American bee journal. 



ib 



The Adulteration of Honey 



— We have received from Mr. Chas. F. 

 Muth, of Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of 

 some correspondence between the .Ameri- 

 can Analyst, of New York; and both 

 Prof. H. W., Wiley and Mr. Muth. The 

 latter desired us to publish it in the Bee 

 Journal, so that the bee-keepers might 

 understand the whole matter* especially 

 as the recent Report issued by the De- 

 partment of Agriculture* classed Mr. 

 Muth with other adulterators of ex- 

 tracted honey. 



The following letter accompanied a 

 copy of Prof. Wiley's, sent to Mr. Muth 

 by the editor of the American Analyst, 

 Dr. H. Lassing : 



Messrs. Chas. F. Muth & Son, 

 Cincinnati, Ohio. ■ 

 Dear Sirs : — We enclose herewith a 

 copy of a letter just received from Dr. 

 Wiley, which we shall publish in July 1 

 number. We enclose it to you as soon 

 as received, so as to give you ample time 

 to reply, if you think it best to do so. 

 Yours very truly, 

 The Analyst Publishing Co. 

 New York, June 22, 1892. 



The letter referred to in the foregoing, 

 written by Prof. Wiley, is as follows : 



Editor American Analyst. 



Dear Sir : — The spirit which you show, 

 of giving ample opportunity for every 

 one to be heard on the question of adul- 

 terated honey, is most gratifying ; es- 

 pecially is your invitation to dealers 

 whose goods have been found to be 

 adulterated, to explain the matter in 

 your columns, an evidence of good faith 

 on your part, that you wish only to do 

 justice to the parties. 



I have read with much interest the 

 letters from different manufacturers in 

 your issue of June 15. In one of these 

 letters reference is made to me in a way 

 which seems to call for some explanation, 

 and I beg the favor of being allowed in 

 your columns to make some comments 

 on the letter from Chas. F. Muth & Son, 

 published on page 211 of the issue 

 mentioned. 



I have no desire whatever to do Mr. 

 Muth any injustice, and I am ready at 

 any time to make amends m case I have 

 done so. I understand that Mr. Muth 

 bears a very high reputation for honesty 

 and straightforwardness among his asso- 

 ciates, and I should be extremely sorry 



if anything I should say or do should 

 tend to diminish the esteem in which he 

 is held. It was unfortunate for him 

 that the samples of honey bearing his 

 label should have been found to be adul- 

 terated, but it only shows the necessity, 

 which is incumbent on dealers, to be 

 more careful of their goods. 



From an ethical point of view, 1 will 

 say I doubt very much whether Mr. 

 Muth is justified in selling honey which 

 he purchased in California as the pro- 

 duct of his own Italian apiary. He says 

 at least, in his letter, that the amount 

 of honey which he himself produces is 

 of very little importance commercially, 

 while his chief business is in buying and 

 selling honey. Mr. Muth, unconsciously 

 or otherwise, perpetrates a fraud on the 

 community when he sells honey pro- 

 duced by others as his own. It is not 

 exactly adulteration, but it is a business 

 process which is something nearly akin 

 to it. 



With Mr. Muth's methods of doing 

 business, however, I have nothing what- 

 ever to do ; what I desire to call atten- 

 tion to is his statement that he left 

 samples of honey with me, and that the 

 best I could say was, "that they were 

 adulterate'd, and that one was probably 

 pure." Now, Mr. Muth has either never 

 read my report on these honeys, or else 

 he purposely misconstrues it, or he has 

 forgotten what I said. The report to 

 which he refers, was not made at Flint, 

 Mich, (but that is not a matter of any 

 consequence), but it was published in 

 the American Apiculturist, Vol. Ill, No. 

 12, 1885. It was published verbatim 

 in Bulletin 13, Part 6, page 801, et. seq. 

 I beg you to turn to that report and see 

 how grave an injustice Mr. Muth has 

 been guilty of. The statement in his 

 letter is one which we would not expect 

 to come from one of his high standing 

 in the community, and I feel very sure 

 that Mr. Muth will cheerfully correct it 

 when his attention is called to it. I 

 would caution Mr. Muth, however, in 

 this matter about depending too much 

 upon his memory in matters of such 

 grave importance. 



I did not pronounce a single sample of 

 honey obtained from Mr. Muth, to be 

 adulterated. There were a few samples 

 obtained from him, described on page 

 802, but which it is expressly stated in 

 the description were not produced by 

 him. One was No. 14, described as a 

 sample from Louisiana; another was 

 No. 16, described as a sample from 

 Florida; another was No. 17, described 

 as a sample from Florida. These num- 

 bers — 14, 16 and 17 — are included in a 



