PORE AND IMPURE FOODS. 



. " What a Man Eats He Is." 

 Edited by C. F. Langworthy, Ph.D 

 Author of "On Citraconic, Itaconic and Mesaconic Acids," 

 PURE FOOD LEGISLATION. 



The importance of securing pure foods 

 is now widely recognized. A number of the 

 States have enacted general legislation re- 

 garding the manufacture and sale of food, 

 and several others have laws regarding the 

 sale and manufacture of one or more prod- 

 ucts. The United States Department of 

 Agriculture, especially through the Bureau 

 of Chemistry, has carried on extensive in- 

 vestigations regarding food adulteration. 

 Many important investigations regarding 

 the character and extent of food adultera- 

 tion and sophistication have been carried on 

 in different States by the State experiment 

 stations, State boards of health, colleges 

 and universities, etc., and the Canadian 

 Government has also made important con- 

 tributions to the subject. 



The primary object of pure, food legisla- 

 tion is to protect the consumer and the 

 producer also. The consumer of impure 

 or adulterated goods is injured in health 

 or purse, or both, while the business repu- 

 tation and purse of the maker of first class 

 goods are injured by flooding the market 

 with adulterated or sophisticated products. 

 Other objects of pure food legislation are 

 to determine what constitutes adulteration 

 in different cases, to fix standards of purity, 

 and to make regulations regarding labels 

 and printed statements of the character of 

 various products. While many States have 

 laws making the sale of adulterated food 

 a misdemeanor and have done more or less 

 in the way of executing these laws, Massa- 

 chusetts claims to be the pioneer in this 

 field of State- work. In 1883 the State 

 Board of Health, then called the Board of 

 Health, Lunacy, and Charity, began the 

 systematic inspection of food and drugs, 

 acting under the authority of a legislative 

 act of 1882. The State Department of Food 

 and Drug Inspection was organized and 

 samples of foods and drugs were bought 

 and analyzed by chemists employed for the 

 purpose. In addition to Massachusetts, a 

 number of other States have more or less 

 strict legislation regarding the inspection 

 and sale of foods. This list includes Con- 

 necticut, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, 

 New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 

 North Dakota, Maine, Michigan, Minne- 

 sota, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, 

 Pennsylvania, Vermont and possibly others. 

 The States differ regarding the strictness 

 with which the laws are enforced. For 

 instance, the Connecticut law makes it un- 



392 



Fish as Food," etc. 



lawful for any person to manufacture or 

 offer for sale any article of food which is 

 adulterated or misbranded, and defines at 

 length what constitutes adulterating and 

 misbranding. The Connecticut Experiment 

 Station is charged with making analysis 

 of food products suspected of being adul- 

 terated, samples being bought in the open 

 market, for that purpose ; and the station is 

 authorized to fix standards of purity, qual- 

 ity or strength. The penalty for adultera- 

 tion is a fine not exceeding $500 or im- 

 prisonment for not more than one year. 

 The act carries an appropriation to the sta- 

 tion of $2,500 a year to defray the expenses 

 of the inspection. 



The Kentucky law exempts spirituous, 

 vinous, and malt liquors from the provisions 

 of the law. The penalty for adulterating 

 food products is the same as that fixed by 

 the Connecticut law. The compensation 

 which the station is to receive for the in- 

 spection is $5 and traveling expenses for 

 each sample taken and analyzed, the ex- 

 penses of the inspection in no year to ex- 

 ceed $2,500. These illustrations are suffi- 

 cient to show the general character of the 

 State laws. 



The widespread adoption of the system 

 of paying for milk and cream according to 

 its fat contents, as determined by the Bab- 

 cock test, has led Maine and Vermont to 

 pass laws providing for the inspection of 

 the graduated apparatus used in this and 

 similar tests. The laws are also intended to 

 limit the official use of the Babcock test 

 to persons who have shown themselves 

 competent to operate it. The Maine law 

 was passed in 1895 and the Vermont law 

 in 1898. The laws of the 2 States are alike 

 m all essential details except the penalty. 



The Maine law provides that all bottles, 

 pipettes, or other measuring glasses used at 

 any creamery, butter factory, cheese fac- 

 tory, or condensed milk factory in deter- 

 mining the value of milk or cream received 

 •from different persons, shall before use be 

 tested by the experiment station for accu- 

 racy of measurement, and shall be inefface- 

 ably marked to show that they have been 

 tested. The experiment station carries on 

 this work and is to receive for this service 

 the actual cost incurred, the same to be 

 paid by the persons or corporations for 

 whom the apparatus is tested. The penalty 

 for using untested apparatus is a fine not 

 exceeding $50 for the first offense, nor $100 

 for each subsequent offense. All persons 



