60 



Food Commissioner of Pennsylvania, the other from the Chief Chemist of 

 the AgTicultnral Department, Avhich is in answer to an inquiry made by 

 a chemical honse in New York. The following is from the Food Commis- 

 sioner of Pennsylvania: 



•'A number of manufactnrers of 'catsup' have represented that the 

 strict enforcement, at this time, of rule No. 12. of the decisions published 

 in Bulletin No. 30, by this department, so far as it relates to catsup, will 

 seriously injure their business. They state that the catsup for next year's 

 trade was manufactured before the rule referred to was issued and that 

 the goods now contain a preservative. Icnown as benzoate of soda, the use 

 of which is prohibited under the law. Whilst rule No. 12 does not abso- 

 lutely prohibit the use of preseiwatives in food, it does fix the responsibility 

 upon the manufactiu-ers of showing that a preservative is necessary, and in 

 case of doubt as to its effect upon the health of the consiimer, of showing 

 that it is not injurious. Before strictly enfoi'cing any new law, or new 

 ruling, the Daily and Food Commissioner has always given manufacturers 

 and dealers reasonable time in which to be heard, and. if necessary, to get 

 I'id of adulterated goods already on the market, and this is in recognition 

 of the fact that all reputable manufacturers and dealers desire to comply 

 with every lawful regulation of trade for the protection of the public 

 health, and only need to know what the law is, and be given reasonable 

 time to adjust their business to its requirements. In order, therefore, to 

 give time for the proper settlement of the points at issue, the enforce- 

 ment of rule No. 12, so far as it relates to the use of a moderate quantity 

 of benzoate of soda in catsup, is siispended until opportunity shall be 

 given manufacturers to make clear the fact that its use is necessary and 

 not injurious to health. A meeting will be arranged for in the near 

 future, at which all who are interested can have opportunity to be heard." 



It seems that the theory of the law has been reversed in this case 

 by holding a thing wrong until it is proven right. This letter is practically 

 a retraction, and it is very evident the law was passed without fair 

 inv<^stigation. 



The following is from a chemist, which was written in answer to a let- 

 ter from a chemical hoiTse which manufactures carmine: 



"I am in receipt of your letter of the 3d inst. relating to the classifiea- 

 tion of carmine. I appreciate the position in which you are placed, but 

 do not consider that it would be permissible to class carmine with vege- 

 table colors. Of course, it is not a coal tar dex'ivative and has never been 



