48 EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 



trade conditions We shall be glad to hear from you and to interpret for your publica- 

 tion any matters which are not perfectly clear in your own mind or on which bee-keepers 

 desire further information. ; 



Yours for the Fourth Liberty Loan, 1 



I U. S. Food Administration, 



j Educational Division, 



!• Ben S. Allen, 



I Director. 



i (Signed.) D. F. Burch, 



Farm Journals Section. 



To the above letter I replied as follows : 



Hamilton, Illinois, October 9, 1918. 

 Mr. D. S. Burch, Farm Journals Section, Food Administration, Washington, D. C. 



Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of October 4 and thank you heartily for 

 the attention you give our interests on the subject of "honey manufacture." 



Permit me to make a few remarks and suggest that the words "honey manufacture" 

 are misleading. The artificial mixtures of cheaper sweets with honey give a sweet which 

 cannot be properly called honey any more than you can call "maple syrup" a mixture 

 of half glucose and half syrup. Those mixtures are entitled to the name of "glucose 

 mixtures. " But of course they would not sell so readily if they did not bear the name of 

 the better. ingredient. If such names are permitted to be used, many things may be 

 sold under the name of a product which they would perhaps contain in irifinitesimal 

 quantity. So I would suggest that the Food Administration call the product in which 

 honey is mixed by the name of "honey mixture," which will deceive no one. 



May I take a few minutes of your time to explain why the bee-keepers are provoked 

 at the suggestion of making honey out of sugar? I have to go back to June, 1881, when 

 Dr. Wiley, the erstwhile United States Chemist, made the statement, in the Popular 

 Science Monthly, that "comb honey is made with paraffine filled with pure glucose by 

 appropriate machinery." By his own statement this story was reprinted in almost 

 every paper in the United States. When the American Bee Journal, then published in 

 Chicago, demanded of him the proof of this statement, he replied at length, in the June 

 14, 1882 number, that what he had written was "only a scientific pleasantry." This 

 has done incalculable harm to the sale of honey. 



Thus you may see that the bee-keeping fraternity is very much opposed to the 

 statement, by such authority as the Food Administration, of actual "honey manufac- 

 ture," especially when the said Administration only means "mixtures of sweets contain- 

 ing more or less honey. " 



Perhaps you may think that we put too much importance upon this point. But 

 if you were to investigate, you would find out 'that it is a constant struggle, owing to 

 Dr. Wiley's iimocent lie, to convince the people of the purity of honey. So, when such 

 a leading organization as the "Food Administration" countenances in a very apparent 

 way "honey manufacture," they give fresh cause for suspecting the healthiest and best 

 of all sweets. 



I hope you may succeed in getting the Administration to change the word "manu- 

 facture" into "mixture." 



If you have had the patience to follow me this far, I wish to thank you for your 

 courtesy. 



Yours truly, 



(Signed.) C. P. Dadant. 

 Editor American Bee Journal. 



The following letter was then received from the Food Adminis- 

 tration : 

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



Dear Sir: Your letter of October 9 relative to "honey mixtures" has been received 

 and read with much interest. I am taking this matter up with our sugar specialists 

 and calling particular attention to your point of view in this matter, which doubtless 

 reflects the opinions of bee-keepers generally. Assuring you of our desire to leceive 

 further suggestions at any time, I am 

 Faithfully yours. 



United States Food Administration, 

 Educational Division, 

 (Signed.) D. S. Burch. 



