Britain Committee

Not all problems were solved, however, and different usages were encountered on the two sides of the Atlantic. A joint British-American committee was therefore set up, and in 1952 it published Rules for Carbohydrate Nomenclature [18]. This work was continued, and a revised version was endorsed in 1963 by the American Chemical Society and by the Chemical Society in Britain and published [19]. The publication of this report led the IUPAC Commission on Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry to consider the preparation of a set of IUPAC Rules for Carbohydrate Nomenclature. This was done jointly with the IUPAC-IUB Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature, and resulted in the Tentative Rules for Carbohydrate Nomenclature, Part I, 1969 , published in 1971/72 in several journals [1]. It is a revision of this 1971 document that is presented here. In the present document, recommendations are designated 2-Carb-n, to distinguish them from the Carb-n recommendations in the previous publication. 

Reviewing the record, I was again awed by the scope of the defendants knowledge. Within the plants, duties were so well understood that when, on September 3, war broke out with Britain and France, the Vermittlungstelle Wehrmacht needed only a simple telegram to the technical committee stating that all plants were "to switch at once to the production outlined in the mobilization program." This order did not even mention the word war. 

Great Britain, Ministry of Foods, Food Standards Committee, "Report on Colouring Matter" 1954. 

In 1971, Great Britain implemented a ban on subtherapeutic use of tetracyclines in animal production. This action was taken after considerable debate and was greatly influenced by antibiotic resistant Sa Imone 1 la infections (S. typhimurium phage type 29) in humans in the mid-1960 s, which appeared to be related to similar infections in calves (Anderson, 23 Antibiotics were not approved as feed additives for calves at that time nor previously. Thus, earlier implementation of the Swann Committee (Ifi) recommendations would have had no apparent impact on that particular epidemic, nor did it prevent a similar epidemic later (Rowe et al., 12J. 

The Committee had no legal powers but worked with the voluntary agreement of the ABPl and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB). These associations promised that... 

Report of the Aerial Navigation Committee , 28 Jan. 1909, Cabinet Office records, series 16, volume 7 (CAB 16/7), TNA. For the context of the committee s deliberations, including British reactions to the Wright brothers experiments, see Alfred Gollin, No Longer an Island Britain and the Wright Brothers, 1902-1909 (Stanford University Press, 1984). 

War policy report , 6 Sep. 1915, CAB 27/2, and Report of Cabinet Committee on the Co-ordination of Military and Financial Effort , 4 Feb. 1916, CAB 27/4, TNA. For McKenna s failure to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to relate strategy to what the national finances would sustain in a long war, see Martin Farr, A compelling case for voluntarism Britain s alternative strategy, 1915-1916 , War in History, 9 (2002), 279-306. 

CP 152 (32). For delays to new heavy bombers, see remarks by the CAS, Sir Edward Ellington, as recorded in minutes of Ministerial Committee on Defence Requirements, 10 May 1935, CAB 27/508, TNA. For Britain s successful defence of the bomber at Geneva, see Phillip Meilinger, Clipping the bomber s wings the Geneva disarmament... 

---