302 Beekeeping 



identical as they would be if machine made. To show its 

 confidence in the purity of comb-honey, the National Bee 

 Keepers' Association in 1904 offered $1000 for a single sec- 

 tion of manufactured comb-honey which would even ap- 

 proximately resemble the work of bees and a similar offer 

 was made considerably earlier by A. I. Root, Medina, 

 Ohio. Needless to say, no person has been able to claim 

 these prizes. 



The 1 ' Wiley lie:' 



This calls to mind an episode which at the time caused 

 beekeepers of this country much anxiety. H. W. Wiley 

 stated in " Popular Science Monthly " in 1881, in an article on 

 prevalent practices in food adulteration, that artificial 

 combs of paraffin were being filled with glucose, capped 

 to imitate the work of bees, and sold as comb-honey. In 

 this statement he was entirely wrong and he publicly ad- 

 mitted the error later, there being, however, some basis for 

 his misunderstanding since he had been informed of efforts 

 along this line by a New England inventor. "Popular Science 

 Monthly " did not have a circulation large enough to cause 

 much trouble from such an erroneous statement, but un- 

 fortunately it was called to the attention of some prominent 

 beekeepers. They dubbed it the "Wiley lie" and con- 

 tinued to magnify the harm that would come from it and 

 to re-publish the error with denials until the story was 

 spread throughout the country. The last chapter in this 

 incident was the anonymous re-publication* of the original 

 statement and a collection of denials in an effort to hinder 

 the passage in Congress of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 

 1906, now so familiar to all consumers of food. It should be 

 made clear that this effort was not perpetrated by any or- 

 ganization of beekeepers, although an attempt was made 

 to make it so appear. The only fault that can be found 

 with the beekeepers is that they did not refrain from dis- 

 cussing the matter and they thereby probably did the in- 

 dustry far more damage than did the original statement, 



