known brands of corn syrups, marked "D." It will be seen that it meets the very spirit of the Food and Drugs Act, in that the name "Corn Syrup" indicates the material from which the syrup is made and in that the percentage amounts of each ingredient are stated specifically, something which is not required under the Food and Drugs Act. It may not be out of place to state that the name "Corn Syrup" is largely responsible for the disappearance from the market of spurious goods offered as "New Orleans Molasses," "Honey Drips," "Honey Syrup" and similar fancy names. After the predecessors of this company had commenced advertising broadcast the nature and merits of corn syrup, those fraudulent products were withdrawn gradually, so that today the number of misbranded syrups on the market is very small. In this way our "Corn Syrup" campaign has produced practically the same results as the food laws. In conclusion we wish to direct attention to the latest standard publication on foods, the author of which is Dr. H. W. Wiley, Chief Chemist, Division of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture. It is entitled "Foods and Their Adulteration," and was published in the spring of the current year. We quote from the chapter on syrups, page 479: com By far the greater part of the syrups, used in the United States, are mixtures of two or more saccharine substances. The glucose of merce is the base and perhaps the chief constituent of the most of these mixtures. The glucose, being colorless and of a thick body, forms an ideal base, as far as the physical properties are concerned, for a table syrup. The quantity used varies very largely, but in general the glucose constitutes by far the larger percentage of the mixed product The product is as a rule attractive, palatable and wholesome If a syrup is to be considered in the light of the definitions already given, as the result of evaporation, after proper clarifications of the saccharine juices of sugar-producing plants. it is doubtful if the term should be used in connection with the mixed products which have been described. I have used it because these are the commercial designations. . . The production of straight, pure syrups made from maple sap and the sap of the sugar cane and of sorghum and, in certain conditions, from sugar, can be easily secured in quantities sufficient to supply the demand not only for the consumption of pure syrups but also for supplying the materials which, when mixed with pure glucose, produce the mixed syrups of commerce. Here, then, it is clearly stated that glucose or corn syrup mixtures are the "syrups of commerce.' Thus the scientific and commercial evidence, as well as the food authorities, are in accord with our contentions, forming the subject of this brief. WE COULD ADD MATERIALLY TO THE REFERENCES QUOTED. HOWEVER, WE ABSTAIN FROM DOING SO, AS IT ONLY WOULD BE A REPETITION OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED. Not many years ago this government went to a great expense in trying to impress upon the European governments, in the interest of this corn-producing nation, the great value of corn as a human food product, by sending a special agent with a staff of as sistants to European cities to give practical demonstrations of its value as a food, which resulted in largely increased exportation of corn. The Secretary of Agriculture should be the very last official to change that policy, by refusing to sanction a name that will tend to increase the consumption of corn as a human food." The following opinions were submitted to the Board as a supplement to Dr. Wagner's brief: OPINIONS OF STATE FOOD CONTROL OFFICIALS. Chicago, Aug. 31, 1907. Dr. T. B. Wagner, General Superintendent, Dear Sir-Replying to your letter, etc., for the purpose of defining the terms "Corn Syrup" and "Glucose," as applied to Food Products under the new State Food Law of Illinois, will say that the terms are synonymous and Syrup may be labeled either "Corn Syrup" or "Glucose Syrup." Under the Illinois law we give preference to the term "Corn Syrup" as it is a truer designation of the origin of the product and clearly indicates its character to the consumer. Yours very truly, A. H. JONES, Commissioner. Des Moines, Ia., Aug. 29, 1907. Dr. T. B. Wagner, Chicago, Ill. Dear Sir-In reply to your inquiry as to the attitude of this department relating to the use of terms "corn syrup" and "glucose," let me say that this department has already ruled in our bulletin number one, page 18, copy of which is herewith enclosed, that these terms are held to be interchangeable and synonymous. It seems to me very unwise to attempt to change the usage of the trade in this product, particularly as the term "corn syrup" has been in use so long and is accurately descriptive of the source and character of the product. Yours truly, (Signed) H. R. WRIGHT, Commissioner. Dear Sir-With reference to the labeling of corn products we endorse the name "Corn Syrup" as the proper designation for the product known to the trade as "glucose." We shall make our rulings accordingly, believing that the interests of the public are best protected by giving the product a name to which it is obviously entitled and which is intelligible to the humblest consumer and clearly indicates the character as well as the source from which it is obtained. As to the term "Corn Starch Syrup." we do not consider it well chosen for the reason that it would create a new trade designation, which Dear Sir-Replying to your request for information with regard to the ruling of North Dakota concerning the term "Corn Syrup" versus "Glucose." When we began to enforce the law in this state, we found products on the markets labeled "Corn Syrup." As this term did not seem to conflict with the requirements of our law, and was not a distinctive name of some other product, therefore, we have not made any ruling which would prevent the proper use of this term as a synonym for Glucose. Yours very truly, Dr. T. B. Wagner, (Signed) E. F. LADD, Food Commissioner. Columbia, Mo., Aug. 29, 1907. Corn Products Refining Company, Dear Sir-Replying to your recent inquiry regarding the use of the terms "glucose" and "corn syrup," allow me to say. in my opinion the term "corn syrup" is infinitely more descriptive of the article than "glucose." The word "glucose" is offensive to many. I have not yet ruled on this point, but in all probability, when I do I shall hold the two words synonymous, giving "corn syrup" the preference. Dr. T. B. Wagner, Yours truly, (Signed) R. M. WASHBURN, Commissioner. Harrisburg, Pa., Sept. 3, 1907. Corn Products Refining Company, Chicago, Ill. My Dear Sir-In reply to your recent inquiry regarding the use of the terms "glucose" and "corn syrup," would say, in my opinion the term "corn syrup" is more descriptive of the article than "glucose." The word "glucose" is not understood by many of our citizens. I have not as yet ruled on this point, but in all probability when I do I shall hold the two synonymous. I believe "corn syrup" is plainer and better understood by the consuming public. Dr. T. B. Wagner, Very truly yours, (Signed) JAMES FOUST, Commissioner. Columbus, O., Sept. 4, 1907. Corn Products Refining Company, Dear Sir-Replying to your inquiry as to whether or not the words "Corn Syrup" and "Glucose" are synonymous and may be used interchangeably, have to say that this particular question has not been determined by this department. I might say, however, that the sale of Corn Syrup in this state has been permitted when so labeled. From my examination of this subject, I am of the opinion that "Corn Syrup" is the proper designation to be given the product, and the same will receive my approval. Manufacturers and dealers may use either the words "Corn Syrup" or "Glucose" and comply with the laws of this state. Yours very truly, (Signed) R. W. DUNLAP, Commissioner. OPINION OF CHEMISTS On the Meaning of the Word “Syrup" and the Use of the Term "Corn Syrup" (Under the Food and Drug Act" of 1906) HON. JAMES WILSON, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University. From Prof. Wm. H. Brewer, 418 Orange Street. NEW HAVEN, CONN., December 18, 1907. Mr. E. T. Bedford, Pres. Corn Products, Refining Co., 26 Broadway, New York. Dear Sir-Your agent called on me today, asking my opinion as to the propriety of the use of the term "Corn Syrup" applied to a certain sugary product of corn. My opinion is that it is descriptive, truthful and proper; I think eminently so. Moreover, the term is so old, has been .so long used, that it seems to me to be such a wrecking of language to limit the term syrup to only cane-sugar sweets. and to use the term "glucose" syrup would not be so truthfully descriptive. It is but fair to say, regarding the basis of my opinion on this subject, that I began the study of chemistry more than sixty years ago, and ceased teaching it less than twenty years ago. I have been Professor of Agriculture in Yale University since 1864, retired five years ago, but during that service paid much attention to the matter of food production. As a member of the National Academy of Sciences, I was on the commission appointed by that body to investigate this subject of starch sugars, and syrups. My investigation related to the commercial uses, the use as food, in drinks, their relation to the public health, and the literature of the subject. The report of that commission was published by the Academy in 1884, and is, so far as I know, the most elaborate of any investigation on the subject. It is only necessary to consult that report to see that "corn syrup" was one of the terms then used; that there are analyses of "syrups" as well as solids, and in the bibliography, the words "syrup" and "starch syrup" are cited at much earlier dates. Yours respectfully, (Signed) WM. H. BREWER. Augustus H. Gill, Ph. D., 525 Boylston Street, BOSTON, December 19, 1907. The Corn Products Refining Co., New York, N. Y. Dear Sirs-I have carefully considered the matter of the name "Corn Syrup" as applied to one of your products. There can be no question as to the correctness of the term “syrup.” Inasmuch as it is obtained from corn starch which makes up the largest part of the corn kernel it seems to me eminently proper to call it "corn syrup." In fact when obtained in the solid condition it is called by scientific authorities "corn sugar." In my opinion the name is a proper one and not calculated or intended to mislead. In fact it seems to me that any other name would be misleading. sugar it contains. It might contain either one of the following sugars or contain two or more of them at the same time. Cane sugar is found in sugar cane, the sugar beet, and maple juice. Dextrose Found with levulose in the sweet juice of all acid fruits, such as grapes, plums, apples, pears, peaches, currants, raspberries, etc., and in sugar house molasses derived from the beet or the cane. Produced from starch by the action of acids in association with maltose. Levulose-Found as above mentioned in association with dextrose in the juice of acid fruits and in molasses from sugar cane and the beet. Produced by the action of acids on inulin. Maltose-Produced by the action of malt upon starch; also together with dextrose by the action of acids on starch. Milk sugar-Contained in milk. A thick, sweet solution of any one or more of the above. sugars would constitute a syrup in the proper acceptation and use of the word syrup. The term "syrup," therefore, conveys a definite and familiar idea to all consumers as a thick, sweet liquid containing sugar. Now, with regard to the propriety of applying the word "syrup" to the particular thick, sweet solution of sugar obtained by treating starch with acids, I would say that it is a matter of common custom, and has been for nearly one hundred years, to call this solution of starch sugar syrup." In all countries where it has been made and sold it has been known as syrup. Evidence of this will be found in the accompanying list of publications which date from 1813 to the present day. In the use of the word "syrup" during the past one hundred years, it has often been qualified by an additional word indicating the source of the syrup; that is, whether it was made from potato starch or corn starch, etc. I think a mere perusal of the list of authorities which I quote would be sufficient to satisfy anyone of the truth of my statement. [Here follows a list of authorities, which we omit.-Ed.] It seems to me that the opinion that the use of the designation "syrup" for the solution of sugar produced from corn starch by the action of acids is fully justified, as the term syrup thus applied is readily understood, and has a generally accepted meaning, and conveys definite and familiar ideas to the general public. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) C. F. CHANDLER. The following list of eminent chemists have written opinions to Secretary Wilson supporting the same views as those above, but owing to lack of space we cannot print them in full: Prof. Charles Baskerville, Director of Laboratory of the College of the City of New York. Prof. Marston T. Bogert, Columbia University; President American Society. Dr. H. Carmichael, Chemical Engineer, Boston. Prof. Irving W. Fay, Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn. Prof. C. H. Goessman, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, Mass. Prof. Walter S. Haines, Rush Medical College, University of Chicago. Prof. Chas. Loring Jackson, Harvard University, Member of National Academy of Science. Prof. Ralph W. Langley, Flower Hospital, New York Homeopathic College and Hospital. Dr. Ernest J. Lederle, Consulting Chemist, formerly President of New York Board of Health. Prof. J. W. Mallet, University of Virginia. Prof. Chas. E. Monroe, George Washington University. Prof. S. P. Sadtler, Consulting Chemist, formerly Professor of University of Pennsylvania. Prof. Chas. R. Sanger, Director Chemical Laboratory, Harvard College. John A. Sherer, Analytical and Consulting Chemist; Specialty Sugar Analysis, New York. Prof. Henry C. Sherman, Columbia University. Prof. Edgar F. Smith, University of Pennsylvania; Member National Academy of Science. Prof. Thos. B. Stillman, Stevens Institute. DR. WILEY'S CIRCULAR LETTER TO STATE December 11, 1907. Dear Sir-I am writing, by request of the Secretary, a report on the request made by the Corn Products Refining Company to use the term "corn syrup" as a synonym for glucose. It appears from the briefs submitted that the Corn Products Refining Company aver that there is a prejudice against the word "glucose," and the people of the country will not buy it under that name. The Food and Drugs Act forbids the sale of a food which carries any statement, design or device on the label which is false or misleading in any particular. If a person would not buy glucose under its own name, he would undoubtedly be deceived by buying it under the name of corn syrup. The term "corn syrup" cannot apply to glucose under the standards adopted by the State Dairy and Food Departments. Corn syrup is not applied to glucose in any commercial transactions of glucose. Glucose of itself has never been used upon the table for syrup, nor offered to the consumer as syrup. Under the food law the term "syrup" applied to glucose is a misnomer. Mr. Calhoun, attorney for the company, said that "Every State in this Union except one has recognized and accepted this term 'corn syrup' as being proper." It does not seem to me that the Food Commissioners would have given this approval if they had considered that by such labeling, not only the standards which have been adopted are set aside, but also the fundamental principle of the law, which forbids a body to be sold in any deceptive or misleading way, is violated. The term "syrup" means a syrup which is eaten on the table and which can only be made from the juice of sugar producing plants according to the standards and according to its accepted and common meaning. Thus, glucose could not possibly, with any ethical right, be known as “corn syrup.” The only reason for wanting to use the name is to deceive the purchaser. True corn syrup has been made in large quantities in this country as far back as the Revolutionary War, and especially in large quantities in the decade between 1840 and 1850, as the records of the Patent Office, which at that time contained the agricultural reports, will show. The term "corn syrup" can, therefore, apply only to the product obtained from the saccharine juices of the maize stalk, hence, to sell glucose under the name of corn syrup would be a violation of all the ethical principles on which the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act is based. The advertisements of the Corn Products Refining Company seek to deceive. In an advertisement in the Grocery World, December 9, 1907, it is stated: "You cannot buy any better syrup than Karo. It is made direct from corn, and has a smooth, rich sweetness that sugar syrup never has." There are two false statements in this proposition. Karo syrup is never made directly from corn; glucose is not a superior product in sweetness to a real syrup. In my opinion, to approve the request of the Corn Products Refining Company to call glucose "corn syrup" would be subversive of the fundamental principle of the Food and Drugs Act. According to Mr. Bedford's statements, confirmed by Prof. Chandler, "corn syrup is only in part glucose; glucose is simply a percentage of the product." What a travesty on the food law would be the naming of such a compound "corn syrup"! I briefly lay the above points before you and ask for your advice in the preparation of the thesis which I am to submit on the subject. I wish you would tell me why, if you have time, you have approved of this, which to me is an extremely false and dangerous form of misbranding. An early reply will be appreciated. Dear Sir-I have at hand your letter of December 11th. I enclose you herein the first bulletin published by this department on May 15, 1907, on page 10 of which we made a statement that we would accept the name "corn syrup" and the attitude of this department has been as there expressed. If I understand your contention correctly, it is, briefly stated, that the word "syrup" as defined by the standards adopted by State Dairy and Food Departments, and the standards adopted by the National Department, is restricted to the cane product. I do not understand that there is authority given to the Dairy and Food Departments of the State to write into any standards they may adopt new meanings for terms. If they may do so to any degree, then it is logical to believe that they may create wholly new terms and compel their use on pain of successful prosecution. It seems to me that the right to use a certain term exists, if it exists at all, wholly outside of any standards except those fixed by direct enactment of law. With this thought in mind, let me call attention to the fact that the word "syrup" has not of late years been restricted to the cane sugar or sucrose product. As to the correctness of the foregoing statement, permit me to call attention to the fact that the new International Encyclopedia, under title "glucose," specifically mentions the word "corn-syrup;" the Encyclopedia Americana under the subject "Glucose" mentions the term "cereal syrup;" Bulletin 66, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, page 31 and following, uses the word "syrup" in various ways relating to glucose and uses specifically the term “glucose syrups and sugars." In Bulletin 73, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, a paper by Edw. Gudeman, on page 66, reads as follows: "Glucose is a thick syrup, etc." So it seems to me that the term "syrup" at least as applied to the liquid product, usually known as "glucose," is not a misnomer, that it is not now in use, and that this term is common among scientific people, as well as people in trade. I am, therefore, unable to find anything in the Food Law of this State which would enable me to prevent the use of the word "syrup" as applied to the product in question. It seems to me that the test of the meaning of a Food Law is the ability to secure a conviction before a court on a given state of facts and and it is quite plain to me that I would have extreme difficulty in convincing a court that the word "syrup" means solely, and only, and always, the cane product. As applied to glucose the term "syrup" having been approved by usage, it seems to me extremely appropriate that it should be modified by some term which would make a distinction between the glucose product and the cane product, and it seems to me that the term "corn syrup" is appropriate and logical and not deceptive. Your suggestion that true corn syrup is syrup made from the expressed saccharine juices of the corn stalk does not appeal to me, for the reason that the word "corn" in this country to the average mind means the grain eight times out of ten and the term "corn syrup" applied to a product made from a stalk would be deceptive with ninety-nine out of one hundred of the people of this State, and they would be extremely surprised to know that the product was not made from the grain. To make a name which would give to the people of this part of the country the idea of the natural source of the syrup made from corn stalks, would require the use of the term "corn stalk syrup.” For the same reason the term "corn syrup" is lucid and descriptive to everybody in the corn belt, and my opinion is that ninety-nine persons out of a hundred called upon to define "corn syrup," even if they had never heard the term before, would define it as syrup made from corn-meaning a syrup made from the corn grain. I am, therefore, of the opinion, first, that the word "syrup" is the proper general term to apply to the liquid glucose product; that the term "corn syrup" is as logical as "maple syrup," or "cane syrup"; that it is accurately descriptive of glucose made from corn; that it is not deceptive to the scientifically trained mind. Neither does this term deceive the mass of people who have not been so trained, but who do know quite accurately what the words signify respectively or when put together. You make the suggestion that because of a prejudice against the word "glucose," the buyer is deceived if the article is sold to him under the name "corn syrup." The prejudice is not against the article but against the name. Prejudice is by reason of ignorance as to what glucose is. There is no prejudice against a clean, wholesome, cheap product. It seems to me that to use an accurately descriptive title, such as "corn syrup” is, in the direction both of accuracy and of enlightenment of the buyer rather than deception. Of course, any other deceptive or untrue statements, which mixed syrup manufacturers make on their labels, will be met with vigorous prosecution. I note your suggestion that other statements in regard to "corn syrup" are deceptive to a degree, and if so, they are, of course, the basis of successful prosecution, but I cannot see that that has any connection with their legal right to use the term "corn syrup." Permit me to call attention to the case of People vs. Harris, Supreme Court of Michigan, 1902, in the Northwest Report, page 402. Yours very truly, H. R. WRIGHT, Commissioner. STATE FOOD COMMISSION, STATE OF ILLINOIS. CHICAGO, December 22, 1907. Dr. H. W. Wiley, Chief of Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir-I want to thank you for your kind letter of December 11th in regard to the subject of Glucose or Corn Products Syrup, and in reply would say that I would like to agree with you in regard to your contention in this matter, but under the circumstances I cannot well do so as for the past eight years, as State Food Commissioner of Illinois, I have taken a different position in regard to these subjects. When I was appointed State Food Commissioner of Illinois in 1899 (just after the Illinois State Food Commission was created by our General Assembly) I met with the Commissioners and chemists of the National Association of State Dairy and Food Departments at their annual convention held at the Palmer House, in the City of Chicago, in this State, and after a conference with the Commissioners and State Chemists of the different states on these subjects, I substantially made the ruling that Glucose Syrup and Corn Syrup were synonymous terms, and I have never had occasion to change the ruling or my mind on the subject since the ruling was made in 1899. I do not think that the use of the terms "Corn Syrup" and "Glucose Syrup" for commercial purposes are misleading, for the public have been educated to understand that the terms are so used and consequently there would be no danger so far as the label is concerned. I must dissent from your position for another reason: My information is to the effect that Corn Syrup is applied to Glucose in commercial transactions and is recognized in reference works as a synonym for glucose. Glucose is used upon the table for syrup, and is so offered to the consumer in Illinois, and it was recommended for that purpose by a committee of eminent chemists. I am not aware that the food law, if you mean the National Food Law, refers specifically either to "syrup" or "glucose," or in fact, defines any food products except confectionery, and any inference that the fundamental principles of the food law are violated in labelling commercial glucose "Corn Syrup" is based on your assumption that corn syrup is not as distinctive, as honest, and as well understood a name referring to the syrup made from corn, as glucose, which assumption is the very point in contention. I do not find any authority to agree with you as to your definition of a syrup, not even the standards to which you refer. In these standards "sugar syrup" is defined as "the product made by dissolving sugar to the consistency of a syrup, and contains not more than thirty-five per cent of water." I refer you also to the definition of Syrup in the Standard, Worcester and Webster dictionaries. You will note also that in the definition of the terms "glucose," "syrup" and "corn syrup," they are used synonymously in the American Encyclopedia and the Universal Encyclopedia. The term "glucose" is unfortunate, as not being in the least descriptive of the product, and moreover has several different meanings. This view is not new with me, but is one I have held ever since I became interested in Pure Food work and is copied in the Illinois Pure Food Law, and has been reaffirmed by me in every annual report I have made during the past eight years as Food Commissioner of Illinois. I desire to call your attention also to the new revision of the Illinois State Food Law that went into effect July 1st, 1907, which specifically allows the labelling of commercial glucose as "corn syrup," and whatever my views on this subject might be. I could not do otherwise than enforce the law as I find it. Sincerely yours, A. H. JONES, Commissioner. SOUTH DAKOTA FOOD AND DAIRY COMMISSION. Hon. H. W. Wiley, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. My Dear Sir-Answering yours of December 11th, will say that in regard to Corn Syrup manufactured by the Corn Products Refining Company, Professor Shepard and myself have spent some time examining into the process of manufacture of this product, and we came to the conclusion that there was no harm in labeling it "Corn Syrup" and where it was mixed with other syrups, if they would state on their labels the percentage of Corn Syrup and Cane Syrup, etc., that it would be an honest statement to the purchaser of what it contained. Corn Syrup as made by them is actually made from Corn, and it is not all Glucose. It is of a syrupy consistency. We have no objection to the definition you give it, but it is not quite broad enough, and we think that inasmuch as it is made from the product Corn, it designates it from Glucose made from other substances, as Glucose may be made from quite a number of different products. The business as conducted in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa produces a product that must be wholesome and harmless. There has been a great deal of correspondence over this matter, pro and con, and I think likely the question of labeling will eventually have to be decided very much the same way the Whisky question has been decided. We want to be right and at the same time not too technical. Hoping this will explain our position, I am, Yours truly, (Signed) A. H. WHEATON. LIQUOR DEALERS WIN SUIT. Warwick M. Hough of St. Louis, attorney for the National Association of Wholesale Liquor Dealers, secured a decided victory in the decision of the Supreme Court in a case he argued recently before that tribunal. The decision sustains a decision of Judge Elmer B. Adams of St. Louis when on the district bench. The case was entitled "The United States, plaintiff in error, against the A. Graf Distilling Company of St. Louis." It involved primarily the construction of the internal revenue law. Mr. Hough claimed that the revenue law could not be construed so as to prevent the owner of distilled spirits from adding coloring matter thereto, and the court sustained the point. Three barrels of distilled spirits were seized by the revenue officers at St. Louis in June, 1902. They were in possession of customers of the A. Graf Company, who claimed them. The ground of seizure was that the barrels had had a portion of the original. contents removed and the amount so abstracted supplied by introduction of spirits of a different quality from the spirits originally gauged therein and the color restored by the addition of sugar coloring or prune juice. It is predicted that this decision will have a very important bearing on the case which has been instituted to test the scope and validity of the National Food and Drugs Act. R. Weinberg, of Philadelphia, Pa., who was convicted of selling skimmed milk and fined $60 and costs, preferred to go to jail rather than pay the fine. He can work out his sentence at the rate of $1 per day. |