Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

keep unless they were subjected to a very low temperature. Beer can be shipped without damage on the large steamers which have cold-storage facilities. The pasteurizing process can not be applied to beer in wood. The heat would have to be very great to penetrate 2 inches of wood and the great bulk of the contents. (381,384, 385.)

Mr. KRUESLER, a brew master, says that he does not use any preservatives or antiseptics in his beer. (377, 378.)

Mr. HUPFEL says that he uses no preservatives or antiseptic in the manufacture of his beer. He thinks he did use some salicylic acid about 10 or 12 years ago for bottling purposes in the summer. (379.)

Mr. THOMANN says that pasteurizing has largely done away with the necessity of using antiseptics in beer. The process does, however, take away something of the fine flavor of the beer. Beer drawn freshly from the wood is considered better. (357.)

Mr. FECKER says that while the use of preservatives may have been necessary years ago, it is not necessary now, since the introduction of ice machines and pasteurization. His company has used none for years. It would be a waste of money to use salicylic acid. (298.)

Mr. PLAUTZ, secretary of the United Brewing Company, declares that pasteurization preserves beer as long as it needs to be preserved, and that there is consequently no need of using salicylic acid or any preservative in either keg or bottled beer. If one were to export bottled beer to a southern climate it would probably be well to put a little salicylic acid in it. Mr. Plautz does not know of any brewery which uses salicylic acid or any similar preservative. (300,301.)

Professor VAUGHAN thinks there is no need of using salicylic acid or any other preservative even in export beer, if it is properly made and properly sterilized. (204.)

Professor JENKINS states that of 7 samples of ale examined by the Connecticut agricultural experiment station only one was found to contain salicylic acid. (452.)

[ocr errors]

The printed testimony is accompanied by an anonymous statement entitled doctoring beer," to the following effect: The preparation of beer, in consequence of scientific research, is now more deliberate, methodical, and reliable than formerly. Beer is a beverage prepared from cereals, as barley, rice, corn, or wheat, seasoned with hops, and fermented. In former years articles were added to give a certain taste or increase its stability, but this practice was given up by brewers almost on their own account, because it appeared useless, and it was found that with proper management the natural way was best. Stability only remains a vexed question. The brewers do not willingly emancipate themselves from certain preservatives, which perhaps promote carelessness and unprofessional work, but there is no room in beer for chemicals of any kind, as distinguished from the natural product. Brewers can get along without carbonate of soda, salicylic acid, benzoic acid, saccharin, ammonium fluoride, etc., and must reach the point where they can prepare stable beers of good taste without adding foreign substances. There is no objection to sterilizing beers by high or low temperatures, but brewers ought to have nothing to do with drugs, for they can not take the responsibility for them, which belongs only to chemists and physicians, and their use shows a certain lack of competency, giving their enemies a weapon, enabling them to bring the brewing trade into disgrace, and affording a pretext to legislatures to lay their hands upon the industry. Germany, the greatest and most renowned beer country in the world, has long since done away with these drugs, and the scientific and practical authorities of that country, who speak with respect of American brewing methods, are shocked by the public advocacy of preservatives. (49,50.)

2. Use in beer for export, bottling, and long shipment.—Mr. BROWN, president of the Long Island Brewery, says that he uses preservatives only in beer for export or for distant shipment. He has experimented with salicylic acid, but has not been very well satisfied with it. He does not use any preservatives in barreled beer, but would think it necessary if beer in barrels were to be shipped to a great distance and subjected to changing temperatures. (386.)

Professor MITCHELL says preservatives are used especially in beer for bottling and exporting. Brewers who have good methods do not need to use them in lager beer which is quickly consumed, but in bottled beers which are shipped long distances the easier way is for the brewers to use preservatives. He has found antiseptics in some of the bottled beers. (116.)

Mr. ZELTNER, a lager beer brewer, says that he uses salicylic acid in beer which may go out of the country and be kept for an indefinite time. (456.)

Mr. WACKENHUTH, brew master for Ballantine & Co., says that he uses salicylic acid for bottling beer only, and only for about 5 months in the summer. He considers everything that he uses perfectly sound and healthful. (412.)

