252 INFLUENCE OF FOOD PRESERVATIVES ON HEALTH. 



case would be 1 gram. In point of fact, however, it would rarely if 

 ever reach this amount, but even in those cases where butter is eaten 

 freely probably half a gram would be about the maximum quantity 

 consumed. Further than this, 1 per cent of boric acid or its equiva- 

 lent of borax in butter is a ver}^ large quantity. Probably as a rule 

 not more than one-half of 1 per cent is employed. Jn this case the 

 quantity of boric acid likely to be consumed by any one individual in 

 a day would be reduced to one-quarter of a gram. 



In the case of meats preserved by borax, although larger quantities 

 are eaten than of butter, it is not likely that any larger quantities of 

 borax would be consumed. Thus it appears that those who habitualty 

 eat butter and meat preserved with borax might be consuming a half 

 a gram or a little more of boric acid per day. But preserved meats 

 are not regularly eaten, and hence the quantity mentioned is likely to 

 be overestimated. It would be unwise to affirm in a case of this kind, 

 in the light of the data obtained by the experiments, that such a mini- 

 mum consumption of borax, especially when not continuous, would 

 prove deleterious within any reasonable time of observation. The 

 question then arises: Does the absence of such proof or the impracti- 

 cability of obtaining it serve as a justifiable excuse for the use of this 

 preservative ? 



This question ought not to be decided alone, because the principle 

 of the decision must stand, not only for boric acid and borax, but for 

 every preservative used in foods. In other words, whatever principle 

 is established for judgment as to the use of boric acid in small portions 

 must also be applied to the use of every other preservative used in 

 foods. The principle must also be still further extended, so that what- 

 ever may be established as regards butter or meat must be admitted in 

 respect of every other substance used as food. Hence before admitting 

 the full force of the argument de minimis the full significance of such 

 an admission must be considered and the practically unlimited extent 

 of its application acknowledged. 



This leads to the discussion of the fact that in the majority of cases 

 the labor of freeing the system from added preservatives falls princi- 

 pally upon the kidneys. In the method of life in vogue in this country 

 the kidneys are already hard-worked organs. Americans probably eat 

 more freety than the citizens of almost any other country, with the 

 possible exception of England. Large quantities of nitrogenous foods 

 are consumed. In the breaking down of the nitrogenous tissues the 

 kidneys are the chief organs for the excretion of the debris. The 

 addition of any further burden, therefore, no matter how minute, is 

 to be deplored. If, however, the principle be admitted that injurious 

 substances may be used in such small quantities as to be practically 

 harmless, then we find the way open for loading upon the kidneys 

 many different functions in addition to those which they now discharge. 



