Am.  Jour.  Pharm.\ 
December,  1897.  / 
Editorial. 
647 
EDITORIAL. 
PURE  FOOD  LAWS. 
Last  month  we  printed  a  circular  letter  of  inquiry  from  the  Agricultural  De- 
partment at  Washington,  concerning  adulteration  of  foods  and  drugs  and  laws 
governing  them.  One  of  the  questions  was:  "  Would  a  national  food  and  drug 
law  assist  in  preventing  adulteration  ?"  In  the  light  of  some  years  of  study  of 
food  and  drug  laws,  we  have  hesitated  to  attempt  an  answer  to  any  of  the 
inquiries,  for  the  reason  that  occurrences  are  frequently  taking  place  which 
tend  to  weaken  one's  confidence  in  all  laws  which  propose  to  regulate  the  qual- 
ity of  foods  and  drugs. 
One  of  the  most  notable  instances  of  this  kind  occurred  recently  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. A  special  despatch  to  the  Public  Ledger ;  of  Philadelphia,  and  printed 
in  the  issue  of  October  30,  reports  that  the  Pure  Food  Bureau  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  at  Harrisburg  seems  to  be  laboring  with  the  question,  "Is 
mustard  a  food  or  poison  ?"    We  quote  a  part  of  the  despatch,  as  follows  : 
A  sample  of  ground  mustard,  recently  sent  to  the  Department  by  one  of  its  special  agents, 
was  found  to-contain  70  per  cent,  of  adulteration.  Suit  was  brought  in  Monroe  County,  where 
the  sample  was  found,  against  the  party  who  sold  the  goods.  During  the  trial  the  adulteration 
was  not  denied  and  was  proven  beyotid  all  doubt,  but  the  question  was  raised  as  to  whether 
mustard  was  a  "food"  within  the  meaning  of  the  pure  food  law.  A  resident  medical  prac- 
titioner testified  that  it  was  a  poison,  and  not  a  food  ;  the  chemist  of  the  Department  testified 
that  it  was  food.  In  giving  the  case  to  the  jury  the  judge  instructed  them  that  the  question 
of  food  was  one  of  fact  which  they  must  decide  for  themselves,  and  if  they  believed  it  was  not 
they  must  acquit  the  defendant,  but  if  they  believed  that  it  was  a  "  food,''  they  must  convict 
him. 
To  make  this  farce  more  complete,  the  jury  disagreed  as  to  guilt,  and  directed 
that  the  costs  be  divided  between  the  defendant  and  the  county.  When  asked 
for  their  reasons  for  this  verdict,  the  foreman  stated  to  the  court  that  six  of  the 
jury  thought  that  mustard  was  a  food  and  the  remaining  six  took  the  opposite 
view,  and,  to  satisfy  those  who  thought  it  was  a  food,  they  put  one  half  of  the 
costs  on  the  defendant,  thus  showing  that  they  thought  him  about  half  guilty. 
It  is  such  cases  as  this  that  make  one  skeptical  about  all  laws  which  have  for 
their  object  the  prevention  of  adulteration.  With  such  a  judge  and  jury  a 
national  law  would  not  be  of  any  more  value  than  one  enacted  by  the  State.  It 
has  been  said  that  two  many  laws  breed  anarchy,  and  the  same  might  be  said 
of  the  poor  administration  of  a  few  laws. 
DESTRUCTION  AS  A  MEANS  OF  PROTECTING  PRICES. 
The  history  of  the  partial  destruction  of  the  tobacco  crop  in  Virginia  in  1639, 
as  detailed  in  our  last  issue  by  Professor  Lloyd,  finds  a  modern  parallel  in  the 
action  of  the  Spanish  Government.  In  the  Cosmopolitan  Magazine  for  Novem- 
ber, John  Langdon  Heaton,  on  "Some  Curiosities  of  Farming,"  makes  the  fol- 
lowing statement :  "  But  perhaps  the  most  phenomenal  peculiarity  of  Spanish 
agriculture  is  the  fostering  care  given  it  by  the  Government.  This  enlightened 
rule  not  long  ago  caused  to  be  destroyed  in  a  single  province  6,000,000  tobacco 
plants,  not  because  of  any  prejudice  against  nicotine,  but  in  order  not  to  dis- 
turb the  tariff  income  from  Havana  imports.  This  is  a  tariff  for  revenue  only." 