Mr. WYATT states that there is practically no use of antiseptics in barreled beer designed for draft purposes, except when it is shipped, as it sometimes is, from one end of the continent to the other, and may be exposed to severe and sudden changes of temperature. In such cases it has been customary, and he has advised brewers, to use salicylic acid, which he regards as the least harmful of antiseptics. The amount used would be about one part in five thousand, or a little less than half an ounce per barrel of 311 gallons. That is about one-fourth grain of salicylic acid per glass of beer. Mr. Wyatt would only advocate the use of antiseptics when it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the beer. He has never known of the use of any other preservative than salicylic acid and bisulphite of lime. He has heard of various others being proposed, but has always denounced them. The great majority of brewers do not do a shipping trade, and never use a particle of salicylic acid. (406, 407.)

Mr. SCHWARTZ, a consulting brewer, says that salicylic acid and compounds of sulphurous acid, such as the sulphites of sodium, potassium, and lime, are used in moderate quantities in shipping and bottled beers. He considers them necessary, and harmless in the quantities in which they are used. Whether the beer is in wood or in bottles, if it is to be exposed to frequent changes of temperature, something should be added to keep it good. Even when beer is pasteurized a little preservative should be added. It is impossible to employ sterilized bottles; the filling implements, hose, and so forth, are more or less exposed to the air, and it is impossible altogether to exclude bacteria or to be sure of destroying them by steaming. It is not necessary to add a preservative to beer which is to be used near the place of manufacture, and without long keeping.

Alluding to the fact that the addition of preservatives to beer is forbidden in Bavaria, Mr. Schwartz says there is no country where there is more complaint about the quality of beer, and he attributes the complaint to the lack of preservatives. It is impossible in any country, he says, to exclude the germs of bacteria. They cause a change of flavor and taste, which can not be stopped because the use of preservatives is forbidden. The result is that the beer is found poor and bad and it is thought that the brewer must have used improper materials.

Mr. Schwartz would recommend for bottled beer about half an ounce of salicylic acid to the barrel of 31 gallons, or less than one one-hundredth of 1 per cent. (367,369, 372.)

Mr. WIGAN, a brewing master, says that he uses bisulphite of lime, and he seems to intend to say that he also uses salicylic acid. He would not use so much as one one-hundredth of 1 per cent. The general tendency is to increase the quantity used with the warmth of the climate. Yet in his experience in England he used rather more than he is accustomed to use in America. (375, 376.)

3. In foreign beers.-Mr. WYATT says that he has had occasion to analyze imported beers and ales and wines and has almost invariably found preservatives in them. He would use them if he were shipping to a foreign port. The phrase "Bass stink," which used to be used to describe the smell of Bass's ale, referred to the odor of sulphuretted hydrogen, which came from the bisulphite of lime which was used as a preservative. A long series of experiments, extending over many years, has shown that bisulphite of lime has no injurious effects whatever, and is a much more desirable antiseptic than salicylic acid. It is found impossible to use it in this country. People will not drink American beer which contains it. The trouble may be in the nature of our water or in some fault of manufacture. (407.)

Mr. SCHWARTZ states that imported lager beer contains about the same amount of salicylic acid which is used in this country, and that imported ales from England contain sulphites in larger quantities than are used here. (372, 373.)

Mr. PLAUTZ thinks that all beers imported into this country contain a very little salicylic acid. The Bavarian Government prohibits the use of salicylic acid, but would not prohibit it, Mr. Plautz thinks, if the beer were to be exported. (300.) Mr. THOMANN says that the Bavarian law forbids the use of preservatives in beer, but he thinks it is tacitly understood that preservatives may be put into beer which is to be shipped beyond seas. Mr. Thomann does not believe that the beer could be sold here in such an excellent state of freshness if preservatives were not used. Bass's ale has a peculiar smell when the bottle is opened, which is sometimes called the "Bass stink." This is the smell of the preservative. (358.) Dr. WILEY says that among 15 different beers bought at different places in New York, at least half of them being foreign, 4 were found to contain salicylic acid. Of the foreign bottled beers, 2 samples contained salicylic acid in quantities sufficient to preserve them from fermentation. Of the domestic beers bottled and sold within 2 or 3 weeks only 2 contained salicylic acid. (584.)

