302 
Beekeeping 
identical as they would be if machine made. To show its 
confidence in the purity of comb-honey, the National Bee 
Keepers’ Association in 1904 offered $1000 for a single sec¬ 
tion of manufactured comb-honey which would even ap¬ 
proximately resemble the work of bees and a similar offer 
was made considerably earlier by A. I. Root, Medina, 
Ohio. Needless to say, no person has been able to claim 
these prizes. 
The “Wiley lie” 
This calls to mind an episode which at the time caused 
beekeepers of this country much anxiety. H. W. Wiley 
stated in “ Popular Science Monthly ” in 1881, in an article on 
prevalent practices in food adulteration, that artificial 
combs of paraffin were being filled with glucose, capped 
to imitate the work of bees, and sold as comb-honey. In 
this statement he was entirely wrong and he publicly ad¬ 
mitted the error later, there being, however, some basis for 
his misunderstanding since he had been informed of efforts 
along this line by a New England inventor. “Popular Science 
Monthly ” did not have a circulation large enough to cause 
much trouble from such an erroneous statement, but un¬ 
fortunately it was called to the attention of some prominent 
beekeepers. They dubbed it the “Wiley lie” and con¬ 
tinued to magnify the harm that would come from it and 
to re-publish the error with denials until the story was 
spread throughout the country. The last chapter in this 
incident was the anonymous re-publication of the original 
statement and a collection of denials in an effort to hinder 
the passage in Congress of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 
1906, now so familiar to all consumers of food. It should be 
made clear that this effort was not perpetrated by any or¬ 
ganization of beekeepers, although an attempt was made 
to make it so appear. The only fault that can be found 
with the beekeepers is that they did not refrain from dis¬ 
cussing the matter and they thereby probably did the in¬ 
dustry far more damage than did the original statement, 
