of our nation, but it is only pretense to see a paltry sum collected into the Treasury by taxes on perfectly wholesome food products. There is no one more bitterly opposed to fraud in foods than I am, and no one who would punish more severely all venders who sell to innocent customers oleomargarine as butter, or maize meal as wheat flour; but I never have been able to bring myself to the belief, however, that the correct way to prevent frauds of this kind is to tax the food prod ucts. On the other hand, I think such a tax is an inducement to fraud and creates and conserves that which it pretends to detect and destroy. Thoroughly obnoxious to fair-minded men, it seems to me, is the taxing of the process of coloration in one article of food and allowing it to be practiced with another with impunity and with freedom from all restriction. Such enactments lack every element which appeals to the broad principles of justice and fair treatment.

Having thus summarized briefly the different classes of legislation which have been proposed for controlling the adulteration of foods, it is proper to add a classification of the different methods of adulteration practiced. Preliminary to this I may say that chemistry is the science which has chiefly to do with adulterants of foods. Not only does chemistry detect these adulterants, but, alas, too often it shows how they can be made. It must be admitted, however, that chemistry is always willing to expiate the sins which are performed in her name, and more than willing to punish the sinner. Often one of the principal recommendations of a food adulterant is the difficulty of its detec tion, but, no matter how great this difficulty may be, chemistry has never failed to supply the means to detect the fraud and bring the culprit to justice.

Broadly, food adulterants may be divided into two categories: First, innocuous adulterants comprising those which are neutral or even nutritious and without bad effect upon the organism; second, nocuous adulterants consisting of that class of sophistications which are injurious directly or indirectly to health. It is evident that, according to circumstances, many kinds of adulteration may be sometimes in one class and sometimes in another. From the point of view of medical jurisprudence, therefore, the above classification is not important. In fact, I once heard a very distinguished expert" say under oath that he believed that all adulterants, no matter how harmless they might seem, were injurious to health, because even if they did not injuriously affect the body they were an insult to the good taste and sensibilities of the person using them.

The principal processes of food adulteration may be classified as follows:

First. Adulteration secured by the elimination of some valuable constituent. The most common form of adulteration of this form perhaps is the sale of skim milk or partially creamed milk as the genuine article.

It is well known that in milking a cow the portions of the milk secured at the last are richer in fat than those secured at the beginning. Hence, a cow may be partially milked, and the product sold as whole milk, while the residue remaining in the udder may be subsequently extracted and masquerade as cream. Thus the very method of milking may become a means of adulteration.

a See testimony of Professor Prescott further on.

Second. The addition of some harmless diluent. Dairy products furnish another example of this practice illustrated in the hoary joke of the well and the milk pail.

Third. Adulteration by the substitution of a cheaper for a dearer product. This form of adulteration is illustrated in the preparation and sale of cotton-seed oil as olive oil, or of oleomargarine as butter, or of horse flesh as beef.

Fourth. Adulteration by coloring an inferior product to resemble a superior. This is a very common form of adulteration. It is shown in the coloring of green vegetables by copper salts, as, for instance, the French peas which are very much liked and so commonly eaten, or in the coloring of butter, giving the butter of inferior quality the tint of a superior article, or in the coloring of oleomargarine so as to resemble butter, and the coloring of preserved meats to match the natural tints.

Fifth. Food adulteration by the addition of antiseptics. This is probably the most common of all forms of adulteration and all perishable articles of food have become illustrations to a greater or less degree of this class.

In considering the problems relative to the influence of adulterated food products on health, I realize the practical impossibility of defining in absolute terms the extent of the injury which may result in any given case. Food is the fundamental factor in individual and national advancement. It may be said, cateris paribus, that that individual or nation is the strongest and best which is the best fed. Therefore, the study of the effect of food upon the health lies at the very basis of social and economic progress. It is well to safeguard the education of children and of youth; it is important that the religious and moral influences that surround them should be carefully considered; but before this comes the necessity of nourishment. Long before the infant knows good from evil, or noun from verb, it realizes the necessity of sustenance. Mistakes which are made at the beginning are difficult of correction, and therefore the character of the foods of infants and children is a problem of the first importance.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, fashionable civilized life has brought largely into discredit nature's method of nourishing infants, and hence we have thrown upon the market a legion of so-called infants' foods, many of which, I am sorry to say, are not exactly suited to the juvenile digestive functions. It may be stated with certainty that what would be considered a healthy and unadulterated food for an adult might with justice be considered an unwholesome and adulterated food for an infant.

