ILLINOIS STATE BEE-KEEPERS" ASSOCIATION". 47 



being a new product, was at once connected by the consumers with the 

 ^'appropriate machinery" mentioned by the most capable American 

 chemist and scientist, investigator of all sorts of adulterations who 

 shortly after became official United States Chemist. 



It is true that, since that time, Dr. Wiley was the author and intro- 

 ducer of the "Pure Food Law" which has helped stop adulteration and 

 has surely done a lot of good in preventing the sale of adulterated 

 honey and in giving the public greater confidence in products put upon 

 the market with positive guarantees. But we must beware of allowing 

 any more slurs to be thrown upon the legitimate production and sale 

 of good honey. 



During the present sugar conservation campaign, the Food Ad- 

 ministration of the United States published a list of the industries 

 requiring the consumption of sugar and gave out regulations concern- 

 ing these industries. 



Among the different requirements we find the mention of "sugar 

 for feeding bees" for which full allowance was made. The next line 

 mentioned "sugar for honey manufacture." This attracted my atten-^ 

 tion, especially as several bee-keepers wrote to the American Bee 

 Journal, saying that a number of their customers had noticed the Food 

 Administration's mention of "honey manufacture" and stated that 

 this was a plain acknowledgement that sugar was being used to "man- 

 ufacture honey" and that it was preposterous for bee-keepers to deny 

 doing it. 



So, in the American Bee Journal for October 1918, among the 

 editorials, page 335, we published the following: 



"Sugar versus honey. — We are informed that the Food Adminis- 

 tration is allowing 100 per cent of needed sugar for feeding bees that 

 may be short for winter, and 50 per cent of normal supply for "honey 

 manufacture." Inasmuch as the adulteration of food is strictly pro- 

 hibited, we can see no earthly reason for allowing any sugar for arti- 

 ficially manufacturing a product which cannot under any excuse be 

 called honey, even if it contains 50 per cent of real honey. There is 

 evidently a misapprehension on the part of the Food Administration 

 as to what constitutes honey." 



This article was noticed by the men in charge of the food question 



at Washington and the following letter was received by me : 



Washington, D. C, October 4, 1918. 

 Mr. C. P. Dadant, Editor American Bee Journal. 



Dear Mr. Dadant In the American Bee Journal for October, we have read 

 with unusual interest your comments on "The Sugar Situation" and on "Sugar versus 

 Honey. " Although we note the general approval of bee-keepers toward the distribution 

 of sugar, I wish to conmient more particularly on your remarks concerning "Honey 

 Manufacture. " 



I have taken this matter up with our Sugar Depaitment with these results: We are 

 informed with regard to the manufacture of honey that there are a number of substitute 

 honeys available, made from com sugar or com syrup with other ingredients to give a 

 honey flavor. This is the class of trade being held down to 50 per cent of their last 

 year's sugar requirements. This 50 per cent allotment should in no degree be considered 

 any reflection on the honey industry or on the production by patriotic bee-keepers of the 

 largest honey crop possible. 



Please let me assure you that the Food Administration welcomes all frank opinions 

 and suggestions for securing best results with the least disturbance of agricultural and 



