100 



THE CANADIAN HORTICULTURIST 



thai would have dist|uahlif(l such fruits fioiii 

 heiuK considerod as fancy. What is needed, 

 lie thought, is a grade that will he inactical. 

 and not one that will liar out the pnxlucers 

 of Ontario and Quebec from atteinplinK to 

 put on the market any considerable i>ro|)or- 

 lion of fancy fruit. He felt there should lie 

 some elasticity in the definition of fancy, and 

 submitted the following amendment : 



"No |)erbon shall sell, olTer, exixjsc, or have 

 in his [Kissession for sale any fruit (Kicked in 

 a closed package upon which package is maiked 

 any designatitm which re[iresenls such fruit 

 as of fancy c|uality unless .such fruit consist 

 of well-grown specimens of one variety, sound, 

 of unifonnly large size and good color for the 

 variety, of normal simile, and not less than 

 9,') i^er cent, free from ,sciib, wormholes, brui.ses 

 and other defects, and proi)erly packed." 



Messrs. Brodie and Jack, from Quebec, agreed 

 as to the difTicully o'f furnishing nothing but 

 perfect fruil. Mr. l-'isher also referred to how 

 nearly impossible it is to obtain fruit that is free 

 from blemishes, and referred to the difficulty his 

 Department has experienced in gathering such 

 fruit for foreign exhibitions. He claimed, 

 amidst laughter, that the same difficulty had been 

 found even in British Columbia. He suggested 

 that the definition of fancy grade be very strict, 

 but that some very slight latitude be allowed in 

 a general clause of the Act, that would relate to 

 the application of the Act as regards the defin- 

 ition of fancy. 



Mr. Burrell: "The growers in British Colum- 

 bia are in accord with Mr. Fisher's suggestion. 

 We do not think that we have reached perfec- 

 tion, but we feel that if No. 1 is to have 10 per 

 cent, of defective ajiples, it will not do to have 

 anything less than perfect for fancy." 



Mr. Graham suggested that the words "in 

 boxes" should be added to Mr. Bunting's amend- 

 ment. Mr. Jones objected to this .suggestion 

 and Mr. Brodie asked why he should be i)re- 

 vented from jjacking fancy apples in barrels if 

 his customers wanted them packed that way. 

 Mr. Hunt claimed such an addition would be a 

 hardship on the growers in provinces where 

 boxes are dear. Mr. Smith said he was strongly 

 opposed to any clause that would enforce grow- 

 ers to pack their fancy fruit in boxes. Mr. 

 McNeill said he had never seen a fancy apple go 

 into a barrel and come out such, and were the 

 inspectors to examine a barrel in which fancy 

 apples are packed, they would have to condemn 

 them, were they to find injured apples. Mr. 

 Bunting consented to adding the words "in 

 boxes" to his amendment, which was done. 

 This ended the discussion Tuesday afternoon 

 on this subject. 



On Wednesday morning, when the discussion 

 was resumed, Mr. Bunting stated that as it was 

 of the utmost importance that the greatest 

 harmony should prevail, he felt disposed to 

 withdraw his amendment. He was strongly of 

 the opinion that there should be a saving clause 

 somewhere, and he thought that Mr. Fisher's 

 suggestion that this might be included in a 

 clause relating to the enforcement of the Act 

 would be sufficient. He favored fancy fruit 

 being packed in boxes, and claimed that as the 

 trade is likely to move in this direction, it would 

 not be a hardship. He then withdrew his 

 amendment and the original resolution as pre- 

 sented by the resolutions committee was finally 

 adopted with a slight amendment, so that it 

 reads, "that fancy fruit shall consist of well- 

 grown specimens of one variety, sound, of at 

 least normal and uniform size and of good color 

 for the variety, and of normal shape and prop- 

 erly packed." 



NO. 1 APPLES 



Another clause in the report of the resolu- 

 tions committee recommended that a sub-sec- 

 tion A shall be added to section 6 of the Fruits 

 Marks Act, as follows; "No person shall sell, 

 or offer, expose or have in his possession for 

 sale, any fruit packed in a closed package upon 

 which package is marked any designation which 

 represents such fruit as of No. 1 quality, unless 

 such fruit consist of well-grown specimens of 



one \aiicty, .sound, of not less iliaii medium 

 size and of gcunl color for the variety, of nonnal 

 sha|)e and not less than ninety per cent, free 

 from scab, worm-holes, bruises and other de- 

 fects, and properly packed." 



This was adojited practically without discus 

 sion. This is practically the same definition as 

 has prevailed. 



NO. 2 APPLES 



A lively discus.sion took place over the defini 

 tion of the No. 2 a|)ple, as submitted by the 

 resolutions conmiittee and which read as follows: 

 That a sub-section B lie adtled tr) section (>, as 

 follows: "No person shall sell, or offer, or have 

 in his (jossession for sale, any fruit jiacked in a 

 closed ])ackage U|)on which package is marked 

 any designation which represents such fruit as 

 of No, 2 quality, unless such fruit consist of 

 specimens of medium size for the variety, free 

 from worm-holes, except at the blossom end, 

 and free frotu such other defects as cause ma- 

 terial waste, and properly packed." 



.Mr. l.ick |M>inted out that if any other words 

 besides fancy. No. 1, No. 2, and No. .3, can be 

 placed on packages, it might cause confusion. 



