of saccharin, said: "The use of saccharin in aliments presents danger to the public health; if its use outside of therapeutics is not prohibited, it will augment the already too numerous falsifications of food products." The committee itself was appointed when Lepine reported that certain glucose and glucose food syrups contained 1 to 2 grams of saccharin per kilo. Both committees agreed, and the latter recognized where saccharin adulteration would lead unless curbed. Sad to say, uncurbed as it was, we to-day find it in canned vegetables and fruits, in jellies and conserves, in all kinds of beverages, in cured meats, and, worst of all, in some sugars.

The use of saccharin in foods is prohibited under U. S. rulings when subjected to interstate commerce; however, many States have no law against it, and others, in which its use is prohibited, have neglected its stringent enforcement, such States thereby permitting its use within their confines.

For the purpose of this article class all artificial sweeteners, such as hydra-sugar, krystallose, sucramine, sugarine, sycose, sacharol, gluside, glusidum, glukusin, gluside, toluol sugar, etc., and especially the exceedingly dangerous dulcin and sucrol as saccharin.

Saccharin has the elements, sulphur and nitrogen not part of the chemical structure of sugars, and consequently has no resemblance chemically, physically or therapeutically to sugar. Nor is it derived from sugars by chemical means, but is strictly a coal tar derivative.

The following quotation from Treatise on Beverages, by Chas. E. Sulz, is amusing in that it supports an untenable position:

"Where sugar is used as flavor and not food, it is bound to be replaced by saccharin. In the future it will be used

by physicians, druggists, confectioners, bottlers, bakers, preserve and pickle makers, canners, liquor distillers and wine makers, but it is not suggested that saccharin shall be exploited as a competing product with cane sugar; to some extent it will naturally replace it."

It seems to me that Sulz has suggested a complete annulment of the use of sugar for manufacturing purposes.

* How untenable his position is, is illustrated by his including confectioners. Dictionaries define a confectioner as one who manufactures or deals in candies and sweetmeats. Candy or candies are defined as a more or less solid article made by boiling sugar to a desired consistency, then crystallizing or molding, often flavored and colored. Does Sulz, in this instance, mean to contend that sugar is used as a flavor when it forms the body of the food article? It is simply an illustration of the grossness of saccharin adulteration and its unjustifiability.

Other quotations from the same book by Sulz:

"In manufacture (sugar) syrups are employed for imparting the necessary sweetness, and not because they are a food.

We therefore can do away with syrup and apply solely the sweetening properties of saccharin, which gives the desired sweetness, and at the same time acts as preservative.”

"Saccharin does not decay, mold or ferment, neither is it attacked by bacteria."

Sugar fermentation we keep off by employing only pure material and by scrupulous cleanliness."

Do not these three quotations amply illustrate that saccharin is but a license for uncleanliness; that manufactured and canned foods prepared with saccharin are less liable to be so exactingly pure and clean; while those prepared with sugar, when appearance and taste give assurance that no fermentation has taken place, are the purest, cleanest and most wholesome?

Sulz further says: "Saccharin has a taste excedingly sweet, yet different from sugar."

Beverages and foods prepared with saccharin at their best lack the zest and satisfying body of those prepared with sugar. They are never followed by the increased flow of saliva, as is the case with sugar, and leave an annoyingly persistent sweetness in the mouth.

Aside from all these considerations, the claim is made that saccharin is harmless in that it passes through the system unaltered. That may be true in part, but, nevertheless, closer study readily illustrates that saccharin, if used continually, is most harmful, especially in view of the fact that if its use is allowed at all, saccharin, owing to cheapness, will displace sugar entirely.

Tests conducted by E. J. Milan with 0.2 per cent. aqueous solutions of saccharin on digestive ferments led to the following astounding results reported by him in the American Pharmaceutical Association Proceedings of 1888:

Pepsin has a lesser albumen dissolving power in the presence of saccharin.

Pancreatin is required in ten times the quantity in the presence of saccharin to convert starch into dextrine and glucose that is required to convert the same amount under normal conditions.

Diastase is retarded to such a degree as to require double the normal quantity. Papain, saccharin slightly retards the conversion of fibrin.

Marshall calls attention to the fact that saccharin dissolves the structural matter of the teeth.

Then take the sweeteners, dulcin and sucrol, which are often used. These are so active as antipyretics that fifteen grains produce a reduction of 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the bodily temperature within three hours.

