i ! dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc., Liebreich (33) enters into a somewhat 
l| ' vigorous defense of the use of boric acid and borax as food preserva- 
tives. It is his opinion that much of the opposition to the use of 
boracic preparations for such purposes grows out of prejudices 
■ handed down from bygone times, and he calls attention to the fact 
I ' that in this connection undue stress has been laid upon the accidents 
! resulting from the use of boric acid in surgery, and that to a consider- 
I able extent the opposition to the use of boric acid and borax as food 
I })reservatives is founded upon conclusions drawn from imperfect 
* experimental researches. To him the critical spirit of this later-day 
I investigation of such subjects as food ^preservatives is a matter of 
regret, and in one of his communications, ‘‘ Ueber Conservirung durch 
Borsaeure ” (31), he inquires somewhat petulantly, IIlio would 
have made the introduction of pickled meat, smoked beef, and such 
like dependent on a chemical or pharmacological investigation?” He 
emphasizes the fact that notwithstanding that borax and boric acid 
have been in use as food preservatives for a series of decades not a 
single case of injury to health has been observed. Lebbin (35) failed 
also to discover any harmful effect from eating meat ^preserved with 
boric acid, and hence jpoints out that no objection can be urged against 
its use as a preservative. Tunnicliffe and Kosenheim (36) studied 
the influence of boric acid and borax on the general metabolism of 
three children, and arrived at the conclusion that small doses, up to 
1 gram per day, continued for some time, exert no influence on the 
proteid metabolism in healthy or delicate children. Both boric acid 
and borax were quickly eliminated from the system, and neither 
substance affected the general health or well-being of the children in 
any way. 
A second treatise by Liebreich (37) on the effect of boric acid and 
borax on the human system appeared in 1902, the object of which, 
according to the author, was to refute certain erroneous and insuffi- 
cient observations likely to encourage prejudices against the use of 
these compounds. He criticises the observations of Eobinson, Kister, 
Hanford, Eose, Eost, Eubner, Mattern, Heffte, Le Bon, and others, 
on the grounds that they are based on faulty and inaccurate observa- 
tions ; that the tests and observations are not decisive, that in certain 
instances they involve contradictions; that the boric acid and borax 
were not administered with food, but were taken directly into the 
system, and that in certain instances the real cause of the disturbance 
attributed to borax and boric acid was in all probabilit}^ badly pre- 
served meat ; and by way of further confuting the results reached by 
other observers regarding the toxic action of boric acid and borax he 
cites the findings of Tunnicliffe and Eosenheim, to the effect that 
children increased in weight on a diet containing borax and boracic 
acid. Liebreich is of the opinion, therefore, that practical experience 