Mr. EITEL, an importer of beer from Bavaria and Bohemia, asserts positively that the beer which he gets from Munich contains nothing but malt and hops.

I C-VOL XI-23

The Bavarian Government would not allow the use of salicylic acid or any other chemical. The beer which is exported direct from Germany has consular investigation at Munich, and is shipped in bond to the United States. (290, 291.)

Mr. ROCHE, who imports Bass's ale and Guinness's stout in hogsheads and bottles them at New York City, declares that they are put into the bottle without the addition of any adulterant or preservative. They undergo a secondary fermentation in the bottle, which increases the proportion of alcohol and carbonic acid. The witness does not add any yeast or other material. (414.)

An affidavit of Mr. LA TOUCHE, managing director of Arthur Guinness, Son & Co., Limited, was presented, in which it was asserted that the stout brewed by that company for exportation keeps in the bottle for an indefinite period, though exposed to a wide range of temperature, and that no antiseptic and no material of any kind, except malt, hops, yeast, and water, is put into it. The stout brewed for export has a larger proportion of hops than that brewed for the home market, and this helps to preserve it. It is stored and matured from 1 to 2 years in large bulk vats. The specific gravity of the extract of malt before it is fermented is from 1072 to 1074. On the market it contains about 6.1 per cent, by weight, of absolute alcohol, and 6 per cent of solid matter. The company is opposed to the secret and uncontrolled use of antiseptics, and believes that the bulk of the credited evidence tends to prove that the use of them is physiologically injurious. It is admitted that malt liquors which contain little malt extract and little alcohol due to fermentation would require some preservative to enable them to withstand severe atmospheric and climatic conditions. Beer brewed from perfect materials, with a high proportion of hops and of alcohol, will remain sound and palatable for an unlimited time. (544-546.)

J. Proposed legislation.-1. Publicity.-Dr. WILEY maintains that no food should ever be offered for sale containing a preservative without that fact being plainly marked upon it. He would not prohibit the use of preservatives, as they are often desirable in certain articles of food, as in catsup; but each preservative should be used under its proper name and be properly understood by everyone using it. Even a remedy should not be used under a name by which it is not known. There is a fraud upon the public in using a very cheap substance under an unknown name and selling it at an immense profit. (44, 184.)

Professor JENKINS says that the United States Government, if it passes a purefood law, ought to forbid the use of antiseptics that are not evident to the taste and smell, unless their presence is called to the attention of the purchaser, either by a label or in the sale of the article. (454.)

Professor A. B. PRESCOTT, dean of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Michigan, believes that preservatives should either be prohibited or announced upon the label or in the name of the food. (195.)

Dr. FRANK BILLINGS, professor of the practice of medicine in Rush Medical College, believes that Government officials, both national and State, should place upon food packages a notice indicating how the contents are preserved; but he thinks that they should also convey to the public the fact that the ingredient used as a preservative is practically harmless. He believes that the best way would be to have a national board. (247.)

Mr. ALBERT HELLER, of Heller & Co., believes that harmless preservatives should be allowed to be used in food, in order to cheapen food products in certain cases. If they were marked, the poorer classes would be afraid to use them, or backward in buying them. A law requiring the marking of all food products would affect the manufacturing industries very much indeed, and do great damage to the country. (181.)

2. Limitation.-Professor HALLBERG says antiseptics should not be entirely prohibited, but their use should certainly be limited. We should not rely upon the various manufacturers to use their own judgment; the limit must be placed by high medical authorities after thorough investigation. (81.)

3. Prohibition in certain cases.-Professor VAUGHAN thinks no salicylic acid or butyric acid or anything of that kind ought to be allowed in preserving fruits or jellies, because if the sterilization is complete these things can be kept without any antiseptic. (204.)

Professor PRESCOTT thinks it would be wise to prohibit the use of salicylic acid in malted liquors and wines, and the use of certain other preservative agents in foods. There may be some cases in which it would not be expedient to prohibit the use of preservatives. He would not undertake to decide as to the absolute rejection in all cases of such an article as saltpeter or niter in the preparation of ham. (195, 196, 201.)

