FOOD NOTES

A faddist convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Oklahoma dairymen are demanding that the dairy work be taken from the food commissioner and placed under the supervision of the State Board of Agricul

ture.

Andrew French, State Dairy and Food Commissioner of Minnesota, has prepared a bill for the compulsory pasteurization of both cream and whey which will soon be introduced in the Minnesota legislature.

Kansas has passed a pure food measure fixing a standard for foods, drugs and compounds sold in the state, being the first bill to receive the signature of the Governor during the present session of the legislature.

Congress may be "agin" the President, but Dr. Wiley could not utilize that opposition to the extent. of eliminating the Referee Board. The only thing left for Dr. Wiley to do is to make his opinions and experiments harmonize with science, if possible.

Representative Jones of Bucksport, Maine, has offered the following resolution in the legislature:

"Ordered, That the Committee on Manufactures investigate the use of Benzoate of Soda and other preservatives in food products and report by bill or otherwise."

The biennial report of Ex-Assistant Food Commissioner J. W. Johnson of Nebraska has just been issued. Three thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven samples were analyzed; 891 violations of the law are reported, 345 of which were disposed of and 546 are still pending; $17.313.57 was paid out in salary and expenses and $8,087.36 received in fines and license fees.

The New York Journal of Commerce, which prints the unofficial rulings of the Bureau of Chemistry before any other newspaper and which is always an apologist for Dr. Wiley, says before the decision on the referee board on benzoate of soda that concerted action was on foot to present continuous complaints against Dr. Wiley and make it so uncomfortable that he would resign even if he should not be forced out. It is, of course, not true as was said that office holders seldom die and never resign, but if Dr. Wiley resigns, even so good an authority as the Journal of Commerce to the contrary, it will be by virtue of the big stick and not because of injured feelings.

AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT Heinz Co. claims that preservatives are added to foods to cover uncleanly methods of manufacture and they ought to know, for until two years ago all goods put up by that house were doped with preservatives usually with the one generally believed to be the most harmful, salicylic acid. They now claim to use only. one approved by Dr. Wiley. By all means Pennsylvania should push that sanitary bill or move Pittsburg into another state.

ILLINOIS STATE BULLFTIN NO. 13

Old Goods Cause Prosecution

All foods are perishable. They should not be kept for an unreasonable time before being sold. The manufacturer should guarantee foods only for a reasonable time. A new law has been enacted. Many foods that were legal under the old law are illegal under the new law. Many goods that were not misbranded under the old law are misbranded under the new law. Consideration of these facts shows that you should immediately

1. Go through your entire stock and take proper measure to dispose of all old foods.

2. Never order more goods of one kind than you can dispose of in a reasonable time.

3. Never place new goods in front of old ones. 4. Always dispose of old goods first.

The fact that foods have been in your stock a long time is no excuse if they are found to be illegal, but is an additional reason why you should be prosecuted.

Clean up your stock. If you have any doubts about a food being legal, write to the person whose name appears on the package, inclosing a copy of the entire. label and stating when it was purchased.

Copies of the law may be obtained on application to this office. A. H. JONES, State Food Commissioner.

ILLINOIS BULLETIN NO. 14.

Guarantees Which do not Protect.

Section 31 of the Illinois Food Act, July 1, 1907, provides for protection by means of a guarantee against prosecution by the state. Hearings at this office have shown that this matter is not understood by many of the manufacturers and retailers. We wish to call attention to the following facts.

A guarantee under the Food and Drugs Act, June30, 1906, protects against prosecution by the federal government, but does not protect against prosecution by the state. To afford protection against prosecution by the state, the guarantee must be that the goods are not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Illinois Food Act, July 1, 1907.

A failure to comply with any of the eight following provisions of the law renders the guarantee null and void as a protection against prosecution by the state:

I. The act under which the food is guaranteed must be designated (Illinois Food Act, July 1, 1907). The guarantee must be signed by the guarantor. 3. The guarantee must contain the address of the guarantor.

2.

4. The guarantor must reside in the state.

5. The food must be sold in the original unbroken package in which it was received.

6. The guarantee must be established at the preliminary hearing and the guarantor shall be amenable to fines, etc.

7. The dealer shall not sell the goods after notice by the state food commissioner that they are adulterated or misbranded.

8. The dealer shall preserve and deliver to the guarantor on demand the sample left with him by the inspector.

A dealer who does not take the trouble to secure a proper guarantee can not hope to show that he has been acting in good faith with his customers.

A. H. JONES, State Food Commissioner.

in type of the same size and style and in the same color as may be used in the printing of the name of any other syrup or molasses with which the maple syrup may be mixed, and said mixture shall be so labeled and sold. In mixtures in which maple syrup shall be mixed with molasses or any or either of the syrups designated in this section, in the proportion of not less than 25 per cent and not more than 49 per cent by weight of the total product, the word "Maple" shall be printed in the same color, and in type of the same style and size as the letters which may be used in the printing of the name of any syrup or molasses with which maple syrup may be mixed, and such mixture shall be so labeled and sold. In all cases in which maple syrup shall be mixed with any of the syrups designated in this section, in the proportion of less than 25 per cent by weight of the total product, the word "Maple" and the words showing it to be used as a flavor, as provided in this section, shall be printed on the label of each container of such mixture in the same color and in the same size and style of type. The mixture or syrups designated in this section shall have no other designation or brand than herein required that represents or is the name of any article which contains a saccharine substance; and all brands or labels required shall be an inseparable part of the general or distinguishing label, and the general or distinguishing label shall be the principal and conspicuous sign under which it is sold; nor shall any of the aforesaid glucose (corn syrup), syrups, molasses or mixtures contain any substance injurious to health, nor any other article or substance otherwise prohibited by law in articles of food.

Section 3. Whoever shall do any of the acts or things prohibited, or neglect, or refuse, to do any of the acts or things required by this act, or in any way violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars. Section 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after April 1, 1909.

COURT CONSTRUCTION OF IOWA FOOD LAW Sections of the lowa Food Law Referred To by the Court.

4999 20.

Sec. 6. No person, firm or corporation, by himself, officer, servant or agent, or as the officer, servant or agent of any other person, firm or corporation shall manufacture or introduce into the state or solicit or take orders for delivery, or sell, exchange, deliver or have in his possession with the intent to sell, exchange or expose or offer for sale or exchange. any article of food which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this act. Provided that none of the penalties set forth in this act shall be imposed upon any common carrier for introducing into the state, or having in its possession, any adulterated or misbranded articles of food, where the same were received by said carrier for transportation in the ordinary course of its business and without actual knowledge of the adulteration or misbranding thereof. Provided, that any manufacturer, wholesaler or jobber may keep goods specifically set apart in his stock for sale in other states, which might otherwise be in violation of the provisions of this act.

4999 a22.

Sec. 8. For the purpose of this act, an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated:

First. If any substance or substances has or have been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality, strength or purity.

Second. If any substance or substances has or have been substituted wholly or in part for the article.

Third. If any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted.

Fourth. If it be an imitation of, or offered for sale, under the specific name of another article, or if it does not conform to the standards established by law.

Fifth. If it be mixed, colored, powdered or stained, in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed.

Sixth. If it contains any added poisonous ingredient, or any ingredient which may render such article injurious to health, or if it contains saccharine or formaldehyde.

Seventh. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive, or mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so.

Eighth. If it consist of the whole or any part of a diseased, filthy, decomposed or putrid animal or vegetable substance or any portion of an animal unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it is the product of a diseased animal or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter; provided, that an article of food which does not contain any added poisonous

or deleterious ingredient shall not be deemed to be adulterated in the following cases:

1. In the case of mixture or compounds which may be now or from time to time hereafter known as articles of food under their own distinctive names and not included in definition fourth of this section; provided, that candies and chocolates shall be deemed to be adulterated if they contain terra alba, barytes, talc, chrome yellow, or other mineral substances, or poisonous colors or flavors, or other ingredients deleterious or detrimental to health; provided, that vinegar shall be deemed to be adulterated if it contains any added coloring matter; provided, that in case of baking powders, each can or package shall be plainly labeled so as to show the name of each and every ingredient contained therein.

Court: The information in this case was undoubtedly drawn under section 4999 a22, of the supplement to the code, and not under section 4999 a21 of the supplement, as there is no charge in the information that the article was misbranded. The term "misbranded" being defined in the section referred to as 4999 a21 and section 4999 a20, making it unlawful to misbrand a compound of this character, so if the defendant is guilty of the offense charged he must be held guilty under section 4999 a22. It is claimed he is guilty of the offense charged for the reason that the articles sold were not labeled, branded or tagged, so as to show the exact character and the name and quantity and proportion of each of the constituent parts thereof. The evidence shows that the prosecuting witness went to the defendant and asked the defendant for Boar's Head Brand Compound; that the article purchased was taken from a bucket or can upon which appears a large label bearing these words and the additional words, "Composed of cotton seed oil and oleo stearine," immediately under the name, and this can also contains another label which reads, "This compound is composed of the following ingredients and none other: Cotton seed oil and oleo stearine." There can be no question in this case but what the prosecuting witness got just what he asked for, and I think there is no question but what he knew what he was getting. There is no claim made here that this was sold as a substitute for lard. If it had been sold as a substitute for lard we would have a very different question. There is no misrepresentation by the seller either verbally or by the receptacle in which the article was contained. The sole question for the court to decide is whether when a purchaser, knowing exactly what he is getting and seeing it taken from a can labeled with the name of the article that he asks for and the can has in large letters in two places a statement of what composes the article, whether the seller can be said to violate the law first because in passing the article to the purchaser he places it in another receptacle and lets him carry it away in a receptable which is not marked, and second, whether under the law it is necessary to put on the original package the specific proportions of the ingredients in the article. As to the first it seems to me if the seller produces the original package and the buyer sees it, as the testimony here shows. he did see it, and then in the presence of the buyer the article is taken from the original package and wrapped up in something else, that there could not be a violation if the buyer is buying just what is called for and he sees what the article is and what it is made of. As to the second question there is more doubt, but it seems to me that if you read section 4999 a22 from beginning to end that it is very doubtful whether the construction asked for by the state is correct because in reading this section we find that for the purposes of this act an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it be an imitation of or offered for sale under

the specific name of another article, or if it does not conform to the standards established by law, if it consists in whole or in part of a diseased, filthy, decomposed or putrid animal or vegetable substance or any portion of an animal unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it is the product of a diseased animal or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter; provided, that an article of food which does not contain any added poisonous or deleterious ingredients. shall not be deemed to be adulterated in the following cases. Then it sets out two cases. First, in the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now or from time to time hereafter known as articles of food under their own distinctive names and not included in definition fourth of this section. Then there are some exceptions to that. And second, in the case of articles labeled, branded or tagged so as to plainly indicate that they are mixtures, compounds, combinations, imitations or blends, provided that the same shall be labeled, branded or tagged, so as to show the exact character and the name and quantity or proportion of each constituent thereof; and provided further, that nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or compelling proprietors or manufacturers of proprietary foods which contain no unwholesome ingredient to disclose their trade formulas, except in so far as the provisions of this act may require to secure freedom from adulteration or imitation. It would seem to me that the last part of that might and does apply to this case. That this is in the nature of a proprietary article of a given name and sold as that article. It is true that other men may manufacture the same compound or same product, but there is no claim here that these ingredients are unwholesome, and if a purchaser knows exactly what he is buying it seems to me the law does not intend to say he shall know the exact proportion of each article, that is, where it is manufactured by a private concern by their own formula. This case is a very different case from a case where an article of this kind was sold say for lard. If this case was a violation by the sale of an article, say this compound, for lard, there would be a question for the jury unquestionably. It seems to me that there must be violations of this law because it is new and people have not been educated to observe it fully, but if you are going to make a test case of the law or any part of the law it would seem to me that we ought to have a case where the questions can be presented in such way there can be no question of the guilt of the defendant under the law as interpreted by the court. I believe under the facts in this case that a verdict should be directed for the defendant, and a verdict will be so directed. Plaintiff excepts.

CERTIFIED COLORS NOW ON THE MARKET. When Food Inspection Decision 76 was issued allowing the use when certified of seven coal tar colors it was supposed there would be no difficulty in placing these colors on the market. On investigation, however, it was found that no colors sailing under these names could meet the tests of purity and composition laid down by the government. H. Kohnstamm & Co., however, have now succeeded in producing certified colors and will be ready to place them on the market in a very short time. We refer interested readers to their advertisement in this issue.

SENSATIONAL VERSES SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT Evidently the authorities called upon the various departments of the University of Kansas to make a showing of the work being done in the departments for publication in their catalogues and bulletins. Prof. E. H. S. Bailey therefore reports on the food work and Prof. L. E. Sayre on the drug investigations. By reference to these reports the reader will notice the difference between the straightforward statement of facts of Prof. Sayre and the academical, colored, indefinite and even misleading statement of Prof. Bailey. The statements of Prof. Bailey seem to be borrowed from the reports of a politically appointed state food commissioner in the first term of his office rather than the careful, thoroughly qualified, and experienced professor of chemistry and analyst, we and thousands of his pupils know Prof. Bailey to be.

Kansas of course needed a food law long before one was passed in that state and needs now a better one than she possesses. Unquestionably certain frauds in the sale of food, as the sale of mixtures of cane and maple syrup for maple syrup, colored distilled for cider vinegar and substitute vanilla extracts for the genuine, were more or less common in Kansas. They may be more or less common now from anything we may find in this report. The only definite statement in the report is that 58 per cent of samples analyzed within the last year and a half were illegal. Hamberger steak, apple butter and catsup were preserved, extracts contained coal tar colors, and soft drinks were sweetened with saccharin made from coal tar, etc.. from which we might infer that food conditions were infinitely worse since than before the law was passed both as to percentage and kind of adulteration. Before the law was passed foods were only misbranded as per horrible example: since the law was passed foods contained preservatives and coal tar colors and "coal tar" saccharin, all of which were inferentially injurious to health. If Prof. Bailey were writing on another subject we venture to say he would have stated as did his colleague the facilities for the work, the number and kinds of samples taken and analyzed, a reference to the itemized result of the analyses, the general conclusions reached and recommendations for future work.

Contributions of the Food and Drug Laboratories
of the University to the Work of the
State Boord Of Health.

That the University is taking an active part in the development of the state and in attention to the comfort and health of the people, is evident when we inspect the investigational work connected with food and drugs, resulting from the application of the food and drugs law, in the Chemistry and Pharmacy building.

Devoted to analysis of foods one finds a large, welllighted room, fitted up with all the modern apparatus especially needed for the work. On shelves in the laboratory, and packed away in the cupboards, are of the Board of Health. There are three samples of the samples as they are sent in by the food inspectors each food sent, and these are sealed with the special seal of the secretary of the Board of Health. At the present time Professor Jackson is busy with the examination of sirups, vinegars and extracts. Previous to the enactment of the pure food and drugs law the

state was overrun with a great variety of frauds in all these lines. The common foods in use were not so often injurious to health as they were a fraud on the consumer from being misbranded. Enterprising manufacturers for years have been putting up a sugar sirup, flavored with an extract of various barks, and selling it as absolutely pure maple sirup. An article labeled pure cider vinegar was, in fact, a distilled vinegar, colored. This, although wholesome enough, was a cheaper product than cider vinegar, and consequently the consumer was defrauded. The extracts of lemon and vanilla were colored and flavored to somewhat resemble the genuine article, but were, after all, little better than dilute alcohol, flavored and colored to resemble the genuine article.

In this laboratory there are to be seen long rows of canned goods, jams, jellies, baking-powders, pickles, olive oils, candy, chocolate, cider and various soft drinks awaiting analysis. If the foods are found to be adulterated or misbranded, immediate notice is sent to the secretary of the State Board of Health, and proceedings against the manufacturer or dealer are instituted by the county attorney in the district where the material has been purchased. As this kind of analysis has been going on for more than three years we have a chance to see the great improvement that has been made in food. By looking over the cards showing the analyses made within the last year and a half, we see that thirty-two different kinds of foods. and beverages, and many different samples of most of them, have been examined. Fifty-eight per cent of the samples analyzed were found to be illegal. Some of the reasons why these foods were condemned are as follows:

The apple butter and catsup contained preservatives; beer was falsely labeled as to the amount of alcohol contained; extracts were artificial, containing coal tar colors; "Hamburg steak" was "preserved" and colored, in order to make it look like fresh material, by the use of sulphites; soft drinks were sweetened with saccharin, made from coal tar, etc. It is therefore evident that there is still need for inspectors and analysts.

In another room in the same building, across the hall, and also on the floor above, are the rooms devoted to the work of the state water survey. The department of chemistry has carried on the work during the past two years in connection with the United States Geological Survey, which organization attended to the collection of samples. The waters of the chief rivers of the state have been analyzed, daily samples being taken for this purpose. These analyses, which will be published shortly, will show what the rivers are carrying out of the state, both in solution and as suspended mud.

As water works are being installed and the older systems extended in the various cities, there is a constant demand upon this laboratory for the analysis of the proposed supply, so as to secure the best water available.

This laboratory also assists the Board of Health in tracing the cause of various epidemics, such as typhoid fever. in the larger cities, and numerous analyses of well water have been made. It is proposed to extend the work to a more complete examination of the industrial waste that is carried off by the streams, and also to study the problem of purification of water supply for city use. E. H. S. BAILEY.

Laboratory Work.

The laboratory for drug analysis devoted to State Board of Health work is located on the first floor of the northeast corner of the Chemistry and Pharmacy building, under the direction of the dean of the department. Mr. Floyd Tilford acts as drug inspector, under direction of Dr. S. J. Crumbine, chief food and drug inspector, capitol building, Topeka.

To give some idea of the work thus far accomplished under this portion of the food and drugs law, a summary of the work effected is here given.

Specimens of drugs and preparations have been collected and analyzed from 107 different towns and cities in the state. They have been visited by the drug inspector and analyses of various drugs and preparations collected from them, amounting in the aggregate to about 1,000 different articles, and including about 140 varieties of medicinal articles.

The work of the food inspection in connection with the food laboratory has covered a much wider range than this, owing to the fact that there have been three food inspectors in the state, while there has been but one drug inspector. The monthly bulletins of the State Board of Health have given the best resumé of the work that has been accomplished in both laboratories.

In connection with this work, one of the problems, that confronted the officers charged with the enforcement of the food and drugs law, immediately after its passage, was how to bring its provisions quickly before the manufacturers, merchants and dealers of the state. It was evident that this ought to be done in such a way as to produce the least friction and secure the greatest harmony.

To bring this about the chief food and drug inspector, Doctor Crumbine, with the directors of the laboratories, made arrangements to visit the business centers of the state, and public meetings were held with the jobbers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers who were interested in foods and drugs. The principal cities of the state have thus been visited and a thorough campaign of instruction has been conducted. The result has been that it has very materially assisted the work of inspection and made the application of the law effective almost from the beginning. January 20, 1909.

L. E. SAYRE.

WHO PAYS THE FREIGHT.

It might be interesting to the people of the various commonwealths who are being misrepresented by the members of Wiley's machine to know who pays for the various junkets to endorse Wiley. Are those honorable members of the machine digging down into their jeans? Yes? No!

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF APPLIED
CHEMISTRY.

The International Congress of Applied Chemistry will meet in London in the week of May 27th to June 2d, 1909. In the past Paris, Berlin, Vienna and Rome have enjoyed the honor of entertaining this most distinguished body of scientists.

All who desire to attend the Congress should communicate with Dr. Chas. Baskerville, of the College of the City of New York, or Dr. Maximilian Toch, 320 Fifth avenue, New York City, as these two gentlemen constitute the committee on steamship rates and hotel accommodations.

An invitation is to be extended to hold the next meeting (spring, 1912) in New York City.