126 



645.- CANE VS. BEET SUGAR. 



We have been favored with the following communication from 

 Messrs. Crossfield, Ltd., Liverpool, on the above subject : 



Is there really any difference between cane and beet sugar? 



This question was asked a few weeks ago by one of the leading 

 family grocers in the West Eiding of Yorkshire, who had bought 

 beetroot sugar and received a guarantee that ifcontained 99 per cent. 

 of " cane sugar." 



A sample had been submitted by the buyer to an analyst who 

 declined to say whether the sugar was made from beet or cane. 



Mr. Richardson, F.I.C., F.C.S., etc., the well known consulting 

 chemist and analyst for Bradford, Dewbury, etc., was therefore con- 

 sulted. Mr. Richardson has made sugar and its properties his special 

 study and is about to publish an exhaustive work on sugar, so that there 

 could be no better authority to whom one could apply on such a matter. 



The confusion occasioned in the minds of buyers by such guar- 

 antees and analytical reports with regard to cane and beet sugars was 

 indicated to Mr. Richardson, and it was pointed out that assurances 

 are given by chemists that the two sugars are identical, also that 

 certain interested importers — not refiners — certify their beetroot 

 sugar to contain 99 per cent, of cane sugar. 



Mr. Richardson at once grasped the difficulties, and showed so 

 clearly how the misconception and confusion arises that he was asked 

 to write his views in the form of a letter which, with his permission, 

 we have much pleasure in publishing for the information of sugar 

 buyers generally. 



City Analyst's Office, Bradford, 



19th May, 1904- 



Messrs. Crosfields, Limited, 6, Stanley Street, Liverpool. 



Lear Sirs — Before beets were generally known cane sugar was the only 

 sweetening material used by the householder, and the chemists of the time 

 always used the expression " cane sugar " as indicative of the chief constituent 

 of the commercial article. 



When a substance identical with the sweetening principle present in sugar 

 cane was found to exist in other natural products, for example in the cereals — 

 barley, etc., — the chemist still continued to use the term "cane sugar" though 

 it was obviously a misnomer, and when beet sugar came into vogue its amount in 

 the article itself or in the solutions made therefrom was always included under 

 the term " cane sugar." 



Commercial cane and beet sugars contain absolutely the same sweetening 

 principle, but this is always associated with a small proportion of other sub- 

 stances which communicate a peculiar and indefinable taste, mostly appreciable 

 only to the expert sugar merchant. 



I have before me a good cane sugar and a good beet sugar, both show 99 per 

 cent, of pure sugar, known to the chemist as " sucrose," but there remains one 

 per cent, of other substances, which give distinctive tastes to these two articles. 

 In hot liquids, such as freshly made tea for example, this peculiar and distinctive 

 taste becomes very marked When one considers how the merest fraction of a 

 fraction of a per cent, of ethers in wines gives a flavor and a " bouquet," which 

 enable the connoisseur to at once distinguish between vintages of very different 

 values, it will readily be seen that considerably less than one per cent, of organic 

 material in sugars may comm unicate very perceptibly different tastes to the expert. 



Indeed the chemical substances giving the real taste to a variety of foods 

 and beverages are almost always present in very small quantity. 



This is the case with tea, coffee, cocoa, beer, wine and spirits. 



Believe me, Yours faithfully, 



F. W. Richardson. 



P.S.— I find myself in thorough agreement with Mr. Arthur Morris on the question 

 of Cane vs. Beet Sugar, and herewith return the Journal containing the article. — F.W R. 



