Category: regulation

The Origins of the Spelling of Maple Sirup With An “I”

By Matthew M. Thomas

Readers of vintage United States Department of Agriculture reports, bulletins, and manuals from the early 1900s to the 1970s, often notice and wonder why the word syrup in maple syrup is spelled as sirup with an I. Where did this version of the spelling come from, how long was it in use and why was it used in the first place? Was it merely a colloquial variation stemming from people writing spoken words down in ways that phonetically made sense?

1958 example of Sirup with an I, cover of Agricultural Handbook No. 134, titled, Maple Sirup Producers Manual.

What about how syrup is spelled in other languages as the source? We know the English language is made up of words from a variety of languages from Europe and borrows and modifies all sorts of “foreign” words. French is an important language to consider in this regard, especially since there is a great history of maple sugar and syrup making in French speaking Quebec. In French, the spelling is sirop with an O. That certainly is a contender for getting from sirop to sirup to syrup, with only progressive changes to the first vowel. Interestingly, the German spelling for syrup is sirup with an I, also right on the mark. Were immigrants and residents with French or German heritage the source of spelling sirup with an I?

How popular was spelling sirup with an I in early America? A search of newspaper archives shows sporadic use of spelling sirup with an I throughout the first half of the 1800s, increasing in use in the 1850s to the 1890s, although it was still used less often than syrup with a Y and even then, in most cases, sirup with an I was used in relation to sorghum or cane syrup and much less often in referring to maple syrup. So where did this formal use of sirup with an I come from?

Cover of Department of Agriculture Bureau of Chemistry Bulletin No,. 134, titled Maple-Sap Sirup from 1910.

What about the question of how long the United States Department of Agriculture had been using the spelling of sirup with an I? The Department of Agriculture was created in 1862 and in 1863 published its first Report of the Commissioner (the Agriculture Department was led by a Commissioner at that time, not yet a Secretary). That first annual report of the department included a section titled The Manufacture of Maple Sugar authored by C.T. Alvord, of Wilmington, Vermont. Alvord was not an employee of the federal government, but rather a lawyer, progressive farmer, and regular contributor to farming and agricultural journals of the time. In Alvord’s 1862 report one sees no use of syrup with a Y, but instead maple sirup with an I, as well as the term maple molasses. In analyzing federal agricultural census data, Alvord wrote,

“It will be noticed that the proportional increase in the quantity of maple molasses manufactured in 1860 over that of 1850 is much larger than that of maple sugar. I attribute this to the fact that many farmers are name making “maple sirup” instead of maple sugar. At present prices it is thought to be more profitable to make sirup than sugar.”

It is curious that in the first instance where Alvord used the words “maple sirup” in the agricultural department report, the term is presented in quotation marks, as if it is a new or unique spelling to be noted, but then then quotation marks are dropped in the rest of the report. Alvord’s use of sirup with an I in the government report is especially interesting, since in other articles he wrote on maple sugaring published in agricultural newspapers from just two years earlier, he always used the spelling of syrup with a Y.

Example of Sirup with an I, cover of the 1976 edition of USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 134, titled Maple Sirup Producers Manual.

Similarly, in 1905 when William F. Fox co-authored the Department of Agriculture Bureau of Forestry Bulletin No. 59 titled, The Maple Sugar Industry, the text of the report exclusively used maple sirup with an I. This is in contrast to Fox spelling syrup with a Y a few years earlier in 1898 in his overview of maple sugaring in the 3rd annual report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game and Forests of the State of New York.

Who was responsible for the publishing of federal reports and manuals, and might that be the source of sirup with an I? The Government Printing Office (GPO), the agency responsible for the preparation and printing of official publications of the federal government came into being in 1861, one year before the Department of Agriculture. With the monumental task of being the federal government’s publishing house, it is safe to presume someone at the GPO was making editorial, style, and printing decisions from that point forward, including deciding to use sirup with an I.

1924 cover of Department of Agriculture Farmer’s Bulletin No. 1366, titled Production of Maple Sirup and Sugar,

According to the GPO, the first official GPO style manual was issued in 1894. In that manual under the heading of orthography, authors are instructed to follow Webster’s International Dictionary, which was an expanded version of the famous Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language first issued in 1806. With that direction from that era, a look at 1890 and 1900 editions of Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language show sirup with an I as the preferred spelling, and syrup with a Y as a secondary spelling. In fact in the 1890 and 1900 versions of Webster’s dictionary, syrup with a Y does not even have its own entry or cross reference to sirup with an I. Looking back further to earlier versions of Webster’s dictionaries, as far back as 1828, and we see that sirup with an I was identified as the preferred spelling over syrup with a Y.

Sirup with an I continued to be presented as the preferred spelling in Webster’s Dictionary through the 1950s, but by 1959 with the release of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, the primacy had flipped with syrup with a Y getting the main listing and sirup with an I becoming the secondary spelling and its entry being limited to merely a cross-reference back to syrup with a Y. At one point in the 1920s, the GPO style manual began including a list with the preferred spelling of certain words. As early as 1922 we see sirup with an I included in that list. Sirup with an I continued to appear on that list as late as 1973, despite Webster’s dictionary shifting to syrup with a Y in the late 1950s.

If the GPO did not publish a formal style manual until 1894, what can we assume was the policy or standards they followed for the earlier years between 1861 and 1894? The GPO’s written direction from their 1894 style manual was likely formal codification of standards that had been put in place years before. Moreover, since at the time, Webster’s dictionary was THE go-to and standard reference for American English, it makes sense that from its very beginning of the GPO in 1861, it chose to follow the spelling preferences presented in Webster’s dictionary.

Unlike the federal government, most states never formally adopted the use of sirup with an I, with a couple of exceptions, namely New York and Wisconsin. The New York College of Agriculture at Cornell University used the sirup with an I from around 1910 through the late 1950s or early 1960s. Perhaps Cornell University had adopted similar editorial standards for their publications defaulting to the conventions in Webster’s dictionary. Sirup with an I was also use by the State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture for a shorter period in the 1950s.

Although syrup with a Y has become the preferred spelling by the GPO and was clearly the English language spelling recognized and used by most in the United States and Canada, until very recently sirup with an I was still on the books in a few formal titles and rules at the Department of Agriculture. However, in 2015, with the USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service’s issuance of new Standards for the Grades of Maple Syrup, the Department of Agriculture formally decided that it had officially discontinued its spelling of maple sirup with and I and announced that their official spelling would now be syrup with a Y.

And that explains the reason behind sirup with an I. From the early 1860s to the late 1950s with a holdover until 2015, it was the official policy of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Government Printing Office to spell sirup with an I, based on the guidance and direction of Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language. What remains to be explained is how, why, or by whom the decision was made in publishing Webster’s dictionary that sirup with an I should be the preferred spelling over syrup with a Y.

The Intersection of Maple Syrup and Food Nationalism

In a short, thought-provoking article published in the fall of 2020, Dr. Brigit Ramsingh examined a moment in Canadian history when maple syrup and nationalism intersected and the ideas and promotion of food purity (versus adulteration) were equated with promoting the national spirit of Canada.

The article is titled “Purity & Maple Syrup: Racism, Anti-Racism, and Food Products” and appeared in the Autumn 2020 edition (No. 102) of Communiqué, the journal of the Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science.

Dr. Ramsingh’s article reminds us, that while we may see maple syrup as benign and free from political association today, foods and other iconic images have often been used as symbols of nativist identity and cultural association. We are reminded that in the past, and maybe even today, there may be meaning and power in the images and associations of maple syrup that are not always evident at first glance.

 

Early Concerns with Lead in Maple Syrup – The Case Against 52 Barrels of Syrup in 1939

In the mid-twentieth century there was increasing concern about the levels of lead present in maple syrup. Numerous sources of lead were present in maple syrup making equipment at that time which had the potential to introduce unacceptable levels of lead into maple sap and ultimately be concentrated in maple syrup. Lead-based paint was used on pails and equipment. Brass components and sheet metals like terne-plate and galvanized steel contained lead in their alloys or as exterior coatings, and lead solder was used in fabricating metal evaporators, gathering tanks, and collection pails.

With the enactment of the Food and Drug Act of 1906 the Federal Government took a more active role in addressing food safety concerns, although the primary focus at that time was on protecting consumers from being sold fake, impure, dangerous products through false labeling and adulteration. Substances like lead were known to be poisonous, but how much and in what forms was a topic of great debate. State departments of agriculture in the maple syrup producing regions were aware of the problem and conducted limited testing of maple syrup for lead levels and begun research on alternative lead-free paints appropriate for the maple syrup industry.

The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began expressing its concerns with lead levels in maple syrup in the early 1930s. With the enactment of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) of 1938, new language empowered the FDA to develop standards and safe levels of otherwise dangerous substances like lead in maple syrup and engage in more direct enforcement actions.

Cary Maple Syrup Company plant in St. Johnsbury, Vermont in 1938. Photo by Hansel Mieth.

The nexus for the application and enforcement of the FDCA of 1938 was through the constitutional provision allowing congress to regulate interstate commerce. The FDA needed to make a point with its initial enforcement and get the attention of the maple industry, but at the same time to not punish a small maple syrup producer who couldn’t afford the court challenge. Wisely the FDA selected the biggest in the business for its test case. In June of 1938, United States Marshalls seized over 900 barrels of maple syrup being shipped by United Maple Products, LTD. of Croghan, New York, to St. Johnsbury, Vermont for the Cary Maple Sugar Company. The Cary Company was the largest buyer of maple syrup in the world, conducting its bottling operations at their four-story plant in St. Johnsbury, Vermont.

FDA chemists tested the maple syrup in the confiscated barrels and determined that some of the syrup contained an “added poisonous or deleterious ingredient, lead, which may render the article injurious to health” and brought civil charges under the curious title of United States vs. 52 Drums Maple Syrup in which the civil action was brought against the property itself and not specifically the Cary Maple Sugar Company who was the owner of the maple syrup.

Vermont Federal District Court Judge and one-time candidate for Vermont Governor, Harland B. Howe.

The following year, on July 24, 1939 in Montpelier in the United States District Court of Vermont presentation of the case began in front of a jury and Federal Judge Harland B. Howe. As it turns out, Judge Howe was to retire on medical disability the following year and this case was one of the very last cases he oversaw from the bench in Montpelier. Moreover, as a life-long Vermonter and native of St. Johnsbury, Judge Howe was more than familiar with the world of maple syrup production and the Cary Maple Syrup Company. Howe was also undoubtedly familiar with St. Johnsbury attorney Arthur L. Graves, who represented the Cary Company on numerous occasions.

The trial lasted seven days spread across two weeks and as recounted in detailed daily blow-by-blow reports in the Burlington Free Press, “the courtroom was packed with spectators including representatives of the State Department of Agriculture which is interested in the proceeding as a test case having serious bearing on the future of maple syrup in interstate commerce.”

As suggested, this case garnered a great deal of attention in Vermont and among the maple syrup industry. Interestingly, the initial editorial response by the Burlington Free Press was to point out that the lead levels in the syrup were minuscule and there were no known cases of anyone ever getting poisoned by lead in maple syrup, and moreover, that the in spite of the case being heard in a Vermont court, the syrup in question came from New York.

Barrels of maple syrup being unloaded at the Cary Maple Sugar Company plant in St. Johnsbury, Vermont in 1938. Photo by Hansel Mieth.

FDA chemists testified that lead levels in the tested syrup ranged from .001 to .136 grains of lead per pound. However, Cary Company chemist testified that the average lead levels in the tested syrup amounted to .0101 grains per pound. Against the objection of prosecuting Federal District Attorney Joseph A. McNamara, Cary’s attorney Graves offered as further evidence a federal government bulletin that stated that “maple syrup containing not more than .025 grains of lead is proper, not poisonous and not injurious”. Attorney McNamara counted that “there was no authority for the statements contained in the bulletin since the department had never established a regulation on lead tolerance”.

Cary attorney Graves further argued that the Cary Company considered the syrup coming into its plant as a raw product and not consumer ready food product. Once in the plant the syrup would be processed and “de-leaded” prior to being bottled or repackaged, thus it was premature to test the syrup in the barrels coming into the plant for lead levels.

Burlington Free Press headline from August 2nd, 1939.

On August 1st, 1939, the jury of Vermonters ruled against the Federal Government and in favor of the 52 barrels of syrup and the Cary Company. In reviewing their decision, Judge Howe “expressed open and enthusiastic approval of the verdict” and was quoted as saying to the jury “I think your verdict speaks the truth” and “I am very proud of you, it shows good sense”. He further added that “he regretted there were no more cases for a jury of such high caliber to consider”.

Cary Maple Sugar Company statement in the Rutland Daily Herald, August 8, 1939.

By the end of the trial the Burlington Free Press did come around to promoting the need for maple producers to “take reasonable measures to completely eliminate such small amounts of lead as may be discovered in maple syrup produced in this state”. The Cary Company, feeling vindicated by the jury decision, took out ads on August 8th thanking the FDA for their efforts to protect the public’s health and echoing the words of the Editors of the Burlington Free Press.

However, the Cary Company possibly spoke to soon, and the following day Federal District Attorney McNamara announced that the U.S. Government would appeal the decision on technical grounds to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was agreed that all the syrup with the exception of one barrel would be returned to the Cary Company, and the one barrel would be retained for evidence in moving the case to appeal.

In April of 1940, after hearing appeals testimony from attorneys McNamara and Graves, the three member U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City reversed the decision of the District Court jury. The appeal was granted on the grounds that Judge Howe should never have allowed testimony claiming that the syrup was an unfinished product that would later be processed and the lead removed prior to being made available and sold to consumers. The federal government argued, and the appeals judges agreed, that the claim that the syrup in the barrels was an unprocessed raw product and what happened or how it was later handled (supposedly de-leaded) in the plant in St. Johnsbury was immaterial and should not have been admitted.

The maple industry had hoped that one outcome of the case would be that the federal government would establish a lead tolerance level to serve as a guide for the industry in the future. The appeals judges made no definitive statement on the relative levels of lead in the syrup or what standards constituted lead contamination outside of acknowledging that “the government has established what is called a working tolerance of .025 grains of lead per pound which for present purposes may be treated as the maximum amount of lead maple syrup may contain without being barred from interstate shipment”.

In the end the maple industry, with the urging and assistance of state and provincial departments of agriculture, has worked to reduce and eliminate lead in maple syrup through the elimination of lead-based paints, and the modernization and replacement of equipment containing lead-based metals, solder, or coatings, like tin, terne-plate, bronze and galvanized steel. The widespread use of stainless steel, welding rather than solder, and a variety of plastics has nearly eliminated lead in maple syrup.