1010 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Aug. 1 



Jont s would be obliged to modify his name by such a 

 phrase as "Distributed by." The phrase "put up 

 by " does not seem to be particularly happy, because 

 it could be with like truth applied to the person who 

 bottles his own product as well as to the person bot- 

 tling extracted honey from other sources. 



It is the intention of the law that labels on all food 

 products should not be misleading in any particular, 

 and it seems to me that if extracted honey is labeled 

 under the conditions as outlined above, there can be 

 no question as to the names given on such labels be- 

 ing misleading. Respectfully, 



July 3. James Wilson, Secretary. 



Circular No. 68, to which reference is made, 

 does not say any thing about "put up by;" 

 but it does say that a person, tirm, or cor- 

 poration using goods manufactured or pro- 

 duced by some one else may use the words 

 " prepared for, " "manufactured for," "dis- 

 tributed by;" but the phrase "sold by" is 

 "not satisfactory." As honey is not "man- 

 ufactured," bee-keepers do not care any 

 thing about " prepared for," "manufactured 

 for," and the only phrase that would apply 

 to the bottler who buys pure honey of other 

 producers would be the words "distributed 

 by," and this must not be set in type smaller 

 than eight point (or brevier) caps. 



The editor happened to be in Washington 

 early in July, and while there called upon 

 Dr. Bigelow, who is acting in charge during 

 the absence of Dr. H. W. Wiley, Chief Chem- 

 ist of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 

 Dr. Bigelow, one member of the committee, 

 stated it was his opinion that the words 

 "put up by" could not be accepted by the 

 committee, in view of the fact that the gen- 

 eral public would not draw a distinction be- 

 tween "produced by" and "put up by." 

 When the latter phrase was used the consum- 

 er might infer that the honey "put up by" 

 John Jones actually came from John Jones' 

 bee-yard, and was, therefore, of his produc- 

 tion. To that extent he believed that the 

 words "put up by" would be misleading, 

 and therefore contrary to the general provi- 

 sions of the law. This is in accordance with 

 the letter by Secretary Wilson, as will be 

 noted in the next to the last paragraph; but 

 we stnted that the words "distributed by," 

 which would be acceptable to the committee, 

 would, on the other hand, give a wrong im- 

 pression to the general public. For example, 

 John Jones had built up a business upon a 

 fine quality of honey that he actually pro- 

 duced, and that, when the supply from his 

 own yards gave out, he would actually be 

 compelled to go out into the open market 

 and bviy a product that would be equal in 

 purity, quality, and flavor to that which he 

 had been producing in his own yards. If he 

 were compelled to use the words "distribut- 

 ed by" the public might assume that he went 

 out into the open market and bought honey 

 upon which he placed no guarantee of qual- 

 ity, even if it were assumed that it was pure. 

 We suggested that perhaps the words ' ' bottled 

 by" might be acceptable, and asked for his 

 opinion upon it. He freely said he did not 

 think there would be any objection to that 

 wording, provided no other statement was 

 made implying that the bottler was also a 

 producer of the contents of the package. 



We referred this question to a number of 



extensive bottlers of honey. Some of them 

 have had the impi'ession that they would be 

 permitted to use the words "put up by," 

 but in our opinion this would be an unsafe 

 wording in view of the ruling of Secretary 

 Wilson; for you will note that he says the 

 phrase "put up by" "does not seem to be 

 particularly happy, because it could be with 

 like truth applied to the person who bottles 

 his own product as well as the person bot- 

 tling extracted honey from other sources." 



It should be clearly understood that the 

 national law applies only to interstate and 

 territorial business. If the small bottler dis- 

 poses of his product within the borders of 

 his own State he is subject only to the laws 

 of that State; but he must clearly bear this 

 in mind, that, if any of his honey should by 

 a second or third party be shipped without 

 the borders of the State, and the labels 

 should not be in conformity with the nation- 

 al law, he would be rendering himself liable; 

 and it is, therefore, important that both the 

 small bottler as well as the large one who 

 does and expects to do an interstate business, 

 have his labels so worded that there shall be 

 no question upon the point. 



Two or three bottlers have submitted to us 

 the labe's reading as follows: "John Jones' 

 honey, Blanktown, Ohio." The Department 

 has already ruled that such wording is con- 

 trary to the provisions of the law, because it 

 is clearly implied, although it is not exactly 

 so stated, that a honey bearing that label 

 was produced by bees owned by John Jones. 



Another bottler submitted to us a label 

 reading as follows: "Pure extracted honey 

 sold ly John Jones." But food-inspection 

 decision No. (58 clearly bars out the words 

 "sold by" on a product manufactured or 

 produced by some one else. 



It is possible that the Department may yet 

 accept the words "put up by," with the un- 

 derstanding that it means only packed by or 

 bottled by. We have been informed that 

 Dr. Wiley, in some conversation that he had 

 with a prominent bottler of honey, stated 

 that, in his opinion, "put up by" would be 

 permissible; but apparently that opinion 

 does not seem to be shared by two other 

 members of the committee, Wilson and Bige- 

 low. 



In view of the fact that any time upon 

 complaint (of a competitor, we will say) a 

 prosecution may be entered against a bottler 

 using a label that was even slightly mislead- 

 ing it would be wise to err on the safe side 

 and adopt such wording as is recognized in 

 the pure- food decisions already issued, or 

 over the signature of the Department offi- 

 cials. While there is no published opinion 

 authorizing the use of "bottled by," it would 

 seem to be clear that, in view of the fact that 

 such language can not possibly be mislead- 

 ing, there could be no objection to and no 

 liability by the use of such wording. 



In this connection it would be well to 

 state that the Department officials refuse to 

 pass upon any particular label used by any 

 individual or Arm. It will, however, give 

 an opinion for an association of or a general 



