10 BULLETIN 1027, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
The German Imperial Health Commission was opposed to the use 
of lead arsenate in the spraying of grapes because arsenic and lead 
were found in the wine. 
In 1907 Szameitat (121) (122) reported the following results of 
analyses of musts, wines, and grapes from vines sprayed with arsenic 
compounds: From a trace to 0.9 milligram of arsenic in 300 grams of 
grapes; none to 0.14 milligram of arsenic in 300 cubic centimeters of 
must; none or only a trace in 300 cubic centimeters of wine. Of 38 
samples of German wine examined, 24 showed small amounts of arse- 
nic, the largest amount being 0.05 milligram in 100 cubic centimeters 
of wine. The source of arsenic was not identified. 
The use of arsenic compounds for the destruction of insects that 
devastated vines having become more or less general in central 
France, in spite of the fact that the French ordinance of 1846 pro- 
hibited the use of arsenic for the destruction of insects, the question 
arose as to the danger of such use. 
In 1907 Bertin-Sans and Ros (14), who were among the first in 
France to publish an answer to this question, found less than 0.001 
milligram of arsenic in 145 grams of unripe grapes gathered one 
month after spraying with sodium arsenate, and 0.002, 0.001, 0.030, 
and 0.040 milligram of arsenic per liter in wine from arsenical 
treated vines. These investigators stated that as sheep and cows 
were not admitted to the sprayed vines and were not fed ihe sprayed 
foliage until after harvest there was no danger to these animals, but 
that rabbits and snails might be poisoned by eating sprayed foliage, 
and, since snails can tolerate a fairly large amount of arsenic, persons 
should refrain from eating them during the spraying season. As lead 
is a cumulative poison, it was considered more prudent to use arsen- 
icals other than lead arsenate, although no data existed to show that 
there was danger in the use of lead arsenate as an insecticide. Bertin- 
Sans and Ros believed that the chief danger in the use of arsenicals 
arose from mistakes due to carelessness and that if suitable regula- 
tions were enforced no danger was to be feared. Since the ordinance 
of 1846 was a dead letter, it seemed to them much better to have the 
arsenicals handled under definite regulations. In 1908 (15) they 
stated that as they had found only traces of arsenic in wine from 
vines sprayed with arsenicals, there was no ground for the fear that 
the arsenic would pass into the wine if the vines had been sprayed 
before the grapes were in bloom. 
In 1909 Truelle (125) (126) concluded that the advantages of 
arsenical spraying were so great that its use under regulation should 
be authorized in France. 
Cazeneuve (21), thinking that the use of arsenical insecticides was 
a serious menace to the public health, asked (1908) for the strict en- 
forcement of the ordinance of 1846. Riche (112) and Gautier (52), 
