FOUST STANDS FIRM IN WAR BETWEEN OLEO AND OIL.

Attack on Pittsburg Dealers Doesn't Mean He Has Allied Himself With Standard's Petroleum Butter.

Over and over again government and state experts, most incorruptible men, after careful scrutiny of many samples of oleomargarine and chemical tests of these samples, have decided that wholesome oleomargarine is just exactly as healthful as the very best butter. So this important question, therefore, may be taken once and for all as answered.

It is but fair, then, to say that James Foust, state dairy and food commissioner, in bringing thirteen prosecutions against dealers in yellow oleo in the Pittsburg "oleo belt" is not attacking oleomargarine, per se. Neither is Mr. Foust making any assault upon the Chicago millionaire Beef Trust as an oleo maker.

Any one at all familiar with the facts will realize that it would be very unfair of Mr. Foust, and not at all good form, for him to take any action antagonistic of the Beef Trust.

Moreover, just at this time it would be unwise for him to weaken in his allegiance. Naturally, it would be inferred that he had gone over, agents, experts, chemists, detectives and counsel, to the Standard Oil Company, and its new oleaginous triumph, petroleum butter.

For this is the day of enlistment in a great "butter" war that is to be waged between the Beef Trust and the Standard Oil. In all states where the right kind of a pure food commissioner has been appointed the perplexed official will be standing scratching his head, uncertain which way to go. Fortunate indeed is Pensylvania, for this state has a Foust.

THE TRUTH ABOUT OLEO.

Already the battle smoke is to be seen from afar. Out of the west, from the neighborhood of the new oil field, come pamphlets telling the whole grewsome truth about oleomargarine. It will please the oleo dealers to repeat some of the assertions that are being made.

It is said, for example, that oleomargarine was formerly a substitute for butter, but that now it is an adulteration of a substitute. Once it was made from the best fats of the animal, presumably the caul fats, but now it is made from the interior fats, no more considered in the price paid for cattle "than the contents of the paunch and trimmings, or the contents of the intestines and trimmings."

F. W. Wilder, formerly general superintendent of Swift & Co., and later general superintendent for Swarzchild & Sulzberger, has written a book, "The Modern Packing House," telling how some oleo is made. Three grades of oil are listed, as follows:

No. 1-Caul fats, ruffe fat, caul piece of gut end, briskets trimmed from the bed pickings, crotch trimming from the bed pickings, paunch trimmings, pluck trimmings, reed trimmings, heart casing fats.

No. 2-Gut ends, small fat, chipped fats taken off, the middle guts, machine fat taken off the middle guts by the fatting machines heart trimmings, pluck trimmings, miscellaneous bed pickings of the second grade, kidney fat, clean trimmings from cattle being cut up for canning or sausage purposes, skimming from vat of No. 1 oil.

No. 3-Head fat, fat trimmed from the cattle heads when cheeking, plucked sweetbreads trimming, liver trimmings, bladder trimmings, fat from chilled beef tongues when trimmed, miscellaneous fats from other departments when kept clean, first washing from oleo press clothes before soda has been used, scrap vat trimmings from second-grade oil.

It is explained that as these oils are varied in quantity in the oleo, the price and quality of the product differ.

IT'S UP TO THE BEEF TRUST.

This clears the way for the Beef Trust to picture the processes through which petroleum butter must go before it lies golden yellow on the marble counter.

Mr. Foust's ideal dealers in the "oleo belt" can then do the rest. In the official bulletin of the dairy and food division for April and May, 1909, the duty of these men was outlined as follows:

"The ideal dealer, of course, is the one who is always frank enough to take his customers into his confidence and to tell them the exact truth about any article he has for sale, so far as he knows that truth!"-Philadelphia North American.

ALUM IN BAKING POWDER, FOUST IS ΤΟ BRING SUITS.

Forty-Seven Pure Food Prosecutions Are Ordered Brought Under the Murphy and Gerberich Bills.

Twenty pure food prosecutions are to be brought under the provisions of the Murphy food bill, by State Dairy and Food Commissioner Foust-the first to be brought under that measure.

Ten of them will be under the anti-alum clause, which state Senator Joseph A. Langfitt, of Allegheny, had inserted in the Murphy bill when nobody was looking, except Foust. Six of the ten are "restored-withered-pickle" suits, and the other four are baking powder suits. The other ten cases are for adulterated sausage.

Twenty-seven prosecutions under the Gerberich bill were also ordered today.

The alum cases will be brought in Clearfield county. The sausage cases will be brought in Allegheny and Westmoreland. In each of the cases the sausage had been adulterated with added cereal and water, containing from 15 to 20 per cent of this combination. The pickle and baking powder suits are simply for added alum.

Foust refuses to disclose the names of any of the defendants-to-be until the suits are begun. The samples from which the suits originate were collected by H. L. Banschoff, special agent, and are all included in the lot of more than 500 samples concerning which Foust issued a statement early in the week. The sausage suits ordered in western counties last Tuesday were brought under the old Tustin act.

The decks are now cleared of all old cases, everything: pending being under the Murphy bill or some one of the Gerberich bills.

The twenty-seven milk and cream suits about to be brought originate from the only adulterated samples found in analyzing 1556 samples from twenty-eight cities and owns in eastern Pennsylvania. Fourteen of these prospective suits are for watered milk, and the other thirteen for cream containing only 10 per cent of butter fat, whereas the legal standard is 15 per cent.

Some suits for bleached flour may be brought before long for Foust has suspicions that western millers are still bleaching flour and using Pensylvania as a dumping ground. Many samples of flour were bought by the special agents during their recent tours and analytical reports will soon be at hand.-Philadelphia North American.

NEBRASKA MILLERS GET LIFT. Secretary Wilson Decides Not to Press Order Against Bleached Flour.

Omaha, Neb., Aug. 4.-[Special]-The attorney for the Nebraska millers is in receipt of a telegram from Senator Norris Brown, who states that he had a conference with Secretary Wilson of the Department of Agriculture, who informed him that he has concluded not to press the order against the manufacture of bleached flour. He also stated he had notified the attorney-general not to press the suits already instituted. The announcement is good news for Nebraska millers who now feel the original order will be allowed to stand and eventually die. Had the rulings of the secretary gone into effect and been enforced the millers declare they would have destroyed the milling industry of the West and in Nebraska and Kansas alone would have driven 250 mills out of business.-Chicago Tribune.

MILTON, WIS., MAN FINED FOR SELLING
"MALTMEAD."

By the pleading guilty of William Shemmell, of Milton,. charged with selling an article that was misbranded under the state pure food law, a scheme has been discovered for selling intoxicating liquor in "dry" territory. The drink that Shemmell sold was named "maltmead," and a chemical analysis found it to contain more alcohol than beer. Shemmell paid a fine of $25 and costs.

Miss Lucy Doggett, assistant chemist, Illinois Food Commission, and Miss Laura Collins, stenographer of the Illinois Food Commission, have just returned from an extensive tour in Europe, visiting Paris, London, Edinburgh, Dublin, The Hague, Brussels and other places of interest in the British Isles and on the Continent.

THE AMERICAN FOOD JOURNAL

Published Monthly at 160 and 162 Washington St., Chicago
By H. B. MEYERS & CO.
Telephone Main 839

Subscription, $1.00 Per Year

Address all communications and remittances and make drafts, checks and money orders payable to THE AMERICAN FOOD JOURNAL, 160 and 162 Washington Street, Chicago.

All reading and advertising matter to appear in THE AMERICAN FOOD JOURNAL must be received at this office on or before the 12th of the month.

THE GREAT BENZOATE BLUNDER. Under this heading "Dr." Paul Pierce, M. D., M. S., minus the decorations, discourses in his magazine

Benzoate

on benzoate of soda and its effect on man. of soda he says causes kidney diseases, constant nausea, and in dogs, difficulty in urination. The "gross blunder" referred to, he says, is going to “portend the complete reversal of that decision" and "Dr. Wiley is to remain in office as the head of the most important food control body," and the "Referee Board of Scientific Experts will be discountenanced."

The "main blunder," it seems, was committed by Secretaries Wilson, Straus and Cortelyou in issuing bulletin No. 104. It was committed "on the very last day of the Roosevelt administration just a few hours or a few minutes before Cortelyou and Straus (official titles supplied on application to this office)' relinquished their offices." "This decision is destined to go down in history as the 'notorious benzoate of soda incident.'

