ADULTERATION OF HONEY 
17 
pure. The only really injurious adultera¬ 
tion as regards health which I have found 
in such honey is alum.” He noted “glu¬ 
cose and starch sugar among the adulter¬ 
ants of honey,” but never verified their 
presence. Later work has brought forth 
the same statement as above, viz., “If one 
wants pure honey, he should purchase it in 
the comb.” This statement was possibly true 
up to the passage of the National Pure- 
food Law, which went into effect January 
1, 1907. Yet just previous to this time 
extracted honey was not as much adulter¬ 
ated as formerly, due in part to the many 
state food laws, and also, in greater part, 
to the fact that chemical methods had ad¬ 
vanced to a point where adulterations with 
glucose, sugar syrup, etc., were easily rec¬ 
ognized. Since 1910 all adulterations of 
honey have practically ceased. One can 
now be sure that any honey he buys is 
pure. 
Part 6, Bulletin 13, of the Division of 
Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agricul¬ 
ture (a report of investigations made under 
direction of Dr. LI. W. Wiley about 1890), 
contains some 75 pages devoted to honey. 
In this are given numerous analyses of 
honey. The adulterants noted were glucose, 
cane sugar, and invert sugar. The number 
of samples containing glucose was very 
large. See Glucose, Cane Sugar, Invert 
Sugar for descriptions of the substances; 
also Analysis of Honey for methods of 
their detection. 
Examining the first 4,000 Notices of 
Judgment given pursuant to Section 4 of 
the Food and Drug Act, published from 
the office of the Secretary, United States 
Department of Agriculture, which repre¬ 
sents the whole published information on 
prosecutions under this act up to October 
21 , 1915, one finds 12 notices referring to 
honey. 
In one. No. 1,123, the product was labeled 
as containing 8 ounces of honey, but exam¬ 
ination showed that the containers were 
short some 4.86 per cent. In another, No. 
352, the label stated the contents as “one 
pint,” but examination showed much less to 
be present. Both cases resulted in favor ot 
the Government. 
In one, No. 269, the product was labeled 
“Compound Pure Comb and Strained 
Honey and Corn Syrup.” Analysis revealed 
that the product was largely composed of 
corn syrup (commercial glucose) with 
some comb honey and strained honey. The 
case was lost by the Government in that 
it was held that “it was impossible to say 
what portion of the label as printed would 
signify greater percentage of the product.” 
In opposition to this, some state laws re¬ 
quire that the substances composing a com¬ 
pound should be stated on the label in the 
order in which they predominate in the 
finished product. 
In the other cases, the adulteration was 
with invert sugar (see Invert Sugar). 
Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21 refer to shipments 
in barrels where the only mark was a 
capital H enclosed in a square, but this 
product had been consigned as a pure 
strained honey. Examination showed it to 
contain invert sugar and some glucose. The 
case was not fought in court, the claimant 
failing to answer a decree of seizure, and 
condemnation was rendered by the court. 
In the other cases, Nos. 3401, 2, 3, 4, and 
6 , evidence was introduced on each side, 
with the result that the jury returned a 
verdict in favor of the United States. This 
being an important case, it is well to give it 
with some detail. The trial came off in 
Philadelphia on November 20-25, 1913. The 
product was placed on the market in 36- 
. and 60-pound cans labeled “Excelsior 
Choice Pure Strained Honey.” 
The manufacturer claimed that the mix¬ 
ture in the cans consisted of Cuban and 
buckwheat honey, and that he boiled and 
strained this. It was koshered for the 
purpose of selling to the Jewish trade. On 
direct testimony the manufacturer stated 
that the skimming was the koshering, but 
on being recalled to the stand he stated that 
the boiling and the straining—in fact, the 
whole process, was the koshering. The 
judge in his charge to the jury says on this 
point: “He boils this article that is here 
in question (the cans of honey), and 
whether it was for the purpose of kosher¬ 
ing it or not is not very clear in his state¬ 
ment, because honey is cleaned by strain¬ 
ing it, and it is heated to a certain point; 
but he says he boils and skims the top off 
and then strains it, and then he calls it 
koshered honey.” The chemist for the 