There is perhaps no other subject to which the attention of the medical fraternity could be so profitably directed as to the careful study of the character of the infants' foods offered as a substitute for mother's milk. Another point which should be taken into consideration here is this: That the injury produced by artificial or adulterated foods in the infant lasts probably through life, if life be continued to any length of time, or hastens the death of the child. On the other hand, the adult and healthy stomach may sustain without injury the exhibition of adulterated foods to a limited extent. Therefore it is evident that the age limit is an important factor in the study of this subject. It is plain, without argument, that infants' food should correspond as nearly as possible to the average healthy milk of the mother. Its

chemical composition can be closely imitated in the artificial foods which, of course, in the case of infants, should be the milk of the cow or other domesticated animal modified to resemble as nearly as possible the mean composition of mother's milk.

In the case of adulterated foods the questions which arise are extremely complicated. I have just alluded to the fact that the healthy adult stomach can bear with impunity the exhibition of adulterants, at least for a time. It is hardly fair, however, so assume from this fact that such adulturants are harmless. Rather should we judge them from their accumulative effect; that is, the final effect which their continued use would produce. They must also be judged largely from the effect which they will have upon the digestive systems disordered or weakened by disease or advancing years. In other words, the duty of the law and of the medical profession is to protect the weak and the helpless rather than the strong and independent. It is safe, therefore, to predicate this rule, viz: That that form of adulturation which by any final action upon a healthy organism, or by any immediate action upon a weakened organism, produces harmful effects should be prohibited unless plainly marked. On the other hand, those forms of adulterants which are plainly indicated upon the label of the food, and therefore work no deception upon the purchaser, may be permitted, providing they do not, under the above circumstances, produce any injurious effects.

It may be well at this point to state in detail a few of the forms of adulterants which typify the above statement.

I will first call attention to the fact that, in my opinion, there are some forms of adulterants which are not injurious to health. In this connection I may mention the food product known as glucose. Glucose is a term applied to a mixture of sugars derived from starch by hydrolysis. The hydrolytic effects are produced usually by a mineral acid, as, for example, sulphuric or hydrochloric acid. Now, it is perfectly evident that the hydrolysis of starch can not produce an injurious substance except when conducted in an improper manner. In the natural process of digestion starch, which is one of the most important foods, is hydrolyzed first by the saliva and finally by the secretions of the small intestines, particularly that of the pancreas. The final products are the same as those produced by artificial hydrolysis.

In my opinion, therefore, well-made glucose is a wholesome and nutritious food. When mixed with honey it is both palatable and nutritious, and this mixture is one of the most common forms of honey adulteration. Such an adulteration is to be condemned in the most unmeasured terms, but not because of the unwholesomeness of the product. If, on the other hand, glucose be manufactured with sulphuric acid containing a trace of arsenic, severe poisoning cases may result, as has been already noted in the case of the beer poisoning at Manchester.

The food fats of healthy animals, such as lard and tallow, can not be regarded as unwholesome products, either when consumed in conneetion with other portions of the carcass or as separate foods. These fats are universally employed in our kitchens, and there is no reason for believing that when they are combined to form a pure article, as oleomargarine, they possess any unwholesome properties. The fraudulent sale of oleomargarine as butter can not be too severely condemned, but, as is the case with glucose, not on account of unwhole

someness. The same is true of the many vegetable oils, such as the oil of cotton seed, sunflower oil, and peanut oil, which have been largely employed as salad dressings in the place of olive oil. The adulteration of olive oil with these bodies is most reprehensible, but again the objections thereto can not rest on hygienic grounds. But I will not dwell longer on this form of harmless adulterants, since we are principally interested in the present instance with that other form of adulteration which it is commonly believed, directly or indirectly, sooner or later, produce injurious effects.

Among these may be reckoned a great many of the artificial colors. I have already spoken of the use of mineral salts, such as those of copper and zinc, for preserving the green color of vegetable foods. Many coal-tar colors are used for similar purposes, especially with animal products. A large list of such colors might be mentioned for use with fresh and preserved meats and with dairy products. Formerly white butter was colored yellow to resemble the more desirable varieties by the use of a vegetable substance called annatto. Lately this vegetable color, which by most persons is considered as harmless, has been almost entirely superseded by yellow coal-tar colors; in fact, it is difficult to obtain in the open market at the present day butter which has not been artificially colored. These coal-tar colors when taken in considerable quantities produce serious disturbances of the digestive organs. In the minute quantities employed it is probable that these colors are harmless, but the burden of proof rests upon those who use them.

