appropriation, might order it impossible, for want of funds, to prosecute investigations into dairy and other products. I deem it best to call your attention in detail to these facts for possible future guidance, because reports of other State analysts show an enormous amount of work and money expended in this utterly futile and misguided direction; futile because no prosecutions resulted therefrom and no sales have been prohibited; and misguided because no specific complaints were made requiring analysis.

Let the great and small baking powder manufacturers apply and pay for public self-praise in the newspapers, and also to the outside chemists for their indorsement. The State Dairy and Food Commissioner should not be obliged to furnish them free advertisements in their reports, and analyses of their own and rival brands to compare

with.

OLEOMARGARINE.

I believe it will be possible to furnish the public with a simple test, which will be inexpensive and rapidly made, whereby this compound can readily be distinguished from butter or if mixed with butter in small proportions, but I hope to report thereon later I would suggest that the Dairy and Food Commission be authorized to print wrappers which for the bare cost should be charged, to be purchased by the honest butter makers of the State, whereby their product can be distinguished-counterfeiting which would be a felony, and by its universal use the public would be looking for only such butter as had such a wrapper. More and more butter makers would get to using them and "Ohio Butter" would be in demand for the greater safety thus secured. Some such plan with all details developed would succeed in limiting the sale of oleomargarite to such people as demand it by preference, and while it is a serious question as to the legality of preventing the sale of oleomargarine from one State to another, the sale of butter can be protected by such trade marks of the United States, backed by the authority of the state, that Ohio farmers can be protected all over the United States.

GROUND COFFEE.

Four samples were analyzed. I did not feel satisfied with the published methods for separating and determining the ingredients, and as one party at least threatened to allow the case to go into the courts, a test simple to explain and positive in its operation, so as to satisfy the average juryman was what I sought and devised as follows:

Coffee, when roasted, has a specific gravity much lighter than the usual adulterants. Roasted chicory, peas, grain (wheat), all are heavier but each has a different specific gravity, so that by weighing a given quantity of ground coffee, and stirring it into a bquid of light specific gravity, that of 0.960 (cloroform 1 volume and alcohol 4 volumes), the coffee only floats at the surface and is separated and dried, then weighed. Next pouring off the balance of the liquid from the dregs, let them dry and stir them into other liquids of varying specific gravities in which only one of various adulterants will float, while the rest will sink. Thus, roasted wheat sinks in a liquid of the sp. gr. 999 (chhloroform 1 vo ume, alcohol 3 volumes); roasted chicory sinks in a liquid of the sp. gr. 1.097 (chloroform 2 volume, alcohol 3 volumes), but will therefore float the wheat; roasted peas sink in al quid of the sp. gr. 1.272 (chloroform 2 volumes, alcohol 1 volume), but will float the chicory. If there are no other adulterants than the peas left, they, of course, need not be floated, but separated as they are from the rest, are dried and weighed. When each kind of article is separated and can be examined by the jury by taste, and external likeness of each particle, they are satisfied at once. In fact the defendant in this case, having been told by somebody that the ingredients could not be separated and coffee analysis was all theoretical, very likely based his determination to try the courts upon the uncertainty of such a test, but when he was told as to the nature of the test that had been made it seemed to have much to do with his at once pleading guilty without trial.

MAPLE SYRUP.

Regarding maple syrup, all the samples tested were free from adulteration of glucose, and, so far as an analysis can determine, practically pure. It is to be regretted that no extremely rigid test is known whereby adulteration by admixture with cane sugar or syrup made from cane sugar can be detected; furthermore, there is no legal standard of purity or concentration, limiting the minimum amount of saccharine matter a gallon of syrup should contain. As it now is, maple syrup may be thick or thin, according to the amount of water boiled out or added as the case may be, and it may vary in true value, 25 to even 50 per cent., yet the honest man would have to compete before the public on the same basis. Each gallon of maple syrup ought to be made to weigh a certain uniform weight, allowing as a practical limit, a range of perhaps 5 to 10 per cent. for lack of absolutely correct weights and measures.

VINFGAR.

Complaints of buyers in most instances were verified and the so-called cider vinegars were found to be glucose or distillery vinegars, perhaps flavored with a very small amount of cider vinegar, but below the standard of purity and strength provided by law to be commercially sold as cider vinegars.

BUTTER.

The samples analyzed were all rancid and complaints are justified on the ground that as an article of food, rancid butter is more objectionable than oleomargarine. Samples Nos. 24 and 25 had an unbearable odor, but they were free from adulteration.

CANDY.

Complaint was made that terra-alba was used contrary to law by manufacturers of cheap goods, but goods bearing the labels of local manufacturers were purchased near schools, yet they were all found pure. To find mere traces of poison in the coloring matter in so small proportions as to show that no harmful results will follow, I do not think is of sufficient weight to alarm the public, because minute traces of equally as poisonous matter can be found in the air we breathe, the food we must eat without being able to purify it, and materials that are manufactured with chemicals such as sugar, glucose, etc, may retain traces of poison that practically can not be removed, yet can do no harm, and the greatest proof that they do not lies in the fact that millions of pounds are consumed daily and people seem to thrive without complaint of health authorities to show that a large share of sickness all over the world has the same nature, not the la grippe nor other diseases traceable to germ or other positive causes, but some poisonous matter in the food. No such general condition exists and no general alarm need be felt. Specific cases are soon brought to light and traced to prevent further mischief.

DRUGS AND MEDICINES.

This branch of the work, while it has been started later than the rest, so as not to be included in the work ending with the year's work of which this report treats, shows that it will be advisable to warn druggists throughout the State that the law requiring all preparations they make, in fact all drugs and medicines which are defined by the U. S. Pharmacopeia, to answer to the requirements of the Pharmacopeia, and all preparations made according to label, to be as described by that label.

Thus, out of four cases recently observed, bottles marked as olive oil, were found to contain, in two cases out of four, cotton seed oil, showing that the labels in these cases should have been the so-called sweet oil which answers for any bland sweet oil, but olive oil only can be dispensed when the druggist sells and labels what he sells as olive oil. I would suggest that the law be so modified as to to require drugs and medicines if sold under a name recognized by the U. S. Pharmacopeia, to practically conform to its requirements for strength or purity, and not absolutely to do so, as is now required; my reasons are that errors exist in the present one as to methods of preparation, tests for purity, etc. (which keep on being improved upon), so that the thorough'y conscientious druggist is liable to be advertised in the newspapers as violating the adulteration law, and his business may be ruined, while in actual fact, to comply with the requirements of the Pharmacopeia would result in endangering the lives of the public.

The decision of the judge in the nux vomica case lately, in New Jersey, where the evidence of professional men of the highest standing, absolutely proved that a tincture of nux vomica had been made practically up to the evident intentions of the framers of the U. S. Pharmacopeia, but absolutely by a different process, superior in every respect; yet in spite of the judge believing this was the case, the druggist was held guilty of technically violating the law. To guard against such a decision, I most urgently suggest the law be amended, so that practical results shall be all that the State demands of any one, and so that the State shall not be placing the lives of its citizens in greater danger by the observance of its laws than by their violation.

Appreciating the trust, and thanking you for your confidence and hearty co-operation, I am

Respectfully yours,

NATHAN ROSEWATER,

Chemist to the Ohio Dairy and Food Commission.

CLEVELAND, O., February 16, 1892.

The HON. H. H HYMAN, Assistant Dairy and Food Commissioner:

DEAR SIR: Below find tabulated list of analysis of samples of milk, submitted to me February 6, 1892:

ANALYSIS OF MILK.

Sp. grav Solids. Fats. Ash. Water. Date of analy's.

Every sample is below stand rd in both solids and fats, and indicates skimming and watering.

Respectfully.

JOSEPH MELLOR, M. D.

CLEVELAND, O., March 21, 1892.

