The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-03-30
ADUL7ERATI0N OF FOOD.
 CHEAPNESS, NOT QUALITY, THE PRODUCER'S AIM.
Glucose Confectionery Hurts the Teeth
 Tho Indifferent Public,

We have received a long letter on tn,
 subject of glucose from 8 Liverpoo
 manufacturer whose walk in life is the
 making of boiled confectionery" in.
 cludingt toffee, bottled sweets, wrapped
 sweets and creams. He is perfectly
 candid person, and, although he has no
 a word to say in favor of glucose, ant
 indeed condemns it all around, he points
 out what we are afraid is strictly true 1 in some branches of manufacturing in dustry, viz, that no such considerations | are likely to stand in the way of its em. ployment so long as it is cheaper than the sugar in place of which 1t is used | Tn this branch of trade,' he says "pro- | fits are cut very fine, and therefore
 cheapness of the raw material is of the
 very first importance. As q manufac- turer, my point of view was strictly
 commercial one, that is to say, that the quality of the goods as a foodstuff was immoterial. The selling quality was everything, and so long as the goods
 looked pretty, and were packed nicely into the boxes, we cared little enough how they tasted and not a jot whether they were wholesome or unwholesome. '"
 Needless to say under these circum- stances they used glucose-not the sort that the brewers use, but the American kind. If too much of this stuff is used the goods produced are more suscepti- ble to moisture than would otherwise be the case; but where the goods are sold wrapped in waXed paper-what are called wrapped goods'-it appears that glucose can be employed to the ex- tent of 20 per cent or more, In making jam also glucose seems to be largely used, and "tha peculiar thickness of fac tory-made jam as compared with the homemade article is due to its admix- ture" Now this candid manufacturer says many things against glucose. Considered as an element in confection- cry it is without doubt, he says, "an outrageous fraud upon the public" for ttits best friends can say no better of 1t than that it passes through the body in constitution, and thus does neither good nor harn"-a statement the exact accuracy of which we ven- ture td doubt
 The chief charge, however, that he brings against it is that 1t is injurious to the teeth, and he suggests that much of the tendency to early decay of the teeth which Is so commonly met with in the rising generation Is que to the habit of eating glucose containing sweets and jams. His point is that, although it is possible in the making of glucose to free It from acid, this is not habitually done. Again, speaking commercially" he rays that 1t is better to have an excess of acid than to have the slightest excess of lime, for the latter would make the glucose appear milky, which would make it "unsalable." Stability is all ways the criterion. Hence he regards 1t IS fact that in practice the glucose lsed in confectionery contains free sul- ohurlc acid and as consequential .heory he holds that it is destructive to ,hildren's teeth
 Without going with him to the full axtent of regarding this as the main ,ause of the prevalence of dental carries, t is easy to see that if it Is true that he cheap goodies which are so large
 
 lay contain an appreciable quantity Of rec sulphuric acid they are likely to ause more injury than would arise 1 rom the mere eating of sugar; cause | which has been much discounted of late. l
 we are not however so much con- | erned with the suggestions made in our 1 andid contributor letter as with the | illustration which 1t gives of the way | n which the provision of food for the eople is regarded by those who have to l cal with the matter from a commercial oint of view.
 What is evident is that in commerce, ,hether it is a question of glucose, or ger, or toffee, or jam, in all alike it is ot wholesomeness that Is aimed at. 'heapness and selling, quality are he great objects, and if the thing will ell and lead to business that is all that asked for, If we recognize this we hall not be far from recognizing what the direction in which the legislature | an most usefully intervene for the pro- sction of our food supply. It is but tile use passing special laws prohibit lg the use of this, that or the other laterial in thelmaking of certain spec jed articles of diet. We may be sure lat the manufacturers will quickly nd some other substitute still cheaper nd perhaps still more injurious to take le place of the prohibited substance. That we have to do with is not the de- lils of manufacture, which are liable
 constant change and are incapable of ,ing specified by act of parliament, but ,e condition of the finished product as lpplied to the public. We want far l eater strictness in regard to the tnal- sis of everything which Is sold for cd, and far greater power to step in Id at once prevent the stle of injuri- IS or adulterated articles, than we now we.
 At present the probkm is logged by 1 lestions of warranty, and by the diff ulty of apportioning the responsibili-
 between the manufacturer, the holesale dealer and the retail trades an, while overshadowing the whole 1 biect and rendering 1t almost impos- ole to make any headway against sted interests Is the stolid and stupid difference which possesses the public
 regard to it's food supply; an indif- renee only varied by an equally stu l scare whenever a fragrant case of od poisoning is brought to light, and
 even more stupid demand for reme- IS directed solely to the particular SC of danger.-Hospital. Uondon)