786 FOODS AND FOOD ADULTERANTS. 



NOTES ON PRECEDING TABLES. 

 ANALYSES BY H. A. HUSTON. 



Four of the samples were sold as coinb honey, being honeycomb in 

 jnrs presumably filled with glucose or some honey substitute. It is to 

 be regretted that Mr. Huston failed to report the polarizations obtained 

 and also to note what samples were abnormal in their optical behavior. 

 Repeated requests for this information have not succeeded in their 

 object, and the other data therefore go to press without these impor- 

 tant complements. 



ANALYSES BY H. H. NICHOLSON. 



Of the 50 samples analyzed by Mr. Nicholson the following were 

 adulterated with commercial glucose, viz : Nos. 1757, 1761, 1764, 1766, 

 1769, 1772, 1773, 1779, 1780. 1782, 1783, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1793, 

 1795, 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1803, and 1804. In all, 26 samples, or 

 52 per cent of the whole number. Some of these appear to have had 

 only from 25 to 50 per cent of glucose added, or else principally that 

 form of starch sugar known as grape sugar. This product is chiefly 

 dextrose and its presence is indicated by a rather low right-handed po- 

 larization which is not greatly changed on inversion unless cane sugar 

 is also present in considerable quantities. 



Illustrations of this kind of adulteration are more numerous in these 

 samples than in any other set examined ; in fact, their number is so 

 large as to excite comment. Samples Nos. 1788, 1789, 1796, 1800, etc., 

 are illustrations. The use of dextrose as a honey adulterant is not 

 common, and its occurrence in so many of these samples is not prob- 

 able. They are rather to be regarded as mixtures of honey and glu- 

 cose in the proportions mentioned above. 



Samples Nos. 1756 and 1794 clearly indicate the addition of consid- 

 erable quantities of cane sugar. 



In samples Nos. 1766, 1776, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 

 1789, 1790, 1792, 1794, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1802, and 1805, the excessive 

 quantities of water found show that the samples can not be genuine. 

 Eight of these are included under those adulterated with glucose, 

 leaving 10 to be added to the total of adulterated samples. These, in 

 all make 38, samples certainly adulterated, giving to the unadulterated 

 class all the doubtful samples. 



The general result of the analyses is therefore 38 adulterated to 12 

 doubtful and genuine samples. 



The percentage of adulteration is 76. 



The labels on the packages of honey bought are very misleading. No. 

 3756, adulterated with cane sugar, is labeled "Pure California Honey;" 

 1761, "Pure Honey;" 1772, "Pure Honey;" 1773, "Pure Honey;" 

 1780, "White Clover Honey;" 1782, "California Honey;" 1783, "Cal- 

 ifornia Honey;" 1787, "Pure Honey;" 1788, "Pure Honey;" 1789, 



