From the "History of American Beekeeping" In view of present day protection, it is difficult for the bee keeper to appreciate the importance of the pure food law.With out it, it is doubtful whether the honeyproducing industry could have survived.When glucose, then known as grape sugar, came into use, it offered a cheap and easy form of adulteration of honey. Although adulteration was general in many foods, it was the honey producers who first felt the competition keenly enough to begin agitation for legal protection. It was about 1870 that Charles Dadant had shipped several barrels of honey to a dealer named Perrine, in Chicago, getting 17 cents per pound. A little later he found on the shelves of a local grocer in his own town of Hamilton, honey put up in small glass jars by this same dealer at 16 cents per pound.Dadant saw at once that there was something wrong when a packer could sell honey in small containers for less than he paid in barrels. This seems to have been the first case of honey adulteration to be called to public attention. Dadant at once wrote to the bee magazines, calling attention to the facts and suggesting that every beekeeper publish a statement on his label that granulation was the best proof of purity of honey. In 1878 Dadant went to St. Louis to sell his honey, and was shown glass jars of glucose put up in New York and sold as honey at a price below what he expected to receive for his honey in bulk. He bought a jar of this glucose and learned that it was substituted in like manner for maple syrup, molasses and other sweets. He learned that the presence of glucose could be detected by putting a few drops in a cup of tea. The sulphate of iron then present in glucose turned the tea black. A little in vestigation disclosed that the sweets then on the market were very generally adulterated in this manner. The Western Illinois and Eastern Iowa Beekeepers’ Society met at Burlington, Iowa, on May 8, 1878, and to this convention Dadant went with his sample and his information.Although he had difficulty at times in making himself understood because of his uncertain accent and his tendency to revert to his native French, he did arouse the beemen in attendance to a feverish excitement, for they realized that the industry was At stake. When Dadant stated that it should be as much the business of the government to stop a counterfeit food product as to stop a counterfeit of money, it was decided to petition Congress to enact a law against the adulteration of honey. A committee was appointed to draw up a petition and to submit it to the beekeepers.Dadant was made chairman of the committee, with Thomas G. Newman and the Rev. Clute the other members. A resolution was also adopted asking that copies of the petition be printed in all the bee papers, with a request that the readers copy it and present it to the public for signature. The petition, as drawn, contained five sections. The first recited that sweets were very generally adulterated with glucose, and that, in many cases, glucose was entirely substituted for the product it was supposed to be. The second section described the manufacture of glucose and mentioned the chemicals which were at that time retained in the product. Section three described the analysis of 17 samples of table sweets and the poisons found in them, while section four gave the reasons for legal protection, and section five outlined the right and duty of Congress to guard against fraud in food as well as in money. The American Bee Journal and the Beekeeper’s Magazine at once launched the movement with enthusiasm, but Editor Root of Gleanings was more cautious and hesitated.This resulted in a heated argument between Dadant and Root and some rather caustic correspondence in the bee magazines regarding the merits of the controversy.The argument became somewhat personal and drifted into matters entirely apart from the question at issue. Later, how ever, Root became an ardent supporter of the pure food movement, and his sons recognized leaders. Charles F. Muth, a dealer in honey at Cincinnati, Ohio, be came an ardent champion of the proposed law and stated that glucose was the worst obstacle in the honey trade. In May, 1879, the society met at Hamilton, and Dadant, as chairman of the committee, made a report of progress. The committee had several thousand copies of the petition printed and distributed. A large number of papers supported the movement by printing the petition. It went to Congress with signatures from every state, more than 30,000 in all, was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, but was never reported for action. A movement of this kind, which proposed a radical departure in the matter of an important government policy, hardly could be expected to obtain favorable action immediately.Several sugar refiners joined with the beekeepers in the attempt to obtain legislation against the adulteration of sweets.The net re sult was far better than would be expected under such circum stances. A vast amount of publicity resulted, which called public attention to the general condition.This was not without its objectionable features, however, since it served to arouse suspicion of all liquid honey. Four states, Michigan, Minnesota, Kentucky and New Jersey, did, in fact, pass laws Against the adulteration of honey and that was an accomplishment of no mean importance. The same committee was reappointed and continued the agitation. It is doubtful whether any group of beekeepers ever offered any other action which finally resulted in such far reaching results.Although it was destined to be many long years before Congress finally acted, the time came when enough influence was brought to bear to obtain the enactment of a measure covering the whole field of foods and drugs.In the meantime, one group after another had joined with the bee - keepers, until the originators of the movement were nearly lost sight of and their numbers seemed insignicant in comparison to other groups seeking the same outcome. “THE WILEY LIE” Just when the movement was gaining public support, a most unfortunate incident occurred. The man who was later to be come the recognized leader of the pure food forces and to con - centrate the combined efforts in such a manner as to procure the enactment of the desired legislation, gave out some ill - advised publicity. Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, who, as chemist of the United States Department of Agriculture, was to arouse the entire country to the dangers of food adulteration, wrote as follows in the Popular Science Monthly, June, 1881: In commercial honey, which is entirely free from bee mediation, the comb is made of paraffin, and filled with pure glucose by appropriate machinery. This at once destroyed public confidence in comb honey, as well as extracted, since the statement was very generally circulated in the press of the entire country for a period of several years. There was a storm of protest on the part of the bee keepers and a demand for proof that such manufacture had ever been done successfully. Wiley, of course, was interested in arousing public sentiment to the point of obtaining legal restrictions which would make adulteration impossible.He did not realize the influence that such a statement would have on the legitimate honey dealer by destroying public confidence in the one form of honey which it was impossible to imitate.The high position which he occupied as a chemist gave authority to his statement, and since it was known generally that liquid honey was commonly adulterated, the public was very willing to believe that the same was true of honey in the comb. The bee magazines were filled with stinging denouncements of Wiley, who was accused of deliberate and malicious false hood, and no doubt he felt very keenly the criticism of the group who had started the movement which he was trying so hard to foster.Later he attempted to justify his position by explana tions, which served only to prove that he had been careless in his statements. In the Canadian Bee Journal, July 18, 1888, he wrote that his original statement had been made on authority of Dr. E. J. Hallock, editor of the Boston Journal of Chemistry; that in Boston where he resided a full outfit of machinery had been made to manufacture comb from paraffin and fill it with glucose. He said that neither he nor the doctor believed that such could be made a commercial success, and in another letter that his statement had been made as a scientific pleasantry. This statement did not help the doctor’s position with the beekeepers, and it was followed by even more bitter comment in the magazines. At this distance, it looks as though Wiley made the statement in the heat of passion while making an attack on the general practice of adulteration, with little thought of the ultimate consequence. The incident mentioned by Hallock served to provide additional ammunition for the fight, and he proceeded to make use of it. As already stated, it was extremely unfortunate, since it alienated the friendship of a large number of beekeepers, including Charles Dadant, who had started the movement to bring about federal legislation against adulteration. These men distrusted Wiley and refused to work with him and thus hampered the movement and, quite possibly, delayed the final favorable out Come. Beekeepers could only think of what they called “the Wiley lie” when any attempt was made to combine forces with the famous chemist. The attention of the beekeepers was centered on an effort to remove suspicion from comb honey. A. I. Root offered $1,000 to anyone who could prove that comb honey had ever been successfully imitated, and the leaders of the industry were largely occupied in writing to editors of papers and magazines, who had published Wiley’s statement, to obtain retraction. These attempts were not very successful and usually resulted in making a bad matter worse. In 1888 G.M. Doolittle, then vice-president of the Bee-Keeper’s Union, wrote to the Rural Home commenting on the statement and calling attention to Root’s offer of $1,000 for proof of manufactured comb honey. A Virginian named W. M. Evans answered the article, stating that no responsible man had made such an offer and daring any - one to make it. The reply was called to Root’s attention, and he at once wrote Evans and demanded that he retract his statement or claim the reward. Evans then appealed to Wiley for assistance and, in reply, Wiley wrote him along the same lines as published in the Canadian Bee Journal. All this correspondence was published in the American Bee Journal of June 13, 1888. Due to the agitation for legislation against adulteration, one paper or another published the original Wiley statement at frequent intervals for many years, and the beekeepers were kept in a state of feverish excitement trying to overcome the effects of such publicity. In the Chicago Record-Herald, March 15, 1908, Marion Har land, a widely-known writer, spoke of honeycomb “made by the bees themselves instead of the artificial combs of paraffin now manufactured.” That she was misled by the quotations from Wiley so widely published, is indicated by the fact that when a protest reached her, she very courteously offered a correction in the March 22 issue. In Gleanings for May 1, 1913, appeared a quotation from Ida M. Tarbel, whose syndicated article stated, “they even manu - facture honeycomb and fill it with glucose.” This probably brought a very general protest from beekeepers. In her reply, in stead of admitting her mistake, she criticized beekeepers for objecting to an exposé of a guilty practice. So sure was she that such practice existed that she indicated her intention to claim the reward, when it was called to her attention. Thus, after 30 years, an illadvised statement continued to be accepted and passed on by writers with wide opportunity for reaching the public. The $1,000 reward, which had been standing unclaimed for so many years, by that time had been increased to $2,000, since the national beekeepers’ organization also had offered an amount equal to that offered by Root. Only a beekeeper who had tried to sell his honey direct to the customer could have an idea of the extent of prejudice which was built up by this unfortunate publicity. In Gleanings for March 1, 1902, is a letter from a California honey producer telling of his troubles in selling honey at Bartlett Springs, a fashionable resort where the elite of San Francisco had their summer homes. Fancy comb honey was offered, but none sold. They were too wise to be fooled by a manufactured product, they assured him. “Wise in his day and generation,” he cut the honey from the sections, mixed in bits of leaves and rotten wood, and “mixed it all up in a mess,” put it in rusty cans and, with a change of clothes, went back to offer wild honey for sale. It went like hot cakes, to the tune of numerous comments about the absence of paraffin and glucose, and the lament that such honey could not be had in the markets. It is significant that all the honey thus offered was sold promptly when the fancy product was avoided. The public wanted honey, but had been led to distrust anything offered in a neat package. C. P. Dadant, in an article in Gleanings about the same time, called the beekeepers’ attention to the fact that no two sections of comb honey were alike, while any machinemade product would exactly duplicate every other such article. This, he said, was the best argument to use in selling comb honey, but it was a slow and painful process to rebuild public confidence. A powerful and dangerous weapon is publicity, and it must be handled with care. It was in 1897 that the organization known as the United States Beekeepers’ Union was formed for the purpose of com batting the adulteration of honey, the defense of beekeepers’ legal rights, and the prosecution of dishonest commission men. Eugene Secor was selected as general manager. He at once became active in pursuit of newspapers which published the Wiley statement, but little more success attended the organized effort than had been possible to individual beekeepers. Some what better success attended the efforts to prosecute adultera - tion. The first case, in the city of Chicago, resulted in the dis charge of the defendant, but the attendant publicity was help ful in showing that an effort was being made to stop the practice. Another case in Michigan resulted in involving a man widely known in the beekeeping trade as a honey producer and supply dealer, who was accused of selling honey which was adulterated. The grocer who bought the honey for resale was convicted and fined. After the passage of the pure food law in 1906, the government took over the pursuit of violators and there was no longer the same need for individual activity. Under the protection of the law, public confidence gradually returned. With the passage of the law, Wiley became the recognized leader of forces demanding pure foods, and so he continued until his death at an advanced age. After he had been forced from his position in the Department of Agriculture, he remained a powerful influence through his department in Good Housekeeping magazine. When an attempt was made to amend the pure food laws to permit the use of corn sugar in sweetening canned goods, and in confectionery goods, without showing the fact on the label, Wiley sounded the battle cry which was once again to bring the beekeepers into common action. They did not fully understand just what was at stake, but they remembered all that they had suffered from glucose in adulterating honey, and they were fearful of any opening which would make it easy to include that or any of its products in any food. They feared that the amendment was to be an entering wedge which would lead to all kinds of modifications of the law which had served them so well. Although a few of the old-timers still harbored resentment against Wiley for his indiscretion of a half century ago, the rank and file were ready to follow where he led with little question as to his authority. This time Congress listened to the beekeepers.Letters and telegrams were poured into Washington in such numbers as to make any congressman hesitate. Several times the bill was up for consideration under the appeal that it would increase the outlets for corn, which was becoming a burden in the markets, but always it fell short of passage. The matter was finally settled by an executive order of the Secre tary of Agriculture, permitting the use of corn sugar as a sweetening agent. Pure food laws are now a part of the established policy of the government, and there is little danger that adulteration again will be a common practice. The beekeepers who started the agitation, and who paid such a price, have benefitted greatly from the general enforcement. Any suggestion of modification of the law at once arouses them to action. The general public, however, is unaware of the fact that it was a small group of beemen who started the movement and continued the long fight which finally led to this important protection of the food supply of the nation. Editor’s note: This last paragraph was written by Pellett long before high fructose corn syrup had been developed. Unfortunately, once this product became common and cheap, honey adulteration has again reared its ugly head. Honey adulteration continues to be a problem and the Food and Drug Administration often replies to pleas for help by stating that it is simply too underfunded and understaffed to strictly enforce laws against honey adulteration.