794 



FOODS AND FOOD ADULTERANTS. 



The camples may be divided into: Group I, presumably pure honeys. Group II, 

 adulterated honeys. 



In Group I must be placed Nos. 101, 107, 108, 111, 114, 115, 116, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 

 127, 128,129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 147, and 150. 



Many of these samples have been placed in this group simply because it is impossi- 

 ble to prove their adulteration by analysis. Judging from the general appearance, 

 color, taste, and fluidity of the samples, the writer feels morally certain that more than 

 half of those enumerated above consist essentially of inverted sucrose. However, 

 as it is practically impossible to demonstrate this claim, one is forced to class them 

 with the genuine honeys, and this group has therefore advisedly been marked : " Pre- 

 sumably " genuine. 



Group II is capable of subdivision into: II a. Unquestionably adulterated with 

 starch sirup (glucose). II b. Adulterated with starch sirup (glucose), with sucrose, 

 or with both. 



Group Ha embraces Nos. 102, 105, 106, 109, 119, 130, and 143. 



Group II & embraces Nos. 103, 104, 110, 112, 113, 117, 118, 122, 126, 140, 141, 142, 144, 

 145, 146, 148, and 149. 



This shows 24 out of 50 samples examined to be undoubtedly adulterated. This 

 corresponds to 48 per cent, and of the remaining 26 samples, as already stated, more 

 than one-half are in all probability also not pure. 



ANALYSES BY F. G. WIECHMANN. 



Mr. Wiechinann lias very satisfactorily discussed the data obtained 

 by him, and I will add only a few notes. 



No. 118 is evidently the satne brand of honey as No. 114, examined by 

 Mr. M. A. Scovell, and No. 9526, by Mr. S. P. Sharpies. The label and 

 description are identical,. with the exception of the name of the wholesale 

 dealer, which in two cases is Thurber & Whyland and in one case E. 

 Brommond. 



Mr. Wiechmaim's data are compared with Mr. Scovell's below : 



Nothing could illustrate better than the above table the titter im-an- 

 inglessness of labels. Here we find one label and description applied 

 indiscriminately to three samples of honey totally different in their 

 composition. The sample examined by Mr. Scovell is apparently gen- 

 uine. Those examined by Messrs. Wiechmann and Sharpies are un- 

 doubtedly adulterated, but not to the same extent. 



It appears to be the habit of the enterprising dealer to arm himself 

 with an assortment of altisonant labels and a pot of paste and then to 

 make a descent on a helpless pile of genuine and spurious packages of 

 honey, applying the labels indiscriminately. 



