material of a campaign, even of a crusade. If only the schoolgirls of to-day could be induced to study this matter and grasp the facts underlying it, the arrival of aseptic methods of food preservation would be assured. Unhappily the education of girls is still far too much an imitation of the education of boys. It does not seem to have occurred to our educational authorities that woman's life, as a wife and mother, is a highly specialised calling demanding consideration on its own merits. The advance of knowledge has added greatly to the scope and extent of the subject of domestic economy, but this advance, as yet, finds small reflection in the ordinary school curriculum. And so progress is delayed. Women should not be denied the inestimable benefits of a sound, general education; but neither should their instruction in special subjects be neglected or separated from the main stream of knowledge.

It may seem a curious idea that we must look to the schools for our fitness and for the cleansing of our environment and the purification of our food. Yet this is the plain fact. Teachers, rather than physicians, are the evangelists of the public health. They, too, require training and enlightenment if they are to accomplish worthily the responsibility which is now placed on their shoulders.

We may leave the matter there, for the question of the best means of aseptic food preservation belongs to the future. For the moment it seems expedient to limit the amounts and to control the quality of the chemicals used, so as to cut down to a bare minimum the risk involved. That, in reality, is a legislative enterprise of sufficient magnitude to satisfy any reformer.

RURAL PROBLEMS IN THE UNITED STATES

1. Elements of Land Economics. By RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., LL.D.. and EDWARD W. MOREHOUSE, M.A. New York: The Macmillan Co. 1924. 2. Land Utilization in the United States. By O. E. BAKER. American Geographical Society.

3.

The Utilization of our Lands.
Government Printing Office.

4.

1923.

New York:

By L. C. GRAY and others. Washington:
1923.

Publications of the Institute for Research in Land Economics. Madison,
Wis.

"O look across the Atlantic from the political and economic welter of Europe to the prosperity and stability of the United States presents a vivid contrast. The distant observer sees obvious, and even blatant, evidence of unbounded wealth and of ordered and peaceable progress, and is apt to accept literally the patriotic claim of the American to live in "God's own country." But while no one denies that, under present conditions, the American nation is highly favoured, there are, nevertheless, disturbing portents which are fixing the attention of those who look beyond the immediate future and attempt to study the tendency of events.

To all progressive peoples each generation reveals new problems, or presents old ones in a new aspect. In the United States the old world problem of the relation of the population to the land has not hitherto seriously arisen. Throughout the nineteenth century land was practically limitless. The waste places and the wilderness cried aloud for settlement. Population increased from four millions in 1790 to 106 millions in 1920, but, with a territory expanding until it extended to over three million square miles, there still seemed to be ample room for all.

Lately there has come a realisation of the fact that this process cannot be continued indefinitely. Indeed, there are not wanting those who consider that it has reached a definite check. In a recent article, Mr. O. E. Baker, of the Division of Land Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, observed: "The problems involved in this relationship of the people to the land are especially pressing to-day, because we are at a turning-point in our national history. We have reached the stage in our

agricultural development when there is practically no more potential agricultural land left unutilised that does not involve unprofitable expense for reclamation or clearing." This somewhat sweeping assertion is, in some degree, qualified by the following more specific statement :

We have about 300 million acres, an amount three-fifths of the present acreage of improved land, which it is possible by various means of amelioration to bring into use for crops. This area, mostly scattered in small tracts in various parts of the United States, consists of about 30 million acres of irrigable land and probably 90 million acres of drainable land, which can be reclaimed when the price of farm products justifies the cost; also there are, perhaps, 50 million acres of forest and cut-over lands, not requiring drainage, but in many cases deficient in fertility, which may be used for crops after clearing; and about 130 million acres of stony or infertile pasture land in the east, and potential dry-farming land in the west, the use of which for crops is not justifiable at present prices of agricultural products and labour.

According to a statement in the Year Book of the United States Department of Agriculture for 1923, the land area in 1919 was utilised thus:

The potential utilisation of the total area is thus estimated :

Estimates such as these, however carefully made, are subject to a wide margin of error, but the general impression which they