The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-28
FOOD ~ADULTERATIONS
CHEMIST WILEY MAKES a SHOWING
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE.
Says Staple Products Are Not Adulter-
ated I'm This Country-A Variety
of Samples Shown.
Washington Star.

Washington Star.
The committee table of the House COM
mittee on presented a unique ap-
pearance this morning when the pure food
hearing began. DR.. II. w. Wiley, chief Of
the Bureau Of Chemistry Of the Department
of Agriculture, had arranged to take up
the time of the committee to-day, and the
display of samples of adulterated foods
which he presented appeared to be enough
to stock a corner grocery.
DIR. Wiley zealously advocated the Bro
sius-Hepburn bill. Before he began Chair
man Hepburn asked if he was familiar with
all sections Of this bin, and If so if he
would some time during his argument take
up the bill section by section and explain
it. DR.. Wiley replied that he would be glad
to do this. however, he wished to divide
his argument into two sections. To-day's
talk would be on the subject of adultera-
ton of foods and tomorrow he would take
UP the various pending bills.
Mr.. Wiley said he had been making food
adulteration a study for the past ten years;
that Congress had made an appropriation
for this purpose for the past fifteen years.
and he was prepared to give the committee
the benefit of his study.
Staple products, such as -four and sugar,
DR.. Wiley said, were not adulterated in this
country, Notwithstanding the popular belief
that the grocer mixed sand with his sugar
and that white earth was mixed in flour.
DR.. Wiley exhibited a sample of this
ground white earth, and explained that no
attempt had been made to put il on the
market because the pure product was too
plentiful and cheap in this country.
In referring TO his display of samples, DR..
Wiley said some were pure foods and some
adulterated. He here explained that the
Department of Agriculture never published
a food as adulterated before notifying the
manufacturer of the particular product and
giving him an opportunity to make a de
tense.
AS an illustration of this DR.. Wiley said
he would refer TO the firm of Bishop q Co,
of California, which, he said, was one of
the most reputable firms of fruit packers
fruit put up by this firm the department
had found red analine dye. A correspond
ence with the firm brought out the fact that
the packers believed they were using a
purely vegetable dye. They sent samples
of this dye, which was labeled pure vege-
table dye"
.'Our analysis showed it to have been
made of coal tar, or pure analine dye con-
tinued the doctor, and we have so noti-
fed the firm
The next Illustration was an ''Ohio wine"
1t was made from coal tar dye, alcohol and
sugar. 1T does not contain any product
of the vine" said DIR. Wiley.
FRUIT PRODUCTS.
Fruit products were next taken up. DIR.
Wiley explained that he had been one of
those who from the first had maintained
that glucose is a wholesome food. When
he had first proclaimed this belief he said
it made him very unpopular with the
honey makers, who then claimed that glu-
cose, which was used as an adulterant to
honey, was poisonous. No one now re-
garded glucose as injurious to health.
There were two uses of the word glucose,
explained DR.. Wiley. In chemistry il
means any liquid sugar, and may apply to
any one of half a dozen products, but
uct, generally made from corn. A sample
of glucose was shown. being a pure water
white. heavy syrup. The method of manu-
facture of glucose had very materially
changed during the past few years, with
the result that the article had been greatly
perfected. The old process is still used i'm
Europe, and differs from the present
method in that in the former way sulphuric
acid was used, while now muriatic acid is
used, and only a small quantity of that.
"A mixture of glucose with food products,
/ maintain, is not injurious to health" said
DIR. Wiley. Neither is it a fraud"
Samples of pure fruit jeliies were passed
around the committee table for inspection.
and DIR. Wiley explained how the housewife
made the product. When asked if the sugar
was pure DR.. Wiley replied that although
sugar made by q trust, it was pure, almost
chemically pure. He said he had never
been able to find any adulterated sugar on
the market.
How about pulverized sugar." asked
Representative Combs.
That is pure also" was the reply.
Doctor, you have removed a prejudice
from my mind and an apprehension from
my stomach" replied the member.
MANUFACTURE OF JELLIES.
DR.. Wiley said he should not go into the
subject of the manufacture of jams and
jelly for commerce. The manufacturers
who had testified had told the exact truth.
1t was a ~well-known fact that the basis of
jelly was apple skins and cores. He also
said that large quantities of this by product
of apples was shipped to Europe, where. il
is said, it is used in making champagne.
Some of this apple jelly was passed
around in jars and under labels showing il
had been sold as strawberry preserves and
other berry preserves. With the Jar was
also shown a piece OF wooden cloth colored
in various red hueS. which showed the col
oring matter taken from the Jelly. as the
cloth in the first instance was white. The
strawberry preserves consisted of a large
jar of the apple base and glucose with
twelve strawberries distributed through il.
One of the most persistent and one of the
oldest authorizations was shown by two Jars
Of what was labeled pure honey" One
lar was the real product and one made from
glucose. with a slight quantity of honey in
1t 10 supply the flavor.
Bottles of pure cane syrup were pre-
scented 10 members of the committee to
take home, and DR.. Wiley explained that
one would have to learn TO like this syrup.
but after that had been done no svrin
would equal il. The difference between
molasses and syrup was explained. Mo-
lasses Is the residue after the sugar has
been extracted from the cane, while svrup
contains all the properties OF the cane.
Molasses in order TO be palatable must be
diluted with glucose.
The bottled syrup shown. DR.. Wiley said.
was more in the nature Of a home product
than a commercial article, and he wanted
10 make a plea for the farmer. He be-
lieved that some way OF protecting this pure
article from imitation should be provided.
The difference between beet and cane SUI
gar was explained 10 the COMMITTEES. This
difference consists solely In an offensive
odor which is very pronounced in raw beet
sugar. and can be detected in the refined.