TMM MB«IE;RICS;N mMM J@WKffKlLr. 



265 



what he claims), to ask a few pertinent 

 questions, viz : Who is Mr. Vandnifi" ? 

 How long, and to what extent, has he 

 kept bees ? What experiments has lie 

 made, and what way and manner has 

 he verified his new (?) discoveries ? 



I am aware that tlierc is much yet 

 to be learned in regard to the science 

 of bee-culture ; that we perhaps are 

 yet far from knowing all the hidden 

 mysteries of nature as applied to the 

 Apis — still I do believe that something 

 has been learned in the past, and that 

 it is a little " cheeky," to say tlie least, 

 on the part of an oljscureman,to make 

 assertions of a nature such as are con- 

 tained in the article, in regard to 

 those, who, right or \vrong, have given 

 us the benefit of their experience ; and 

 particularlj' so, when the author does 

 not even give us a hint as to his own 

 experiments. 



Judging from the general tenor of 

 Ml-. Vandruff's article, I think that he 

 has read a few works on bee-keeping, 

 but none of recent date ; " that he has 

 used several kinds of hives," but that 

 he " knows all of about all kinds of 

 hives in use," without using them, is 

 on par with his condemning the use of 

 queen-excluilcrs without having used 

 them at all. He states a number of 

 truisms in the article, but none that 

 are not commonly known to the veriest 

 novice in the business. 



I am looking with impatience for a 

 full description of "Nature's way;" 

 aud if upon trial it shall be found to 

 be the way, no one will more readily 

 accept it than myself. ^ 



Nortli Attleboro, Mass. 



PROTECTION 



Is Wanted Against the Adulter, 

 ation of Honej'. 



Written for the American Bee Journal 



Br DR. WM. LEERS. 



Mr. A. I. Root referred (according 

 to the report of the New York Conven- 

 tion, on page lOG) to a statement of 

 the State Chemist of Ohio, that it was 

 difficult " to tell when honey is adul- 

 terated." This deserves an explana- 

 tion. 



I think Mr. Root, as well as the State 

 Chemist, are mistaken about the sig- 

 nification of the term "adulterated" 

 in connection witli honey, and trade in 

 general, confounding "adulterated" 

 witli impnritij ! Nearly all drugs as 

 made in the factories, and all natural 

 products sold in the stores, contain 

 impurities ; but if such impurities are 

 , not mixcid for a fraudulent purpose, no 

 notice is taken of it. 



For an example : The immense 

 quantities of acids employed in the 



arts are all more or less impure, but 

 no one would call them adulterated ! 

 Commercial sulpliate of iron (green 

 vitriol), as sold in the stores, may 

 cont.ain 10 per cent, of impurities 

 (ordinarily more), is styled impure. 

 It is made so by the manufacturing 

 process, and purifying it so as to ren- 

 der it " chemically pure," would be 

 too costly, and would not improve it 

 for tlie ordinarj' use in arts. On the 

 contrary, if baking soda contains 5 per 

 cent, of clay, it is properly called 

 adulterated — the clay is mixed to fraud- 

 ulently deceive the one who may be 

 using it. 



This applied to the honey-trade, 

 would not make it an " adulerated " 

 article, if bees should gather glucose, 

 molasses, or any other sweet, occa- 

 sion.ally found (as they sometimes do 

 in times of starvation, or in the spring, 

 if empty barrels are within their 

 reach) ; or if strained honey is not as 

 pure as extracted ; this would simply 

 \)Q an impurity ! It such, or any other 

 contamination should happen, in a 

 small degree, it may be somewhat 

 difficult for a non-chemist to detect it, 

 but to an experienced chemist it would 

 not be difficult ! 



But such cases do not disturb bee- 

 keepers. Their complaints are made 

 against the manufacturing of trash 

 (glucose with or without a small 

 amount of cheap honey, and other 

 drugs, under the name of "honey") 

 at prices with which the producers of 

 genuine honey cannot compete ! This 

 is where the State Chemist is wrong, 

 or Mr. Root mistaken. 



The main question for the manu- 

 facturers is : Does it pay ? Now the 

 addition of a small amount of glucose, 

 say 5, or even 10 per cent, in reality 

 would not pay, and consequently, 

 honey with so insignificant an adul- 

 teration, will not come into the mar- 

 ket. It must be mixed in such pro- 

 portion that the detection even for a 

 less experienced man is easy. Honey 

 contaminated with glucose, or other 

 impurities, in so small proportion as to 

 make the detection difficult, would not 

 be called adulterated, " but impure," 

 or of a poor quality ! 



That, as Mr. Root says, bees "gather 

 every variety of honey," is correct ; 

 but that they gather a variety, which, 

 by the chemist, may be declared 

 " adulterated," will seldom if ever 

 happen. But suppose they did, the 

 producer would be in a similar posi- 

 tion to a farmer who had (without his 

 fault) in his rye or wheat so much 

 motlier-corn, or in his clover seed so 

 much dodder-seed, that he could not 

 find a buj'er ; or of a merchant, who is 

 condemned by public authority for sell- 

 ing merchandise, which (without his 

 fault) had become uuwholesome. 



I will say to Mr. Aspinwall, that glu- 

 cose in honey of a far smaller percen- 

 tage than 5 per cent, can, by a non- 

 chemist, be detected, not only with 

 the polariscope, but also by easier 

 methods. And commercial glucose 

 also can easilj' be detected at all times. 

 In other countries (England, Germany, 

 Switzerland, etc.) it is not difficult, 

 why should it be impossible in this ? 

 A law against adulteration of honey 

 does not exist in Illinois, as far as 

 noxious substances are concerned. 



Time Tor Action. 



In the past year, when honey was 

 so cheap, was the proper moment for 

 bee-keepers to have taken steps to pro- 

 tect their business. The universal 

 adulteration of all human commodities 

 had alarmed the public, the low price 

 of honey stopped its adulteration, be- 

 cause it did not pay, and so .strong ef- 

 forts oi tlie ailulterators was not prob- 

 able. The passing a law similar to 

 that of New Jersey by the Legislature 

 (or even by Congress) would not have 

 found insurmountable obstacles — the 

 demands of the public going in such 

 direction, and no great interests op- 

 posing. For the law against the adul- 

 teration of milk and of butter, the 

 chances were far less favorable. 



Mr. Dadant, to whom I proposed to 

 begin an action, said that the time was 

 not favorable ; State's rights were an 

 obstacle, and adulteration had nearly 

 entirely ceased. But State's rights will 

 not soon be abrogated, and'as soon as 

 the price of honey has improved a 

 little, adulteration will doubtless flonr- 

 ish again. 



The prohibition of adulterated honey 

 is a vital question for bee-keepers, and 

 connected businesses. Important in- 

 vestments are made in bee-keeping, 

 factories of apiarian supplies, periodi- 

 cals, etc. What will be their fate if 

 one bee-keeper after another abandons 

 this unpaying business ? Then, comb 

 foundation mills may be converted into 

 wash-wringers, and bee-hives into hen- 

 coops, while people may eat unwhole- 

 some trash, and pure honey dries up 

 in the fields ! 



Other industries work for protec- 

 tion, and have succeeded. Why are 

 bee-keepers so easy ? We do not 

 want heavy duties, patents, appropria- 

 tions for premiums or other support — 

 we want protection against frauds 

 upon the public ! We need no "trusts" 

 or "corners." Manufacturers may 

 sell their trash as cheap or as dear as 

 they can — all that we demand is that 

 it be sold to the public for what it is ! 

 The protection of the puljlic against 

 fraud, will also be our protection. 



Sigel, Ills. w,, 



[Editorial remarks on this subject 

 may be found on page 259. — Ed.] 



