April, 1918 C. U. C. P. ALUMNI JOURNAL 51 



have been mistaken for glass and the greater portion of the samples did contain, 

 varying amounts of sand. A small fragment of sand between the teeth always 

 gives one the impression that the particle is much larger than it really is. 

 Given a foodstuff containing a few grains of sand, with public attention focussed 

 on the possibilities of glass being present, and the la>Tnan naturally concludes 

 that glass has been added with criminal intent. A few of the samples submitted 

 for examination were accompanied by glass fragments said to have been 

 separated from the food material. There is no reason to doubt that the 

 complainant has found the glass in these instances but it is significant that a 

 thorough examination of the remainder of all such samples failed to show glass 

 particles of even microscopic size. Considering the many sources from which 

 foods in process of manufacture or preparation may, through carelessness oi 

 otherwise, come in contact with broken glass, cases of its actual occurrence in 

 the finished product are surprisin_gly few. The following incidents serve to 

 show in what unusual ways accidental contamination may occur. 



Inspector Holborow during the investigation of a complaint concerning 

 glass particles in crackers, examined the original container in the store of the 

 dealer. The tin cracker box had a glass panel for the display of the goods 

 within and this panel was chipped at one corner. He found that fragments ol 

 glass held by the purchaser exactly fitted the chipped places in the panel. 



Inspectors Cooney and Dunn, working on a complaint concerning alleged 

 glass particles on the outside of bread, found that the fragments resembled glass 

 in lustre but were flexible. They visited the baking establishment and discovered 

 that the gas jet in the oven was surrounded by a mica mantle, particles of which 

 were easily detached. Laboratory examination of fragments from the bread 

 and pieces from the mica chimney proved that they were identical. 



Undoubtedly the great majority of cases if they could be thoroughly investi- 

 gated would parallel those cited above. The circumstances connected with the 

 collection of a sample by the inspector and the history of the case will often give 

 valuable clues both for laboratory examination and a follow-up investigation 

 by the authorities concerned. It is to be feared that the widespread publicity 

 given the cases where fragments of glass have been found in foodstuffs will 

 cause the criminally inclined or disgruntled citizen or alien to try his hand at this 

 method of causing disaster to his real or imagined enemies. Extensive press 

 articles describing the treatment of poisoning by bichloride of mercury were 

 followed by a rapid rise in the number of deaths occurring from poisoning by 

 this substance. Carbolic acid, tincture of iodine, cocaine and heroin have each 

 claimed attention of many persons who in all probability became acquainted with 

 the poisonous properties of these articles by reading details of their criminal use 

 in the daily newspaper. In many ways publicity may be a danger instead of a 



boon. 



Confectionery and breadstuffs seem to be the chief articles suspected by the 

 public of containing glass; but the suspicion is rarely justified although I have 



