The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1901-10-25
/. THE BORAX CASE.
Witnesses for Defense Seem to Like II
For Food.
Minneapolis Journal:

Minneapolis Journal:
DR.. G. W. Drew, analytical chem
list, was recalled by the defense when
the case against j. M. Rumberg,
charged with selling meat preserved
with borax, was resumed this morning
in the municipal court.
DR.. Drew's testimony tended to show
that while borax had no bad effect if
introduced into the system in moderate
quantities as meat preventative,
there was ''no doubt that injurious
effects followed the use of borax in
milk. !" He explained that it would
have a deleterious effect in milk be-
cause in that case it was generally
used in large proportions, Its effect
on milk, also, was to separate the
albuminoid constituents thus making
the milk more indigestible. In the
case of invalids and infants, with
whom milk was often the only food,
its effect would consequently be neces-
sarily detrimental The use of borax
in sufficient quantities to preserve
meat was not injurious, he thought,
because it had been employed for that
purpose for many years without, so
far as had been recorded. single
intance of it's bad effect.
Conceding that the use of boracic
acid increased the weight of the body,
the witness admitted that the forma-
ton of fat beyond a reasonable de-
gree was not a normal process. He
declared that borax did not disguise
putrefaction in any way; that it sim
ply preserved meat in that stage of de-
composition in which it was still safe
to eat and prevented its reaching the
extreme stage of putrefaction. Its
effect was practically the same as the
use of salt, brine and smoking in the
preservation of meats. He doubted
DR.. Corbett's experiments were sat-
isfactory demonstration that borax
would disguise putrefaction.
Borax has formerly been used medi
cinally under the mistaken impression
that it would relieve diseased condi-
tions of the system. Experience had
shown that it was without value as a
remedial agent He doubted if borax
would. deodorize purified. meats or
seven disguise the strong taste. DR..
Digit, professor of physiology in the
College of Physicians and Surgeons,
testified for the defense that borax
would not materially arrest the process
of putrefaction after it had set in. He
agree with DR.. Drew that it did not
conceal the odor of sputrefaction and
that it was in no sense deodorizer
With regard to its effect on the sys-
tenn said that it might diminish the
natural acidity of the gastric juices in
the alimentary canal and increase their
secretion. He believed the presence of
borax-iJ being an alkaline-in the
intestines, would rather favor than
retard intestinal digestion. Borax
had no cumulative" effects in the
body. 1t was rapidly absorbed in the
blood and as quickly thrown off by the
kidneys. He was positive no deleteri-
GUS effects would result from the use of
borax 1t would have no irritating
effect on the digestive tract or tissues.
The defense expected to rest its
case this afternoon after the testimony
of DR.. Hoegh of Minneapolis, and two
Chicago chemists.
DR.. Drew informed the Journal
this morning that the two preserva-
tives borax and sulphites were being
confused with each other in the present
case. This was due to the fact, he
said, that both were used in prepara-
tions for the preservation of meat The
use of sulphites, he admitted, was I'M
doubleday very injurious, but the fact
should be borne in mind that the use
of borax was charged in the present
case.