128 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



THE ADULTEBATION OF HONEY. 



If the last two issues of the Review have 

 done notliing else, they have shown most con- 

 clusively that fear of opposing the editorial 

 opinion does not prevent a free and full ex- 

 pression of opinions by correspondents. 

 It is as I would have it. I wish to be able to 

 freely express my views with the feeling 

 that any mistakes I make will be as freely 

 corrected. I am glad that correspondents 

 have been so outspoken, although I fear 

 that I have been slightly misunderstoood on 

 one or two points. Wkeu I said that bee- 

 keepers were opposed to the adulteration 

 of honey almost wholly upon selfish grounds, 

 I did not have in mind a sordid, grasping 

 selfishness, but one that is wholly honorable, 

 the selfishness that prompts a man to attend 

 to his own business instead of that of his 

 neighbor. 



There also seems to have been a sort of 

 feeling, almost unconsciously expressed, 

 that I failed in my duty by not condemning 

 adulteration as wrong — by not saying 

 that it ought to be opposed because it is 

 wrong — by not admitting that keeping still 

 may be " winking " at an evil practice. 

 Why bless you ! friends, of course, it's 

 wrong, but not so much so as hundreds of 

 other practices against which we, as bee- 

 keepers, give ourselves little or no concern. 



Mr. Walker gives the first instance of 

 which I have learned in which newspaper 

 notoriety of adulteration has helped the 

 sale of genuine honey and at the same time 

 worked against the bogus article ; but, in 

 this case, it was possible to describe the 

 spurious and the genuine honey. And right 

 here is where lies the greatest difficulty in 

 fighting adulteration — describing the adul- 

 terated article. Does any one suppose that 

 the public would buy adulerated honey if 

 there were some easy way of detecting it ? 

 Government chemists have analyzed pure 

 honey and pronounced it adulterated ; and 

 Prof. Cook has repeatedly said that he be- 

 lieved it impossible to say positively that 

 any certain sample of honey is adulterated. 

 This is why I have considered the conviction 

 of adulterators almost hopeless. Counter- 

 feit money, butterine and other substances 

 that have been mentioned, can be distin- 

 guished, at least, by experts. Mr. Walker 

 says that encyclopaedias agree that all com- 

 mercial glucose contains sulphuric acid, and 

 that its presence can be very easily and 

 quickly detected by chloride of barium. 



Past experience makes me a little sceptical in 

 regard to the correctness of encyclopaedias, 

 but I should be glad to know that they are 

 correct in this instance. 



Right here comes in another point. A 

 syrup of granulated sugar can now be made 

 that will cost no more than glucose. This 

 will contain no acid. Can it be detected ? 

 Perhaps some will think I am trying to aid 

 adulteration. No, I am not, but, as bee- 

 keepers, we cannot afford to shut our eyes to 

 facts, even though they are unpleasant. 



If there is some method by which the 

 adulteration of honey can be detected, I am 

 in accord with the views expressed by sever- 

 al correspondents, that the Bee-Keepers' 

 Union should assist in prosecuting adultera- 

 tors. As I understand it, a change in the 

 constitution of the Union would be neces- 

 sary 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, convince the pub- 

 lic of this accomplishment, I believe its use- 

 fulness would be increased a thousand fold, 

 and members would flock to it in about the 

 same proportion — they could then see where 

 its existence was of some benefit to them, 



I wish to explain more fully my views in 

 regard to the " policy of silence." I do not 

 advise that adulteration shall be denied, or 

 even an attempt made to conceal the fact. 

 Perhaps, I can best illustrate my meaning by 

 relating one or two incidents. At a Chicago | 



meeting of bee-keepers, a certain man, > 



styling himself a Dr. Somebody, (I have 

 forgotten the name) said that he was en- _ 



gaged in selling honey, but found that he ■ 



was obliged to compete with adulterated ■ 



goods, and he was very persistent that some 

 sort of resolutions should be adopted, a com- 

 mittee appointed, etc. He brought up the 

 subject on two different occasions, occupied 

 an hour or more each time and finally car- 

 ried his point by the " skin of his teeth." Of 

 course, reporters for the daily papers were 

 present, and everything of a sensational na- 

 ture was carefully jotted down and then 

 spread before thousands and thousands of 

 readers. After the meeting was over Bro. 

 Newman said to me, " This fellow with his 

 adulteration business has done bee-keepers 

 more harm than ten such conventions can do 

 them good." He was correct. This is the 

 kind of '• clack " to which I object. In this 

 connection it would be well to remember, 

 also, that the discussion in the bee journals 