Mr. HELLER says deleterious substances should not be allowed, but if no preservatives could be used the manufacturers would have to quit business. The substances which are found to be harmless should be allowed. (182.)

XIV. DRUGS.

A. National Pharmacopoeia.-Mr. C. S. N. HALLBERG, editor of the Western Druggist, professor of pharmacy of the Chicago College of Pharmacy, and a member of the committee on the revision of the Pharmacopoeia of the United States, says that since 1820 delegates from all the medical and pharmaceutical societies of the United States have met in Washington every 10 years and chosen 25 members to issue a work which is the standard of authority for medicine. Outside of pharmacy, there is no standard for the identity, quality, purity, and strength of natural substances. He believes that a national food law should be based upon a work of standard authority, defining what natural substances are, their derivation, composition, strength, purity, and quality, as in medicine. (80.)

B. Unofficinal and adulterated drugs.-1. General statements.-Professor HALLBERG says that in drugs and medicines outside the Pharmacopoeia, the compounder must print the formula on the labels. This has now been in vogue largely more than 10 or 15 years, but has been so much abused that there is no longer any faith attached to the formulas. He thinks the adulteration of drugs has been carried on to a very great extent in this country. (86.)

Dr. PIFFARD says the adulteration of drugs is usually for the purpose of cheapening them, but it is dangerous to permit adulterations reducing the strength of drugs. (194.)

Professor MITCHELL says that most of the impure drugs he has met with were simply not properly purified to conform with the medicinal strength required. The drugs most adulterated are those commonly in use, such as household ammonia, root beer, so-called cherry phosphate, etc. (124.)

Mr. MURRAY says he has certain formulas to grind and mix to order for certain manufacturers, as for hog cholera. In most cases the ingredients are pure drugs, but some are not.

(71.)

2. Bromo-seltzer.-Dr. PIFFARD refers to the offering by drug manufacturers of mixtures under names which give a false idea of their composition. The general impression is that bromo-seltzer is composed largely or wholly of bromide of potassium, or some other bromide, and the ingredients more or less natural to seltzer water. As a matter of fact, some of the bromo-seltzers contain very little bromide of potassium, their effect being due to some much more injurious substance. He mentions a case of acute poisoning from bromo-seltzer, in which the apothecary admitted that it was mainly acetanilide, and another case of poisoning in which an active poison had been added to the bromo-seltzer, but the chemist stated that there was acetanilide in it also. Dr. Piffard therefore presumes that the use of acetanilide in the place of bromide of potassium is rather prevalent in these mixtures. It costs less to produce an equivalent effect, and it is used as a cheapener. (194,195.)

3. Black antimony.-Professor HALLBERG says there has not been any black antimony in the market for years, except in chemical specialties. What has been sold as black antimony is a mixture of powdered coal dust. Farmers formerly used this largely as an ingredient in powders for hog cholera, but of late there has not been much black antimony used, because the farmers found that they could get better results by burning corn. In this case the imitation or substitution proved a good thing, leading the farmers to see the great value of the grain for chemical purposes. Black antimony is defined as a sulphide of antimony, the ore out of which Brice tried to make gold. (84, 85.)

4. Paints and linseed oil.—Dr. WILEY says barytes or sulphate of barium is sold as terra alba. It is very heavy, weighing more than any other white earth known. The witness has never found it in food products, but it is used largely in adulterating paints. It is a stone which makes a perfectly white powder, absolutely insoluble, even in the strongest acid. The only way to dissolve it is to fuse it in a white heat with caustic alkalies. (32.)

Dr. Wiley testifies that corn oil, extracted from the germ of the grain, is a partially drying oil, and has been used to adulterate linseed oil. He considers the oil adulterated in this way very much less valuable than pure linseed oil. (21, 22.) C. Legislation.-1. Imported drugs.-Prof. HALLBERG says there used to be a great deal of adulterated opium brought to this country, but the United States Pharmacopoeia fixed a minimum limit of morphine in opium at 9 per cent, and now the revenue officials examine all the opium imported, and do not permit the importation of any opium unless it contains 9 per cent of morphine. This shows the value of a standard. (83.)

