matter only and to be free from harmful constituents and not to contain any contamination due to imperfect or incomplete manufacture.

This examination was conducted in strict accordance with the detailed scheme of examination fully set forth in the foundation certificate filed

CERTIFICATION.

(Date.)

(Signature of chemist.)

This supplemental certificate should likewise be accompanied by the same type of manufacturer's certificate as is described above. When the certificates filed with the Department of Agriculture are found to be satisfactory, a "lot number" will be assigned to each batch, which lot number shall apply to that batch alone and to no other batch of the same color.

According to F. I. D. 76, the seven permitted coal-tar dyes therein named, made specifically for use in foods, may be used in foods provided they bear a guaranty from the manufacturer that they are free from subsidiary products and represent the actual substance the name of which they bear. The guaranty herein considered shall be applied as follows:

Each package sold by the manufacturer should bear the legend "Part of Certified Lot Number --- The foundation certificate, as well as the corresponding supplemental certificate, does not apply to any certified dye beyond the package originally prepared by the one establishing this certificate. If such a package be broken and the dye therein contained be repacked, the repacked dye, except as hereinafter provided, becomes an uncertified dye, and as such is inhibited. There is no objection on the part of the Department of Agriculture to mixtures made from these permitted and certified dyes, by those who have filed certificates with the Department, but one (1) pound samples of such mixtures, and the trade name under which each mixture is sold, must be sent to the Secretary of Agriculture, and no such trade name or keyed modification thereof may be used for any other mixture.

The exact formula-that is, the true names as well as the numbers assigned to the original package and the proportions of the in gredients used-should be deposited with the Secretary of Agriculture, but such formula need not appear on the label; in lieu of which may appear the legend "Made from Certified Lots Number and Number --- etc. If the packages of these mixtures bearing this legend be broken and repacked, the mixture becomes, except as hereinafter provided, an uncertified one, and hence its use is inhibited; that is, the guaranty of the manufacturer shall extend only to the packages prepared by himself and only for so long as they remain in the unbroken form. Whenever new lots of previously established mixtures are made, making use of new certified straight dyes therein, thus necessitating a change in the label, 1-pound samples of the new mixtures should be sent to the Secretary of Agriculture.

The term "competent experts" as used in F. I. D. 76 applies to those who, by reason of their training and experience, are able to examine coal-tar coloring matter to ascertain its identity and to determine the absence of foreign matter not properly belonging to the product, which, if present, renders the substance unfit for use in food products.

40066-14

The term "batch" as used above is such a quantity of the product as has undergone the same treatment at the same time and the same place as a unit and not otherwise that is, the lot for one purification.

Those to whom certification is given with respect to their dyes and a lot number assigned should control the sale of such batches so that they may account to the Department of Agriculture by inspection of their books or otherwise for the destination and disposal of each batch,

Those using these certified dyes in the preparation of foods and foodstuffs must be in a position to substantiate the fact that the dyes so used were of a properly certified character.

There is no guaranty on the part of the Department of Agriculture that because the tests described in any foundation certificate have once been accepted, the permanency of such acceptance is assured.

In those cases where a package of a straight dye or a mixture of such dyes, bearing proper labels to the effect that they are of a certified lot or lots, is broken and repacked in still smaller lots, or treated with solvents, mixed, etc., the person or company so treating these dyes must stand sponsor for their integrity. This may be accomplished by submitting a statement to the Secretary of Agriculture as follows:

This repacking has been accomplished in the following fashion:

(Full description of what has been done with the lot or lots.)

CERTIFICATION.

(Name.)

On presentation of this certified form, properly filled out, to the Secretary of Agriculture, a lot number will be assigned, which number should be used in labeling according to the methods already described. If, for example, a portion of lot number "127" is repacked in smaller packages, the lot number " 127 A" will be assigned to this repacked dye, to enable the Department to follow this into consumption if necessary and still trace it back to the person by whom the dye was originally certified.

F. I. D. 78 (Oct. 8, 1907).

THE USE OF LABELS AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1907.

When the Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act were issued by the three Secretaries on October 16, 1906, one of the regulations, 17 (i), provided that any labels printed and on hand that day which did not contain a misstatement as to the character of contents, but which were not in strict compliance with other requirements of the regulations, might be issued without fear of prosecution until October 1, 1907.

Recently the National Wholesale Grocers' Association, and individual grocers, wholesalers, and jobbers throughout the United States, requested the Board of Food and Drug Inspection to recommend to the three Secretaries the extension of the privilege until October 1, 1908.

After a careful consideration of the matter the board has unanimously decided to refuse to recommend such an extension. It is the opinion of the members of the board that sufficient time has elapsed for manufacturers, jobbers, and wholesalers to adjust their business affairs to the terms of the law and of the regulations.

It is apparent, from the letters received by the board, that the general impression exists that the use of corrected labels will not be permitted after October 1, 1907. This is an erroneous impression and is evidently gathered from the wording of regulation 17 (i), and more particulary from Food Inspection Decision 43, which stated that on and after October 1, 1907, the labels must be originally properly printed. This statement was advisory and conveyed a warning that a further extension of the privilege need not be asked. It is desirable, of course, both from the standpoint of the Government officials who have charge of the enforcement of the law and from the view-point of the manufacturers, that the labels should be correct as originally printed.

Any person has a right to use a label which is not false or deceptive in any particular, even though this result is arrived at through the use of stickers, erasures, or other suitable means. Attention, however, is directed to the fact that misleading and deceptive statements must be obliterated. In other words, it is not sufficient, in the opinion of the board, that a deceptive statement should be allowed to remain on one portion of the label with a corrective statement upon another portion of the label. This principle of correction will be waived until further notice in case of decorated sardine tins which were printed and manufactured prior to January 1, 1907. In these cases the corrections may all be made in one label attached securely to one side of the package. Each invoice should be accompanied by a certificate from the exporter, showing the date of manufacture of the tins.

F. I. D. 79 (Oct. 8, 1907).

COLLECTION OF SAMPLES.1

[Amendment to regulation 3, p. 17, ante.]

F. I. D. 80 (Oct. 31, 1907).

GLAZED COFFEE.

There have been frequent inquiries made regarding the application of the Food and Drugs Act to the practice of glazing coffee. The following is a type of the communications of this nature:

It has been the custom with many roasters of coffee to use a finish, made out of supposedly harmless ingredients, on their coffees, especially the lower grades,

1Approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. See regulation 3 of the rules and regulations.

the main object being to lessen the natural loss in weight during the process of roasting, and thus reduce the cost.

We used a finish, ourselves, made up of lemon juice, flaxseed, gelatin, bicarbonate of soda, and lime water, until January 1, 1907, when we ceased, as we were uncertain as to its lawfulness under the Pure Food and Drugs Act which went into effect that day. If it is against the law, we would ask that the pure food commission prepare a ruling on coffees, such as has been done on rice, and have this ruling take effect as soon as possible, as manufacturers who are adhering to this method of roasting are enabled to undersell those who are using the natural roast, thereby placing them at a decided advantage.

Coffee is coated for one or all of the following reasons:

1. To restore, at least in part, the loss of weight incident to roasting. 2. To conceal damage or inferiority.

3. To prevent the depreciation of the roasted coffee due to the escape of the aromatic constituents.

4. To prevent the absorption of water which renders the roasted grains tough.

It would appear that the questions involved in this practice are similar in many respects to those involved in the polishing and coating of rice, which is discussed in F. I. D. 67. As in the case of coating rice, it is the opinion of the department that no coating of any kind can be applied to the coffee "if the product be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained in any manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed." In each case, whether or not such a result be secured is a question of fact to be decided by the evidence.

It is held by the department that coffee treated in the manner indicated with lemon juice, flaxseed, gelatin, bicarbonate of soda, and lime water should be labeled in all cases with the name of the extraneous substances, as,

COATED WITH LEMON JUICE, FLAXSEED, GELATIN, BICARBONATE OF SODA, AND LIME WATER.

In such declarations all of the substances used for coating should be mentioned. Any coloring matter or other substances that may be employed to change the tint of the coffee should be declared on the label.

F. I. D. 81 (Oct. 31, 1907).
LABELING OF CARAMELS.

The department is in receipt of the following inquiries from manufacturers of confectionery:

1. Milk caramel.—This piece contains no milk, but is composed principally of sugar and glucose, and we would like very much to know if milk were added to this formula whether we could still continue to call it "Milk Caramel."

2. Peaches and cream caramel.-This piece is made up principally of sugar and glucose and milk, and flavored with peach flavor. As there are 50 pounds of milk to a batch of 116 pounds, would this be considered as one of the principal ingredients?

3. Whipped cream caramel.-This piece does not contain any cream or milk, but is made up principally of sugar and glucose. The batch is, however, whipped, and if we should add milk to it, would it be misbranding to continue to call it "Whipped Cream Caramel?"

Section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, provides that any article of food is misbranded (1) if it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article; (2)

if it be labeled so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser; (3) if the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding the ingredients or the substance contained therein, which statement, design, or device, shall be false or misleading in any particular.

These portions of section 8 bear directly on the above as concerning the labeling of different types of caramels. Caramel No. 1 would be distinctly a case of misbranding, since it contains no milk.

In regard to caramel No. 2, it is evident that if milk is used in that product, it is false and misleading to call it "Cream Caramel." It is thought that this product would be properly labeled as "PeachFlavored Caramel " or " Caramel, Peach Flavor," if the peach flavor is not produced by the use of an imitation product. If an imitation peach flavor is used, the caramel could be properly branded only as "Imitation Peach-Flavored Caramel " or preferably, "Caramel, Îmitation Peach Flavor." The question as to whether the 50 pounds of milk used to a batch of 116 pounds forms one of the principal ingredients would have to be determined by the proportion of the ingredient found in the finished article. This question, however, is immaterial in considering the question as to whether the name " Cream" can be applied to the caramel.

To caramel No. 3 the above statements apply equally well. Since it does not contain any cream, the label "Whipped Cream Caramel " would be false and misleading. Even if milk were added to the batch and the whole were whipped, the product would not be entitled to bear the label "Whipped Cream Caramel."

F. I. D. 82 (Nov. 11, 1907).

LABELING OF COFFEE PRODUCED IN THE DUTCH EAST INDIES.

There seems to be in the trade much uncertainty respecting the requirements of the Department of Agriculture as to the labeling of coffee produced in the Dutch East Indies. This question has been under advisement by the department for some time, and, with the cooperation of the Department of State, important information has been secured.

The Department of State was asked to communicate with the Government of the Netherlands and ascertain to what extent in the opinion of that government the term "Java" should be used in harmony with the provisions of the law as applicable to coffees produced in the Dutch East Indies.

A communication has been received through the Department of States from the American minister at the Hague, who has consulted the Netherlands Government on this subject. In this communication the American minister states

The term "Java Coffee" has been abused for many years, hence it arises that of both roasted and unroasted coffee, perchance ten times as much coffee is sold to the consumer, under the name of " Java Coffee," as is grown in

Java.

In conformance with the provisions of the "pure food act," all coffee coming from the island of Java might be called "Java Coffee," that from the Padang districts "Padang Coffee," that from Celebes "Celebes Coffee," and all other sorts from the Netherlands Indies "Dutch East Indies Coffee."