Having thus found out all about the cause, effect and place in history of the "one big blunder," one is particularly interested in finding out what the blunder was and be willing to wade through a lot of dry dope to find it. At last by patient search and by deduction one can guess at the act referred to as a "blunder," i. e., that whereas the referee board placed a limit of four grams a day on benzoate of soda, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture and Commerce and Labor in decision No. 104, based on the port, allowed its use in unlimited quantities, provided the presence and amount be stated on the label.

re

This is a pretty bad case it is true and undoubtedly Secretary Wilson, President Taft or Congress will see to it that the Referee Board of Consulting Experts be discountenanced for putting out a decision for the three Cabinet Officers to thus tamper with. However, perhaps it would be wise to investigate the matter a little before condemning everybody but Dr. Wiley.

The referee board placed no limit on benzoate of soda. They are not empowered to place a limit on anything. Their duties are scientific, not administrative. They simply said that their experiments showed that benzoate of soda in small and large doses in food was without poisonous or injurious effect, and that in their experiments 0.5 gms. per day was considered a small dose and 4 gms. per day considered a large dose, except that in a few instances somewhat larger doses were employed. The terms "small" and "large"

Even if one should deceive himself and his admirers in the delusion that the referee board decided that 0.4 gms. per day is the limit of its harmlessness, how could such limit be set by the secretaries? Obviously only by some such decision as this.

"Hereinafter only five pint bottles of catsup and not to exceed five pounds of apple butter shall be consumed by one person per day.'

Rulings and regulations.

"One day shall include twenty-four hours without reference to the calendar day."

"For the purpose of this decision one day shall commence with the consumption of the first bottle of catsup and end with the last bottle if within the twentyfour hours' limit.”

"Allowance will be made for catsup left in the bottles but none for short weight due to concave bottoms in the bottles as consumers plainly intend to transgress the law, and should not be allowed to be saved by manufacturer's cunning."

"Babies must not eat the full five bottle quota of catsup but only shall be allowed to consume an amount of catsup in proportion of their weight to the normal weight of a grown person, which for the purposes of this act will be considered as one hundred twenty-five pounds female and one hundred sixty pounds male.

"Body weight must be calculated before eating the catsup, etc., etc."

The enmity of "Dr." Pierce to the report of the referee board cannot content itself with exposing the blunder (?) in the food inspection decision in not conforming to the referee board's report. He must throw dirt at the report he complains was not strictly followed in the decision and at the Referee Board itself. He

says the board is its own accuser and cites Dr. Remsen as saying that benzoic acid is prepared on a large scale from the urine of horses and cows.

But if Dr. Remsen said what Dr. Pierce says he said, and if it were true then or true today, what effect should that have on him or any one else in reporting on an experiment on the effect of benzoate of soda on health. But of course the alleged statement is not true today nor has it ever been true. Impure benzoic acid can be prepared from and is very similar to hippuric acid existing in considerable quantities in the urine of the herbivorous animals. The expense and inconvenience, however, of preparing it in this way is prohibitory.

Benzoic acid was originally prepared by dry distillation of gum benzoin of which it is the chief con

stituent, but now is prepared by synthesis from products produced from the dry distillation of coal. Practically all of it now comes from the chemical works of Germany and is sold in this country at approximately 30 cents a pound, and is a remarkably pure salt from a chemical standpoint, being over 99 per cent pure, the I per cent alloy consisting mainly of moisture. If these statements are not the absolute facts they will be refuted. But they will not be nor cannot be. It is not in evidence even that the Referee Board used the fact of benzoic acid being a normal product of the animal body and excreted as hippuric acid, a near relative, to show its harmless properties. Their work was that of collecting positive data by actual experiment and interpreting the results of these experiments and not to speculate or draw deductions of any kind.

Dr. Remsen's exact statement in the edition of his Organic Chemistry is as follows: "Benzoic acid is prepared on the large scale (1) from gum benzoin by sublimation, (2) from the urine of horses and cows by treating the hippuric acid with hydrochloric acid, (3) from toluene, best by converting it into benzyl chloride and oxidizing this with dilute nitric acid." Then follows a laboratory experiment illustrating how the student may prepare it from hippuric acid obtained from urine. Dr. Remsen's book is a text-book on chemistry, intended to illustrate to the student the structure of chemical compounds and their relation to one another, and is not a technological handbook.

He did not say that benzoic acid was prepared from urine on a commercial scale, and it is doubtful whether he meant to convey that idea.

In his "College Chemistry," in none of the numerous editions does he mention even this method of preparation, but says instead, pages 674, 410, 431, 252, various editions:

"Benzoic acid occurs in gum benzoin and in the balsams of Peru and tolu, and is made artificially from coal tar by oxidizating toluene,* C,H ̧."

In fact none of the methods mentioned by Dr. Remsen are in use commercially today. Most of the benzoic acid of commerce is prepared from napthalene via phthalic acid.

According to Mr. Pierce many charges have been made that the Referee Board was not a non-partisan board. As far as we are aware, these charges have been made only by Mr. Pierce himself, by a Mr. Young in a communication to the American Food Journal, and by Mr. Emery of Wisconsin, through Speaker Bancroft of the Wisconsin assembly. Mr. Young, an announced socialist, charged monopolistic influences due to the members of the Referee Board being connected with the "Rockefeller" and "Leland Stanford" universities, which arugment might have. had some slight bearing if the named universities had in reality been represented. Speaker Bancroft and Pierce contented themselves with indefinite charges unsupported by argument or attempt at proof.

But now Mr. Pierce offers at least a semblance of proof that the board might not be impartial. For example we quote:

"Now saccharine is a well known food preservative. Its discoverer was Dr. Ira Remsen, head of the Referee Board."

Then let us ask:

"Would the fact that Dr. Remsen discovered

*The name toluene comes from the fact that this hydrocarbon was first obtained from the balsam of tula.

saccharine make him favorably inclined toward this or any other artificial food preservative? Did 'Dr. Remsen consider saccharine harmless when he consented to serve on the board?" What drivel:

Yes, saccharine is a well known preservative. How "Dr." Pierce came to stumble onto this truth is incomprehensible. For saccharine is sugar. But it was not discovered by Dr. Remsen. Its use as a food and as a preservative has been known for many centuries. What "Dr." Pierce probably refers to is saccharin. This is a synthetic chemical substitute for sugar, as regards sweetness being five hundred times as sweet as cane sugar; but it is not a preservative, and is never used as a preservative. It was not discovered by Dr. Remsen, but by Dr. Fahlberg, some thirty years ago, working in the laboratories of Johns Hopkins University over which Dr. Remsen presides

Anyhow, if saccharine was saccharin and saccarhin was a preservative and Dr. Remsen instead of Dr. Fahlberg discovered it, it is still a long step toward any influence these facts might have in showing any personal bias Dr. Remsen might have in reporting on the effect of an entirely different substance on the human organism.

But there is still more evidence of partiality.

"One of California's greatest industries is the drying of fruits. In this process sulphur dioxide long has been employed as a preservative to prevent the decomposition of the fruit and to cover up evidence of inferiority."

Dr. Alonzo E. Taylor is California's representative on the Referee Board, and the commercial interests of his state desire the use of this preservative.

Let us then ask:

"Would this fact cause Dr. Taylor to be favorably inclined towards sulphur dioxide? Did he have a preconceived opinion that sulphur dioxide was harmless?"

The reader is supposed to leap the wide gap in logic that if Dr. Taylor had a preconceived opinion that sulphur dioxide was harmless because the manufacturers of his state used it, it would influence him in forming an opinion based on a feeding experiment that benzoate of soda was also harmless.

Without taking the trouble to dispute the statements in regard to the use of sulphur in the fruit drying industry as it is outside the domain of the present article or as to California or any other state having a representative on the Referee Board, it may be said that if Prof. Taylor had any preconceived opinion as to sulphur dioxide as a preservative he has been sensible enough to keep his opinion to himself until he should have had an opportunity to verify his preconceived opinions by actual experiment. In view of his silence on the subject we may well infer that he is awaiting the result of experiment before forming. his opinion as is customary with men of his eminence in science in direct contrast to Dr. Wiley, who forms an opinion and announces his conclusions before conducting his tests. Incidentally it might be mentioned. that Dr. Taylor is the only one of the Referee Board who did not participate in the experiments and reports, being absent at the time in Europe.

Dr. Chittenden, professor of chemistry in Yale. University, is biased in this way:

"Prior to his appointment on the Referee Board, Dr. Chittenden is said to have displayed

a decided friendship for borax as a food preservative. In 1899 when Senator Ambler introduced a bill in the New York legislature to prohibit preservatives in dairy products it is said that it was the same Dr. Chittenden who appeared in defense of borax as a food preservative.

"Would this former predilection for borax cause Dr. Chittenden to be favorably inclined toIward this chemical?"

Same logic required; if he likes sugar he must like salt. If he found borax in butter harmless and advantageous he would be inclined to find benzoate of soda harmless even if he had to draw erroneous conclusions from his experiments.