Dr. PIFFARD says the United States Government does a great deal to prevent adulteration by refusing admission into this country of adulterated and inferior drugs, but it does nothing to prevent their adulteration after they are here. He hopes the proposed legislation will cover the matter of drugs. (193.)

2. Poisons in proprietary medicines.-Professor FREAR Considers that when proprietary articles contain substances which are poisonous in an overdose, purchasers ought to be warned specifically what is present, or warned that an overdose should not be taken. (484.)

XV. GENERAL PURE-FOOD LEGISLATION.

A. Foreign laws.—Mr. I. GILES LEWIS says in some countries-Germany and France, for instance—the pure-food laws are very stringent, and make any violation a penal offense. He considers the English law unquestionably the best food law, because it applies to food for export as well as to that for home consumption, while the German and French laws allow antiseptics to go to foreign countries which would not be allowed to be used at home. This is especially noticeable in cheap German and French wines and in low-grade products usually sold to the poor, high-grade products being guaranteed by trade-marks, etc. While the Germans are very particular about the quality of their beer, it seems almost necessary that products containing very little alcohol which are to pass through the Tropics should have some other preservative. The English law compels the manufacturer to put on his labels exactly what the articles contain. Mr. Lewis thinks it rather oversteps itself, the manufacturer of the best mustard in the world being compelled to state that his high-grade mustard contains flour, which is absolutely necessary to preserve the mustard and to insure its delicate flavor when put into water. Every label must truthfully represent what the package contains, in a general way. The English law does not require the use of revenue stamps, and the Government issues no certificates. The witness considers the English law rather lame in this respect, viewed from our standpoint, but explains it by saying that the English people do not, as a rule, export foods, other than condiments. (34, 35.)

Dr. WILEY says the laws of most European countries forbid the addition to food products of certain antiseptics, such as saccharin and salicylic acid. (44, 52, 53.)

B. State laws.-1. In general.-Dr. PIFFARD says that in most of the States there are laws governing the adulteration of foods and drugs which look to be pretty good laws, but are insufficient, either (1) through the failure of the necessary appropriation to enforce them or (2) through lack of sufficient knowledge on the part of the officials charged with their enforcement. To illustrate a third cause of failure of these laws, Dr. Piffard says he has read the report of a chemist to the committee which employed him stating that he did not think it would be judicious to take action against the brewers, as that was such a large interest. Dr. Piffard made up his mind that the fellow was either a knave or a fool. (193, 194.)

Mr. THURBER testifies that he placed a thousand dollars at the disposal of the National Board of Trade some 12 years ago, to be awarded in prizes for the best draft of a food-adulteration act. A committee was formed consisting of a chemist, a jurist, a physician, and two business men, of whom Mr. Thurber was one. This committee awarded a first prize of $500, a second prize of $300, and a third prize of $200 for the best drafts of an act to prevent the adulteration of food. The committee then formulated an act, taking the first-prize act as a basis, and the committee's draft is the foundation of the regulation of food in New York, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other States. Most of the States have made variations in their provisions, but the definitions are largely those which the committee outlined. (580.)

Mr. MURRAY says that some of the State laws, as in Michigan, do not allow the sale of mustard or any other article that is adulterated or colored. (69.)

Professor AUSTEN says that bills have been introduced in various State legislatures making it a misdemeanor to use alum in the preparation of foods. In Missouri such a law was passed. A bill to enact exactly the same law was recently introduced in the Georgia legislature, but it did not pass. One was before the Virginia legislature when Professor Austen testified. He understood that similar bills were to be introduced in the legislatures of Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and perhaps some other States. Professor Austen understood that such bills were to be introduced in all legislatures where it was practicable, and as nearly as possible at the same time. He declared that the bills all emanated from one source, and that the whole movement was an attempt to gain the assistance of State legislation in preventing the sale of competitors' products. (533, 534.)

2. New York.-Professor TUCKER, director of the State board of health of New York, says that the law of New York with regard to pure foods is perhaps sufficient, but the difficulty is that the appropriations are not large enough for con

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »