May each State follow the safest By Prof. H. Louis Jackson, Analyst for The Kansas State Board of Health. In view of the recent finding of the Referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts, composed of Dr. Ira Remsen, Dr. Russell H. Chittenden, Dr. John H. Long, Dr. C. A. Herter and Dr. Alonzo E. Taylor* that: "First.—Sodium benzoate in small doses (under 0.5 g. per day) mixt with the food is without deleterious or poisonous action and is not injurious to health." "Second.-Sodium benzoate in larger doses (up to 4 grams per day) mixt with the food has not been found to exert any deleterious effect on the general health, not to act as a poison in the general acceptation of the term. In some directions there were slight modifications in certain physiological processes, the exact significance of which modifications is not known." "Third. The mixture of sodium benzoate with food in small or large doses has not been found to injuriously affect or impair the quality or nutritive value of such foods." And because of the recent Food Inspection Decision 104 which states: "It having been determined that benzoate of soda mixt with food is not deleterious or poisonous and is not injurious to health, no objection will be raised under the Food and Drugs Act to the use in food of benzoate of soda, provided that each container or package of such food is plainly labeled to show the presence and amount of benzoate of soda," it seems timely to call the attention of the consuming public to certain facts. Doctors disagree. Upon inquiry addressed to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, it is learned that the details of the research carried out by the Referee Board have not been published, so no comments on their data can be made at present. However, Dr. Wiley, in his investigation of the effects of preservatives on the human system gives a large amount of detail in regard to the work and from this we may learn certain effects of the use of benzoate of soda on the body. In circular No. 39, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Dep't. of Agr. (may be had by any one who wishes to write for it) is found the following: Medical and Clinical Data. "The most common symptoms are nausea and headache-resulting in vomiting in only three cases. Seven of the subjects complained of weakness and also of burning and irritating sensations in the esophagus. Hunger was increased in three cases, and indigestion was especially noted five times. The fact that these symptoms were not produced in all cases illustrated a point prominently brought out in the previous investigations, name *Dr. Alonzo E. Taylor did not act on account of absence in Europe. jy, the different degrees of toleration of the substance administered in different individuals. It should not be forgotten that the subjects upon whom the experiments were made represent the highest type of health and resistance. Hence it is fair to infer that with less resistant types, such as children, persons with weak stomachs, or other disorders of the digestive tract, or those suffering from impaired vitality in any form, the effects of the administration of the drug would have been more pronounced." Body Weight. A slight but certain fall in weight which averaged 1.3 pounds for the entire observation, was shown by the six taking benzoate of soda. Excretion of Benzoate and Hippuric Acids. "Hippuric acid is a normal constituent of the urin and the data show a iact, already well recognized by physiologists, namely, that the administration of benzoic acid or benzoate of soda to the human animal increases the quantity of hippuric acid so excreted." The benzoic acid which is not changed to hippuric acid is excreted as benzoic acid and it was shown that when the preservative was administered as sodium benzoate it was retained in the body longer than if taken as benzoic acid. "The preservatives can only be regarded as foreign bodies of a toxic character which the system must eliminate. The normal burden imposed upon the kidneys in the excretion of the natural degradation products of metabolism is quite sufficient for the preservation of their healthy activity. The additional amount of excretory matter produced by the administration of benzoic acid in any form can only be regarded as an unnecessary burden. The Urine. The solid matter in the urine showed a marked increase while the preservative was administered, which shows "their influence in promoting the degradation of the tissues of the body-" Microscopical Examination of the Urine. This examination shows a tendency of the preservative to increase the microscopical bodies in the urine and especially to increase the epithelial cells, mucous strands, and mucous cylindroids. "The activities of the kidneys are, therefore, undoubtedly greater during the preservative period, owing to the additional amount of labor which they are called upon to perform in eliminating the products of tissue degradation." General Conclusions. "From a careful study of the data in the individual cases and of the summaries of the results, it is evident that the administration of benzoic acid, either as such or in the form of benzoate of soda, is highly objectionable and produces a very serious disturbance of the metabolic functions, attended with injury to digestion and health." It should be pointed out that for his experiments Dr. Wiley used only healthy young men, who did not use liquor and that the Referee Board also selected "A certain number of healthy young men" and arrived at exactly opposite conclusions but the point is, even tho healthy young men show no bad effect from the use of preservatives can we assume that children and especially elderly people or persons in poor health, in a run down condition Chairman of the Committee who presented the American Medical Ass'n. Resolutions to the U. S. President. or recovering from sickness would show no harmful effects? It would seem poor policy to hold that humanity at large (very many of whom are in a more or less poor condition of health) will be unharmed because normal young men are not. Nor is it believed the Referee Board would argue in this way, for it is well known that young men can pass thru an amount of hard work or of dissipation, for a time, without showing great harni, that would break down a middle aged man. Who should be given the benefit of the doubt, the preservative and a few hundred canning companies, or the consuming public? Mr. A. McGill in Bulletin No. 126 Labratory of the Inland Revenue Department, Ottawa, Canada, reviewed the literature on preservatives up to September 1906, and the difference of opinion among authorities on the harmfulness of preservatives is perhaps best shown in the case of horax and boracic acid. As a result of their investigation eight scientists are unfavorable to the use of borax or boracic acid and only three are