BERKELEY.

(In Charge of Foods and Drugs.)

Martin Regensburger, M. D., President, San Francisco.
W. Le Moyne Wills, M. D., Vice-President, Los Angeles,
William F. Snow, M. D., Secretary, Sacramento.

M. E. Jaffa, M. S., Director State Food and Drug Laboratory. University of California, Berkeley.

STATE DAIRY BUREAU, 16 CALIFORNIA STREET.
SAN FRANCISCO.

M. T. Freitas, Marin County, Chairman.

F. W. Andreasen, San Francisco, Secretary.

Chester F. Hoyt, Chemist.

E. P. Nissen, Humboldt County.
J. R. Murphy, Fresno County.

KANSAS. TOPEKA.

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.

S. J. Crumbine, M. D., Secretary State Board of Health and Chief Food and Drug Inspector, Topeka, J. F. Tilford, Ph. C., Assistant Chief Food and Drug Inspector, Topeka.

E. H. S. Bailey, Ph. D., Chemist State Board of Health, Lawrence.

Julius T. Willard, Chemist State Board of Health, Manhattan. L. E. Sayre, Ph. M., Director of Drug Analysis, Lawrence. H. Louis Jackson, State Food Analyst, Lawrence.

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT
DRUG DIVISION.

R. M. Allen, Head of Division.
J. O. La Bach, Chief Chemist.
L. A. Brown, Chemist, Drugs.
D. J. Healy, Bacteriologist.

J. W. McFarlin, Chief Food Inspector.

W. R. Pinnell, Bacteriologist Food Sanitation.

C. S. Porter, Inspector, Drugs.

Walter Scheppelman, Inspector, Bakery Sanitation.
J. E. Mastin, Assistant Food Chemist.

E. F. Worthington, Inspector, Dairy Sanitation.
Miss Lillie Liston, Chief Clerk.

MARYLAND. BALTIMORE.

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH. Charles Caspari, Jr., Food and Drug Commissioner.

W. B. D. Penniman, Chief Chemist.

Wyatt W. Randall, Assistant Chief Chemist.
Harold B. Disney, Assistant Chemist.
Clifford O. Miller, Assistant Chemist.

MASSACHUSETTS. BOSTON.

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.
(In Charge of Foods and Drugs.)
Henry P. Walcott, M. D., Chairman.
Mark W. Richardson, M. D., Secretary.
Herman C. Lythgoe. S. B., Chemist.

STATE DAIRY BUREAU.

J. Lewis Ellsworth, Executive Officer and Secretary. P. M. Harwood. General Agent.

MICHIGAN. LANSING.

Gilman M. Dame, State Dairy and Food Commissioner. James W. Helme, Deputy Dairy and Food Commissioner. Fern L. Shannon, State Analyst.

M. J. Smith, Chief Clerk.

MINNESOTA.

ST. PAUL.

DAIRY AND FOOD COMMISSION.

Joel G. Winkjer. Commissioner.

John McCabe. Assistant Commissioner.
O. A. Storvick, Secretary.
Julius Hortvet. Chemist.

MISSISSIPPI.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.

W. F. Hand. State Chemist.

J. D. Sessums, Assistant Chemist.
H. S. Chilton, Assistant Chemist.
M. F. Coglon, Assistant Chemist.
M. Geiger, Assistant Chemist.

H. S. Montague, Assistant Chemist.
J. J. T. Graham, Assistant Chemist.
H. G. Lewis. Assistant Chemist.
J. C. McFarland, Assistant Chemist.
A. Levy, Assistant Chemist.

MISSOURI. COLUMBIA.

STATE FOOD AND DRUG COMMISSION. William P. Cutler. M. D.. Food and Drug Commissioner.

