V*:? INFLUENCE OP FOOD PRESERVATIVES ON HEALTH. 



No. 10 shows a decrease of about three-fourths of a kilogram in 

 weight in the preservative period and over eight -tenths of a kilogram 

 daring the after period. 



No. 11 shows a very notable decrease in weight, amounting to 1.51 

 kilograms in the preservative period and a slight decrease during the 

 after period. This was doubtless due to illness, which also occasioned 

 the withdrawal of the preservative during five days of the preservative 

 period. 



The data for No. 12 show a loss of weight amounting to almost 0.8 

 of a kilogram during the preservative period, due chiefly, if not 

 entirely, to illness, and a slight increase in weight during the after 

 period. 



In every instance in this series, excepting the incomplete data for 

 No. 7, there is a loss of weight attending the administration of the 

 preservative. In four cases out of live there is a continued loss of 

 weight during the after period, and in only one case is there an increase 

 in weight at the end of the after period. 



The conclusions which can be drawn from these data are subject to 

 the same restrictions as attach to those based upon the data of Series 

 II. A marked variation from what might be expected is seen in the 

 continued decrease of weight during the after period. 



In a strictly logical discussion of the data in this series the progres- 

 sive decrease in weight could not be attributed solely, if at all, to the 

 action of the preservative, by reason of the fact that it is continued in 

 all but one case after the preservative is withdrawn. When, however, 

 the data are viewed in the light already alluded to in the previous dis- 

 cussion, it is seen that there is reasonable ground for belief in this 

 series also that the administration of the preservative tends, although 

 in only a slight degree, to decrease body weight. 



SERIES V. 



In the case of No. 1 in Series V there is a loss of nearly one-half a 

 kilogram in the preservative period, which is nearly all regained dur- 

 ing the after period. 



The data for No. 2 show that there is a loss of about three-fourths 

 of a kilogram in the preservative period and a much more marked 

 loss, amounting to over 1 kilograms, in the after period. By reason 

 of illness No. 2 did not receive any preservative after June 11. 



No. 3 shows a distinct gain in the preservative period and a return 

 during the after period to almost exactly the weight of the fore period. 

 The data in the case of No. 3, as will be seen, are of a contrary nature 

 to those of No. 1. 



On account of removal from the city the data in the case of No. 4 

 are fragmentary, being only partial for the preservative period and 