The presumption of guilt lies upon them. It is easy to extract from the quantity of butter used by a hungry man at an ordinary meal a sufficient quantity of this coloring matter to dye a beautiful saffron a large tuft of white silk. This coloring matter is absolutely indigestible, and thus it is fair to assume that when it has been absorbed into the system it is eliminated slowly and with difficulty. The coloring of butter artificially is only an excuse for poor dairying, since if milk cows be properly fed they will produce the year round a rich yellow cream, giving a delicious butter of the most delicate natural tint. It is unfortunate that the public taste has been so educated, or perhaps better, vitiated, in the use of artificially colored butter that the more delicate tint of the natural article is a bar to its sale.

By far the most numerous and dangerous of the deleterious substances in foods are those which are added to prevent decay. The character of all common antiseptics which have been used for food preservation and the methods of detecting them on foods have been very thoroughly investigated by the Division of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture.

In all, 67 different samples of antiseptics which are advertised in the market as being effective have lately been examined. Of these, 33 contained borax or boric acid; 8 were sulphites of sodium, potassium, or calcium; 5 contained salicylic acid or its sodium salts; 4 benzoie acid or its sodium salts; 1 was a mixture of boric and salicylic acids; 1 boric acid and ammonium fluorid; 3 formaldehyde; 2 pyroligneous acid; 1 ammonium; and 1 beta-napthol.

From the above statement it will be seen that one-half of the antiseptics offered for sale consist of borax or boric acid. In passing, I may say that of all the common preservatives employed boric acid or its compounds seem to me to be the least objectionable. In fact, I will

even go so far as to say that I would not see much objection to the use of borax in certain food products if the name of the antiseptic and the quantity employed in each case were plainly described on the label. In other words, it does not appear from the evidence at our disposal that small quantities of borax exercise any injurious effects upon the healthy adult. The question of what effect it would have upon weakened organism or upon infants is reserved for further consideration. The next most abundant class of antiseptics is composed of the sulphites. Sulphurous acid is a well-known preservative, and its efficiency in this direction when combined with a base is but little diminished. The sulphites as a rule are easily soluble, and these are readily mixed with moist or liquid food products. In the form of a fine powder sulphites are easily applied to smooth surfaces, such as meats, and with very happy effects in preventing decay.

By far the most objectionable of the antiseptics contained in the 67 samples referred to is salicylic acid. As a preservative substance salicylic acid probably is to be preferred to any other if its effects upon digestion are not taken into account. It is cheap, white in a powder, or colorless in solution, almost tasteless, and extremely effective as a germicide. Its use, however, even in small quantities, is to be unqualifiedly condemned. It deranges digestion, interferes with assimilation, and exercises a generally deleterious effect upon the system.

It must not be supposed that in buying 67 samples in the open market we secured every variety of preservative manufactured. There are many which are not on the list, notably saccharin and nitrate of potassium. Of these, saccharin is highly objectionable, while nitrate of potassium in condimental doses may be permitted. Formaldehyde has lately come into prominent use as a preservative of milk and cream. The quantities employed are minute, but there is no doubt of the highly injurious effects of even minute quantities upon infants and weakened adults. The temptation to keep the baby's milk sweet by the addition of a little formaldehyde is indeed great, but it should be resisted.

The use of fluorin as a preservative is somewhat dangerous and fluorids should be rigorously excluded unless marked, at least until it is demonstrated that they are harmless.

The preservatives above referred to are often sold under trade names which give no clear idea of their composition. Some of these names are as follows: Dry Antiseptic, Superlative Preserving Powder, Preserving Salts, Nonpareil Preservative, Preservaline, Bleachine, Ozone Antiseptic Compound, Blue Seal Preservative, Freeze-em, lcine, Per-Algretti, Antifermentine, Preservite, Iceline, Freezine, Milk Sweet, Extract of Hickory Smoke, Liquid Smoke, etc. The sale of injurious substances under such fanciful names is a crime against the community, and those who engage in it ought to be adequately punished.

I have already called attention to the fact that if the pure-food legislation now pending should be enacted by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture will be empowered, with the assistance of a board of experts, to study carefully in an unbiased way all substances alleged to be deleterious to the health. When such a study as this is completed the medical problems involved in this matter will be more easy of solution. I almost hesitate to say anything in regard to the legal