J. O. Halverson, Deputy Food and Drug Commissioner and Analyst.

Notwithstanding the expressive wording of the titles of various commissioners whose reports previous articles have reviewed, the idea is widely prevalent that their work is wholly in regard to the enforcement of the food law. Nearly every food commissioner, especially in the northern states, is a dairy commis sioner as well, even in his title. In such states as Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa the dairy commissioner part of the duties equal or exceed those connected with the general food law. It is easy to understand that the commissioners of these great dairy states should be charged with the enforcement of the oleomargarine laws, but it is not so easy to make the public comprehend that the commissioners' dairy duties in these states have to do very largely, not alone with the enforcement of laws against spurious dairy products, not alone with the enforcement of a few sanitary laws or milk inspections laws, but that they have to do with the fostering of a great local industry; that the commissioner is not only a prosecutor of evil doers in relation to true and counterfeit dairy products, but that he is a guardian, a teacher and at promoter of the industry indicated.

It is not so difficult to understand that the commissioners' duties in some of the older states, in states having large cities, should be particularly in relation to that universal food, milk, and that a large part of his work, as shown by prosecutions and inspections, is directed at that product.

In a good many states, it is a matter of convenience and economy for the food and dairy commissioner, and his inspectors and deputies and chemists, to enforce various other laws, either with the object of

easily making inspections and certain prosecutions of evil doers, or with the object of fostering the industry in question. Sometimes such duty is expressed in the titles but more often it is not, and the general public does not know that such activities are demanded of the commissioner.

In the following states the title of the official having the direction of the enforcement of food laws is State Dairy and Food Commissioner, namely: Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Connecticut, Oregon, Utah, Iowa, and in Pennsylvania the title is similar, namely, Department of Agriculture, Dairy and Food Division. In New York the food work and the dairy work are sub-departments in the Department of Agriculture. In Illinois, the State Food Commissioner is the head of the usual department. In Massachusetts, the food and drug inspection is a part of the work of the State Board of Health. In Tennessee the department is known as the Food and Drug Department, and South Dakota and Missouri have similar titles. North Dakota the Agricultural Experiment Station, Food Department, is the official designation, and the State Board of Health in Indiana has general charge of the food work.

In

It is understood, of course, that most of these titles do not at all represent all the work of the various departments. In most of them the word Dairy comes first, which quite certainly indicates that the laws when passed were intended to apply especially to dairy products and dairy manufactures. Practically every state has a separate law relating to adulteration of milk, and nearly all of them have separate laws relating to oleomargarine and filled cheese, these being

in addition to the general food law which also applies to these products.

Minnesota employs one cheese inspector, ten creamery inspectors, six food inspectors and three herd and barn inspectors. This state expends upon the department $58,465, and collects in fines $5,483, and in milk licenses, $3.533. In addition to effective enforcement of the laws, this state department inspects the creameries and cheese factories of the state, holds numerous educational dairy meetings, compiles dairy statistics, holds an extensive monthly educational butter and cheese scoring contest, and enforces laws regulating the canneries of the state, and laws relating to the sales of linseed oil, white lead and mixed paints, and insecticides.

The report of the Michigan department shows eight regular and six special inspectors, expenditures of $48,579 and receipts of $3.600 for registration of creameries, etc., $6,620 fees on concentrated commercial feeding stuffs, $1,527 milk dealers' licenses and $1,815 ice cream manufacturers' licenses. Besides doing a large amount of work in the way of collecting and analyzing samples of foods, this department had two inspectors working exclusively upon inspections of bakeries and confectioneries, inspected the creameries and cheese factories of the state, held numerous dairy educational meetings, held an educational scoring test for butter and cheese, organized numerous cow testing associations, devoted the whole time of one inspector, and part of the time of several others, to the inspection of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs, inspected a considerable number of apiaries, and made numerous inspections of farm dairies and city milk supply stations. As previously noted this department made 126 prosecutions for sale of adulterated milk and fifteen upon all other adulterated foods.

Wisconsin's report shows one chief food inspector, one food inspector, five creamery, dairy and food inspectors, and as many cheese factory, dairy and food inspectors. Disbursements are $45,907. A vast number of creamery and cheese factory inspections are reported, together with farm and barn and city milk inspections. Voluminous dairy statistics have been collected and compiled. The department enforces specific laws relating to the adulteration of malt liquors, linseed oil, turpentine, white lead and linseed oil compounds; also a sanitary law.

The Ohio department expends approximately $45,000 upon the general work of the department and about $30,000 on collection of liquor taxes. The commissioner is the State Sealer of Weights and Measures, and enforces laws relating to drugs, linseed oil, white lead, paints, turpentine, a sanitary law, and makes numerous dairy and cannery inspections. Illinois lists twelve food inspectors and six stock food inspectors, and shows expenditures of $72,301. This department, notwithstanding the fact that the word dairy does not appear in the official title, has given large attention to the creamery, cheese and milk condensing and milk distributing agencies of the state. As suggested in the statement of the number of inspectors, very considerable work has been done in the inspections and regulation of the sale of commercial feeding stuffs.

Connecticut expends $15.927 annually, which does not include any chemist or laboratory expense, and enforces a drug law as well as a general food law.

Pennsylvania expends $79,661 in the year 1910 and collected almost an equal amount, $79,697, for oleo

margarine licenses, and $30,405 in fines, of which latter sum more than one-half was for oleomargarine fines. Pennsylvania is one of the greatest dairy states and the attention to dairy matters is correspondingly large. Iowa employs one state dairy inspector, four assistant dairy commissioners, five food inspectors and one assistant commissioner and food inspector. Specific laws in relation to paints, linseed oil, turpentine, commercial feedings stuffs, condimental stock foods and agricultural seeds occupy the attention of the commissioner. The department does a great amount of work of an educational nature among the creameries of the state, issues licenses to 2,600 operators of the Babcock test; expenditures for the dairy work approximate $18,000 and for all other purposes about $30,000. This department collects $6,500 from operators of the Babcock test, $2,100 for milk licenses. and about $18,000 from sale of license tags for commercial feeding stuffs, and for licenses issued to manufacturers of condimental stock foods.

In some of the smaller western states the duties imposed upon the food commissioner are even more numerous and as little related to the food work as some of the matters set forth above, such as the inspection of horticultural products, or the inspection of illuminating oil, but the foregoing list will show that only a portion of the time and activity and money expended in most of the states is directed to the food work. In most of the dairy states the food work is less than half the work of the respective departments. and in other states either a similar situation obtains or the food department is correspondingly small.

It is difficult for a commissioner to report that "Food products loaded with poisonous or deleterious chemical preservatives have been almost completely driven from the * * * market," and then ask for increased appropriations for additional prosecutions. On the other hand it is easy to make a showing on other inspection and regulating work that should be done; it is easy to point to possible results to be obtained from the boosting of a local industry and so it comes about that state legislatures, not at all impressed with the hysteria of the sensational press, and interviewing the commissioner in his sanest moments, is not impressed with the alleged necessity of additional extraordinary appropriations for prosecuting food work that does not appear in any of the of ficial utterances of the commissioners. Hence it comes about that the real food work of the various departments of the states, is a long way from being the whole of the commissioner's duties. As previously shown more than 30 per cent of all prosecutions, and I am sure an equal proportion of all food work done is upon the single food, milk; and another large portion of the work is upon oleomargarine. There is no way to separate or accurately estimate the relative amount of money expended upon or the proportion of the activity of each department that is directed toward the foods of the people, but in those states where the department includes a large number of subjects besides the dairy and food work, it is safe to say that less than half the money and work is put into food inspection and food prosecutions.

Every food commissioner is constantly suggesting larger appropriations and more men to do the work of the department, but in most cases when he gets them he directs their activities to some more or less related subject. If one were to search the reports of the commissioners published ten or even five years