FOOD ADULTERATIONS. A PAPER READ BEFORE THE SANITARY CONVENTION AT GREEN¬ VILLE, APRIL 11, 1882. BY PROF. ALBERT B. PRESCOTT, M. D., F. C. S., OF ANN ARBOR. [Reprinted from the Annual Report of the Michigan State Board of Health, for the year 1882. Reprint No. 123.] The attention of a sanitary convention might well be engaged with a number of questions concerning adulterations of foods, but at this time it is desired to discuss only a single proposition, namely, that it is plainly a sanitary duty to prevent the adulteration of food, and to proceed without waiting to inquire whether any instance of adulteration is directly injurious to health or not. It is sometimes said on the one hand, that as a whole the sophistication of foods at the present time are probably not seriously hurtful to health,—that they are deceptions innocent of any other design, and in general free from any other result than that of making money by methods not strictly honest. And it is likewise said, on the other hand, that perchance dire adulteration is even now introducing certain noxious and deadly things into staple articles of nourishment, so that helpless children, and equally helpless men and women, are daily fed with poison. Now at a first view it may appear to be necessary to find out right away whether all these falsified foods are really harmless, or hurtful, and to settle this question to the satisfaction of everybody before undertaking to do anything else. And it may seem plausible that, should it prove true that adulterations are instituted in such a way that they will not poison people, then they may be classed as infringements of commercial ethics, rather than violations of human life, and their indictment ought to be referred to the boards of trade, rather than assumed among the onerous responsibilities of the boards of health. At the same time it might be proposed that should any persons be charged with introducing hurtful articles into food, then the sanitary authorities could clearly establish in court whether such articles are poisonous or not; and if it be decided that they are poisonous, the offenders ought to be punished for crime. But if it be decided in the courts that the articles are not poisonous, then the accused would be acquitted of offense against the public health, and left tp such ordinary civil prosecution as might be instituted in the interests of honest trade. Passing over the difficulty and delay liable to be met in reaching a decision on the question of the hurtful or harmless nature of a given adulteration—a question sometimes dependent upon matters still under investigation—a ques¬ tion upon which different judgments would sometimes be drawn from men of equal competence and fairness—let it be assumed that in a particular case it is 204 STATE BOARD OF HEALTH-REPORT OF SECRETARY, 1882. finally decided that the defendant has sold or has made a hurtful or even poisonous adulteration. Then is he to be punished for a criminal offense? Or, if he can show that he did not know the adulteration to be hurtful, or if he can show that he sold the article not knowing it to be adulterated at all, shall he be acquitted of a criminal offense? He can plead that he is as innocent of evil intention as the man to whom he has sold the adulterated article. Certainly we should not desire to have him punished as a criminal. Then he is to be released because of his ignorance, and in this the law places a premium for ignorance on the part of dealers in foods. Skillful men, with an intimate knowledge of materials, are placed at a disadvantage. And with this untoward result, the attempt to institute a legal discrimination between adulterations that are hurtful and those that are not, proves worse than a failure. There was an act of the British Parliament in force from 1860 to 1872, for the prevention of adulterations of food, containing, among other elements of weakness, the proviso that “if knowing that the article were injurious to health,” then, and then only, the seller of the adulteration could be held to fine and costs,—and during the twelve years of its existence the law was wholly inoperative. The English law of 1872 for suppression of adulterations of foods and drugs, made any “admixture, fraudulently to increase weight or bulk, and not declared to the consumer,” an adulteration, to be punished by a fine, and by publication. In 1875, the law was further modified by giving still less impor¬ tance to the question of the hurtful quality of an adulteration. Under these laws Great Britain has taken the place of an unquestioned leader before the world, in legal and in scientific measures to enable people to obtain pure and honest food. In the two years of 1875-6, 15,989 samples of foods and drugs were subjected to systematic analysis under the British law, and of these 2,895 were found adulterated, and dealt with by moderate penalties. In the single year of 1878, 15,107 analyses were made, and 2,505 adulterations revealed. Of these, 5,068 analyses, and 932 adulterations, were of the articles milk and cream. Under the mild and equable operation of this law, there has been, year by year, a decrease in the number of adulterations found, in proportion to the analyses made. In 1872, the proportion of adulterations was 65 per cent; in 1878, it had fallen to 16.6 per cent. In Canada, under a law sim¬ ilar to that of England, the percentage of adulterations found was 50 per cent in 1877, and 33 