greatly in the extent to which they are absorbed from the digestive tract under normal conditions. Such differences as have been found seem to be explained by the differing hardness or melting points of the fats. If the melting point of the fat lies much above the body temperature, the fat will not become sufficiently fluid in the intestine to be readily emulsified and digested. The following data determined by Munk and Arnschink are cited by Von Noorden in this connection:

These results show good utilization and no significant differences in digestibility among fats melting at or below 43 degrees C. while with melting points from 49 degrees to 55 degrees C. the losses were considerable, and with stearin melting at 60 degrees C. much the greatest part failed of digestion. Notice, however, that the admixture of sufficient almond oil to lower the melting point a few degrees resulted in very greatly increased digestibility. Hence while stearin eaten alone is only slightly digested, yet fats containing much stearin may be digested very well provided they also contain enough olein so that the melting point of the mixture as a whole is not much above body temperature. Since oleomargarine contains notably more stearin than butter it was at one time thought that it might show correspondingly larger losses in digestion; but repeated experiments have shown that oleomargarine (being made so as to have the same hardness) shows practically the same losses in digestion as does butter. Thus in experiments

by Luhrig the coefficient of digestibility was 97.86 per cent for the butter and 97.55 for the oleomargarine.

Following is the composition of oleomargarine as stated by Dr. Harvey W. Wiley,1 and his comment concerning its wholesomeness:

From the above data it is seen that the objections to the use of oleomargarine are more on the grounds of fraud and deception than in regard to nutritive and dietetic value. The components used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, when properly made, are all wholesome and digestible materials such as are consumed in eating various food products. It does not appear therefore, that any valid objection can be made against the use of oleomargarine from a physiological or hygienic standpoint.

Many eminent chemists and physiologists 2 long ago attested to the wholesomeness of oleomargarine when it is made from carefully selected fats and when its process of manufacture is clean and does not include the use of deleterious chemicals.

RENOVATED AND ADULTERATED BUTTER

Reference has been made in previous chapters to renovating butter and also to the adulteration of butter with water. Rancid butter is melted at a low temperature, the froth or scum is removed, and the curd and brine which settle out of the melted butter are drawn off; faulty odors are expelled by blowing air through the melted fat, and the

1 Foods and Their Adulteration, p. 190.

Vide, Report of U. S. Internal Revenue Commissioner for 1887, P. clii.

butter oil is then re-churned with fresh milk or cream to give it a fresh butter flavor. This is "renovating" or processing" butter. Numerous processes for removing the rancidity from butter were tried and some were successfully used some time before 1886. The early methods consisted in washing the butter with water alone, or with water containing minute amounts of alkali.2 In the chapter dealing with the grading of butter it was seen that as early as 1886 renovated or process butter was officially included among the classes of butter by the New York Mercantile Exchange, and that they defined renovated butter as butter made by melting, etc. In the administration of the oleomargarine law the U. S. Internal Revenue Commissioner encountered many samples of renovated butter during the year, 1887. Analyses showed that chemicals were used to destroy the rancidity of old butter. Major Henry E. Alvord of the U. S. Department of Agriculture called attention to the enormous manufacture and sale of renovated butter in 1898 before the National Association of the State Dairy and Food Departments held in Harrisburg, Pa. Few, if any, state laws at that time covered renovated butter. The Dairy and Food Commissioner of Michigan, in his report of 1879, says, " One can scarcely conceive how the illmade and spoiled country butters, after lying for weeks in the hot store rooms of country merchants and becoming positively nauseating, can be worked over and made sufficiently deceiving as to be sold for creamery butter. The fact remains that this is done, and in Michigan at least tons of this worked over, renovated butter is annually sold under

'H. C. Sherman, Food Products, p. 377.

Annual Report of the New York State Dairy Commissioner for 1886, p. 181.

Report of Internal Revenue Commissioner for 1887, p. cxlii.

misrepresentation or greater or less deceit." 1 Congress first legislated on renovated butter in 1902.

The usual method for adulterating butter is by the addition of too much water, although lard, or other foreign fats and corn starch have also been used. In the Act of Congress of May 9, 1902, adulterated butter and renovated or process butter are defined as follows:

That" adulterated butter" is hereby defined to mean a grade of butter produced by mixing, reworking, rechurning in milk or cream, refining, or in any way producing a uniform, purified or improved product from different lots or parcels of melted or unmelted butter or butter fat, in which any acid, alkali, chemical, or any substance whatever is introduced or used for the purpose or with the effect of deodorizing or removing therefrom rancidity, or any butter or butter fat with which there is mixed any substance foreign to butter as herein defined, with intent or effect of cheapening in cost the product or any butter in the manufacture or manipulation of which any process or material is used with intent or effect of causing the absorption of abnormal quantities of water, milk, or cream; that "process butter" or "renovated butter" is hereby defined to mean butter which has been subjected to any process by which it is melted, clarified, or refined, and made to resemble genuine butter, always excepting "adulterated butter" as defined by this Act.

As defined in this Act, renovated butter is butter made through the usual renovating process, but without the use of any acid, alkali, chemical or any substance whatever. If these substances are employed in the renovating process the product is classed as adulterated butter. If butter, renovated butter included, contains abnormal quantities of moisture it is also classed as adulterated butter. The Act of 1902

1 Pages 20-1.

requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act relating to renovated and adulterated butter. Abnormal quantities of water the Secretary held to be water in excess of 16 per cent. It is held that normal butter contains from 12 to 14 per cent of water.

The provisions of the federal law as regards adulterated butter are very stringent. The manufacturer of adulterated butter must pay a special tax of $600 per annum, and wholesale and retail dealers, $480 and $48 respectively. In addition to the special taxes a tax of 10 cents per pound is imposed on adulterated butter. The manufacturer of renovated butter must pay a special annual tax of $50. Wholesale and retail dealers in renovated butter do not pay any taxes, nor is there a tax imposed on the product. The Secretary of Agriculture is charged with the inspection of renovating factories and storehouses where "renovated butter is manufactured, packed and prepared for the market and of the products thereof and materials going into the manufacture of the same ". The Secretary shall also have power to ascertain whether or not materials used in the manufacturing process are deleterious to health. If he finds that the finished product, whether for exportation or for shipment into other states, is unwholesome, he is directed to confiscate it. All renovated or adulterated butter must be plainly marked as prescribed by the Secretary. There is therefore very strict supervision of the renovating process, and the result has been that during the last decade an annual saving of about 40 million pounds of butter has been added to our butter supply. Most of this butter would have been absolutely worthless as food, if it had not been subjected to the renovating process; and if it had been renovated without government supervision, it would have been manufactured from butter that was no longer fit for human food