HON. H. H. HYMAN, Assistant Ohio Dairy and Food Commissioner:

DEAR SIR: I hereby beg to submit a table of the examinations of specimens of food products and drugs, together with the following summary of the work to date:

The suggestions previously made with reference to modifying the present law in regard to the proper labeling of all drugs and medicines, whereby they will not be considered adulterated if they are labeled as articles recognized by the U. S. Pharmacopœia, and practically conform to the tests and requirements of said text-book. It is true that every druggist, wholesale or retail, is able to provide a proper label setting forth the superiority of his process or his deviation from the Pharmacopeia, stating the points of difference or waiving the claim that the preparation is made to conform to the tests of this book; but this is not practical, whereas a change of the law would be better for the public and lesson the burden imposed on the druggists who desire to keep within the law and still serve the public with the most advanced methods and the highest art.

A general belief prevails that food products that are compounds must, according to strict interpretation of the law, be labeled with the names and amount of each ingre. dient. This would be an injustice of which manufacturers would have good reason to complain, as it would compel them to part with their private property for which perhaps they have had to pay large sums of money, and which they value above price, parting therewith by such enforced publication, without compensation. A careful study of the wording of the law shows that this is not the case, but that if such articles are compounds and are plainly labeled as compounds, they are not compelled by law to state the proportions and ingredients contained. They must prove to be what they claim upon the label-if labeled as a whea.compound it must contain wheat; if a coffee compound it must be a compound containing coffee or else be classed as adulterated. The section referring to those compounds that have the names of ingredients and formula printed on them simply states that if the correct formula is on and the ingredients not injurious to health, they shall not be considered as adulterated. I have perhaps dwelt at too great length upon this point, but consider the subject one that the makers and dealers in such articles should be clearly informed on.

I must call your attention to an error on my part in heretofore reporting on several samples of butter, which in fact were simply putrid, but this being only due to age and rancidity and not adulterated in a chemical sense (not mixed with any thing else), I placed them on my report as "pure but old and rancid." I find that the report should have read: "Adulterated," according to Sec. 36, paragraph 5, H. B. No. 56, which also declares any article to be adulterated "if it consists wholly or in part of a diseased, decomposed, putrid, infected, tainted or rotten animal or vegetable substance or article, whether manufactured or not." I regretted at the time that nothing could be done to prevent the vending of such goods and am glad to see that the law interprets the word "adulterated" so as to protect the public in every respect.

Of the four samples labeled olive oil, two were adulterated with cotton seed oil. They failed to answer the tests for purity of the U. S. Pharmacopeia, though these tests are not considered to be beyond criticism. The druggists as a rule do not apply these tests when they purchase their goods and therefore should make their labels read so that they differ in some manner from the names given in the Pharmacopœia whenever they dispense such preparations whose extreme purity or accurate conformity to the tests of their text-books they are not willing to accept together with the legal consequences.

The sample of Wampole's Tasteless Preparation of Cod Liver Oil I found contained no cod liver oil whatever, and as this is a typical case in which a preparation purporting to be composed largely of cod liver oil, and containing none, is advertised and sold by thousands of dealers ignorant of this fact, I repeat the conclusions arrived at and my reasons for the same as follows: "I therefore find the statements on the descriptive circular which I quote as follows, to be contrary to the facts as proven by the analysis, viz: 'The oil in this preparation is in positive solution and the taste is so very skillfully and carefully disguised that it can not possibly be detected.' 'Each tablespoonful represents one teaspoonful of Pure Norwegian Cod liver Oil.' There being no 'od' in this preparation, it can not be said to be 'in positive solution,' nor carefully and skillfully disguised, nor that a tablespoonful represents a teaspoonful of the oil itself; it can not be claimed to represent all the curative agents, and it is doubtful if it can be claimed to contain all the soluble curative agents extracted from cod liver oil. Not only does this circular and label directly misrepresent the facts, but by the prominence given to the words cod liver oil, and the inferences often and variously repeated, the public (who are not versed in technical distinctions) will be led to infer that this preparation actually contains all of the cod liver oil amounting to 25% of the whole volume skillfully combined and disguised in taste, to the discredit and damage of reputable druggists and chemists competing; whereas upon closer inspection of parts of this descriptive circular and label the inference may be drawn that this preparation does not contain the pure oil, but only some of its elements (and by inference iodides and phosphorus only) that are found in minute proportions.

1