Gambar halaman

never before assailed mortal man in this country. He bases this statement on what the profits of the cream of tartar baking powder company would be if the measure should be adopted. He declines to sanction any measure that would subject any man to such temptation. (Senate committee, 24.)

Dr. PENNIMAN, chemist of the Maryland State board of health, prefers to leave the wholesomeness of alum baking powder to the courts, rather than to the Secretary of Agriculture, because while a jury of 12 intelligent men have sometimes let a guilty man escape, they have seldom convicted an innocent one; but in a scientific commission the strongest mind is very apt to lead, and one man will make up the finding of the whole. (Senate committee, 22.)

Mr. John Davis, president of the Detroit Chemical Works, asks that the decision as to the standards and comparative usefulness of baking powders be made in the courts, where a proper defense can be made.

Mr. ARTHUR WYMAN, general agent of the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, states that one of the products made by this company is alum. He believes it a legitimate industry, and is opposed to any adverse national legislation which will prevent its being heard on its merits in the courts. (Senate committee, 5.)

Mr. E. L. DÚDLEY, of Dudley & Co., Fairport, N. Y., is opposed to section 7 of bill 3618 as antagonistic to his business, and says it would ruin his company. (Senate committee, 30.)

Dr. WILEY, chief chemist of the Department of Agriculture, says the whole question of advertising and trade rivalry is entirely foreign to the bill under consideration. The great question is whether things which are added to food are injurious and what is the best method of finding out. The provisions objected to had all been drawn long before Senator Mason's committee commenced its investigation, and were in the bills reported during many sessions. The object has been to establish some unbiased commission, which could get at the matter without being paid by rival concerns, not being in the employ of any commercial interest, but selected jointly by the President of the United States and the Secretary of Agriculture, and presumably of a high order and unbiased in its relations to trade interests.

Dr. Wiley says he would deplore any action which would injure any legitimate business, and would be the first to condemn the findings of a commission which would be unfair to anyone's trade interests. It seems to him that it is unfair to assume that section 7 is antagonistic to alum baking powder; it had no more reference to alum baking powder than to any other injurious substance. The bill provides that every interest shall be heard by the commission. In studying the effect of alum in food the commission would be required to inform the manufacturers, and ask them to appear and present their side of the case. (Senate committee, 33, 34.)

D. Amendment to Senate bill 3618.—Dr. WILEY expresses his entire willingness to accept an amendment making the findings of the commission simply a guide to the court instead of obligatory upon the courts. (Senate committee, 34.)

Mr. STEELE submits an amendment, approved by Dr. Wiley, making the standards and determinations approved by the Secretary of Agriculture merely evidence, which may be heard with all the weight that would naturally attach to the conclusion of a commission of experts, but leaving the parties in interest at liberty to show that the conclusion may be erroneous. (Senate committee, 35, 36.)





While laws of one kind or another prohibiting the adulteration of food are found in practically every State in the Union, effective provisions for the enforcement of these laws have been enacted in only about half of the Commonwealths. In Connecticut and Kentucky the State agricultural experiment station is charged with the enforcement of the laws regarding adulteration of food and unwholesome food, while Connecticut has also a dairy commissioner to enforce the regulations as to dairy products. The State board of agriculture in North Carolina is directed to enforce the pure-food laws, while in Missouri and New York the board of agriculture enforces the laws relating to dairy products only. In New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Tennessee the State board of health is the authority for executing these laws, and is usually empowered to appoint inspectors and in some cases chemists and other experts. Special officers, usually known by the title of dairy and food commissioners, have been established for the enforcement of the pure-food laws in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. California, Colorado, Iowa, and North Dakota have dairy commissioners to administer the laws regarding dairy products, but have no special oíscers to enforce the other pure-food laws.

These various authorities and their inspectors or agents are, in every case, given quite definite authority to enter premises where they believe articles of food are manufactured or sold, to open any package and inspect the contents, and to take samples for analysis. Penalties are usually prescribed for hindering these officers in the discharge of their duties. In several of the States where such special officers exist, and in some others where the law makes no provision for State inspection, it is provided that manufacturers and sellers of articles of food must deliver a sample to any person interested who tenders the market price.


