BUFFALO LITHIA WATER

Contains One-Fifth as Much Lithium as Potomac River Water

Some years ago, Alexander Haig evolved the theory that most diseases are due to uric acid. The data on which he founded his theory were not corroborated by scientific men, and investigation showed that his methods were unreliable. In spite of the fact that Haig’s theories are utterly discredited, and have been for years, the uric acid fallacy still persists, although it is now largely confined to the public. Shrewd business men, especially those who are more intent on making money than they are concerned with the manner in which that money is made, owe much to Haig’s theory. As a business proposition, uric acid has been one of the best-paying fallacies on the market—and possibly still is. It is only necessary to refer to The Journal’s recent article [155] on the Turnock mail-order medical fraud to emphasize this fact.

Showing how “Buffalo Lithia Water” in the course of time became “Buffalo Lithia Springs Water.” The government has shown that, to obtain a therapeutic dose of lithium from Buffalo Lithia Springs Water, it would be necessary to drink 200,000 gallons of the water. The government also declared that Potomac River water contained five times as much lithium as does Buffalo Lithia Springs Water.

Contemporary with, and to a certain extent a corollary of, the uric acid fallacy was another, viz., that lithium would eliminate uric acid. This at once gave a good working principle for the proprietary men. Uric acid, we were told, causes disease; lithium, we were also told, would eliminate uric acid; therefore, lithium is the new elixir of life! Could anything be simpler?

Accepting this theory, it was inevitable that mineral waters containing lithium salts should become highly popular. Many exploiters of mineral waters began to place most emphasis on the lithium salts in their waters even in those cases in which lithium was present in such infinitesimal amounts as to render its detection impossible by any but spectroscopic methods.

One of the best known, because most widely advertised, of the so-called lithia waters is Buffalo Lithia Water—or what used to be called Buffalo Lithia Water. After the Federal Food and Drugs Act came into effect, by which falsification on the label was penalized, the name of Buffalo Lithia Water was changed to Buffalo Lithia Springs Water. The reason for this change was that when Buffalo Lithia Water was subjected to examination by the government chemists it was found to contain so little lithium that the amount present was unweighable—it could be demonstrated only by the spectroscope. It was evidently, therefore, not a lithia water in that it did not contain—at least in quantities that could be consumed—an amount of lithium that would give the therapeutic effects of lithium: Possibly the company imagined that by changing the name from “Buffalo Lithia Water” to “Buffalo Lithia Springs Water” it had cleverly evaded the federal law. Their argument was to this effect: The springs from which this water is taken are known as Buffalo Lithia Springs; therefore, it is not a misstatement of facts to call this Buffalo Lithia Springs Water.

WHAT IS A LITHIA WATER?

The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a district court, has recently given an opinion on the Buffalo Lithia Springs Water case. The findings of the court are refreshingly simple, and characterized by that broad commonsense view that is becoming increasingly more common among modern jurists. Read Judge Gould’s opinion as to what constitutes a lithia water:

“Speaking generally, and as an individual of average intelligence and information, it would seem that if one were offered a water which the vendor told him was a ‘lithia’ water, one would have the right to expect enough lithium in the water to justify its characterization as such, thus differentiating it from ordinary potable water; and this amount would reasonably be expected to have some effect on the consumer of the water by reason of the presence of the lithium.”

Certainly a reasonable attitude, and one which the man in the street not only can understand but will agree with. Then came the question as to the actual lithium content of Buffalo Lithia Springs Water, and the court said:

“For a person to obtain a therapeutic dose of lithium by drinking Buffalo Lithia Water he would have to drink from one hundred and fifty thousand to two hundred and twenty-five thousand gallons of water per day. It was further testified, without contradiction, that Potomac River water contains five times as much lithium per gallon as the water in controversy.”

SOME TESTIMONIALS

Here, then, is a water that has for years been advertised first, in medical journals, and later, in lay publications, as a “lithia water” yet, actually, it contains less lithium, five to one, than is to be found in ordinary river water. This is a point for physicians to ponder well over. Turn to the back volumes of medical journals and read, both in the advertising and reading pages, the elaborate testimonials, given by men high in the medical profession, on the marvelous effects obtained by the use of Buffalo Lithia Water. Read the following in light of the fact that the water from the Potomac River contains five times as much lithium as Buffalo Lithia Water:

“In the class of cases in which lithia, soda and potash are regarded as most specially indicated, I have obtained far better results from the Buffalo Lithia Waters than from any of the preparations of the lithium salts of the Pharmacopeia.” (Statement by a member of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, France, etc.)

“Its [Buffalo Lithia Water] therapeutic effects, in my practice, have been vastly superior to those obtained from Lithia Tablets or other Lithia preparations.” (Statement by an ex-president of the University College of Medicine, Richmond, Va., etc.)

“It [Buffalo Lithia Water] is strikingly superior to emergency solutions of lithia tablets and pure water, even where the said solution is an exceedingly strong one.” (Statement by a former Professor of Clinical Medicine of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and vice-president of the American Medical Association, etc.)

“When Lithia is indicated, I prescribe Buffalo Lithia Water in preference to the Salts of Lithia, because it is therapeutically superior to laboratory preparations of Lithia.” (Statement by a former professor in the Medical College of Virginia and ex-president of the Medical Society of Virginia, etc.)

“Buffalo Lithia Water ... by its richness of composition of Lithia, is of marvelous efficacy, in cases of gout, of chronic, articular, and muscular rheumatism ...” etc. (Statement by former Physician in Ordinary to the Pope; Member of Academy of Rome, etc.)

“I have tried carbonate of lithia dissolved in water in various proportions; but it certainly does not have the same effect as Buffalo Lithia Water.” (Statement by a former Surgeon-General of the U. S. Army, etc.)

These are but a few of many testimonials from physicians that might be quoted. They are interesting from many points of view. They show the worthlessness of testimony of this sort—no matter from what source—and the fallacy of that based on so-called clinical evidence.

To go back to the court’s findings: In the case of the government against Buffalo Lithia Springs Water, one other judicial opinion is worthy of attention, that referring to the attempt on the part of the exploiters of the water to circumvent, on a technicality, the evident intent of the Food and Drugs Act. Said Judge Gould:

“The argument seems to be that if Buffalo Lithia Springs are falsely named, being called ‘Lithia’ Springs, when they do not flow water containing lithium, therefore the proprietors have the right to sell the product as being Buffalo Lithia Springs Water, thus perpetuating on the public the misnomer connected with the origin of the water. It is not apparent how the deceit practiced on the public by the label is mitigated by carrying it back to the designation of the spring from which the water comes.”

For years no one, apparently, ever criticized the claims made for this product. Finally, we got the Food and Drugs Act and the federal officials, acting under the authority vested in them by that law, in December, 1910, declared Buffalo Lithia Water misbranded. Thus this old established vested interest was attacked. The company, of course, fought. It first demurred to the charge brought, and in April, 1912, the demurrer was sustained. At the same time an amended libel was filed by the government, which the company again demurred to. This demurrer was overruled in June, 1912, whereon the company in December, 1912, filed an answer denying that the water was misbranded. The question has now (1914) been finally decided by the court sitting as a jury, the matter having been submitted by agreement to the court.

Buffalo Lithia Water has been sold since 1878. During this period undoubtedly many physicians have prescribed enormous quantities of this water, and many more laymen have taken the water on their own initiative, based on the advertised claims made for it. Practically all who purchased the water, whether directly or on the advice of physicians, did so in the belief that they were getting lithium. Had they known that, to get a therapeutic dose of lithium they would have had to drink 200,000 gallons of Buffalo Lithia Water, they would have felt, and rightly so, that they were the victims of an expensive hoax.—(From The Journal A. M. A., June 13, 1914.)

MEAT EXTRACTS AND MEAT JUICES [AU]

Their Composition and Relative Values

The Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture has recently given in Bulletin No. 114 much new and valuable data regarding the commercial meat products. The work contained in this bulletin is practically an elaboration or continuation of that published in The Journal of May 11, 1907, p. 1612. It was taken up to determine the condition and quality of meat preparations in general and from the results obtained to prepare tentative standards for the preparation and composition of such meat preparations. The results as well as the methods of analysis of many meat products are given, showing the composition and relative value of the various preparations. The comments of many investigators regarding the food value of such products is also a valuable contribution to the knowledge of meat extracts, and will help in deciding the real value of the preparations.

The preparations taken up are divided into three general classes (1) Solid and Fluid Meat Extracts; (2) Meat Juices; (3) Miscellaneous Preparations. For each of these the tentative standards submitted by the Committee on Food Standards of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists are given along with the tabulated results of the chemical analysis. The preparations examined showed, for the most part, that they conformed to the standards, and only those which are at variance in one or more particulars will be mentioned in this review.

SOLID MEAT EXTRACTS

For solid meat extracts the following are the requirements:

“Meat extract is the product obtained by extracting meat with boiling water and concentrating the liquid portion by evaporation after removal of fat, and contains not less than 75 per cent. total solids of which not over 27 per cent. is ash and not over 12 per cent. is sodium chlorid (calculated from the total chlorin present), not over 0.6 per cent. is fat and not less than 7 per cent. is nitrogen. The nitrogenous compounds contain not less than 40 per cent. of meat bases and not less than 10 per cent. of kreatin.”

With the above as the standard, several of the solid meat extract preparations examined were not up to grade on one or more points, though in some cases it is true they were very slightly below the standard set. The following products were found wanting in some respects and the requirements which they failed to meet are given:

“Rex” Brand Beef Extract (Cudahy Packing Co., Omaha) contained 26.50 per cent. water instead of the standard 25 per cent.

Extract of Beef Premier (Libby, McNeil & Libby, Chicago) contained 30.92 per cent. of ash instead of the standard 27 per cent.; 18.32 per cent. of sodium chlorid (standard, 12 per cent.); 6.02 nitrogen (standard, 7 per cent.).

Beef Extract (Swift & Co., Chicago) contained 13.51 per cent. sodium chlorid (standard, 12 per cent.); 6.60 per cent. nitrogen (standard, 7 per cent.).

Beef Extract, Coin Special (G. H. Hammond Co., Hammond, Ind.) contains 13.25 per cent. of sodium chlorid (standard, 12 per cent.); and 6.86 per cent. nitrogen (standard, 7 per cent.).

With these few exceptions, the solid meat extracts were found to comply with the standards given.

FLUID MEAT EXTRACTS

For fluid meat extract the following standards have been suggested:

“Fluid meat extract is identical with meat extract except that it is concentrated to a lower degree and contains not more than 75 per cent. and not less than 50 per cent. of total solids.”

According to this standard all excepting one of the fluid meat extracts examined were found to be below grade in one respect, that of solids. The following are preparations examined and the percentage of solids found:

Per cent.
Concentrated Fluid Beef Extract (Armour & Co., Chicago)	42.	25
Meat Juice (Valentine’s Meat Juice Co., Richmond, Va.)	42.	36
Beef Juice (John Wyeth & Bro., Philadelphia)	41.	16
Vigoral (Armour & Co., Chicago)	50.	06
“Rex” Fluid Beef Extract (Cudahy Packing Co., Omaha)	44.	01
Fluid Extract of Beef (Cibilis Co., New York)	35.	37
Fluid Beef Jelly (Mosquera-Julia Food Co., Detroit)	31.	03

Special notice is directed to the price of some of these preparations, which in spite of their large water content, are higher priced than some of the solid meat extracts.

MEAT JUICES

The following is given as the standard for preparations of meat juice:

“Meat juice ... is the fluid portion of muscle fiber obtained by pressure or otherwise, and may be concentrated by evaporation at a temperature below the coagulating point of the soluble proteids. The solids contain not more than 15 per cent. of ash, not more than 2.5 per cent. of sodium chlorid (calculated from the total chlorin present), not more than 4 per cent. nor less than 2 per cent. of phosphoric acid (P₂O₅), and not less than 12 per cent. of nitrogen. The nitrogenous bodies contain not less than 35 per cent. of coagulable proteids and not more than 40 per cent. of meat bases.”

It is especially noticeable among the meat juices, so called, that none shows any appreciable amount of coagulable proteids. Valentine’s Meat Juice and Wyeth’s Beef Juice, besides being below the standard in total solids as fluid extracts, are misbranded when called meat or beef juices, as can readily be seen by comparing the results of the analyses and the standard.

Wyeth’s Beef Juice is advertised as containing “all the albuminous principles of beef in an active and soluble form” and “in an unaltered form”—two statements that are on the face of them untrue and misleading. To say that all the albuminous principles of meat are present is to say that not only the juice of the meat but all the fiber is present, which evidently is not true. Then again, to say that it is present in an unaltered form is far from the facts, for, as is stated on page 18 of the Bulletin: “It appears impracticable to prepare a true meat juice for market, as the temperature necessary for the preservation of food products in hermetically sealed packages coagulates the proteids and changes the nature of the product.” On page 55: “When prepared under the best possible conditions a commercial meat extract is, of necessity, in order that it may not spoil, deprived of the greater part of the coagulable proteids, which constitute the chief nutritious elements of the juice.”

On examining the tables of analysis, it is seen that Wyeth’s Beef Juice contains but 23 per cent. of its total proteids in a coagulable form, while the standard calls for 35 per cent., thus showing it to be no more valuable as a food product than any other so-called meat juice, the statements of the manufacturers to the contrary notwithstanding.

In the case of Valentine’s Meat Juice we note a large discrepancy between the standard requirements and the results of the government analysis, for instead of the proteid matter containing 35 per cent. in the coagulable form, it contains but 1.6 per cent. These figures show, then, that Valentine’s preparation contains practically no coagulable proteids, and since the quantity of these measures the food value of such preparations, the conclusion must be drawn that Valentine’s Meat Juice has practically no value as a food and should certainly not be classed as a meat juice.

Bovinine, another widely advertised meat preparation, which, according to statements on “The Bovinine Co.’s” letter head, is “a concentrated beef juice” and “the only perfect food in the world” was analyzed and found below the standard set for meat juices, since it contains only 3.38 per cent. of coagulable proteids. Yet in spite of this discrepancy, the manufacturers of Bovinine persist in exploiting it as a food, stating it to be “... a concentrated easily assimilable, nitrogenous food,” and in another place it is stated that Bovinine “is an ideal food.” As it is deficient in coagulable proteids and thus below the requirements as a food, it is misbranded when called a food of any sort, for to quote again the Bulletin, page 55: “... meat extracts ... must not be looked on as representing in any notable degree the food value of the beef or other meat from which they are derived”; and, again: “They are not, however, concentrated foods, having, on the contrary, but comparatively little nutritive value.”

Taken individually or as a class, meat extracts are not to be considered foods, and should, therefore, not be advertised as such, a conclusion which the government officials have come to and voiced in the conclusion of the Bulletin as follows:

VALUE AND LIMITATIONS

“It seems to be the consensus of opinion among scientific investigators who have studied this question that the food value of these meat extracts is rather limited, and although they are a source of energy to the body they must not be looked on as representing in any notable degree the food value of the beef or other meat from which they are derived. When prepared under the best possible conditions a commercial meat extract is of necessity, in order that it may not spoil, deprived of the greater part of the coagulable proteids, which constitute the chief nutritious elements of the juice.”—(From The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 23, 1908.)