84 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Jan. 15 



Our contemporary says, "the law legaliz- 

 ing mixtures, compounds, and blends will al- 

 low unlimited opportunities to sell a mix- 

 ture of honey and glucose, and probably 

 compel States to allow its sale, which now 

 prohibit it or require it to be labeled 

 'adulterated.' " Vei'y true, the mere matter 

 of mixing or compounding has never been 

 objected to, neither is there any national law 

 to prevent it; hut it was the mixing of several 

 ingredients, and selling them tinder the name 

 of one, and ■all at the 'price of the highest, to 

 which exception is taken. But the Food 

 Jotirnal man does not state that such mix- 

 tures of honey and glucose would have to be 

 labeled for what they are. Consumers will 

 not buy glucose syrup when they know it. 

 The experiment has been tried, and proved a 

 failure. We bee-keepers are not afraid of 

 glucose and honey when no deception is used 

 in foisting the combination on the public. 

 Or, to put it another way, we do not object 

 to the wolves, but we do protest when they 

 are allowed to masciuerade in sheep's cloth- 

 ing. 



Referring again to the alleged glucose- 

 plant or plants which are being constructed, 

 it is well known that such institutions have 

 been putting out what is known as gluten 

 foods. A good deal of these foods is used 

 by dairymen. If the Standai'd Oil Co. has 

 bought up these glucose-factories, it probably 

 will continue to make these stock foods as 

 l:)efore and convert the by-product, starch, 

 not into glucose, but into denatured alcohol. 

 True, it may make some glucose; but thei'e is 

 likely to be but a small demand for that 

 article, for it can not now, in most States and 

 interstate and territorial business, be used as 

 an adulterant. 



There hsive been numerous items in the 

 press, referring to the alleged troubles of the 

 glucose people in States whei'e there are pure- 

 food laws. Here is one from the Cleveland 

 Press for Dec. 7th last; 



DEATHS IjAID TO GTiUCOSE TRUST. 



New York, Dec. 7.— Fearing a wholesale poisoQing 

 of children by candy, the city authorities are tryinsj 

 to prevent the glucose trust from shipping here from 

 Philadelphia tons of glucose which the trust virtually 

 admits may have been responsible for the death of 

 women and children from sulphites used in making 

 glucose to lessen the cost. 



The glucose trust is controlled by the Standard Oil 

 combination, and has paid ttnes and costs amounting 

 to half a million dollars in Philadelphia. One girl is 

 dead here, poisoned by sulphites. 



Here is another from the Rural New-York- 

 er: 



At a total cost to the glucose trust of half a million 

 dollars, settlement was made December 6 at Philadel- 

 phia by D. C. Gibboney, acting for State Dairy and 

 Food Commissioner Dr. B. H. Warren, and Attorney- 

 General Hampton L. Carson, acting for the State of 

 Pennsylvania, of all cases based upon sales of candies 

 containing glucose adulterated with poisonous sul- 

 phites. As a result this particular kind of food poi- 

 soning has been abolished in Pennsylvania at one 

 stroke. Moving its adulterated product out of Penn- 

 sylvania back to New York, and the costs which it 

 agreed to pay, cost the trust $500,000. 



How much, of truth there may be in all of 

 these items we do not know; but evidently the 

 prospects ahead of the glucose interests are 

 not so I'osy as the Food Journal editor would 

 have us believe, especially if we take into 



consideration that the national pure-food 

 law has only just taken efifect. If the glucose 

 interests have 500 suits in one State, and if 

 they have paid half a million in fines, as al- 

 leged in another State, what may we expect 

 when those same interests come against the 

 whole United States? Apparently their 

 troubles have only just begun. We still be- 

 lieve that glucose, as a product (whatever 

 we may say of the factories that formerly 

 made it) have received almost a knock-out 

 blow. 



WHAT THE GLUCOSE PEOPLE ARE TRYING 

 TO DO. 



Later. — It appears that the glucose inter- 

 ests are a little worried over the action of 

 the new law. According to the American 

 Orocer they are asking for "a ruling on their 

 products which would do away with the use 

 of the woixl glucose, substituting therefor 

 either corn syrup or corn sugar. ' ' The mak- 

 ers of the stuff admit that glucose " is a name 

 against which a very great prejudice exists." 



Does this mean that gluco^ has acquired 

 so unsavory a reputation that its makex's 

 would like to cover up its identity and char- 

 acter by another name or names that would 

 fool the public, on the principle that a pi'o- 

 fessional crook finds it convenient to use sev- 

 ei'al aliases rather than his own name? We 

 hope not. Large quantities of glucose have 

 been used in jams and jellies, and heretofoi'e 

 it has not been necessary to state the fact on 

 the labels of such articles. But now under 

 the new law, if glucose is used it must so 

 state on the label. But "a very great pi'eju- 

 dice exists" against glucose, and its makers 

 would like to have corn syrup, which they 

 claim is " wholesome," substituted. We hope 

 the Honorable Secretaiy of Agriculture and 

 his colleagues will make no such ruling. 

 Let evei'y thing be sold under the name that 

 the public knows, and then there will be no 

 deception. 



THE NEW LAW AGAIN, AND THE UPWARD 

 SLANT ON THE PRICE OF HONEY. 



Attention is drawn to the remarkable 

 communication in the American Bee Journal 

 for Dec. 30, of Mr. C. P. Dadant, on the sub- 

 ject of artificial honey, or sugar known as 

 "glucose " to the trade. Mr. D. relates how, 

 many years ago, his father had gotten up a 

 circular petition which he succeeded in hav- 

 ing signed by 10,000 bee-keepers, with the 

 avowed intention of placing the matter be- 

 fore Congress; but, for want of a genuine 

 interest, the matter was allowed to drop in- 

 to "innocuous desuetude." He is evidently 

 somewhat astonished at the effect of the new 

 pure-food law, though as a matter of fact it had 

 not yet come into force when his commu- 

 nication was written. He admits he had a 

 grudge in his heart against Prof. Wiley, the 

 author of the famous honey canard, but he 

 now willingly forgives him, in view of the 

 part he played in securing the enactment of 

 the Hepburn pure-food law. 



He says the dealers around his locality ai'e 

 already buying honey, whereas before they 

 wei'e quite well satisfied with the spurious 