Two of the most flagrant adulterations coming to my notice are the mixture consisting of beet or cane sugar with crystallized glucose and the subsequent addition of saccharin to supply the delinquent sweetness. As is well known, beet sugar is not as sweet and satisfactory for manufacturing purposes as cane sugar. In Europe, where the use of saccharin is. prohibited, cane sugar finds the readiest market at best prices. Result: European beet sugar is sweetened with saccharin and sold in American markets as cane sugar, and American cane sugar is sold in European markets. Therefore, not only abolish saccharin, but demand proper branding of sugars. Let cane be branded "cane" and beet "beet."

All the sugars, whether cane, beet, grape, maltose, lactose, etc., possess economic merits in the nourishment of man. They are exceedingly nutritious, but lacking nitrogen, are incapable of sustaining life alone.

Sugar syrups are destructive to the lower forms of life, such as bacteria. Dilute sugar solutions readily fermentative infusoria.

As a preserving material for fruits, vegetables and meats, the U. S. Dispensary sugar has no equal, not even salt equaling it. There is, outside of cheapness and allowance of careless practices, reason for displacing sugar with saccharin.

no

Canned or bottled goods and beverages are rendered more nutritious by sugar. They only require pure ingredients and care in preparation, and some few require thorough sterilization to make them keep.

Therefore, dear consumer, back to saccharin free, sugar sweetened food products and pies like mother used to make, wholesome, nutritious and life-giving. The health of the nation shall be its greatest strength. PAUL W. GREYER.

PROFFESSOR LLOYD'S COM

MUNICATIONS.

My Dear Dr. Garfunkle:

In reply to your question as to whether I would be willing to have my name placed upon your publication as one to be consulted in matters regarding the problems that will concern your journal, I will answer as follows:

The submitted names of the gentlemen with whom I will be associated would be acceptable to any one, and I esteem it an honor to have my name placed in that list.

The matter of the problems that lie before you, I take it, concerns alike all of us, and I take it that each of the gentlemen associated will see this after the manner I look upon it. In my opinion a candid expression of sentiment and a thorough understanding of the problem is necessary, in justice to both the editor and the others whose names appear in connection with the publication.

In my opinion, a journal of this description can be, and should be, properly, an anti-corruption journal. The field it occupies can not be limited to a few articles that are conspicuous by reason of the fact that they are generally known to be adulterated mixtures. The ramifications in which corruptionists in the necesities of life indulge their opportunities are varied. They insidiously creep into problems that concern many people who imagine that they are not a party to the wrong of falsehood in business and in professional work. see, if you enter into this field, many inducements that will come before you, and many of the obstructions that will be thrown into your path. As one who has, since his apprenticeship in pharmacy, sacrificed opportunities that come. to few, I can speak advisedly concerning what you will have to meet if you enter this field. A few of these problems I propose to now bring before you.

I can

And on your stand in these directions will, I feel assured, depend the success of your publication, the good you will accomplish with a successful publication properly devoted to the field it will occupy, and the retaining of the names of the gentlemen you have mentioned as advisers.

First, let me say to you, that the matter of advertisements will be a problem that can not be lightly passed. You will meet with perplexities in which must come the question of both journalistic and self-interest. Perhaps the most remunerative of your opportunities will conflict with your principles, and yet appear a necessity in the opinion of your advertising agent. You will find that a difference of opinion will likely, therefore, come between yourself and your advertising agent, if the publication maintains its ideals.

You will find advertisements in which a wrong will be done insidiously, and yet, perhaps, in such a manner as to prohibit you from declining them on any charge you can formulate. The retaining of such an advertisement will offend some of your friends, perhaps even those whose names appear as your advisers, and incidents of such a nature will be to you, possibly, very unpleasant.

You will find that if you do your editorial duty, subscribers will be involved for and against certain grounds that you may take in many directions that you can not now foresee, and these subscribers will not hesitate to make things unpleasant to you.

There are powerful influences, not openly known to be linked with that which is neither professional nor correct. These influences ramify themselves in such a way as to bring pressure to bear upon an individual whom you would least expect, and from people perhaps not aware that they are being so used for what I would call immoral or

unfair purposes. These influences you These influences you will have to meet.

You will probably make mistakes in various directions, and then it will be necessary for you, if you maintain the stand you have taken, to correct these mistakes, and in the correcting of them, you may have to, apparently, do a business wrong to some whose names you have advertised to your readers, or an ethical wrong to your readers, if you do not correct your mistakes. This is a very trying ordeal, but you may expect to have to meet it.