favorable to its use. However, in the case of the latter it is very clear that their interests are with the trade and not with the consumer. When salicylic acid first came into use as a preservative many prominent chemists advocated its use which spread rapidly till 1880, in which year 110,000 pounds were used in food in France alone. Since then, evidence resulting from physiological tests with salicylic acid tends to condemn its addition to food under all circumstances and its use is prohibited in many countries. Notes on sulfurous acid and sulfites indicate that some favor their use, but more condemn them and those who approve them show in their publications that they are champions of the trade. One writer took the attitude. that the very experiments which led the investigator to find sulfites dangerous to health were capable of an interpretation which "settles the question in favor of the meat dealers." All thru literature one can see the swing of the pendulum of opinion from the trades advocate, who uses the phrase "absolutely harmless," to that of men with nothing to gain who believe positive harm has been shown in certain cases and who believe in giving the general public the protection found in prohibiting preservatives. It will be well if the people become deeply interested and informed on the subject, and decide whether they want their food preserved with chemicals or preserved by methods that have stood the tests of time. There is another side of the subject. By the use of preservatives and color and a few other aids, as thickeners, fillers, artificial sweeteners and more or less cunning manipulation, all kinds of refuse materials and waste products from the manufacture of higher grades of food products can be, and are, workt over into salable food products at great profit to the producer but which are costly to the consumer. No food is cheaper than fresh, clean, whole, natural products, properly prepared and what the housewife would discard should not be used by the manufacturer without the consumers full knowledge of its character. It is a very easy matter to conduct a factory on a slipshod, dirty system, putting in all parts of a fruit or vegetable whether spoiled or not, adding a preservative and sealing without regard to sanitary considerations; but it requires more careful supervision to keep a factory sweet and clean in all its parts, well lighted and aired, to see that the operatives are clean and healthy and that only fresh, ripe, clean, wholesome raw material is packt as carefully as the housewife does it. Which would you rather have? If all preservatives must be left out, then clean food kept and canned in a clean way, must be the rule. Ask yourself why the manufacturer is so anxious to use the preservative in question. Did your mother or grandmother use them? Every housewife knows that if she uses fresh, sound material, air tight containers and the right degree of heat for a sufficient time, together with cleanliness and neatness, that she needs. no preservatives or artificial coloring to produce a product far superior to the usual commercial article and at an equal or lower cost. This is possible largely because she gives her time, and uses the same container over and over again. The manufacturer has the advantage of buying everything in immense quantities, of systematic work, of improved and labor saving machinery, of experience, and these are legitimate; and many firms are putting up the best product possible, under conditions they are proud to show to people who visit their establishments. A great many more are not proud of their factories and will not allow any visitors in them. They are often dirty, ill smelling, hot, dingy, poorly ventilated, damp, filled with flies which swarm over everything. Probably not every bad condition will be present at the same time, but the writer has seen establishments 'where food was preparing where conditions were disgusting, and inspectors see such frequently. What is needed is to require every producer of food to use clean methods and wholesome raw materials and not permission to use preservatives. They are not necessary despite the cry of the manufacturing interests and every home can prove it to its own satisfaction. A few first class firms use no preservatives now and if they do not, all others need not. Will the people allow producers to stand on the low plane of those who use preservatives or require all to rise to the level of the few who do not? Be assured that the strongest fight will be made for preservatives by those who manufacture them and by those who use them. Every argument possible and impossible will be used. Every pressure will be brought to bear on those who have to enforce the food laws of this country. The public must decide. If it wants or allows preservatives it will get them. It has the right to forbid them. The tendency is already indicated. Benzoates are harmless! Now the millers want bleacht flour submitted to the Referee Board, next day come those who wish to use sulfurous acid and sulfites, then he who prefers to use salicylic acid. As no one preservative is best adapted to all foods, there will follow in turn the special pleader for borax in meat, formaldehyde in milk, betanapthol in beer and a long line of newer preservatives as formic acid, fluoride of sodium, zirconium salts, aluminum acetate, sodium acetate, to say nothing of all possible mixtures of the foregoing, sold under trade names so various and constantly changing, that small producers, as butchers and farmers are induced to use them as something new and harmless. Sixtytwo such are found in one publication, alone. The next move will be that of the color man who wants to make strawberry jell from colorless glucose, grass seed and exhausted apple pulp. He has good reason on his side too, for one prominent manufacturer of the artificial flavors of strawberry, raspberry, banana, pineapple, peach and all the rest, said to the writer "Why if we had to leave the color out they would all look alike. It would ruin the business!" Another told of a raspberry flavoring that had a specially good sale until he left out the color in conformity with the law when its sale stopped almost entirely. The purchasing public is largely to blame for the present state of affairs. For years they have demanded bright hues where they had no reason to expect them and the only solution was coal tar dyes; or flour of an unnatural whiteness and the fumes of strong acid served the miller; or ten cent jelly; and glucose, apple pulp, a preservative, an artificial sweetener and a coal tar dye gave them what they askt for. Demand clean food, packt under sanitary conditions with all preservatives, colors, saccharin, fillers and other adulterants and frauds left out and you will get them. Use no other. Each state has the opportunity to protect its own people and should |