Harold Jones, Maitland, Ont. 

 (.>nt of the Delegates to the Fruit Conference 



Mr. Burrell replied that the committee had con- 

 sidered this point and had concluded that these 

 grades would soon establish a position of their 

 own. Were too many definitions placed in the 

 Act, such restrictions would come dangerously 

 near conflicting with private brands. 



Mr. Fisher: "It is an important question that 

 has been raised by Mr. Lick. The reason the 

 clause in the Act allowing other marks to be put 

 on boxes was inserted was because many grow- 

 ers have private brands for which they have 

 created a demand. It would be a great hard- 

 ship to them were they prevented from using 

 these brands." Mr. Lick contended that it was 

 more important that the interests of the major- 

 ity of growers be protected than the interests of 

 a few. Mr. Fisher pointed out that there is a 

 clause in the Act stating that any marks placed 

 on the packages must not be inconsistent with 

 the standard mark, and that were this clause 

 withdrawn, it would leave the door open for the 

 insertion of private marks on the packages that 

 would not be consistent with the grade of the 

 fruit. Mr. Shepherd said he did not suppose 

 there would be any objection to growers mark- 

 ing the names of their orchards on the packages, 

 and was informed there would not be. 



In discussing the definition of a No. 2 apple as 

 submitted to the meeting, Mr. Fisher pointed out 

 that there is a limit of 10 per cent, of defective 

 fruit in the No. 1 grade, but no such limit was 



set in the definition of a Xu. 2. Mr. (,i..;, 

 claimed that the definition of a No. 2 apple : 

 cjuired such apples to fie of nearly as good qu:. 

 ity as No. 1, and suggested that the limit oi 

 defective fruit in the No. 2 grade should be 

 defined and that No. 3 apples should not i 

 exixjrted. 



It was contended by Mr. Brodie, that if .No 

 ■i aijples could not tie exported, it might Ix- ii 

 hardship on poor jieople who cannot afford to 

 buy the l)est fruit. In reply, Mr. Graham sug- 

 geste<l that No. 3 apples might be shipjjed in 

 some other kind of a package. The man « ! 

 buys a fX)or apple once is not hkely to buy ai 

 the next time and the trade is injured. .N! 

 Katon thought that if No. 3 grade is ignored, 

 would l>e suflTicient, as growers who desired com 

 put their apples on the market as culls. 



Mr. Mansim: "In the past, we in Manito! 

 have been Imying and paying No. 1 prices i 

 cull apples. We are anxious that the definiti 

 of a No. 2 shall be made more definite. Unii 

 the definition we are considering, it will Ije p- 

 sible for every apple to contain a worm 

 move that not more than 20 i)er cent, shall 

 defective, and that even the defective fruit sli 

 lie well colored and ui good (juality." 



Mr. Parker: "No. 1 and No. 2 grades ;i- 

 likely to be the standards for Nova Scotia i 

 many years to come and I think it is well tli 

 a more definite standard should be .set i 

 No. 2."^ 



Mr. E. D. Smith: "I agree that there shoulii 

 be a definition. As No. 1 and No. 2 apples have 

 to be of uniform size, possibly a slightly smaller 

 size, if i)erfecl in other respects, might be 

 allowed. The words ' |)ermitting worm-hole^ 

 in the definition are too comprehensive, 

 think that the clause that permits some deft 

 from fungous diseases, while not permitti: 

 material waste, covers the question about 

 well as possible." 



Mr. Parker: "We should keep up our ideal 

 Scab develops after the apples are packed and 

 causes trouble. One trouble is that apples 

 may be O.K. when packed, and be«jome defec- 

 tive afterwards." 



Mr. Manson: "When apples get to Winnipeg 

 there is nothing small about the spot they con- 

 tain." 



The ■ representative from Alberta claimed 

 that the western buyers are not likely to buy 

 apples that have any more than 20 per cent. 

 of defective fruit. He claimed that some western 

 dealers re|5ack Ontario apples in British Colum- 

 bia boxes. A general discussion followed, in 

 which the fruit inspectors took part, after 

 which .Mr. Pettit moved an amendment to t' 

 definition of the No. 2 apple. It was adoptc 

 practically unanimously, and makes the detii 

 tion of a No. 2 apple read as follows: 



"No. 2 shall consist of specimens of neai 

 medium size for the variety, and not less tb 

 80 per cent, free from worm-holes, and fr 

 from such other defects that cause mater: 

 waste, and proiierly packed." 



ADULTERATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS 



Following the discussion of the Fruit Mar*.. 

 Act, Tuesday afternoon, Mr. McGill, of the 

 Inland Revenue Department, spoke of the 

 adulteration of food products. He pointed 

 out that the best known adulterants have 

 come into use during the past 50 years, which 

 accounts for the great increase that has taken 

 place in the adulteration of food. He claimed 

 that as man's recuperative power is limited, 

 it is essential that his food shall be wholesome. 

 Every man has the right to know what he is 

 eating, and when food products are put up in 

 packages, the packages should bear statements 

 giving a printed analysis of their contents. 



Reference was made to the various adulterants 

 commonly used in the manufacture of jams . 

 and jellies, including glucose, and attention 

 was drawn to the results of an investigation 

 conducted by the Dept. during 1904-5, to find 

 to what extent jams and jellies are adulterated. 

 In 1904, 74 samples of jam and jelly were tested. 



