Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PRESERVATIVES.

Various modes of preserving food.—Decay in organic substances, which was forinerly supposed to be produced by oxidation, is now known to be due to the working of decomposing germs or ferments. Anything which either kills these germs or suspends their action, therefore, acts as a preservative. Four general methods of preserving foods are enumerated: (1) Sterilization by heat, which kills the germs but not the spores, so that two applications of heat are required for safety; (2) refrigeration, which suspends the activity of the ferments for the time being, as long as the low temperature continues; (3) drying; (4) the addition of some antiseptic substance which paralyzes the ferments. There are two general classes of antiseptics: The first class consists of such substances as are themselves foods and are absorbed as the preserved food is digested, such as alcohol, sugar, and vinegar; salt and certain spices are also classified with these preservatives which are beneficial rather than harmful in ordinary quantities, because they promote the absorption of food. The second class of antiseptics consists of substances which do not enter into the animal economy. Among those most commonly used as preservatives are salicylic acid, borax and other boron compounds, and formaldehyde or formalin; saccharin, sodium floride, and various sulphites and other chemicals are also used to a greater or less extent.

Physiological effects of antiseptics.-Any agent which paralyzes the ferments which produce decay may be expected to interfere to a greater or less extent with digestion by lessening the activity of the ferments by which digestion is accomplished; and there are many authorities who consider that antiseptics are for this reason necessarily injurious to the health. Among the other charges which are brought against antiseptics are that they encourage the sale and use of inferior food, or food which may be upon the point of turning sour, by improving its apparent but not its real quality, and that their use leads to carelessness in the application of other means or preservation, such as sterilization. It is also remarked that while only a small amount of any antiseptic is taken in any one food, the use of preservatives is so general that in the aggregate a considerable quantity may be taken into the stomach.3

5

It is not denied, therefore, that the ideal food is that which is fresh and requires no preservation; but under actual modern conditions the use of antiseptics is regarded as necessary, and more desirable and hygienic than the use of food in. which decomposition or the generation of ptomaines or other poisonous substances has begun. Even where refrigeration is practicable, its superiority to the use of antiseptics is questioned. The outcry against the use of antiseptics is attributed to a prejudice, resulting, perhaps, from their improper use in milk, which should be kept absolutely pure. A distinction is made between cumulative poisons, such as lead or mercury, and the substances ordinarily used as preservatives, which are thought to be practically harmless in quantities which do not produce immediate physiological effects. It is even maintained by some physiologists that antiseptics in small quantities do not necessarily interfere with digestion, and that salt and boracic acid at least may even hasten the digestive processes." The differences of opinion existing on this subject seem to be due partly to the scarcity of competent physiological chemists and to the consequent lack of definite experimental knowledge. Professor Atwater and Professor Chittenden

1 Wiley, pp. 43, 44; Lewis, pp. 33, 34.

2 Mitchell, pp. 111, 112; Wiley, pp. 45, 46; Prescott, pp. 195, 196.

3 Prescott, pp. 195, 201; Vaughan, pp. 203, 204; Mitchell, 113, 116, 183.

4 Haines, pp. 283, 284; Edwards, p. 286; Billings, pp. 248, 249.

5 Delafontaine, p. 232; Knight, p. 251.

6 Eaton, p. 255.

7 Chittenden, p. 419, 421; Billings, p. 246; Allport, p. 257.

1

are mentioned as eminent and experienced men in this line of work, and a younger school is said to be coming forward, but the members of it are unfortunately few. Moreover, the whole question is complicated by the differences existing in individuals, which make it safe for one person to use an amount of a given substance which in another individual would act as a more or less violent poison. Each individual is able to determine more or less definitely by experience what foods do or do not agree with him, but the use of preservatives and other unsuspected adulterations without notice to the consumer makes this test untrustworthy.2

Proposed legislation.—It is thought that this difficulty would be overcome by requiring plain labels on all preserved foods, giving notice as to what preservative is used, and that this should be done at least in the case of antiseptics which are not evident to the taste or smell. The only objection to this proposed requirement comes from a manufacturer, who argues that the poorer classes would be afraid to use foods so labeled, or backward in buying them, and that great damage to the country in general and the manufacturing industries in particular would result. He is in favor of prohibiting deleterious substances, however.

Attention is called to the prohibition of certain preservatives, such as saccharin and salicylic acid, in European countries, and to the Wisconsin law forbidding the use of boracic acid in milk. Certain experts are in favor of prohibiting salicylic acid and perhaps some other antiseptics; and it is suggested that a board of high medical authorities be constituted to pass upon the wholesomeness of the antiseptics used.'

6

8

[ocr errors]

Formaldehyde.-Formaldehyde, or formalin, which is made from wood alcohol by extracting the hydrogen, is used extensively in weak solutions to prevent the souring of milk. It is sometimes sold under such fanciful names as milk sweet" and "freezine," and at prices many times the cost of the material. It is also used in some cases for preserving fruit, liquors, and other foods. Formaldehyde, or formic aldehyde, is said to be an active poison and to interfere with digestion in the same manner as other antise ics. It is therefore considered injurious, or at least a doubtful agent which it is well to avoid, even in weak solutions." On the other hand, it is thought by one chemist and by a manufacturer of preservatives to be harmless in the very diluted form in which it is used in milk, and even beneficial in cases of sour stomach and cholera infantum.10

Borax and boracic acid.-Borax and boracic acid are used as preservatives in milk, butter, and meat. It is charged that their use in milk is usually for the purpose of covering up inexcusable shiftlessness in handling the milk." They are used to some extent as preservatives in butter intended for export to England, the English importers demanding a preservative in butter, perhaps because of the conservatism which has prevented the general use of refrigerators in that country. Butter sent to England from Australasia, Argentina, and France is said to be universally preserved with boron compounds, and their more general use in American butter intended for export is strongly urged as the only means of competing successfully with other butter-producing countries. On the other hand,

1 Austen, p. 537; Delafontaine, p. 233.

Jenkins, pp. 449, 454.

12

3 Wiley, pp. 44, 53, 184; Jenkins, p. 454; Prescott, p. 195; Billings, p. 247.

4 Heller, pp. 181, 182.

5 Wiley, pp. 44, 52, 53.

6 Prescott, 196; Vaughan, p. 204.

Hallberg, p. 81; Billings, p. 247; Thurber, p. 582.

8 Wiley, pp. 45, 171; Mitchell, p. 112; Heller, p. 186.

'Piffard, p. 191; Prescott, p. 196; Billings, p. 248; Allport, p. 260; Edwards, p. 286.

10 Mitchell, p. 112; Heller, pp. 171-186.

11 Adams, p. 209.

12 Knight, pp. 168-170, 243, 244, 250-252; Henshaw, p. 266.

it is pointed out that butter containing boracic acid is not admitted into any European country except Great Britain and France, nor into several of the South American countries, and that the use of boracic acid would therefore destroy the sale of American butter in many foreign countries. It is also said to be a poor preservative, and unnecessary in butter.'

A few witnesses consider boron compounds injurious, and one of them submits an extract from a medical journal describing two distinct forms of poisoning from boric or boracic acid, one of which may occur as a result of its continued use in food. The preponderance of evidence, however, is to the effect that boron preservatives are harmless as ordinarily used.3

The principal use of borax as a meat preservative is on meats for export, though it has been found in considerable quantity in sausages, and sometimes in chickens shipped long distances in this country. Hams and other meats intended for export are simply rolled in borax after being cured or partly cured with salt or saltpeter. The borax is said not to penetrate to any great extent into the meat, and to be brushed off after the meat reaches its destination. The application of borax in this manner is regarded as necessary by exporters in order to keep the meat in good condition without the use of an amount of salt which would render it unpalatable.*

Other methods of preserving meat.-The principal other meat preservatives mentioned are sulphur, sodium sulphite, which sometimes masquerades as "freezem" or "new method meat preserver," salt, and saltpeter. The object of smoking meat is said to be to give it a flavor and color, not to cure it. The use of sulphur is recommended as next in value to treatment with boracic acid, and preferable to the use of either formalin, salicylic acid, carbolic acid, or corrosive sublimate. Sodium sulphite is claimed by a manufacturer of preservatives to be absolutely healthful in small quantities, but other witnesses appear to regard its use as undesirable. Salt is considered salutary in ordinary amounts, but both salt and saltpeter have been found to be injurious and even dangerous to life in excessive amounts. Saltpeter is regarded as more deleterious to health than either common salt, borax, or bicarbonate of soda, having a tendency to produce degeneration of muscle and an injurious effect upon the kidneys. Refrigeration is recommended as an excellent means of preserving meat, when an even temperature can be maintained and the meat consumed as soon as it is taken out of cold storage; but attention is called to the danger of tainting after removal from the refrigerator.9 Salicylic acid.-Salicylic acid, which is said to be used more than any other antiseptic, is considered by many authorities to be injurious even in small quantitles, at least to some individuals. It is thought to be injurious to the organs of secretion and to the mucous membrane; it is also said to disturb the digestion, depress the heart and the respiration, congest the lungs, and irritate the kidneys. It is considered capable of producing convulsions in infants, and cases are reported in which death was apparently due to the depression of the heart caused by its use. 10 One authority, however, considers it less objectionable than other antisep

[blocks in formation]

2 Duncan, pp. 47, 48; Piffard, p. 191; Prescott, p. 200; Adams, p. 209.

8

3 Delafontaine, p. 233; Stringfield, p. 282; Chittenden, pp. 421, 422; Billings, pp. 244-246, 250; Allport, pp. 256-259, 260; North, p. 477; Henrotin, pp. 264, 265; de Schweinitz, p. 614; James, pp. 267, 268-269, 279; Edwards, pp. 287, 289; Haines, pp. 284, 285.

4 Edwards, pp. 288, 289; Jenkins, p. 450; Lunham, pp. 239–242; Ellsworth, pp. 253-255.

Mitchell, pp. 113, 114; Heller, pp. 179, 180.

6 Allport, p. 260.

7 Heller, p. 178; Mitchell, p. 183; Prescott, p. 200.

8 Billings, pp. 245, 247; Haines, p. 284; Edwards, pp. 286, 287; Heller, p. 179.

Allport, pp. 260, 261.

10 James, p. 268; Prescott, pp. 195, 196; Chittenden, pp. 421, 425; Edwards, p. 286; Vaughan, p. 204; Stringfield, p. 282; Heller, p. 178; Thurber, pp. 581, 582.

tics, while two or three others think it harmless in the very small quantities ordinarily used.1 Salicylic acid is often used in beer, wine, and other beverages, including grape juice and cider; but cider is said to be preserved chiefly with fluoride of ammonia or soda, which on decomposition forms hydrofluoric acid, the only acid which is too powerful to be kept in glass bottles. A compound of salicylic acid, salicylate of soda, and phosphate of soda is made for use in canning fruit, and furnished to owners of orchards, who use it in putting up their fruits without knowing its composition.4

Preservatives in beer.-Many brewers and others testify that antiseptics are not now generally used in beer, having been rendered unnecessary by the use of pasteurization and ice machines. Several witnesses, however, testify that salicylic acid, bisulphite of lime, and other preservatives are used in beer for export and for distant shipment. Beer imported from foreign countries is also said to contain preservatives. One importer, however, asserts that the beer he gets from Munich contains nothing but malt and hops, and similar claims are made for certain ales and stouts from England and Ireland. Of 15 samples of beer bought in New York, at least half of which were foreign, 4 only were found to contain salicylic acid, 2 of the 4 being foreign and 2 domestic beers. It is thought that the use of salicylic acid has been largely discontinued since attention was called to its harmfulness in the Agricultural Department's report on beverages.9

DRUGS.

The committee took very little testimony on the subject of drugs, but some testimony was given to the effect that the adulteration of drugs had been carried on to a great extent in this country. This seems usually to have been done for the purpose of cheapening them by reducing the strength; but even this kind of adulteration is condemned as dangerous in the case of drugs. Others are said to be not properly purified. Such commonly used articles as household ammonia, root beer, so-called cherry phosphate, etc., are said to be the kind of drugs most adulterated. Powdered coal dust is said to be sold for black antimony almost exclusively. Bromo seltzer is said to be made with acetanilide, a poisonous substance, in place of bromide of potassium.10

Two witnesses remark that the Government has already done a great deal to prevent the importation of adulterated drugs," and the hope is expressed that something will be done in the case of drugs of home manufacture. It is suggested that when proprietary articles contain substances which are poisonous in an overdose purchasers should be warned.12

GENERAL DESIRE FOR A NATIONAL FOOD LAW.

Many of the witnesses are convinced of the insufficiency of State legislation to regulate the purity of food. The chief objection, especially from the standpoint

1 Tucker, p. 435; Delafontaine, p. 232; Billings, p. 248; Schwartz, pp. 369, 372, 373.

2 Wiley, pp. 44, 45; Billings, p. 248.

3 Hallberg, p. 85.

4 Mitchell, pp. 115, 116.

Thomann, pp. 356-359; Pabst, p, 312; Oehne, pp. 294, 296; Fecker, p. 298; Plautz, pp. 300, 301; La Touche, pp. 544-546; Busch, pp. 488, 489; Evans, p. 417; Hachemeister, p. 415; Roche, p. 414; Wyatt, pp. 406, 407; Bauer, p. 390; Lippe, pp. 381, 384, 385; Kruesler, pp. 377,378; Hupfel, p. 379.

Wigan, pp. 375, 376; Brown, p. 386; Wackenhuth, p. 412; Mitchell, p. 116; Schwartz, pp. 367, 3CS, 269, 372; Zeltner, p. 456.

7 Wyatt, p. 407; Plautz, p. 300; Thomann, p. 358.

8 Eitel, p. 290; La Touche, pp. 544-546; Roche, p. 414.

9 Wiley, pp. 45, 584.

10 Hallberg, pp. 84-86; Piffard, pp. 194, 195; Mitchell, p. 124.

11 Hallberg, p. 83; Piffard, p. 93.

12 Frear, p. 484.

of the manufacturer, to leaving the matter in the hands of State governments is the lack of uniformity in State laws, which makes necessary different kinds of labels according to the State to which the goods are to be shipped. It is also urged that the State laws are insufficient from the lack of the appropriations necessary to enforce them, and through the lack of sufficient knowledge and efficiency on the part of the officials charged with their enforcement. Moreover, it is pointed out that the State laws are enforced mainly against the retailers, who may themselves be victims of deception, and that goods brought from another State and sold in the original packages can not be reached by State legislation.'

There seems, therefore, to be a general agreement both among the manufacturers and among others who express any opinion on the subject that national regulation is necessary or desirable. In the most common form which the proposals for legislation take, the principal thing sought for is the requirement that foods shall be honestly labeled and sold for what they really are. Manufacturers would apparently be willing to label their goods properly if their competitors were required to do the same. In the case of injurious substances, however, and in the case of compounds containing materials no one would knowingly use, correct labeling is considered insufficient and prohibition necessary. A number of authorities favor the establishment of a national commission or board of health, with power to fix regular standards for food products, and perhaps guarantee the quality of products coming up to the standard required, though two witnesses consider it undesirable for the Government to guarantee the purity or quality of particular food products. It is suggested that the proposed commission should be either under a department of commerce or under the existing Department of Agriculture. The Brosius bill, which is patterned after the English law and is said to be essentially the plan approved by the agricultural chemists in 1897 and in a modified form by the National Pure Food and Drug Congress in 1898, is advocated by one witness on the grounds that it avoids the tax feature and places the administration in offices already established, and that general legislation is preferable to piecemeal regulations.

4

It is doubtful how far the National Government has power to go in regulating food products, but it is pointed out that it can at least do much toward preserving the reputation of American goods abroad, prevent the importation of misbranded and adulterated goods, legislate generally so far as concerns the Territories, the District of Columbia, and foods sent from one State to another, and thus establish a basis or model for more uniform State legislation."

1 Stewart, p. 73; Scully, pp. 93, 94; Piffard, pp. 193, 194; Tucker, p. 433: Frear, p. 529; Mitchell, p. 123. Wiley, pp. 53, 587, 588; Monred, p. 65; Hanney, pp. 59, 60; Furbay, p. 62; Wise, p. 627; Delafontaine, p. 231; Berry, p. 97; Mitchell, p. 111; Hobbs, p. 496; Piffard, pp. 187, 192; Stewart, p. 79; Rossati, p. 448; Scully, pp. 93, 94.

3 Thurber, pp. 581,582; Piffard, p. 191; Mitchell, pp, 118, 124.

4 Lewis, pp. 36-39; Hallberg, pp. 80, 81, 87; Chittenden, pp. 418, 419, 422, 426; Tucker, pp. 436, 438, 439: Piffard, pp. 187, 188; Vaughan, pp. 206, 207; Wiley, p. 39; Billings, p. 247.

5 Mitchell, pp. 124, 131, 132; Tucker, p. 437.

Frear, pp. 526, 527.

Mitchell, p. 122; Adams, p. 207; Frear, pp. 529, 530.

« AnteriorContinuar »