214 ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURfi. 



like; the substitution of glucose for cane or beet sugar, of synthetic 

 for natural products in flavoring extracts, of sugar sirup for maple 

 sirup, and of hulls for cottonseed meal. The list might be extended 

 vastly. 



The act exercises control not merely over interstate shipments but 

 also over imports. Indeed, it is somewhat broader in scope in its 

 application to importations than to domestic shipments. In the last 

 10 years over 100,000 import shipments have been sampled and many 

 times that number inspected. Practically all the various violations 

 of the act mentioned in the preceding paragraphs have also been dealt 

 with in connection with importations. 



While the accomplishments of the Food and Drugs Act have been 

 considerable, it must be admitted that it has its serious limitations. 

 Especially conspicuous ones are the lack of legal standards for foods, 

 of authority to inspect warehouses, and of any restriction whatever 

 upon the use of many of the most virulent poisons in drugs; the 

 limitations placed upon the term "drug" by definition which render 

 it difficult to control injurious cosmetics, fraudulent mechanical de- 

 vices used for therapeutic purposes, as well as fraudulent remedies 

 for obesity and leanness; the limitation of dangerous adulterants to 

 those that are added so that the interstate shipment of a food that 

 naturally contains a virulent poison is unrestricted. Furthermore, 

 the law fails to take cognizance of fraudulent statements covering 

 foods or drugs which are not in or upon the food or drug package. 

 Greater flexibility to prescribe the disposition of imports is also 

 desirable. The Secretary of Agriculture has at one time or another 

 recommended legislation to fill most of these gaps in the law. It 

 should also be noted that at present there is no Federal law which 

 prohibits unregistered or unlicensed persons from sending into inter- 

 state commerce medicinal agents, poisons, and the like, although 

 they can not be sold locally by them nor indiscriminately even by 

 registered or licensed pharmacists or physicians. 



The constitutionality of the act has been questioned repeatedly 

 without success. These cases and many others have clarified the sig- 

 nificance of most of the provisions of the act, though certain other 

 provisions, such as those dealing with "compounds," "blends," and 

 " imitations," and the recent amendment requiring that foods in 

 package form be labeled with the quantity of the contents of the food 

 m the package still await complete interpretation by the courts. 



Many matters of procedure have been fixed bv the courts. Thus, 

 in United States v. J. Lindsay Wells Co. (186 Fed. 248) and in 

 United States v. Baumert et al. (179 Fed. 735), it was held that in 

 cases under section 2 of the act the procedure may be by information, 

 which is a more expeditious and economical procedure than by indict- 

 ment. In United States v. 443 Cans of Frozen Egg Products the 

 Supreme Court held that cases in rem arising under section 10 of the 

 Food and Drugs Act are of the character of common-law actions, 

 after the seizure of the goods, and subject to review only upon writ of 

 error, in accordance with the rules of the common law. In United 

 States i\ 5 Boxes of Asafetida (181 Fed. 561) it was held that section 

 10 of the act defines fully when and under what circumstances foods 

 and drugs shall be forfeited, and is independent of and distinct from 

 section 2, and it is unimportant in forfeiture proceedings whether a 



