120 



THIRTY-FOURTH FRUIT-GROWERS ' CONVENTION. 



the reason that the time of immunity granted was indefinite and very 

 uncertain. 



Strong representation was made to Secretary Wilson of the Agri- 

 cultural Department setting forth in forcible manner the disastrous 

 effect Decision 76 would have from this indefinite feature as to the time 

 on the fruit interest of the State. The Secretary visited California 

 during the curing season of the year 1907. and afforded opportunity, 

 both public and private, for any representations or demonstrations in 

 respect to fruit drying in the State that were sought to be made. Under 

 assurances given by Secretary Wilson, the business of drying, packing, 

 and distributing fruit during 1907 went forward without much inter- 

 ruption. 



At the beginning of the year 1908 Decision 76, by reason of limitation 

 as to qualification for the previous year, was in force as a part of the 

 rules and regulations for the enforcement of the "Food and Drugs 

 Act." Uncertainty as to the future policy of the department and the 

 apparent attitude of hostility on the part of the Bureau of Chemistry, 

 in charge of Dr. H. W. Wile}^, excited apprehension, caused a stagnation 

 in the fruit industry in the State, particularly in dried fruits, and 

 made further effort on behalf of growers and distributors necessary. 



During the season 1907 large sums had been expended by the Bureau 

 of Chemistry, under direction of the Agricultural Department, in 

 obtaining samples of fruit cured by the use of sulphur, in studying the 

 processes of manufacture, in making scientific tests and in supplying 

 information on Avhich the department might be able to fix a permanent 

 safety unit of sulphur dioxid in fruit, and thus restore confidence to 

 the fruit industry. It was presumed when the Bureau of Chemistry 

 began its investigations in California that its findings would be made 

 public through the department, and that producers and distributors 

 from the knowledge thus gained, could act in the future with intelli- 

 gence. It is a disappointment that no information has been given out 

 in reference to these examinations. 



Another effort was made early in the present year to obtain a modi- 

 fication of, or amendment to. Decision 76, in order that fruit drying, 

 its preparation for market and its distribution might be pursued with 

 safet}" on a practical basis. This renewed effort was made necessary 

 because producers were unable to guarantee that the product cured by 

 them would come within the limit prescribed in Decision 76. and buyers 

 • w^ere unwilling to stand in the breach between producers and distribu- 

 ting merchants. The burden of responsibility rests on producers and 

 they did not feel able to bear it. They claimed that fruit of the color 

 and quality required for consumption could not be produced in this 

 State which did not shoAv. on chemical examination, if the test was made 

 while in the raw state, an excess of sulphur dioxid over 35-1000 of one 

 per cent. The unit fiLxed by Decision 76 was. in their opinion and in 

 the opinion of distributors, prohibitive. 



The Department of Agriculture appreciating the situation as it was 

 presented to Secretary Wilson, issued a new decision on February 28th. 

 this year, known as "Food- Inspection Decision 89. as an amendment 

 to Decision 76. the full text of which may be interesting: 



The question of the addition to food of minute quantities of benzoate of soda and 

 of sulphur dioxid will be certified immediately by the Secretary of Agriculture to the 

 Referee Board of consulting scientific experts. 



