Of the various branches cognate to chemical research which excite public attention, that of food adulteration doubtless possesses the greatest interest. To the dealer in alimentary substances, the significance of their sophistication is frequently merely one of profit or loss, and even this comparatively unimportant consideration does not always attach. But to the general community, the subject appeals to interests more vital than a desire to avoid pecuniary damage, and involving, as it necessarily does, the question of health, it has engendered a feeling of uneasiness, accompanied by an earnest desire for trustworthy information and data. The most usual excuses advanced by dishonest traders, when a case of adulteration has been successfully brought home to them—guilty knowledge being also established—are, that they are compelled to resort to the misdeed by the public demand for cheap commodities, that the addition is harmless, or actually constitutes an improvement, as is asserted to be the case when chicory is added to coffee, or that it serves as a preservative, as was formerly alleged to be the fact when vinegar was fortified with sulphuric acid. Pretexts of this sort are almost invariably fallacious. The claim that manufacturers are often forced into adulteration by the necessities of unfair trade competition possesses more weight—an honest dealer cannot as a rule successfully compete with a dishonest one—and has undoubtedly influenced many of the better class to co-operate in attempts to prevent the practice. The general feeling of uncertainty which exists in the public mind concerning the actual extent and importance of food adulteration is probably to be ascribed to two causes. In the first place, most of the literature generally accessible relating to the subject has been limited to sensational newspaper articles, reciting some startling instance of food-poisoning, often unauthenticated and bearing upon its face evidences of exaggeration. By reason of such publications, periodical panics have been created in our large cities which, however, as a rule quickly subside, and the community relapses into the customary feeling of doubtful security, until aroused from its apathy by the next exposÉ. The fact that the only reliable results of food investigation have, until recently, been confined to purely scientific journals, and therefore not prominently brought to public notice, is another explanation of the lack of creditable information which generally prevails concerning this species of sophistication.

The adulteration of alimentary substances was practised in the civilised countries of Europe at a very remote date, and the early history of the art, mainly collated by Prof. Blyth in his valuable work on food,[1] is replete with interest. Bread certainly received due attention at the hands of the ancient sophisticator. Pliny makes several references to the adulteration of this food. In England, as early as the reign of King John, the sale of the commodity was controlled by the “Assize of Bread,” which, although originally designed to regulate the price and size of the loaf, was subsequently amplified so as to include penalties for falsification, usually consisting of corporal punishment and exposure in the pillory. In France, in 1382, ordinances were promulgated specifying the proper mode of bread-making, the punishment for infringement being similar in character to those inflicted in Great Britain. It is related that in the year 1525, a guilty baker “was condemned by the court to be taken from the ChÂtelet prison to the cross before the Église des Carmes, and thence to the gate of Notre Dame and to other public places in Paris, in his shirt, having his head and feet bare, with small loaves hung from his neck, and holding a large wax candle, lighted, and in each of the places enumerated he was to make amende honorable, and ask mercy and pardon of God, the king, and of justice for his fault.” In Germany, during the fifteenth century, the bread adulterator, while not subjected to a religious penance, did not escape from a sufficiently practical rebuke, as it was the frequent custom to put him in a basket attached to a long pole, and purge him of his misdeeds by repeated immersions in a pool of water.

Wine would also appear to have been exposed to fraudulent admixture in former times. Pliny mentions that in Rome considerable difficulty was experienced, even by the wealthy, in securing the pure article, and in Athens a public inspector was early appointed to prevent its adulteration. In England, during the reign of Edward the Confessor, punishment for brewing bad beer was publicly enforced, and, in 1529, official “ale tasters” flourished, without whose approval the beverage was not to be sold. In later years, Addison, referring to the manipulators of wine of his time, writes: “These subtle philosophers are daily employed in the transmutation of liquors, and, by the power of magical drugs and incantations, raise under the streets of London the choicest products of the hills and valleys of France; they squeeze Bordeaux out of the sloe and draw champagne from an apple.”[2] In the fifteenth century, at Biebrich on the Rhine, a wine sophisticator was forced to drink six quarts of his own stock, and it is recorded with due gravity that the test resulted fatally. Not very many years since, a manufacturer of wine at Rheims secured for his champagne, which was chiefly consumed in WÜrtemberg, a high reputation, on account of the unusually exhilarating effects following its use. Suspicion being at length aroused, Liebig made a chemical examination of the article, and found that it was at least unique in its gaseous composition, being charged with one volume of carbonic acid gas and two volumes of nitrous oxide, or “laughing gas.” These early attempts to control and punish adulteration, while often possessing interest on account of their quaintness, are chiefly important, as being the precursors of the protective legal measures which exist in more modern times.

In 1802 the Conseil de SalubritÉ was established in Paris, and this body has since developed into numerous health boards, to whom the French are at present mainly indebted for what immunity from food falsification they enjoy. A very decided advance upon all preceding methods to regulate the public supply of food was signalised in 1874 by the organisation in England of the Society of Public Analysts, who formulated a legal definition of adulteration, and issued the standards of purity which articles of general consumption should meet. This society was supported in its valuable services by the enactment, in 1875, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, which, with the amendment added in 1879, seems to embrace all necessary safeguards against the offences sought to be suppressed. The results of their work are tabulated as follows:—

Of the total number of samples tested, the classification of adulterations is as below:—

More recent data concerning the falsification of food in Great Britain are as follows:—

Of the samples of spirits and beer examined, about 25 per cent. were adulterated.