An admission which the writer may regret now follows:

"I have never heard that Dr. John H. Long or Dr. C. A. Herter had been connected with any industry or that they ever had any associations that might predispose their opinions toward preservatives."

This is too bad. And these gentlemen conducted two of the three experiments made, too. But let us see whether by similar reasoning and more regard for the truth we cannot supply the deficiency. This is the same Dr. Long that has been connected with the Northwestern University Pharmacy College. Records show that he has been and is a professor in that school. His scholars sell drugs and chemicals. The school is in fact maintained by tuition from students who must make their living from selling drugs and chemicals. Now, salicylic acid is a chemical, likewise a drug and a preservative, and if benzoic acid was found injurious, salicylic acid might be also found injurious, the drug business busted and the pharmacy college discontinued.

It

Herter hails from New York city. The Standard Oil Company with headquarters in the very same city are going to make a butter out of petroleum to compete with cows' butter. (Yellow press report.) is a notorious fact that chemicals are used to refine petroleum. Now if benzoic acid is found harmful in foods, chemicals would be prohibited in refining petroleum butter, and the Standard Oil Company, by the curtailing of the sales on Standard Oil butter, be compelled to vacate their expensive offices at 26 Broadway.

Now let us ask:

Was not it possible that Dr. C. A. Herter of Columbia University was picked out by the octopus and forced on President Roosevelt as one of the members

of the Referee Board, etc., etc., ar nauseam? (Women's clubs take notice this is not intended seriously.) There is one good thing in "Dr." Pierce's article. which well repays perusal. We publish verbatum:

"It is pointed out as a virtue that the men fed on benzoate foods during the investigation of the Referee Board, actually put on flesh and gained weight during the test period. Poison experts declare that this addition of flesh and weight is an evidence of the first effects of a poison.

A well known fraud of horse traders is to feed horses on poisoned foods before preparing them for market. By such a method the shabbiest looking scrub may be made to appear sleek and fat. But instead of actually improving the animal it ruins its constitution forever. The horse

never regains its flesh after it is gone and dwindles away to uselessness."

If ever we become the owner of enough wealth to purchase a horse we will bear this valuable hint in mind. But in view of the extremely suspicious attitude of mind of "Dr." Pierce as regard ulterior motives of the Referee Board of Consulting Experts, Ex-President Roosevelt, the Cabinet Officers, and others, as well as the comprehensive veterinary knowledge displayed by "Dr." Pierce, we shall not be inveigled into a horse trade with him.

ANOTHER MISREPRESENTATION.

Commissioner Emery has introduced one questionable innovation in the conduct of his office as President of the Association of State and National Food and Dairy Departments. That is in assuming that he, as President, represents the Association. In this capacity he has appointed several committees not authorized by the convention nor the constitution of the Association. One of these committees is to report to the Association; another makes a report without any opportunity for the Association to act upon it.

Possibly there may have been urgent demands for these committees; possibly he was only doing what the Association would have authorized him to do had they a chance to vote on the proposition; possibly his committees represented the entire association rather than one faction; possibly he may have been unbiased in each case in which Dr. Wiley's contentions were held fallacious and only deserved to enlist the Association and its influence on the side of truth and justice, but this, while palliative, does not excuse the arrogation of prerogatives belonging only to the Association. Such power is not even given to the Executive Committee. The committees so appointed are absolutely illegal, and without standing, and their assumption and claim to representing the Association of State and National Food and Dairy Departments, is as much a misrepresentation as the selling of oleomargarine for butter or corn syrup for maple syrup.

NOTICE.

American Breeders' Association Meeting.

The sixth annual meeting of the American Breeders' Association is called for December 8, 9 and 10, at Omaha, Nebraska, in association with the National Corn Show held at that place December 6 to 18. A program of addresses by prominent breeders of livestock, prominent breeders of plants, and scientists prominent in the study of the heredity of plants, animals and men is being prepared.

Arrangements are being made to have many of the addresses illustrated with stereopticon views and moving pictures. W. M. HAYS, Secretary A. B. A.

Washington, D. C., July 30, 1909.

PSEUDO SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS. No, "Dr." Pierce, one-tenth expressed as a decimal is not .001, but those fond of using large numbers may place plenty of ciphers after the decimal, thus 3.250.00. Carelessness in handling the little decimal point while entirely innocent and unavoidable in depicting circulation is justly discountenanced in scientific articles.