Practically every State and Territory has a provision of some sort prohibiting the adulteration of food and the sale of adulterated food. In a considerable number of States, especially in the South and West, these provisions are very brief and general in their form. They do not carefully define adulterations or provide for exceptions. More recent laws enacted in over half of the States are much more elaborate and effective. In many cases the language used in these later laws is practically identical in the different States. After defining food in a broad manner, especially so as to include articles of drink, they usually declare that food shall be deemed adulterated in the following cases: “First, if any substance or substances have been mixed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength; second, if an inferior or cheaper substance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part for it; third, if any valuable constituent has been wholly or in part abstracted from it; fourth, if it is an imitation of or is sold under the name of another article; fifth, if it consists wholly or in part of a diseased, decomposed, putrid, or rotten animal or vegetable substance, whether manufactured or not; sixth, if it is colored, coated, polished, or powdered whereby damage is concealed, or if it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is; seventh, if it contains any added poisonous ingredient or any ingredient which may render it injurious to the health of a person consuming." There are some modifications in detail in the laws of the various States.

These general laws also provide for certain exceptions from their definitions. Thus it is commonly declared that mixtures or compounds known as ordinary articles of food shall not be deemed adulterated if they are so labeled as distinctly to show their character and if they contain no injurious substance. The further provision is added by a few States that such permissible compounds must contain every necessary ingredient and no unnecessary ingredient, while a few States require that the names of their ingredients shall be placed on the label.

Oregon and South Dakota have detailed definitions of adulterated foods, but permit their sale if properly labeled to show their true character.

These more elaborate laws usually contain also definite provisions regarding their enforcement, which are seldom found in the briefer laws. Sometimes there are very detailed requirements regarding the taking of samples, such as a requirement that the sample shall be taken in the presence of the owner or his representative and often another witness, or the requirement that a part of the sample shall be sealed up separately and left with the person in charge as a protection against error and fraud in the analysis of the article.

In Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Maryland the laws regarding food adulterations are less elaborate. They declare usually that no injurious adulteration shall be permitted, but that mixtures or adulterations which are not harmful may be sold if the purchaser is informed of their character and if they are properly labeled.


Nearly all of the States prohibit the sale of impure, corrupted, decayed, or otherwise unwholesome articles of food or drink. A few States make this prohibition only with the added clause, “ unless the buyer is informed as to the true character of articles.” The laws on this subject are for the most part brief and do not differ greatly among themselves. Some add more specific prohibitions, such as that the flesh of an animal which was diseased or which died otherwise than by slaughter shall not be sold; but the general terms of the other laws would doubtless cover cases of this sort.

Most of the States having detailed laws concerning food adulteration such as have already been described include, under the definitions of adulterated food, articles which consist of or contain tainted or unwholesome animal or vegetable matter. Some of these States have also separate provisions regarding unwholesome food, but in others the definition in the general law is the only one on this subject.

The laws of a dozen or more States, including such important States as Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, prohibit the killing, for the purpose of sale, of a calf under the age of 4 weeks (in one or two States, 6 weeks) or the sale of the flesh of a calf killed under that age. Ohio has a more detailed law on this subject.


Approximately half of the States have special laws regarding the adulteration or fixing the standard of vinegar. Kansas, Maine, Maryland, and New Jersey content themselves with declaring that no vinegar shall be sold as cider vinegar which is not produced solely from pure apple juice, and that no injurious ingredients shall be used in vinegar of any sort. Missouri prohibits imitations of fruit vinegar and the use of artificial coloring in vinegar. The other States regulating vinegar are Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The laws of these States have the general provisions above named, but add other more elaborate requirements. They require that vinegar shall have an acidity usually equivalent to 4 per cent of absolute acetic acid; in Minnesota, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Virginia the standard is 44 per cent. Most of these States declare further that cider vinegar must contain at least 2 per cent of cider vinegar solids. It is also a common requirement that all vinegar shall be made exclusively from the fruit or grain from which it purports to be made and shall be correctly branded. In many States the law requires the name and residence of the manufacturer of vinegar, especially if it is labeled “cider vinegar," to be branded on the package. In a few States there is a clause fixing the percentage of solids and of mineral matter or mineral ash which must be contained in fruit vinegar of any kind. A somewhat more common provision prohibits the use of artificial coloring matter in vinegar. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois require the branding of vinegar in such a way as to indicate whether it is fermented or distilled, while Minnesota, South Dakota, Utah, and one or two other States require the strength or acidity to be marked.


Liquors are uniformly included under the definition of food in connection with the general laws prohibiting food adulteration. In addition a considerable number of States have special laws regarding the adulteration of liquors intended for use as beverages. The most usual form of these laws is a prohibition upon the adulteration of spirituous or malt liquors with certain enumerated drugs or with other injurious substances. The drugs which are most commonly named in the prohibition are coc ulus indicus, wormwood, aloes, salicylic acid, etc.

Georgia, Indiana, New York, and Ohio have special laws prohibiting the adulteration of domestic wine (that is, wine made within the State) with other liquors or foreign substances. The Ohio and New York laws are exceedingly detailed, providing for the labeling of wine “pure wine," "wine” or “half wine,” and “compound wine ” according to its standard.

Missouri has established an inspector of beer whose duty it is to inspect all breweries and to stamp every package containing beer with a certificate as to its purity. Beer must be manufactured only from pure enumerated grains, malt, hops, and yeast.

SUGAR, SIRUP, AND HONEY. The laws of Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Michigan contain special provision regarding the adulteration of sugar and molasses with glucose, starch sugar, and similar products. In some instances the law merely prohibits fraudulent adulteration, while in other States it is provided that the proportion of glucose or the proportions of all the ingredients must be labeled upon packages containing such adulterants. In California, Kentucky, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Vermont there are found provisions requiring that compounds in imitation of honey not produced exclusively

I C-VOL XI- -25

by the honey bee must be labeled to show their true character. Minnesota and South Dakota further prohibit the sale as genuine of honey produced by bees fed with sugar, glucose, or similar substances.

In Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Vermont, and New York the adulteration of maple sugar or sirup with cane sugar or glucose or other substances is prohibited, as well as the sale of such adulterated articles. New York and Ohio further prohibit the adulteration of cane sugar or sirup with maple sugar or sirup.


Within comparatively recent years a large majority of the States have passed laws prohibiting injurious adulterations of candy. These laws are usually in practically the same language. They declare it unlawful to manufacture or sell candy containing terra alba, barytes, talc, or other mineral substances, or injurious flavors or coloring matter, or other harmful substances.


In Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin the law requires that canned goods of any sort must be distinctly labeled with the name and place of business of the packer (or, in some States, of either the packer or the dealer), together with some term indicating the quality of the contents. Most of these States further declare that so-called “ soaked” or “bleached ” goods—that is, goods canned from products previously dried-must be labeled as such in prescribed type.


Eleven States have special provisions regarding the adulteration of lard (District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Vermont). The usual provision is that no combination of fats or oils not produced exclusively from pure fat of healthy swine shall be marked “pure, ” “refined,” or “ family," but that every such compound must be distinctly marked in prescribed type “compound lard” or, in some States, “substitute.” Lard mixed with other substances must in some of these States be marked “adulterated.” In two or three States the name of the manufacturer of such compounds must also be placed on the label, and in others retail packages containing it must be accompanied with a proper label.


In certain States provisions regarding the adulteration of other specific articles have been enacted. Thus in California it is unlawful to sell adulterations or imitations of olive oil. The laws of the District of Columbia define in detail the standards of coffee, tea, cider, glucose, flour, bread, and olive oil. In Illinois, Michigan, South Dakota, and Minnesota there are special regulations requiring the labeling of imitations or adulterations of jellies or jams. Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Minnesota regulate the manufacture and sale of baking powder, especially that containing alum. In Nebraska and Virginia the adulteration of cider is prohibited, while in Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and Vermont mixtures of grain or adulterations of flour or meal must be labeled to show their true character. Illinois has regulations concerning the adulteration of flavoring extracts, chocolate, and cocoanut, while Minnesota and South Dakota similarly regulate the adulteration of spices and condiments.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »