760 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Honey— Pure Nectar. 



The last issue of the Bee-Keepers' 

 Review has " Adulteration of Honey" as 

 its special topic. It is^ quite exhaustively 

 treated. There are some things, how- 

 ever, which we wish to comment upon, 

 and we will here give the gist of the 

 arguments. 



Byron Walker starts out by saying 

 that "the Bee-Keepers' Union ought to 

 prosecute adulterators." On page 119 

 he adds : "What we need is a Bee- 

 Keepers' Union of at least 5,000 

 members ; then we can compel these 

 corporations to respect the laws enacted 

 for our protection." 



This is a proposition upon which we 

 must entirely disagree with Mr. Walker. 

 The National Bee-Keepers' Union was 

 not created for such a purpose. It was 

 constituted simply for "defense," and 

 not to wage an aggressive warfare 

 against adulteration, or any other moral 

 or social evil ! 



Remarking on this subject, the editor 

 of the Revieiv, on page 128, says : 



As I understand it, a change in the 

 constitution of the Union would be 

 necessary before money could be used 

 for this purpose ; but, if the Union could 

 put an end to what adulteration there 

 is, and, what is of far more importance, 

 co7wi7ice the public of this accomplish- 

 ment, I believe its usefulness would be 

 increased a thousand fold. 



Brother Hutchinson is quite right — a 

 cliange in the Constitution would be 

 necessary before it could undertake any 

 such a superhuman ^ task. More than 

 that, it must also change its executive 

 officer. The present General Manager 

 '•ould not consent to undertake any such 

 an impracticability ! 



While, perhaps, it should not be 

 publicly admitted, it is nevertheless a 

 fact, that there is no sure " method by 

 which the adujteration of honey can be 

 detected." 



Pure honey has very often been 

 analyzed and pronounced adulterated by 

 chemists in New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, 



and other States, and even the United 

 States chemist has blundered \y\ many 

 ways when endeavoring to enlighten the 

 public on the matter of honey-adultera- 

 tion. Samples which we liuow were 

 genuine, have been branded as either 

 "adulterated," or "probably adulter- 

 ated" — simply because there is no 

 reliable test for such analysis. 



Honey varies so much in its component 

 parts that no analysis of it can be 

 reliable ! That from the hillsides varies 

 in color from that in the valleys. 

 Atmospheric conditions, soil and climate 

 even change the color as well as the 

 body, flavor and ingredients. 



In view of these facts, it would be a 

 wild-goose chase to start the Union after 

 adulterators — especially if there are as 

 many as Byron Walker avers — several 

 hundreds of retailers of such stuff in a 

 city no larger than Detroit ! The Union 

 is in better business, and should never 

 leave that, in order to delve into the 

 slums of abominable sophistications ! 



Let us build on the other wall. 

 Produce honey of such fine flavor, put 

 up in such admirable condition for 

 market, and properly labeled with the 

 producer's name and address, that a 

 demand will be created for that honey, 

 and the guarantee for purity shall be 

 the name of the apiarist, and not "a 

 trade-mark," or the endorsement of any 

 society or periodical. 



There are plenty of laws on the 

 statute books in Michigan and other 

 States, and the local bee-keepers can 

 attend to the matter of prosecution 

 without the aid of the Union. Let 

 them follow the example of Harmon 

 Smith, at Ionia, Mich., as is shown on 

 page 129 of the Review, in the following 

 words : 



Upon learning that a can of adulterated 

 honey had been sent to a grocer of his 

 town, he went to him and said, ^ " The 

 first pound of that stuff you sell, I'll 

 prosecute you," The "stuff " went back 

 to the mixer. 



There was no blow nor bluster — no 

 publishing of the matter in the papers. 

 It was a case of " silent influence." 



