proper method of regulating this matter, if further regulation than that already existing were needed at all, might be built up on just such a bill as Mr. McComas introduced in the House of Representatives on January 5, under the title, "A Bill to prevent the adulteration of food or drugs." I quote from section 8 of said bill:

Section 8 reads: That an article shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this act- * * * * * *

b. In the case of food or drink;

First.-If any substance or substances has or have been mixed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.

Second.-If any inferior or cheaper substance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part for the article.

Third.-If any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted. Fourth. If it be an imitation of or be sold under the name of another article.

Fifth. If it consist wholly or in part of a diseased or decomposed, or putrid or rotten animal or vegetable substance, whether manufactured or not, or, in the case of milk, if it is the produce of a diseased animal.

Sixth.-If it be colored or coated, or polished or powdered, whereby damage is concealed or it is made to appear better than it really is, or of greater value.

Seventh. If it contain any added poisonous ingredient or any ingredient which may render such article injurious to the health of a person consuming it: Provided, That the National Board of Health may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time, declare certain articles or preparations to be exempt from the provisions of this act: And provided further, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to mixtures or compounds recognized as ordinary articles of food, provided that the same are not injurious to health, and that the articles are distinctly labelled as a mixture stating the components of the mixture.

The whole bill is conceived in a spirit of fairness, and is carefully framed with a view to guarding public health by practicable means and through the agency of that branch of the administration which is in every way best qualified to render intelligent judgment upon the scientific questions involved. Uniformity of laws on the subject is certainly desirable in any case; it would become an imperative necessity under the condition of things before stated. As matters stand at present, laws against adulterations being in force in nearly all the States, it would seem to be a very wise thing to "let well enough alone," unless such a bill as Mr. McComas introduced can be passed by the Congress of the United States.

APPENDIX.

66

[FROM THE AMERICAN ANALYST," NEW YORK, APRIL 1ST, 1886.]

COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF THE EXAMINATION OF BEERS, BY THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.

Even according to Hassall, who says that "malt beverages should consist solely of the product of malt and hops, the former of which has been subjected to fermentation," and who defines adulteration as follows: "any other substances than the constituents of malt and their derivatives," the beers under consideration would not be adulterated, as no practical chemist would for a moment claim that either cerealine, corn meal or rice, when used in connection with barley malt, are anything else than malt derivatives, as much as any of the derivatives of barley malt. Malt is not necessarily made of barley.

ON THE GLUCOSE QUESTION.

The report rather defends glucose in one part, while it indirectly attacks it by the very illogical argument that glucose does not contain a variety of other substances, organic and mineral, which the extract of malt does contain. As no brewer would attempt to make beer from glucose alone, and the proportions of actual malt used always contain sufficient of these desirable substances, the fallacy of this agument is very apparent.

A great deal of stress is laid upon the so-called impure glucose, which is said to consist of grape-sugar, with a portion of the sulphuric acid used in its manufacture not removed. No such glucose can be found among American manufacturers. At

most it may contain traces of sulphate of lime, but this is harmless. The contaminations found in commercial sulphuric acid, after the acid has been diluted, washed out and neutralized, are too infinitesimal to be worth serious consideration.

THE SODA QUESTION.

This has also been very much overstated. To put 180-200 grains of bi-carbonate of soda in 30 glasses of beer, would require the addition of one and a-half ounces of that alkali to each quarter keg of eight gallons, an amount hardly possible to use. If there were anything in this objection, the same would hold good against the majority of the artificial mineral waters, and nearly all baking powders in use. While, with inferior beers, such an addition might be possible, the quantity would be largely in excess of any acid in the beer which it would neutralize, and a decided alkaline taste would result.

ADULTERATION BY RETAILERS.

The only beer that can possibly be referred to as being adulterated by retailers, must be that of the stale beer dives. No brewers' beer can be so adulterated after it leaves the brewery, and while containing carbonic acid, or while in saleable condition. This whole paragraph is only a surinise, and a gratuitous fling. No such adulterations were found.

OTHER POINTS.

There are a few other paragraphs in this report which might be subjects of comment, but the more important have been referred to. In conclusion it may be remarked that the contradictions and hesitating statements of the report are due to the very apparent inclination not to antagonize predjudices and erroneous public opinion, based on misinformation, by a too clear and unqualified statement founded on the very convincing results of these analyses. The brewers may congratulate themselves that, so far as the showing of the actual analyses is concerned, not a word has been, or in fact can possibly be said to sustain any charges of adulteration.