per cent in 1878, over 800 analyses being made in the year last named. It is not claimed that all the success of the English law is due to those pro¬ visions which forbid the sale of adulterations that are harmless to health; and it is not here desired to discuss all the conditions of an efficient effort by the State for the suppression of falsified foods. Indeed at this time we would not inquire how the work is to be done, or by whom it is to be done, but we desire to arrive at a conclusion as to what needs to be done, to the end that the people may have honest foods. As sanitarians, we may work by a general instruction of the public, or we may ask the Legislature to enact a law, or we may institute ’systematic analyses of fraudulent foods, and spread the reports, with names of offenders on the pages of the press; or we may try some method other than these, but at all events we must have a clear view of the objective point to be reached. And that objective point, we define to be, the prevention of adulterations of foods, as a sanitary duty, whether the adulterations are directly injurious to health or not. FOOD ADULTERATIONS. 205 Let us enquire what food is to man. It is the substance that builds the fibre of muscle and of bone; it is the force that supports the steady work of the heart, the even movement of the lungs, the full power of the brain, the quiet steadiness of the nerves. If a horse is to be trained, careful attention is given to its food. The human body requires more fine and sturdy materials than the body of the horse. The forces of physical life in man demand^ a more generous sustenance than the forces of life in an animal. Food modifies man¬ hood, and influences national character. True, other resources of life, as those of the atmosphere in respiration, are quite as important to the vigor of life. But our food is the more valued because it is not provided with such redundance as to be had without effort. We must work for it, therefore we value it. Indeed it is labor that gives existence to estimated values, and wealth is mainly a means of procuring food. In a highly civilized community, no less than in a primitive condition of society, the largest expenditure is that for subsistence. The wages of toil, energy, intellect, the result of tune, all go to buy food. Opposite to food is poison. We fear to be poisoned even more than to be starved. Animals are given instinct to find their food with rejection of poison; man does the same by reason and observation. With the advance of manufacture, the reach of invention, and the competition for gain, man is required to exercise greater and greater care, both for the exclusion of poisons, and for the selection of suitable nourishment. In the course of commerce, food comes through many hands. Tests of skill are demanded, and safety ’requires that the invention of the analyst shall keep pace with the invention of the manufacturer. But it is not for poison alone, that scrutiny must be devoted to food. In the failure of good faith, a thousand tamperings may occur. A poorer article is substituted for a better one, a cheaper thing is coated and colored to imitate one of more value, an article of good quality is diluted for greater weight or volume. Foods are purchased and used, under the name and upon the reputation of articles belonging to another hemisphere. A man proceeds to select suitable food for his family, and is robbed of his privilege of choice, by the unrestricted circulation of counterfeits. As said in the bitter voice of a poet not often bitter, “Chalk, and alum, and plaster are sold to the poor for bread, And the spirit of murder works in the very means of life.” The wrong may be done in the spirit of gain, rather than that of murder, but none the "less it becomes a robbery of “ the very means of life,” and robbery of the rich as well as the poor. And this is the meaning of adultera¬ tion in food. Who is the primary guardian of the food of any person? By whom is it to be selected and devoted to use? Evidently by the person himself, or by those of his family, or by those whom he engages for that explicit service. You and I are to decide for ourselves what we are to eat. This is the inevitable rule, and if there are any exceptions they are justified in the claim that they regard articles which in effect are narcotics rather than foods, or in the claim that they affect persons not safely left to their own control; and the advocates of these exceptions distinctly acknowledge it to be the rule, that it is the right of the individual to be responsible for himself in the choice of food. We do not at all forget that there is a sanitary power in the State, as unquestionable as any power exercised in the law of the land. But the sanitary councils of the State must place trust in private responsibility for the care of health. And 20G STATE BOARD OF HEALTH-REPORT OF SECRETARY, 1882. because of this dependence, it is proper that the law should afford a sanitary protection of personal rights in the choice of food. Therefore fraud in food should be prevented, not only because it is a violation of individual rights, but especially because it is a violation against a safeguard of health and life. Some rights are more sacred than others, and are worthy of special means of preservation. The defense of rights important to health, is not only a duty for the sake of justice, but a duty for the sake of human life as well. And personal