who know our industrial processes intimately and accurately can- apprecial 

 It is, therefore, important that the question now agitating fruit growers shoul< 

 be wisely, speedily and permanently settled. For the crop year 1908 th< 

 matter seems to be fixed with reasonable assurance of safety on the part of al| 

 concerned, but the interpretation of the National Pure Food Law in its applies 

 tion to California dried fruit products is of vital and very general interest. 



DECISION 89 MORE EXPLICITLY INTERPRETED 



Food Inspection Decjsion 89 amending Decision 76, in regard to the us) 

 of benzoate and sulphur in foods in the case of the latter commodity designatec 

 no specific amount of sulphur dioxid that might be used in curing fruit, merer 

 stating that no objection would be made to foods that contain the "ordinal 

 quantities," and that an "abnormal quantity" would be regarded as fradulei 

 adulteration. The term "marketing" as used in the decision is also considered 

 by some as not quite plain as to its comprehension. Mr. Arthur R. Briggs 

 chairman of the Committee of California Fruit Growers, under date of Apri 

 22d, wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Wilson on these matters, as follow? 



"San Francisco, Cal., April 22, 1908. 

 "Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 



"Dear Sir: Since my return from Washington I have had occasion to give considerabl 

 thought to the purport of your official declaration, made March 11, 1908, through a lette 

 addressed to Hon. J. C. Needham, respecting the use of sulphur in drying fruit and in pr 

 paring the same for market. A proper understanding is of such interest that both produced 

 and distributors have sought from me an interpretation of the meaning of the tei 

 'abnormal quantity' as employed in F. I. Decision 89. 



"In view of the fact that the methods of curing and of preparing dried fruits 

 market are well known to your department, as well as to distributors and consumers, 

 proper interpretation of the terms referred to, viz.: 'marketing' and 'abnormal quantity 

 seems to me quite plain. The further fact that it is known also that producers are n< 

 except to a very limited extent, distributors of the cured product, and that it is put 

 merchantable form by packers and large dealers before it is marketed, for either dornestj 

 or foreign consumption, simplifies the term 'marketing.' 



"As chairman of the Growers' Committee, I have therefore presumed to explain to 

 who have sought my opinion, that my understanding is as follows: 



"First, that 'marketing' as employed in your letter covers the entire realm of distrib^ 

 tion from the growers to consumers, and its meaning is not confined to any narrow limit 

 as it would be if applied only to the change in ownership from producers to distributoi 



"Second, that 'abnormal quantity' as used in Decision 89 means unusual quantity, 

 out of the ordinary. 



I have also expressed it to be my understanding of your letter, that if the busine^ 

 of curing, preparing and marketing dried fruit of the crop grown this season 1908 

 pursued with prudence and care, having in mind the Pure Food Law, there would be 

 governmental interference with the crop of 1908. 



That I may have confirmation of the correctness of my views, I address you on tl 

 subject, and solicit an early response thereto. 



"With assurance of high regard, I beg to subscribe myself, 



"Your obedient servant, (Signed) "AETHUE E. BRIGGS, 



' ' Chairman Committee of California Fruit Grow* 1 , f < 



To this communication Secretary Wilson replied : 



"Washington, D. C., April 30, 1908. 

 "Mr. Arthur E. Briggs, California State Board of Trade, San Francisco, Cal. 



"Dear Sir: I have your favor of the 22d inst. in regard .to the sulphuring of fruit] 

 If all the people who grow fruits in the United States had been using the same amoui 

 of sulphur, it would have been a very easy matter to have spoken more definitely, bi 

 they do not; they vary, and vary widely. We have left the matter to a considerable extei 

 pending inquiry, to them. I think your letter is a fair interpretation of our communicatic 

 on the subject, "Very truly yours, 



(Signed) ' ' JAMES WILSON, Secretary. ' ' 



