DEFINITION OF TERMS. 9 



and rice was not a food within the meaning of the act. In order to 

 broaden the definition so as to include such substances as baking 

 powder, the phraseology as already indicated was adopted in the act 

 of 1899. 



The food law of the United States follows, in certain particulars, 

 quite closely the wording used in the act of 1875 in its definition <rf 

 the wotd "food." In section 6 of the food and drugs act the term 

 "food" is defined so as to include "all articles used for food, drink, 

 confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether sim- 

 ple, mixed, or compound." The italicized portion of this definition 

 is identical with the wording of the act of 1875. 



Under the Federal law all articles whether used per se or not for 

 food are considered as coming within the above definition, thus 

 including articles such as flour, baking powder, coal-tar dyes, etc. 

 In this connection it is interesting to note the definition of misbrand- 

 ing as found in section 8, which provides "That the term 'mis- 

 branded/ as used herein, shall apply to all articles of * * * 

 food, or articles which enter into the composition of food, * * * 

 etc." No such phraseology as that italicized is found in the adulter- 

 ation section, section 7. 



In the sale of food and drugs act, 1875, the term "drug" includes 

 "medicine for internal or external use" (sec. 2). This definition was 

 not modified by the 1899 amendment. It is not so broad as the 

 definition given in the United States law, according to which "all 

 medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Phar- 

 macopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and 

 any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the 

 cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other 

 animals," are subject to this act. 



The same question has arisen under the English law as will doubt- 

 less arise in the enforcement of our own, namely, What is the status 

 of those substances having a twofold function, first, that of a drug, 

 and second, that of a substance used purely for technical purposes? 

 In 1896 this question was decided in the English courts with refer- 

 ence to beeswax, a sample of which had been sold and on examination 

 was discovered to contain about 50 per cent of paraffin. The sample 

 was sold by a grocer and not by a druggist, and the courts held that 

 although beeswax is used in a medicinal way and is recognized by 

 the British Pharmacopeia, yet in the present case the product was 

 not a drug. The point at issue seems to hinge on the question of 

 whether or not the product sold is intended for medicinal purposes. 

 A similar view has been taken by the United States Department of 

 Agriculture. Substances often used as drugs, that is, recognized by 

 the Pharmacopoeia, but which are likewise used for technical pur- 

 poses, if labeled "For technical purposes" and intended for such use, 



