Food Adulteration and Its Detection. Jesse P. Battershall
Some of the results of the work performed by the New York State Board of Health during the year 1882 are tabulated below:—
| Article. | Number of Samples Tested. | Number found to be Adulterated. | Per cent. of Adulterated. |
| Butter | 40 | 21 | 52·50 |
| Olive oil | 16 | 9 | 56·25 |
| Baking powder | 84 | 8 | 9·52 |
| Flour | 117 | 8 | 6·84 |
| Spices | 180 | 112 | 62·22 |
| Coffee (ground) | 21 | 19 | 90·48 |
| Candy (yellow) | 10 | 7 | 70·00 |
| Brandy | 25 | 16 | 64·00 |
| Sugar (brown) | 67 | 4 | 5·97 |
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