Email goffnelson@gmail.com to request the Zoom invite.
A sugarbush of 50,000 taps, a network of pipelines to carry sap from the woods to collection points, with sap boiled on colossal evaporators in a series of syrup plants sounds like a description of a modern industrial maple syrup operation. For Abbot Augustus Low’s Horse Shoe Forestry Company 120 years ago, it was a novel attempt at making maple syrup in the Adirondack wilderness on a scale never before experienced. From 1896 to 1908, A.A. Low and his army of workers carved an industrial landscape out of the forest around Horseshoe Lake, complete with railroads, electrification, mills, dams, a private camp, and the centerpiece maple syrup operation. In time the landscape of A.A. Low’s private estate changed hands and uses, but as told in Matthew Thomas’ new the book, A Sugarbush Like None Other, the remnants of the story of the Horse Shoe Forestry Company can still be found on the land.
Please join author Matthew Thomas on September 9th at 7 pm for a virtual presentation of his research and field investigations that went into documenting the history and remains of the Horse Shoe Forestry Company.
With any specialized activity a certain lingo, slang, or jargon develops over time and space. Terminology may include unique terms and phrases that form a vocabulary clearly understood by those that participate in the activity but which may be confusing or misunderstood by outsiders. The term maple sugaring is a good example of a term that is clearly understood by vast majority of people who make maple syrup to inclusively represent the entirety of the business of converting maple sap to some kind of maple syrup, sugar, candy, or confectionary product; yet, the term maple sugaring is confusing to outsiders and those not in the know.
Maple sugaring is an activity with a vocabulary all its own with terms and meanings that are broadly and universally understood by all maple producers across international borders. There are also regionally unique terms that are only used in different parts of the United States or Canada. In some cases, a term used in one region or state may be entirely foreign to another area. Other terms are now becoming antiquated with changing technology and the development of a more universal and less vernacular English language. Fortunately, a few individuals have taken time to document the terminology of maple sugaring which I have shared here.
First up is an article titled Maple Sugar Language in Vermont by Dr. Margaret M. Bryant, a professor of English at Brooklyn College, who spent time documenting maple sugaring vocabulary one summer in 1947 in Vermont. Dr. Bryant’s obituary described her as “an expert on grammar, linguistics, proverbs and folklore” suggesting she had a well-tuned ear and was sensitive to the importance of recording the cultural heritage of New England maple producers. She was a founding member and president of the American Name Society, a group dedicated to the study of, origin, history, and use of proper names. Dr. Bryant’s study, published by the American Dialect Society, is notable for the time period in which it was gathered and published, namely in the era before the replacement of stock animals by trucks and tractors and before the replacement of metal sap pails by flexible plastic tubing. To read the article, click on the image of the article above or select this link.
I encourage readers to scan through the Bryant article and see how many terms she documented are familiar to them and still used today and reflect on what new or different terms are currently in use. Language evolves and changes; old terms die off and new terms are born. What would we include in an updated version of this vocabulary?
A slightly more humorous take on regional differences in the language of maple producers was A sugaring vocabulary primer, written by John Page, a former University of Vermont Extension Agent March 8, 1978. Published in the Bennington Banner newspaper, Page used the differences in maple jargon in Michigan versus the “correct” terminology of Vermont to shed light on the sometimes quirky or distinctive words adopted by maple producers over time.
On the French language front, there is an even larger collection of maple sugaring terms and phrases documented between 1984 and 1986 by the Quebec Office of the French Language. Organized like an alphabetical dictionary, the document is entirely in French, but with the aid of Google Translate, English speakers can stumble through and discover the many words and phrases unique to French-speaking maple producers and maybe even learn a few terms that will raise an eyebrow in surprise from our maple producing friends across the border. Compiled by Jude Des Chênes and published in 1988, the Vocabulaire de l’acériculturecomprises 645 numbered terms and phrases. The “Vocabulaire” does includes an index in English to the numbered entries, but all the entries are in French, so back to Google Translate for a more careful reading. Surprisingly, this “vocabulaire” is virtually unavailable in libraries in the United States, so hopefully this complete PDF of the dictionary is useful to interested readers.
Here are a few additional links to websites with more contemporary lists of maple syrup lingo:
My new book on maple history has hit the streets, titled A Sugarbush Like None Other: Adirondack Maple Syrup and the Horse Shoe Forestry Company. This book is the culmination of a number of years of archival and field research into the story and historic remains of Abbot Augustus Low’s turn of the century industrial scale maple syrup operation deep in the woods of the Adirondack wilderness of New York state. The size and complexity of A.A. Low’s maple operation was like nothing ever seen, either before, or for a long time after. As described in the eBay listing for online orders:
A sugarbush of 50,000 taps, a network of pipelines to carry sap from the woods to collection points, with sap boiled on colossal evaporators in a series of syrup plants sounds like a description of a modern industrial maple syrup operation. For Abbot Augustus Low’s Horse Shoe Forestry Company 120 years ago, it was a novel attempt at making maple syrup in the Adirondack wilderness on a scale never before experienced. This is the interesting tale of how from 1896 to 1908 one man, A.A. Low and his army of workers, carved an industrial landscape out of the forest, complete with railroads, electrification, mills, dams, a private camp, and the centerpiece maple syrup operation.
The book is illustrated with dozens of photographs, historic and recent, as well as original maps, and extensive documentation and references. With a soft cover format, the story is told across the following eleven chapters spanning 202 pages.
1 Introduction
2 A.A. Low – The Man and His Family
3 The Industrial Landscape and Estate of A.A. Low
4 Maple Sugaring in the Late Nineteenth Century
5 Making Maple Syrup and Maple Sugar at Horseshoe
6 Grasse River Sugarbush
7 Wake Robin Sugarbush
8 Maple Valley Sugarbush
9 Syrup House and Sugarbush Operations
10 An End and New Beginnings
11 Conclusion and Final Thoughts
A Sugarbush Like None Other is available for immediate purchase through eBay at this link and will be on the shelf of bookstores and gifts shops in the northern New York and Adirondack region later this year.
I am happy to share on this website a digital version of the late Lynn H. Reynolds’ book Reynolds, Maple and History: Fit for Kings. This colossal book shares the story of many generations of Reynolds family maple syrup making within the broader context of the history of maple industry in North America. Especially interesting in the book are the first hand memories and experiences of members of the Reynolds family from Wisconsin who were engaged at all levels and components of the maple industry for much of the 20th century. In particular, Adin Reynolds and his two sons Lynn and Juan Reynolds saw it all, from making a lot of maple syrup (they were the largest operation in the world for many years in the 1960s and 1970s), equipment sales, buying and selling syrup, to organizational leadership at the state, national, and international levels.
Originally published in 1998 with a limited number of copies printed, the book quickly sold out and went out of print. Having been asked on numerous occasions by folks interested in maple history where they might get a copy I decided to contact the Reynolds family and thankfully they were kind enough to grant me permission to create a PDF copy of the book and make it available to people for free on this website.
The book covers 578 pages, so be advised, the digital file is fairly large at 115 mb. In addition, I created an index for the maple syrup history topics covered in the book and have included it at the end of the PDF version. You can down load the book HERE or by clicking on the image of the book above.
In January of this year, Down East Books released a new book by John Hodgkins titled Boiling Off: The Story of Maple Sugaring in Maine. As the name implies, the book focuses on the often-overlooked place of Maine in the North American maple syrup industry. Hodgkins brings together skill as a writer with previous book and magazine articles to his credit, and his experience as a sugarmaker, one who has made award winning syrup and served two terms as the president of the Maine Maple Syrup Producers Association, to helps us better understand recent Maine maple history and shed some light on the people that made it possible.
The book has four main themes that all interrelate and for which Hodgkins was and is intimately familiar. These are the origins and evolution of Hodgkins own maple syrup business, the development and events of the Maine Maple Producers Association, the role and impact of constantly improving new technology in the maple industry, and the recent growth and influence of the State of Maine, and especially Somerset County, in the larger story of North American maple syrup.
Hodgkins’ handling of all of these themes is interesting and informative, especially coming from the experiences of someone that was there first-hand. For example, Hodgkins shares how his own thinking and use of paraformaldehyde pellets changed from one of eager support to concern and abandonment in light of changing public opinion, personal observations, and scientific evidence of the harm to trees. I especially appreciated how Hodgkins presented his personal experiences and technological change in his sugarbush within the context of how such changes and innovations were being introduced and adopted in Maine and the greater maple industry.
Although it is the most recent part of the Maine maple story, as a historian I was very glad to see the book devote a significant portion to the expansion of Maine syrup production. Hodgkins traces the growth of Maine maple from being a sleepy maple syrup backwater making 8,000 gallons a year and lagging in ninth place among maple producing states, to producing three quarters of a million gallons of syrup and becoming the third most productive maple syrup state in the course of 30 short years. A significant part of that story is centered on the unique situation in the northwestern part of the state, adjacent to Quebec, where there is a long history of Quebeckers who live in Canada and travel across the border to Maine to lease and operate sugarbushes on largely privately held timber company lands. Producing mostly bulk syrup sold to American buyers, these producers in Somerset County have experienced exponential growth with many now running 30,000 to 80,000 taps operations making Somerset county the most productive county in the US.
I was also glad to see a number of pages dedicated to the origins and activities of the Maine Maple Producers Association. It is great to see an accounting of how this organization brought the Maine Maple Sunday to life and how they have adjusted to the changes over time in the make-up of their membership and importance of different regions in the state. It is a personal wish of mine that more state and provincial maple organizations would make an effort to research and write their histories and take advantage of preserving the memories and institutional knowledge of their older and long-standing members.
The book is written in an easy to read, sometimes folksy tone and it is Hodgkins’ story to tell, so he freely interjects his own opinions and thoughts on any number of topics and themes outlined above. It is very Maine-centric, and should make no apologies for it, after all, as the title says, that is the point. Hodgkins is a good story teller, if a bit repetitive in his telling. Many of the chapters read as if they were written as stand-alone columns or journal entries, which may explain the jumping back and forth between a first-person story-telling narrative and a third person journalistic narrative.
At 215 pages in length, the book is a rich first-hand description written from Hodgkins personal memory of events since the 1960s. From a historical perspective, the book is largely focused on the last 60 years, which is one of its strengths and which is an especially interesting time in the history of Maine maple syrup production. I highly recommend this book for those looking to learn more about Maine’s growing place in the North American maple industry and for a personal account of the ebbs and flows of the realities of being a mid-size to smaller commercial maple syrup producer in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
The book can be purchased in paperback for $19.95, plus shipping, through various online outlets like Barnes and Noble or Amazon.com. It is also available as a Kindle edition.
The spring 2020 edition of the Minnesota Archaeological Society newsletter features an article titled Boiling Arch Archaeology by Nicole Foss. This article, available here, describes recent archaeological investigations that documented the remains of two u-shaped boiling arches in Interstate State Park, near the St. Croix River and Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
One arch was constructed of bermed earth, stone, and brick while the other, probably later arch, was built poured concrete with three walls and a concrete floor. Historical research and archaeological investigations determined that the arches were probably open air boiling sites used by local syrup makers of European-American descent in the late 1800s to mid-1900s.
Archaeologist have been recording the remains of former maple sugaring and syrup making sites in the upper midwest for the last 40 years, although it is only in the last 20 years that there has been an increase in recognizing and documenting boiling arches as important features of many sugaring sites of both Euro-American and Native American sugarmakers. The report of finding these two arches is a valuable contribution to the historic archaeological record in Minnesota.
In addition to providing permission to share the newsletter article here, site investigators Jacob Foss, Nicole Foss, and David Radford were kind enough to share a few additional photographs from the site.
Photograph of earth and stone u-shaped boiling arch at Hobb’s Woods maple sugaring site, Interstate State Park, Minnesota.Photograph of the remains of the concrete U-shaped boiling arch at the Hobb’s Woods maple sugaring site in Interstate State Park, Minnesota.Photograph of a metal maple sugaring spout found at the Hobb’s Woods maple sugaring site at Interstate State Park, Minnesota.
In January 2020 I had the honor of being invited to the Vermont Maple Conference to make a couple of presentations on historical research I had conducted in the last few years. One presentation was a condensed version of the story of George C. Cary and the Cary Maple Sugar Company, which is the topic of my book Maple King: The Making of a Maple Syrup Empire. The second presentation was on new research I have completed for an article currently in review for publication in the journal Vermont History. This research traces the early origins and development of the use of plastic tubing for gathering maple sap in the maple syrup industry.
University of Vermont Extension Maple Specialist Mark Isselhardt arranged to have the audio from both presentations recorded in association with the presentation slides and posted these on the UVM Extension Maple Website. You can click on the following presentation titles or the title slides here to link to the full audio/slide show for each one. Enjoy!
To mark 100 years of maple production, in February, Quebec’s maple federation, Producteurs et productrices acéricoles du Québec published a book on the history of maple sugaring and syrup making in Quebec titled Si l’érable m’était conté, 1920 – 2020: un siècle d’acériculture au Québec, which roughly translates in English to “If maple was told to me, 1920 – 2020: a century of maple syrup production in Quebec.”
The book is written in French and covers 16 chapters. It cost $22 CAD and can be ordered online at the Federation website. in addition there is a sample excerpt of the book, including the table of contents that can be found here.
The available copies may be limited, so if interested, I suggest one order online soon. I look forward to receiving my copy in the mail and will post a summary and review at a later date.
Readers of this website may recall a similar post in the past outlining the relationship of the Vermont Maid Syrup company to other Vermont maple syrup and blended syrup companies. However, after seeing an August 2019 local-interest news clip from a Burlington, Vermont television station incorrectly describe the beginnings of the Vermont Maid company I thought I would write a more detailed, and accurate accounting of the company’s early years. Unfortunately, the presenters in the news piece didn’t do their research and repeated a popular, but inaccurate, narrative that Vermont Maid was started by the Welch Brothers Maple Products Company in Burlington in 1906 and was the first blended syrup on the market. Moreover, this news bit featured a representative from the Vermont Historical Society, in this case the Executive Director, affording the story a bit of unwarranted authority.
Earliest version of Vermont Maid Syrup tin and label from Essex Junction period, ca. 1920-1923. From the Tom McCrumm Collection.
Then on April 7, 1919 Fletcher sold his controlling interest in Vermont Maple Syrup Company, including the Essex Junction facilities, to George C. Cary, at that time one of the company’s minor shareholders.[2]
Group of Four Vermont Maid Syrup Ads that Appeared in the Muskogee Daily Phoenix Newspaper in February and March 1922.
Soon after in late April 1919 the Vermont Maid name was registered as a trademark by the Vermont Maple Syrup Company of Essex Junction and advertisements selling Vermont Maid blended cane and maple syrup began to appear at least as early as the fall of 1921.[3]
The first advertisement I have been able to find featuring the iconic logo of a young maiden at the center of an art nouveau styled shield and sporting a white bonnet in front of an outdoor scene of buildings, field, trees, and sky date to February 1922.[4]
Sugar Bird Syrup Tin, ca. 1916-1919. From the Tom McCrumm Collection.
Following the conclusion of a court case settling a disagreement between F.N. Johnson and George C. Cary over another syrup brand (Sugar Bird Syrup) that Cary incorrectly believed to be included in the sale of the Vermont Maple Syrup Company, Cary and his co-investors reorganized the Vermont Maple Syrup Company in June of 1922 and in February 1923 moved the company from Essex Junction to St. Johnsbury.[5]
Vermont Maid Syrup bottle and label from the St. Johnsbury period.
In 1926 F. N. Johnson returns to the story with a newly formed American Maple Corporation with the purchase of the Welch Brothers Maple Products Company of Burlington, Vermont, including their Pine and Marble Street bottling plant. That same year the American Maple Corporation also acquired Cary’s Vermont Maple Syrup Company and the Vermont Maid brand. By late 1926 or early 1927 the Vermont Maid brand had undoubtedly moved from St. Johnsbury to the old Welch Brothers plant on Pine and Marble Streets in Burlington. Following their various mergers and acquisitions the American Maple Products officially settled on the name of Vermont Maple Syrup Company in the spring of 1927.[6]
Large size single loop handle bottle with early, post-bonnet logo from Burlington bottling plant , ca. 1928-1932.
The Vermont Maple Syrup Company (formerly American Maple Corporation) did not hang onto the Vermont Maid brand for long and in October 1928 the Vermont Maple Syrup Company, including the Vermont Maid brand and the Burlington plant, was sold to Penick & Ford, Inc., a large national syrup company with products and interests in molasses, cane syrup, and corn syrup. The Vermont Maid brand continued to be bottled under Penick & Ford ownership in Burlington until it was sold to R. J. Reynolds in 1965. The plant continued to be used by RJ Reynolds Foods for bottling Vermont Maid syrup for another ten years, before the plant was closed and the bottle facilities moved to New Jersey in 1975.[7]
As stated at the beginning of this post, Vermont Maid Syrup or the the Vermont Maid brand was never a brand or part of the Welch Brothers Maple Products Company in Burlington. It is true that Vermont Maid was bottled in the same plant that was built for and once used by the Welch Brothers company, but Vermont Maid was neither started by Welch Brothers nor ever owned and operated by Welch Brothers. For some it may seem like splitting hairs, but good history is based on good research and it is important to get the story right. The confusion about that comes from the various companies and facilities that were consolidated and purchased by the American Maple Corporation/Vermont Maple Syrup Company. As for the idea that starting in 1906 the Welch Brothers first came up with the idea to bottle blended syrup combining maple and cane syrup couldn’t be further from the truth. There were literally dozens of syrup blenders at work at the same time if not long before the Welch Brothers formed in 1890.[8]
For collectors of maple syrup and Vermont Maid Syrup items, it is possible to find earliest tins and bottles with labels showing the Vermont Maid maiden wearing the white bonnet. These date from the short-lived Essex Junction period (ca. 1920 to 1923) and the St. Johnsbury period (1923 to 1926/27). The earliest labels also feature the words “VERMONT MAID” in an arched script above the word “SYRUP” at the top of the label. By the early Burlington period (1926/27 to 1929) the maiden has lost her white bonnet and the word “SYRUP” is no long present at the top of the label under “Vermont Maid”. All three of these earliest labels include a white panel or box with red print at the bottom of the label stating the town in which it was packed.
Left to right, earliest Vermont Maid Syrup labels. Left – Essex Junction period, middle – St. Johnsbury period, right – Burlington period.
Early bottle shapes include a clear glass round bodied, long neck form (see image near top if post) without a loop handle. Later a round bodied bottle with a single loop handle and reinforced lip at the junction of the neck and shoulder. It is not clear if the single loop handle bottle was used at the Essex Junction or St. Johnsbury bottling plant, but the single loop bottle was definitely in use in the early years of the Burlington bottling plant, ca. 1928-1932.
Example of early single loop handle bottle, ca. 1929-1932.
By 1930 the white box stating the location of manufacturing has disappeared. Advertisements from these early periods indicate that Vermont Maid syrup was packed in both tins and bottles with three sizes of tins and two sizes of bottle, as well as a sample size bottle.
Example of large size metal tin (ca. 1929-1932) and sample size glass bottle (ca. 1928-1929).
By 1932 the background behind the maiden has changed from an outdoor scene to a solid color and a lighter colored panel below the image of the maiden is replaced by a solid green background label.
Vermont Maid Syrup label with solid background in shield surrounding maiden and solid green primary label, ca 1932-1935.
The early bottles in both large and small sizes have a single loop handle. The slightly flattened, double loop handle bottle was patented and introduced in 1933, replacing the round single loop handle bottles.
1933 patent sheet for double loop handle bottle and example of early double loop handle bottle with 1935 copyright on logo.
After 1933 the Vermont Maid label witnessed subtle changes, most notably and useful for collectors, the addition and regular updating of the copyright date at the bottom of the label, with 1935, 1939, and 1942. Depending on the state labeling requirements for the state where the syrup was to be, labels varied based on their different ingredients and the amounts that were used. Some simply said “Made from Cane and Maple Sugar.” While others listed the percentages (85% cane and 15% maple) or in the case of a 1942 copyright label 50% Cane, 25% (Dextrose, Maltose, and Dextrines) and 25% Maple Sugar.
Examples of 1930s and 1940s Vermont Maid Syrup labels from double loop handle bottles with copyright years marked on label, left to right 1935, 1939, 1942, 1949.Vermont Maid Syrup example of standardized bottle for use by blended syrup companies during later years of World War II.
During the years of World War II, the War Production Board – Containers Division required all blended syrup companies to use a standardized bottle shape and size. Production of glass containers was limited by the government to a small range of specific bottle shapes and sizes to allow glass manufacturers to focus their efforts on more important wartime production and not creating specialty glass containers. As a result, like all other blended syrup, from around 1943 to 1947 Vermont Maid was sold in what was sometimes called the “stubby round” bottle, more commonly recognized today as a molasses or vinegar bottle. Following the end of the war, Vermont Maid returned to being bottled in the double loop handle bottle. Use of this bottle shape continued well into the late 1960s and possibly the early 1970s.
One might wonder from where did the idea for the maiden label and logo come? Having lost the right to use the Sugar Bird Syrup brand in 1921, George Cary and the Vermont Maple Syrup Company needed a new logo for their blended syrup and somehow settled on the Vermont Maid name. It is striking how similar the initial bonneted maiden on the Vermont Maid Syrup logo was to the bonneted maiden of the Sun-Maid Raisins logo, also introduced around this time.
Side-by-side comparison of early Vermont Maid maiden with white bonnet and Sun Maid maiden with red bonnet.
Sun-Maid Raisins began to display a maiden on their logo in 1915, predating the Vermont Maid Syrup logo, and the similarities between the two labels are. Interestingly, the image of the girl in the Sun-Maid Raisins logo is based on a real person named Lorraine Collett, although her likeness evolved over time. In contrast, it is not known if the Vermont Maid Syrup maiden was similarly based on a real person or was more of an imaginary caricature of a persona, more like the fictitious Betty Crocker.
There have been other uses of the name Vermont Maid as a brand, such as for cottage cheese, and there are other table syrups featuring maidens and the word “Maid” in their name like Dixie Maid, Kitchen Maid, and Yankee Maid. These all date to a period after this Vermont Maid Syrup began.
Example of tin for Towle’s Vermont Maid Pure Sap Maple Syrup, ca. 1910-1915. From the collection of Scott Benjamine.
But perhaps the most likely candidate for the source of the name and image was from an earlier Vermont Maid Pure Sap Maple Syrup that was bottled and canned by the Towle’s Maple Products Company in St. Johnsbury and St. Paul between 1910 and 1914. The Towle’s Company was more famous for their Log Cabin brand of syrup that came in cabin shaped metal tins. Towle’s bottled their syrups in their St. Paul plant until a fire in the fall of 1909 nearly gutted the facility. Needing a place to quickly set up a new plant while they rebuilt. George Cary of the Cary Maple Sugar Company sold the Towle Company his St. Johnsbury plant. Cary at that time was buying millions of pounds of maple sugar for resale to the tobacco industry and had not yet entered the syrup bottling and blending side of the maple industry. The Towle Company operated in St. Johnsbury for five years (1910 to 1914), bottling both their iconic Log Cabin Syrup label, as well as a host of other labels, including Towle’s Vermont Maid Pure Sap Maple Syrup, which unlike Towle’s Log Cabin Syrup was supposed to a 100% pure maple syrup. Considering this was in the period after the enactment of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, when testing and prosecution of adulteration was common, it is likely true that the Towle’s Vermont Maid syrup was 100% pure maple syrup and not a blend.
There is no strong indication that the Towle’s Vermont Maid Syrup label was used beyond the Towle Company’s presence in St. Johnsbury, although there are some grocers’ advertisements that continued to list Towle’s Vermont Maid Syrup for sale as late as 1918, possibly selling older stock that was bottled and canned a few years earlier. George Cary and his co-investors were certainly familiar with the Towle’s Vermont Maid brand and that it was no long in use when they trademarked the name in 1919.
For the student of advertising history and collector of Vermont Maid Syrup bottles and tins, the label and bottle shapes evolved over the years, sometimes reflecting the different ownerships and bottling facilities and sometimes reflecting the changing tastes in packaging design and function. What has not changed is the presence of a female maiden centered on a green panel, emphasizing the well-recognized color of the state of Vermont.
——————————————————
[1] “New Maple Syrup Industry,” Rutland News October 17, 1916; “New Vermont Corporations: Canton Bros. of Barre and Vermont Maple Syrup Co. of Essex Junction,” The Barre Daily Times September 28, 1916;
[2] “ ‘Sugar Bird Brand’ Causes Suit in Court: George Cary Interested in Maple Sugar Suit in U.S. Court,” The Caledonian Record March 18, 1921.
[3]The Pittsburg Press September 30, 1921; Springfield Reporter December 29, 1921;
[4]Muskogee Daily Phoenix February 28, 1922; Muskogee Daily Phoenix April 11, 1922; Muskogee Daily Phoenix April 22, 1922; Muskogee Daily Phoenix April 15, 1922.
[5] “VT. Maple Syrup CO. had been Incorporated in St. Johnsbury,” The Barre Daily Times June 19,1922; The Landmark (White River Junction) February 22, 1923; Groton Times February 23, 1923.
[6] “Welch Retires from Maple Co.,” Burlington Free Press July 23, 1926; “Maple Corp. Has $600,000 Capital,” Burlington Free Press September 27, 1926; “American Maple Corporation to Put Out 2942 Preferred Shares,” Burlington Free Press November 11, 1926; Burlington Free Press November 23, 1926; Burlington Free Press February 28, 1927.
[7] “Maple Syrup Co. Sold to New Yorkers,” Burlington Free Press October 12, 1928; Penick & Ford Acquires Company,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle October 18, 1928; “R J Reynolds Tobacco Buying Penick & Ford LTD,” Burlington Free Press March 2, 1965; “RJ Reynolds Foods To Close Vermont Maid Syrup Plant, Burlington,” Burlington Free Press August 23, 1975.
[8] “Wanted Maple Syrup!,” Orleans County Monitor July 28, 1890; “A New Maple Sugar Company,” Burlington Free Press January 22, 1891.
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.
