74 ANNUAL REPORT OF Th:E Oft. Doc. 



The Attorney General of the United States recently decided in the case of 

 a District of Columbia dealer who was cited for a hearing- on the charge of 

 selling an adulterated food product, and who held a guarantee from a Mary- 

 land dealer, that he had a sufficient defense, and upon further investigation, 

 it was ascertained that the Maryland met chant in his defense, and as a 

 matter of information, produced a guaranty from a Pennsylvania manufac- 

 turer who had delivered the adulterated goods to him. Under these conditions 

 and the provisions of the National Food and Drugs Act, approved June 30, 

 1906, the Attorney General gave the opinion that the only legal solution was 

 to confiscate the adulterated goods and destroy them, in case any remained 

 on the shelves of the District of Columbia purveyor. The Tustin Pure Food 

 Act reads as follows so far as the subject of guaranty's is concerned: 



"Section 8. No prosecution shall be sustained under the provisions of this 

 act, for the selling or offering for sale, or having in possession with intent to 

 sell, any article or goods, as defined herein, when the same is found to be 

 adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, when the accused 

 can establish a guaranty, signed by the person residing in the United States 

 from whom such article was purchased, to the effect that the same is not 

 adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, designating it or 

 within the meaning of the 'Food and Drugs Act,' June thirtieth, one thousand 

 nine hundred and six enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

 United States of America, in Congress assembled: Provided, however. That if 

 the article in question is in a broken or open package, said guaranty shall not 

 afford immunity fiom prosecution, unless such person shall furnish satisfactory 

 proof that the article lias not been changed in quality. The affidavit of such per- 

 son shall be accepted as such proof and the person making such affidavit falsely 

 shall be guilty of perjury, and punished accordingly: And pi'ovided, more- 

 over. That every person giving a guaranty under the provisions of this act 

 shall be held responsible for the adulteration or misbranding of any article or 

 goods sold under said guaranty, and shall be subject to the penalties for the 

 violation of the provisions of this act. 



"Said guaranty to afford protection shall contain the name and address of the 

 person making the sale of such articles to such dealer, and, in such case, the 

 said person shall be amenable to the prosecution, fines, and other penalties 

 which would attach, in due course, to the dealer, under the provisions of this 

 act, when said articles are found to be adulterated or misbranded. Provided, 

 That no such guaranty shall operate as a defense to prosecution for the viola- 

 tion of this act, if the dealer shall continue to sell after written notice by the 

 Dairy and Food Commissioner that such article is adulterated or misbranded 

 within the meaning of this act." 



FORMULAS NEED NOT APPEAR ON LABELS. 



Among many manufacturers there was a mistaken idea prevalent that under 

 the restrictions imposed by the pure food^ laws, they would be required to 

 make public their private and valuable formulas, and thus open to the world, a 

 free and untramelled manufacturer's outlet for their respective productions, no 

 matter how valuable or dearly bought such formula may have been. 



The same misunderstanding prevailed elsewhere, but so far as Pennsylvania 

 is concerned, the Dairy and Food Bureau announced that the law does not 

 compel the formula to be given on the label, but requires only that the articles 

 comprising such formula shall not be in violation of the pure food law. 



While it is mandatory to sell pure, harmless and unadulterated food pro- 

 ducts in Pennsylvania, the rights of producers are regarded as private just 

 so long as they do not make themselves amenable to the law. 



Where a manufacturer places upon the market an article that is fraudulent, 

 unwholsesome or injurious to health, the result of such analytical examina- 

 tion becomes public property. When a prosecution follows such analysis, the 

 facts are made public, and no attempt, whatever, is made to shield the defend- 

 ant; in fact, publicity through publication, is even a better preventative of 

 wrong-doing then the mere imposition of a nominal fine. 



While neither weaklings nor practical extremists could be successful as pure 

 food agents, the Commissioner points with much pride to the unswerving 

 integrity, tact and ability that was displayed during the many ordeals that 

 confronted the employes of the Bureau during the past year. It is always 

 when a new law is invoked to secure certain improved conditions, that we are 

 compelled to cope with new and unexpected difficulties which, happily, were met 

 with satisfaction, and a proud measure of success. 



WHAT THE NATIONAL GUARANTEE DOES NOT MEAN. 



As might very reasonably have been anticipated, manufacturers of food pro- 

 ducts, liquor,- patent medicines, etc., have grossly abused the privilege accorded 

 to them in connection with the stamping upon their respective productions a 

 serial number and the statement that the food or drug is "guaranteed under the 

 food and drugs act, June 30, 1906." 



