The United States National Academy of Sciences, after having carefully investigated the sanitary aspects of the glucose question, arrived at the following conclusion:[71] “That, though having at best only about two-thirds the sweetening power of cane sugar, yet starch sugar is in no way inferior to the cane sugar in healthfulness, there being no evidence before the committee that maize-starch sugar, either in its normal condition or fermented, has any deleterious effect upon the system, even when taken in large quantities.” In regard to the use of glucose as a substitute for malt in beer-making, it is asserted by some authorities that dietetic advantages to be derived from pure malt will be to some extent wanting in the extractive matters of beer manufactured partially from the artificial product. A distinction between glucose and maltose, to the advantage of the latter, is also made. The brewer, on the other hand, claims that sugar is sugar, whether obtained from the malting of grain or from the conversion of starch by the aid of acids. Regarding these bodies merely as sources of alcohol, attempts to differentiate between them are of little service. The superiority claimed for barley malt over its substitutes would rather appear to be due to its greater richness in certain soluble constituents, more especially those containing nitrogen and phosphoric acid.[72] A proposed law to prohibit the use of all malt substitutes has recently been rejected by the German Reichstag. In the English Beer Adulteration Act (1886), however, it is directed that, in case beer (ale or porter) made from other substances than hops and barley-malt is offered for sale, the fact shall be mentioned on a prominent placard, stating the nature of the foreign ingredients.