The question as to whether such substances as cantharidal plasters are of pharmacopoeial strength, or whether ground mustard is colored with curcuma, or whether golden seal root carries the fibre of twin leaf, or whether assafoetida be more or less mixed with sand, or whether chloroform will stand the test of the Pharmacopoeia, these and such as these are generally considered as occupying the whole field of adulterations. But I take it that you will find that these conspicuous substances and others like these are of minor importance as concerns the great ethical scope of a publication that announces itself to be anti-corruption as regards wrong dealing between man and man..

If, after reading this letter, you care to publish it and accept that your publication will be issued, untrammeled in any way by affiliations with those who have an interest in wrong, and not in any wise concerned in any other object than the general uplifting of correct business principles and fairness in trade, together with the furthering of true professional ethics where business and the professions touch, you may place my name in company with those of such as you have submitted to me as one of the editorial advisers, this letter being published in the first issue of your journal.

With my kindest regards, and trust

ing that if the publication appears as a successful work, it will be profitable to those concerned in issuing it, helpful to the business interests of those it reaches and uplifting with the professional ethics it inculcates; in other words, that it be idealistic in furthering higher ideals in business and professional life, I am Very sincerely yours,

JOHN URI LLOYD.

Water, the necessity of life, frequently a source of danger, owing to contamination, has been made the primary subject. of scientific investigation and sanitation in the last few years. To obtain the purest water supply for the community is the watchword of the medical profession. While great advancement has been made along these lines of sanitation, my interest has been keenly awakened of late by the investigation into commercially palatable water. The waters on sale, whether natural or artificial, can, with very few exceptions, stand a great deal. of improvement along both sanitary and chemical lines. Just lately I visited a plant which, in view of the above facts, proved as represented.

THE WORK OF THE MEDICAL MILK COMMISSIONS.

The ultimate object of the Medical Milk Commissions is to improve the milk supply in communities. Their existence is but brief, but results, however, have been obtained and are most gratifying.

First of all, milk commissions have imparted a knowledge to consumers of true conditions which surround, in most instances (dairy farming), and have talked of advantages in obtaining clean milk.

The commissions have satisfied those who have followed their work that it is entirely possible and practicable to produce and market clean milk. That in order to do this, it does not require the investment of a large amount of capital,

but the observance of ordinary rules of cleanliness is required, enabling the dairyman to furnish clean milk, free from contamination, and these are the essential requirements. There is an increasing demand in all communities for dairy products, which are under supervision of milk commissions. The public should fully appreciate the advantages derived. Clean milk is the universal demand, and not contaminated with disease breeding germs. Be not misled by the unauthorized use of the word "certified" or inspected milk.

The consumer should also know the Pasteurized and sterilized milk does not necessarily mean wholesome milk. The fact that Pasteurized milk is offered on sale is in itself proof that the milk was not originally believed to be pure and clean. Your own interest demands pure, clean milk, and not a disease carrying sort.

J. HENRY SCHROEDER, M. D.

W. T. Wagner's Sons, of Cincinnati, O., owners of the establishment, received me most courteously, informing me that their plant, methods and ingredients were at all times open to inspection by proper parties, and proceeded to show me a laboratory where sanitary conditions, purity of ingredients, care and safeguard against improper results, were astonishingly in good condition. Their basis of manufacture, diamond distilled water, is prepared in a separate department, under ideal conditions. The carbonic acid gas used for impregnation is prepared from a pure quality of baking soda. All containers, tanks, etc., are heavily tinged copper, kept bright and clean, bottles carefully cleansed and sterilized.

In charge of the laboratory I found the firm's chemist, Mr. Julius Greyer, employing the purest of chemicals, and combining them with greatest care, to gain results as designed on their labels.

Another attraction was their snap gin

ger ale manufactured by the firm. The very best cut loaf sugar, ginger and aromatics are the ingredients of this snap. Neither cayenne pepper nor preservatives entered into this composition. This article is written through inspiration of conditions found in this plant, and necessarily congratulate W. T. Wagner's Sons upon their endeavors.

A noted feature, however, was the fact that no part of their establishment has been secreted. All my queries were answered and illustrated by their methods.

Where this firm is leading I trust many others will soon follow, benefiting thereby themselves, as producers, but, best of all, pleasing the consumers.

THE FOOD AND DRUGS, ACT, JUNE 30, 1906.

AN ACT for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture within any Territory or the District of Columbia any article of food or drug which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act; and any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed five hundred dollars or shall be sentenced to one year's imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, and for each subsequent offense and conviction thereof shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars or sentenced to one year's imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.