I02 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XVI. No. 394 



a workable law. This latter law is now in force, though the 

 third and fourth sections of the act, relating to the mixing, 

 coloring, staining, or powdering of any article of food so as 

 to injure health, or in the case of drugs so as to injure their 

 quality, are practically of no value and unenforced, because 

 the fifth section provides that guilty knowledge is essential 

 to the proof of the ofifence, and no prosecution, unless sup- 

 ported by very exceptional circumstances, would be success- 

 ful under these sections. Sections 6 to 9 are the ones that 

 are found workable, and provide that no person shall sell 

 foods or drugs, with certain exceptions, to the prejudice of 

 the purchaser; shall not abstract any constituents of food, 

 and that compound foods or drugs must be in accordance 

 with the demands of purchase, though with these sections 

 again a large loop-hole for the escape of offenders is pro- 

 vided in section 8, which states that a legible descriptive no- 

 tice that the article sold is a mixture exonerates the seller. 



The amendment act passed in 1879 defined the meaning 

 and effect of section 6, under which conflicting decisions had 

 been given in England and Scotland. In fact, in the latter 

 country the act had been inoperative since the decision by a 

 majority of the judges of the High Court of Justiciary in 

 Scotland that an official purchaser under section 13 of the 

 act, buying samples for analysis and not for consumption, 

 or at his own expense, could not be prejudiced by the pur- 

 chase, and consequently that no offence would be committed 

 under section 6. The court also held that the words "na- 

 ture, substance, and quality," in section 6, could not be dis- 

 jointed, and the article sold must be different in all three 

 respects from the article demanded, and that as the statute 

 was intended to strike only at foreign admixtures, the very 

 nature of the substance must be altered, or the offence con- 

 templated could not be committed (Davidson v. McLeod, 

 Cowper's Eeports, Vol. III., p. 538). 



In the United States, on June 26, 1848, an act was passed 

 by Congress to secure the purity of imported drugs, and is 

 still in force. Its efficacy is directed principally towards 

 Peruvian bark and opium. 



The tea adulteration law was passed by Congress March 2, 

 1883, and on Aug. 2, 1886, the oleomargarine law was passed, 

 defining butter and butter substitutes. 



A law "to prevent the manufacture or sale of adulterated 

 food or drugs in the District of Columbia," was passed by 

 Congress in October, 1888. This law is modelled on the 

 Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, of Great Britain, sections 

 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 24, 25, and 27 (see Annual Report 

 Commissioner Internal Revenue, 1888, p. cxcv), with certain 

 necessary provisions of the English act omitted, especially 

 those in regard to its mode of enforcement, the collection, 

 identification, and payment for analysis of samples, etc. 

 The law does not provide that the Commissioner of Internal 

 Revenue shall enforce its provisions in procuring samples of 

 food or drugs, that matter being delegated to "any pur- 

 chaser," "any health officer, inspector of nuisances, or any 

 food inspector," only requiring that the analysis shall be 

 under his control "under such rules and regulations as may 

 be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury." The offi- 

 cers specified in the act are not under the control of the 

 Commissioner of Internal Revenue nor of the Secretary of 

 the Treasury. 



Our different State laws on the subject are most of them 



drawn up in a "foUow-the-leader" style, under the popular 

 but erroneous impression that any substance used as an 

 adulterant of or^a substitute for a food product is necessarily 

 injurious to health, with the consequence that these laws 

 are, with very few exceptions, merely dead letters.' In 1877 

 several of the State boards of health united, viz., those of 

 New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan, and 

 at their instance laws formulated on the English law were 

 passed, and annual reports are now made by these boards on 

 the results of the examinations of their chemists on the 

 adulterations of foods and drugs practised in their several 

 States. In the former State the law has proved a failure, 

 because in an action brought to obtain "an injunction 

 against the sale of certain Ping Suey teas it was held by the 

 court, in refusing to grant the same, that, althoijgh the teas 

 in question had been clearly shown to be adulterated with 

 gypsum, Prussian blue, sand, etc., it was likewise necessary 

 to prove that the effect of these admixtures was such as to 

 constitute a serious danger to public health,"" In Massa- 

 chusetts, however, the law has been enforced with vigor by 

 the State Board of Health, and the yearly reports show a 

 diminution in the percentage of adulteration of the samples 

 submitted to analysis. 



Owing to these fatilty definitions and inadequate means 

 of enforcement our State laws are inoperative, and until we 

 have a national law to regulate the sale of adulterated arti- 

 cles of food, whereby the co-operation of State and national 

 authorities could be secured in the enforcement of its pro- 

 visions in regard to this class of fraud, the food sophisticater 

 will pursue the even tenor of his way undisturbed. A na- 

 tional law would not apply to adulterated articles of food 

 manufactured and sold in the State or Territory where pro- 

 duced, unless it should take the form of a revenue measure, 

 imposing a tax upon the manufacturers of and dealers in 

 such commodities. 



On turning to some of the European Continental legisla- 

 tion on this subject we find that every dealer is held respon- 

 sible for the quality of his merchandise, whether of foreign 

 or domestic origin, and every food material must be sold 

 under its true name; artificial" products imitating a natural 

 prodvict must be properly labelled in a conspicuous and legi- 

 ble manner; all unwholesome foods are confiscated and de- 

 stroyed without compensation to the owner; and adultera- 

 tions generally are considered acts of fraud. Suitable police 

 supervision and control ai'e provided for the enforcement of 

 these statutes; and, although these laws are somewhat of a 

 paternal nature, they are much more effective than any we 

 have. 



The average American repudiates the idea of a paternal 

 government supervision over his affairs, or any thing tainted 

 with the idea. He may be willing to support, even to 

 clamor for, a legislative measure to regulate the production 

 or sale of a food product, provided it advances his particular 

 business interests. He would, however, regard with apathy 

 any general law that would guarantee to the public the lib- 

 erty of purchasing pure food, with a reasonable certainty 

 that they were not imposed upon in their purchases, if it was 

 incumbent on him to take the necessary steps to execute its 

 provisions by bringing samples for analysis, etc. 



^ For list of State laws on food adulteration see Eeport of the Commis- 

 sioner of Internal Revenue, 1888, p. ccix. 



■ Battershall, Food Adulteration and its Detection, p. 8 (New York, 1887). 