The results of the work done at the Paris Municipal Laboratory are the following:—

The American characteristic of controlling their own personal affairs, and the resulting disinclination to resort to anything savouring of parental governmental interference, has probably had its effect in retarding early systematic action in the matter of adulteration. Sporadic attempts to secure legislative restrictions have, it is true, occasionally been made, but the laws passed were almost invariably of a specific nature, designed to meet some isolated case, and were destined to share the fate of most legislation of the kind—the particular adulteration being for the nonce suppressed, the law became practically a dead letter. Subsequent effort to obtain more comprehensive laws inclined to the other extreme, and the enactments secured were so general in scope, and so deficient in details, that loopholes were inadvertently allowed to remain, through which the crafty adulterator often managed to escape.

The present food legislation in the United States was to some extent anticipated in 1848 by an Act of Congress to secure the purity of imported drugs. In this enactment these are directed to be tested by the standards established by the various official pharmacopoeias; twenty-three are specifically enumerated, the most important being Peruvian bark and opium. The Act is still in force. All previous efforts to regulate the quality of our food supply culminated in 1877 in formal action being taken by several of the State Boards of Health, at whose instance laws against adulteration were formulated, and chemists commissioned to collect and examine samples of alimentary substances, and furnish reports on the subject. These may be found in the publications of the same, notably in the volumes issued by the New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jersey Boards. The service rendered to the public by these investigations is almost incalculable, and the annual reports containing the results of the same are fraught with interest. For the first time we are placed in possession of trustworthy statistics, indicating the extent of food sophistication in this country.

The annual report of the New York City Board of Health for the year 1885 furnishes the following statistics:—

Some of the results of the work performed by the New York State Board of Health during the year 1882 are tabulated below:—

In interpreting the significance of the foregoing table, it should be borne in mind that in the vast majority of cases the adulterations practised were not of an injurious nature, but consisted of a fraudulent admixture of some cheaper substance, the object being an increase of bulk or weight resulting in augmented profit.

Much of the embarrassment experienced by health authorities in their efforts to bring persons guilty of food adulteration to punishment is due to the lack of explicit detail in the law. It is far easier to substantiate the fact of the adulteration than it is to produce the offender in court and secure his conviction. Numerous cases are on record illustrating the peculiar contingencies which at times arise. Probably with the best intention, a milk vendor labelled his wagon, “Country skimmed milk, sold as adulterated;” an inspector bought a sample, not noticing the label, and the magistrate convicted the vendor, doubtless on the ground that due attention had not been directed to the advertisement.[3] Chief Justice Cockburn, in referring to an analogous case, said: “If the seller chooses to sell an article with a certain admixture, the onus lies on him to prove that the purchaser knew what he was purchasing.” In most instances, when in ostensible compliance with the law, a package bears a label purporting to state the actual nature of its contents, the label is either printed in such small type, or is placed in so inconspicuous a position, that the buyer is in ignorance of its existence at the time the purchase is made. A confectioner in Boston was suspected of selling adulterated candy, and while it was proved that a sample bought of him contained a dangerous proportion of a poisonous pigment—chromate of lead—he escaped conviction, on the plea that candy was not an article of food within the meaning of the existing law, which, it seems, has since been amended so as to embrace cases of this kind.

In a recent action brought by the New York Board of Health to obtain an injunction against the sale of certain Ping Suey teas, it was held by the court, in refusing to grant the same, that, although the teas in question had been clearly shown to be adulterated with gypsum, Prussian blue, sand, etc., it was likewise necessary to prove that the effect of these admixtures was such as to constitute a serious danger to public health.

As a result of the publicity lately given to the subject of food adulteration, a popular impression has been produced that any substance employed as an adulterant of, or a substitute for another, is to be avoided per se. Perhaps the common belief that for all purposes cotton-seed oil is inferior to olive oil, and oleomargarine to butter, is the most striking illustration of this tendency. Now, as a matter of fact, pure cotton-seed oil, as at present found on the market, is less liable to become rancid than the product of the olive, and, for many culinary uses, it is at least quite as serviceable. Absolute cleanliness is a sine qua non in the successful manufacture of oleomargarine, and, as an economical substitute for the inferior kinds of butter often exposed for sale, its discovery cannot justly be regarded a misfortune. The sale of these products, under their true name, should not only be allowed, but under some circumstances even encouraged.

The benefits accruing to the community by reason of the service of our State Boards of Health are so evident and so important, that it is almost incredible that these bodies have not been put in possession of all the facilities necessary for their work. It would appear, however, that, while our legislators have been induced to enact good laws regulating adulteration, they have often signally failed to fulfil all the requirements indispensable to the efficient execution of the same. Without entering into the details of this branch of the subject, it is proper to observe that owing to the lack of necessary funds, great pecuniary embarrassment has been experienced in securing the services of a competent corps of experts, who, in addition to their inadequate remuneration, must incur the expenses of purchasing samples. The appointment of public analysts in our larger towns and cities—as has for some time been the case in Great Britain—is certainly to be urgently recommended.

All attempts to awaken public interest in the subject of food adulteration are of any real service only as they may be conducive to the adoption of more advanced and improved measures for the suppression of the practice.

In general, the adulterations to which food is subjected may be divided into those positively deleterious to health (such as the colouring of confectionery by chrome yellow), those which are only fraudulent (such as the addition of flour to mustard), and those which may be fairly considered as accidental (such as the presence of a small amount of sand in tea). It would exceed the limits of this volume to enter into a comprehensive review of the almost endless varieties of adulteration. The following list embraces the articles most exposed to falsification, together with the adulterants commonly employed:—

The above table includes those admixtures which have actually been detected by chemists of repute within the past few years, and omits many rather sensational forms of adulteration mentioned in the early treatises on the subject, the practice of which appears to have been discontinued.

In the following pages, some of the more important articles of food and drink are described with especial reference to their chemical relations and the ordinary adulterations to which they are exposed. It should be added, that many of the methods of examination given are quoted in a condensed form from the more extensive works on food-analysis.