No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 75 



With clevelry worded advertisements, some of the unscrupulous manufac- 

 turers are endeavoring to delude the public into the belief, through the medium 

 of deceptive labeling, that the printing or marking of such serial number upon 

 a package implies that the same are "guaranteed by the United States Govern- 

 ment," or that ■"the United States Government new Pure Food and Drugs Act 

 guarantees our products." These unjust representations have aroused a strong 

 protest against the manner of labelmg goods, and as a result, the National 

 Department of Agriculture has called a halt and threatened to expose those 

 who are guilty of making such false claims. While the Department allows 

 manufacturers to file a general guarantee, it assumes no responsibility, what- 

 ever, but merely attaches a serial number in order that the responsibility can 

 be placed where it belongs, in case of trouble or wrong-doing. 



It is remarkable that some prominent firms should have been found guilty 

 of abusing the confidence of the government authorities. Their advertisements 

 were so palpably unfair and unjust that the authorities were compelled to take 

 ofticial action in order to protect both the public and themselves against this 

 chicanery. 



NO APPROPRIATION MADE FOR FREE ANALTSES. 



The erroneous impression is still prevalent throughout the Commonwealth 

 that the Dairy and Food Bureau should make analytical and bacteriological 

 examinations of foods, drugs, patent medicines, as well as many other articles 

 that are submitted for that purpose, without any expense to the party sub- 

 mitting such samples. This subject has been discussed in previous reports. 

 While the Bureau will do all that lies within its power to render services to 

 the people of Pennsylvania, neither the appropriation available nor the chemical 

 laboratory facilities would be sufficient to meet such demands. Its present 

 resources are hardly sufficient to meet the expenses occasioned by making exam- 

 inations of the samples forwarded to the several laboratories by the sworn 

 special agents of the Department. If the resources were larger and such 

 analytical examinations could be made, it would not only be an obvious wrong 

 to examine at public expense samples in which perhaps only a shrewd manu- 

 facturer or prejudiced individual might be interested; but, such reports would 

 ultimately be used for advertising purposes, if favorable, and consequently 

 abused by being represented as the official endorsement of the Dairy and Food 

 Bureau. Where samples were sent in by the sworn agents for analysis the 

 reports are public property; but otherwise such analyses could not possibly be 

 made for the information of an individual. 



WHEN DUPLICATE FOOD SAMPLES ARE REQUIRED. 



At various times there has been a misunderstanding on the part of dealers 

 and others regarding the law which requires the sworn special agents of the 

 Dairy and Food Bureau to buy samples intended for analysis in duplicate. 

 The only statute demanding the duplication of samples is the new pure food 

 act approved June 1st, 1907. It does not require that the duplicate should be 

 sealed and left with the party from whom the sample was obtained. Tlie law 

 makes it mandatory that the one sample shall be forwarded to the official chem- 

 ist of the Bureau, and the other sample is to be delivered to the office of the 

 Dairy and Food Commissioner, to be kept in reserve in case a re-test should 

 be demanded during the trial or before the legal termination of the case. The 

 statutes do not require that agents should purchase or obtain duplicates of 

 samples of perishable goods or food products, such as milk, cream, butter, 

 oleomargarine, ice-cream, etc., for obvious reasons. 



In but a single instance since the new pure food act went into effect has the 

 duplicate sample been called into practical use. This was in connection with 

 a retest of a certain brand of ketchup, in which 20-100 of one per cent, of ben- 

 zoate of soda was reported by the chemist. The re-test not only confirmed the 

 correctness of the preceding analysis, but a composite test of the same article 

 by two prominent chemists showed that the sample contained 22-100 of one per 

 cent, of the preservative. The legislature alone can regulate the manner of 

 procuring samples, and the Commissioner must follow its mandates. 



THE ICE CREAM SUPPLY OF PENNSYLVANIA. 



Under a ruling promulgated by tlie Dairy and Food Commissioner, "ice cream 

 must be true to name and contain not less than 12 per cent, butter-fat," 

 together with sugar and pure fruit flavor. Eggs and a small amount of gelatin 

 are also permissible in its manufacture. Other objectionable ingredients will 

 not be allowed. While many of the conscientious dealers have already mani- 

 fested a willingness to comply with this ruling, a large proportion have not yet 

 changed formulas or methods of manufacture. As some prosecutions have 

 already been brought, it is fair to assume that ice cream must be improved in 

 standard and quality. The use of so-called "mechanical" preservatives is fre- 

 quently urged by those who desire to keep ice cream for an indefinite period. 