protection against all fraud in the sale of food is altogether important to the public health, whether particular frauds are known to be hurtful or not. An adulteration is a fraud, a deception, a counterfeit. It is systematically concealed from the purchaser. Its object is to induce people to accept an article which they would not accept for the use then wanted, if it were not for the deceit. To sell an admixture of coffee and chicory, if the terms and proportions of the mixture are printed on the wrapper in a way to have them seen by the purchaser, is not adulteration. To sell oleomargarine under its own distinctive name, with no credit borrowed from butter, is not an adulteration. But to supply sugar made from corn¬ starch for the ordinary sugar made from cane-juice, or to deal out milk-and- water or skim-milk for entire milk, is an adulteration—a violation of the right of the consumer to obtain his food upon his own discretion. Nevertheless certain defenses are made whenever an extensive adulteration is exposed upon sanitary grounds. First, the plea is made that the adulter¬ ated article which the consumer did not design to purchase, is quite as whole¬ some to health as the real article that was called for. Let it be answered that this plea is not to be heard at all; it belongs to the consumer to judge for himself what he will provide for his own table. The manufacturer and the dealer have no right to spread even the best of oleomargarine upon a slice of bread, without the knowledge and consent of those who are to eat it. If the law itself cannot invade my right to furnish my table in my own discretion, if boards of health and medical associations can go no further than to present advisory information about my diet, certainly the manufacturer and the grocer, as private parties, cannot justify their substitutions by the plea that they know better than I do what is suitable for my digestion. Second, it is urged that, as the adulteration was done only to make money, and really does not affect health, it cannot be objected to on sanitary grounds, but must be dealt with under general laws against deception in trade. Let it be answered, that while the falsification was not committed to injure health, it is a violation of a great safeguard of health, the discriminative care of people about their nourishment, and it is therefore directly objectionable upon sanitary grounds. Third, it is objected that people are not really deceived by the current sophistications of the day, which are so extensive that they are understood, tolerated, and even preferred by consumers. To this, let it be replied, if the pretense is so thin as to deceive no one, and if the admixture is in demand for use as it is, the pretense can the more easily be dropped, and at any rate the admixture must go under its own description and by its own name. Not a single article, unless indictable as a positive poison, need be withdrawn from the market. It need only be required that true names shall be substituted for false names, and every addition and alteration shall be declared in evident terms. Let a spade be called a spade. Let alum baking powders be named as such. Let the term Vermont Comb Honey be changed to a Preparation of Glucose and Paraffine. To these corrections there can be no cogent objection. FOOD ADULTERATIONS. 20? But all objections fail alike upon considerations of principle—in maintain¬ ing the personal right to self-preservation,—and upon considerations of expediency—in fostering a wise prudence regarding the nourishment of the body. To permit foods to be commonly falsified without publication and without protest is to leave a vitiating influence upon the people. Sanitary publica¬ tions and sanitary laws should endeavor to foster that delicate scrupulousness as to the cleanliness and purity of food that is natural to civilized man. A critical attention to diet, in its physiological relations, should be helped to go deeper than the indications of taste and appearance, and should be guided in an adaptation to the especial needs of temperament, occupation, exercise, and personal habit. It is an education of the public to call attention to the com¬ position of foods, and to expose imitations. When the public, in any country, become really intent upon providing them¬ selves with honest food, they will be likely to demand, for their own conve¬ nience and security, that dishonest foods shall be suppressed by law, and the demand will persevere until law becomes efficient. The scrutiny of the pur¬ chaser cannot go to the extent of watching for every new device in the improver's art. Nevertheless, the progress of adulteration can be held back to a great extent, without the help of the law, by the power of well-informed public opinion. Demand brings supply, and the more clearly the public will define their demand for honest foods, the more nearly will such be pro¬ vided. When it becomes apparent that any food or condiment on the market is falsified, it should be refused. Indeed, in certain articles, at the present time, a wholesome public distrust has well nigh driven counterfeit goods out of use. One of the most stupendous substitutions ever accomplished is now in the height of a brief career in this country. It is the annual manufacture of as much as a third of a million of tons of corn starch sugar, all of which steals its way through the avenues of trade to the hands of consumers under the guise of ordinary cane sugar. The solid sugar—called grape sugar at the factories—is mostly mixed with cane sugar. The syrups*—called glucose— require but little mixture of cane syrups to fit them for the market. While real cane sugars have long been carried through the course of trade at slight and insufficient profit, the consumer of this article probably pays from 300 to 800 per cent above its cost. It is stated that the factories could sell it at !-§- to 2 cents per pound, and do sell it at 3 or 4 cents per pound. It is sold at as good prices as other sugars—but it is not sold at all to consumers under its own name, so far as can be learned. An article of unmixed grape sugar, pressed in cubes, is sold as cut sugar. If grape sugar can be bought, as such, at a grocer’s anywhere, let it be known. Now, it is claimed that this article is wholesome when made free from chemicals, and that it is now generally made as pure as the most of cane sugars. The weight of opinion, of chemi¬ cal and medical authority, is favorable to its claim as a wholesome saccharine food. However, the suitability of any article of diet, for digestion and for assim¬ ilation, must be learned by experience, and no experience can be gained about an article that hides under the name of another substance in use along with it. The people distrust it, and believe very damaging reports about it, and will not have it imposed upon them much longer. In distrusting it the public is right, fully right, and so long as it will not come to the consumer under its own name it deserves to be treated as an outlaw. When consumers can buy 208 STATE BOARD OF HEALTH—REPORT OF SECRETARY, 1882. it, unmixed, or even in definitely stated mixture, they will find out whether they want it or not, and it will be ascertained what it is good for, and to what uses it is adapted. To this end it must soon arrive, and the sooner the better. Another manufacture of extensive proportions is that of purified beef tal¬ low, prepared for table use, and colored to resemble butter. Under the name of oleomargarine, the public has been well advised that, though it may be wholesome nourishment, it is not butter, and under this adopted name, which serves to distinguish the article, though it is a misnomer, its presentation to the public is wholly legitimate. As a digestible food, it probably will be found to rank much below butter. But it is difficult to learn or imagine where all the oleomargarine that is made finds a sale, if sold under its own name. It mostly goes out of the country, it is said, and we may hope this is true unless it is sold here for what it is. In England we know that the public analysts are well prepared to cope with it, the difficult task of butter analysis, by the constant labor of skillful chemists, having been finally well achieved. At present it is only difficult to find small proportions, up to 15 or 20 per cent of it, w T hen in mixture with rancid butter. Another article, of very much less consequence, ought also to be placed by name in the retail trade, as it has been for some time in wholesale lists. This is P. D. What is it? Something manufactured by the ton, and known to the dealers as P. D. There are varieties of it, slightly different in shade, fineness, etc.,—P. 1). ginger, P. D. cloves, etc. Ask your grocer to get for you some P. D., and then furnish you undiluted spices, so that you can make your own Pepper Dust mixtures to please your taste. There are other names figuring by tons upon the books of wholesale dealers, yet never reaching a mention to any consumer anywhere. At what grocer’s can you buy a pound of terra alba, to find for yourself what it is good for? According to the late report of analysts for the New York State Board of Health, there would be an even chance of obtaining eight samples of mixed terra alba in purchasing twenty- seven samples of cream of tartar, in some of these mixtures the white earth reaching 93 per cent of the article. The farcical character of many of these wares may well cause the public to feel that they are not only the victims of injury, but the subjects of sport, at the hands of the food-makers. We cannot afford to be amused at the trifling, for the laugh is against us. And the funny side of the business does not blind our eyes to the fact that on the whole it is a serious business, in which we are all concerned, and that unmeasured dangers are hidden in it. We say the daggers are unmeasured. In a certain sense they are often over¬ rated, in another sense they are generally underrated. They are overstated when sensational declarations are made of the deadly poison put into common food. No good comes from parading percentages of nearly inert sulphates under large headlines as “ vitriol mixture.” The public are not instructed when, for the hundredth time, Hassall’s obsolete conjecture of a possible adulteration of milk is brought forth in the revelation of “ Sheep’s Brains,” with three exclamation points. Candor and correctness are becoming to those who would work for any reform. But the dangers of adulteration are under¬ rated when it is for a moment supposed that any falsified food can be tolerated without depraving the public purpose and impairing the sacred safeguards of human life. Out,of fraud and colored fiction, sturdy vigor and physical inde¬ pendence do not naturally grow. It is high time that the demand for honest foods should be heard in terms taking no denial. A. B. Peescott.