640 



American Bee Journal 



July 26, 1906 



should be digested at a time; the same may be said of other 

 favorite food materials. The objection that sugar contains 

 no inorganic salts is not worthy of notice, unless sugar were 

 to be employed as a food to the exclusion of all other 

 foods. This, of course, is impossible, because sugar cannot 

 supply the necessary protein. When sugar is used as an 

 auxiliary to other food, as it should be, the objection has no 

 weight, as iron and lime are only found in relatively small 

 amounts in the human body and most articles of food con- 

 tain all the mineral ingredients the body demands, and more. 

 The prevailing idea that sugar is especially injurious to 

 teeth is probably erroneous, as the West Indian natives, as 

 well as the darkies in the sugar belt, where naturally much 



DR. E. N. EATON. 



sugar is consumed, have exceptionally good and sound teeth. 

 Exposed nerves are sensitive to sweets, as most mature peo- 

 ple know through sad experience. This, however, does not 

 argue that sugar caused the decay. Sugar, like other or- 

 ganic material, will decompose with the formation of acids, 

 such as butyric and lactic, and it is undoubtedly proper, wise 

 and Godly to use a tooth-brush and antiseptic mouth-wash 

 occasionally, whether sugar, honey, candy or other foods are 

 eaten. Sugar, however, is so completley soluble that it would 

 seem that there would be less danger of decomposition in the 

 mouth with it than with other less soluble foods. 



In conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that the consump- 

 tion of sugar has greatly increased in the most progressive 

 countries, reaching almost ioo pounds per capita per year, 

 and in the form of glucose, honey and other sugars, much 

 more than that amount, I see no reason from the standpoint 

 of the physiologist, chemist, or dietist, why sugar in the 

 form of pure candy, honey or other wholesome sweets might 

 not be used much more extensively than it is now, to the 

 satisfaction, and not to the physical detriment, of the people. 



E. N. Eaton. 



Dr. Miller — Most of us came here to learn how to get 

 more honey and we listened to that sort of stuff all day long. 

 But I want to tell you if you can get more of this stuff 

 before the people, so that they will know a little better than 

 they do the facts that Dr. Eaton has been giving us, you will 

 find a better outlet for your honey; and if you can get those 

 facts published in the papers generally, it will be worth a 

 good deal to you. in your local papers and anvwhere else. 

 I would like to sit down and study that thing; I don't know 

 enough to swallow it all down just as he reads it off there. 



Mr. Root — I would like to know what you consider the 

 comparative value of ordinary commercial glucose and honey 

 as a food? 



Dr. Eaton — I made no distinction in the paper between 

 ordinary commercial glucose and honey. As to the food- 



value of them, they are perhaps something similar, although 

 I should think the honey would have the greater food-value. 

 Commercial glucose contains one ingredient the same as 

 honey, and that is dextrose; but dextrin is not a sugar proper, 

 and, therefore, does not have as great a food-value as honey. 

 I think I am safe in saying that ; although I don't know 

 of any experiments that have been made that are directly 

 upon that subject. But my impression is that dextrin is not 

 as digestible or as valuable as a food as sugar proper; and 

 therefore I would say honey is of more feeding value than 

 glucose, even just considering the, solids; and usually glu- 

 cose contains considerably more water. 



Dr. Miller — There are certain things in commercial glu- 

 cose that make it commercial glucose instead of chemically 

 pure glucose. Supposing we can get those things out of 

 commercial glucose that would make it chemically pure, and 

 put them into honey, how much do you think that would 

 improve the honey? 



Dr. Eaton — There is so much confusion in the use of 

 the terms "glucose" and "pure glucose," that I don't be- 

 lieve I can answer the question. When I refer to glucose 

 I refer to the commercial product which is obtained by the 

 action of acids or other material such as inverts and ferments 

 upon starch ; and that product is only partially composed of 

 sugar — composed of dextrose and dextrin — if you would say 

 pure glucose in the meaning of pure dextrose,, it was once 

 a synonymous term with glucose, then I don't believe there 

 would be any great difference in the feeding value of pure 

 dextrose and honey, because there is no difference in the 

 composition or feeding value as far as I know between dex- 

 trose and levulose, which are the sugars which compose 

 honey; and so if you add just one of those sugars to honey 

 there would be no difference in the feeding value. But using 

 the term commercial glucose you have quite a different propo- 

 sition, because there you have dextrin, which is a gum and 

 not a sugar, and not as digestible as dextrose; and in addi- 

 tion to that you have perhaps some sulphurous acid in glu- 

 cose which would interfere with the problem of digestion of 

 the glucose very materially, in my judgment. 



Mr. Whitney — I notice the Professor speaks frequently 

 of sugar. Do you mean sugar as we find it commercially 

 sold, or is it sugar such as we find it in honey, and in the 

 commercial world? 



Dr. Eaton — I use the term sugar as a generic term, 

 covering a large number of sugars; and if I should use sugar 

 in the sense perhaps that you are more accustomed to using 

 it, meaning cane or beet sugar, I would use the term sucrose, 

 chemically, to determine that sugar matter — sugars that have 

 been obtained from the cane, and maple, and palm tree, and 

 also, to some extent, in other vegetables. But there are 

 a great many other sugars, as the generic term implies; 

 we have the levulose and dextrose; those two sugars are 

 found in honey. We have the dextrose, that is found 

 in commercial glucose, and then we have milk-sugar 

 which is very similar to cane-sugar, and a large number 

 of other sugars which are not so well known; but, so far as 

 I know, there is no great difference in the feeding value of 

 these different sugars. Certainly there is no difference in the 

 fuel-value of the different sugars. That is, one sugar when 

 burned should create just about the same amount of energy 

 as another sugar when burned. That is practically what oc- 

 curs in the human body. But there may be yet some differ- 

 ence in the digestibility of these diffrent sugars, and there 

 probably is, as milk-sugar has been found to agree better with 

 infants than other sugars. 



Mr. McCain — A great many intelligent people are op- 

 posed to their children eating a very large amount of sweets. 

 If I understood the doctor correctly, he advocates the con- 

 sumption of a larger amount, and I think in his paper he 

 put pure candy and honey on a level, and spoke of them 

 together. Now, Doctor, shall we, as bee-keepers, and educa- 

 tors, advocate the consumption of a large amount of sweets 

 against the prejudice of intelligent people? 



Dr. Eaton— I do not see why you should not, from a 

 scientific standpoint; nature craves it, and children want their 

 sweets, and I don't believe there is any harm in it, provided 

 you use the pure article. There are a great many of the 

 cheap, inferior candies on the market that I do not think 

 should be placed in the hands of children. But giving them 

 pure sucrose candy, honey-candy, or anything of that variety, 

 and allowing them to use it judiciously, I believe it would 

 be used to the benefit rather than the ill health of the chil- 



