6o POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



said that in some instances these poisons are not active in the com- 

 binations in which nature puts them, but whether active or not active 

 when people eat a natural product they know the nature of that which 

 they eat, and when a food law requires this product to be put up in its 

 best form and to be identified to the consumer, it has gone as far as is 

 necessary. 



The opponents of the Hepburn-McCumber-Heyburn Pure Food Bill 

 argue that it is unfair, because it prohibits the addition of poisonous 

 ingredients, and yet permits a poisonous ingredient when inherent or 

 normal in the product. This argument is plainly invented to divert 

 attention from the question of honest labeling. It seems at first 

 plausible; but its fallacy and purpose are evident upon short analysis. 

 The proposed law prohibits directly the sale of animal or vegetable 

 substances which are diseased, spoiled, or otherwise unfit for food, and 

 the majority of the other provisions of the bill apply indirectly to 

 adulterations present without having been added. Adulteration by in- 

 ferior methods of production or preparation necessitate the artificial 

 colors and flavors, antiseptics and other added substances which the bill 

 proposes to regulate. Imperfect natural food bears its own condemna- 

 tion in its unpalatable flavor and inferior color, and such a food, 

 therefore, must be supplemented and disguised by the added artificial 

 before it will sell. When the artificial is added the law operates. 

 Foods which possess a natural color and flavor pleasing to consumers 

 are the result of the highest arts of production and preparation, and it 

 is not for such foods that food control legislation is needed. 



The whiskey rectifier or blender in particular has attacked the word 

 ' added ' in the following provision: 



If the package containing it (the article of food) or its label shall bear 

 any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substance con- 

 tained therein, which statement, design or device shall be false or misleading in 

 any particular, provided, that an article of food which does not contain any 

 added poisonous or deleterious ingredient shall not be deemed to be adulterated 

 or misbranded in the following cases. 



No open argument can be put forward against the first part of this 

 provision, but from the overwhelming evidence of such misbranding, 

 not only in the sale of liquors but in the sale of all foods, it is evident 

 that there must be a powerful secret opposition to it. This opposition 

 manifests itself in charges of ' government bureaucracy,' ' the tyranny of 

 standards,' ' differences of opinion between scientists,' ' the competency 

 of the agricultural chemist versus the competency of the physiological 

 chemist in determining adulterations,' ' added or otherwise,' ' the con- 

 stitution,' ' the enforcement of law by an individual instead of by the 

 courts,' as if it were possible under the state and federal constitutions 

 to enforce any law in case of dispute by other than the courts. 



