returns that in value of finished as well as of natural products the food industries lead all others. Among the manufactures, as classified by the United States Census, the greatest is that of slaughtering and meat packing. The annual product of the meat-packing establishments exceeds in value that of the foundries and machine shops. The product of the flour and grist mills is about equal in value to that of either the rolling mills, the lumber mills, or the cotton mills of the country.

The enormous size to which many of the food manufacturing establishments have grown during recent years (as for example a sugar refinery turning out daily from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 pounds of sugar, or a butter factory producing 25,000 pounds of butter per day) makes it possible to effect great economies or make great advances, through what are apparently quite modest improvements in process or product. Hence the food industries. are rapidly being brought under scientific control for the sake of economy in processes, improvement of staple products, and advantageous utilization of by-products.

A recent official report of the Bureau of Chemistry quotes United States Census Statistics for 1919 as showing 67,453 establishments engaged in the manufacture of food products with an output valued at $13,391,914,000 for the year. The fraction. of this output which consists of by-products other than foods is more than offset by the great volume of nonmanufactured foods, such as milk, eggs, fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh fish, and the like. A part of the output of food products is of course exported.

With the food industries tending more and more to become highly centralized commercial enterprises and with a decreasing percentage of the people in position to produce any considerable fraction of their own food, it is natural that consumers have sought to safeguard their food supply through legislation, and this not only as a health measure but as an economic measure as well.

"Half the struggle of life is a struggle for food" in the sense that a majority of the world's people must spend as much of their time or their earnings in providing themselves with adequate food as with all other necessities combined. A family in comfortable circumstances may spend as much for rent and (too often perhaps) as much for clothing as for food; but the food is more nearly a fixed requirement than are the other items of the cost of living, so that as we pass to the larger numbers of families who must live on smaller incomes we find that while expenditures for food are less than in well-to-do families of the same size, yet in general it is not feasible to diminish the expenditure for food in the same ratio that the income is diminished, so that the smaller the income the larger the proportion of it that goes for food1 until in the typical family of a laboring man or clerk practically half the entire income is often spent for food and must be if the health and efficiency of the family are to be maintained. Or as one writer puts it: "The less the worker gains the more he must invest in food, renouncing of necessity all other desires."

Naturally, therefore, consumers must have an intense interest in their food supply. But with the development of modern industry population has concentrated in cities and towns to such an extent that the majority of people have ceased to produce any appreciable part of their own food or even to obtain it from their immediate neighbors. Most people must buy practically all of their food, and the food is brought from greater and greater distances and distributed under conditions which make it increasingly difficult for the consumer to exercise any direct individual control over the methods by which his food is produced and handled. When the majority of the people in any community find themselves in this position, they naturally

1 Andrews's Economics of the Household (1923) contains an excellent compilation and discussion of studies of the cost of living and the distribution of the income at different economic levels, including both the classical and the most recent data.

tend to substitute for the individual control which is no longer feasible a collective control of their food supplies through legislation and official inspection.

Principles of Food Legislation and Inspection

In the United States the legal regulation of the food industry is accomplished partly through the Federal Government by virtue of its constitutional power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states; and partly through the police power inherent in the state (and often delegated in large measure to the city) to pass such laws and provide such regulations as are necessary to protect its citizens in their rights as to health, morals, and property.

Many communities had laws or ordinances for the prevention of milk adulteration long before making any attempt at general regulation of the entire food supply.

General food legislation was enacted and systematic inspection of food of all kinds was begun in Massachusetts about forty years ago. Legislation of this character spread gradually, and in 1905 about half of the states had general food laws. The national law for prevention of adulteration or misbranding of foods or drugs was passed in 1906, and went into effect January 1, 1907. This stimulated further state legislation, with the result that now nearly every state has a general food law and is making an attempt at its enforcement.

Thus the people, while no longer able to produce their own food or buy it of neighbors who have produced it under known conditions, may still through legislation seek to insure that the food they buy shall be:

(1) What it purports to be, in kind and amount;

(2) Free from deterioration or unwholesome additions;

(3) Possessed of full nutritive value.

Most of our food laws take the form of prescribing what the food shall not be rather than what it shall be, and these pro

hibitions are usually classified under the two heads of adulteration and misbranding.

Anything which makes a food unwholesome or lowers its nutritive value is usually considered adulteration; while to offer a food under false or misleading claims as to its source, kind, quality, or amount is usually called misbranding.

In view of the diversity of methods used in handling different kinds of foods, and the constant changing of methods to keep abreast of scientific developments and economic conditions, it is plain that there will often be room for difference of opinion as to whether a given trade practice shall or shall not be held to be either adulteration or misbranding.

The attempt to settle such questions in advance by writing detailed specifications into the law itself may defeat its own purpose, since in general the more specific the wording of the law, the more literally (and hence narrowly) it must be construed. Thus in the Pennsylvania Food Act of May 13, 1909, the addition of alum to food is prohibited; but it was held by the courts that the word "alum" as used in the law means only potassium aluminum sulphate and not sodium aluminum sulphate nor simple sulphate of aluminum. The latter, being cheaper, are commonly used in the making of "alum " baking powders and for preserving the crispness of pickles, and the introduction of aluminum into the food in these two ways is therefore allowed to continue, although it was for the express purpose of preventing this that the word "alum" was included in the list of forbidden substances in the law.

The Federal Food Law

The Federal Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, commonly known as "The Pure Food Law," and on which subsequent legislation by most of the states has been largely based, defines the main types of adulteration and misbranding, but, except in the case of confectionery and of habit-forming drugs, does not name

the specific substances which are to be prohibited or restricted in use, nor does the law itself contain standards of composition for foods.

According to this law a food is deemed adulterated:

(1) If any substance has been mixed or packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength. (2) If any substance has been substituted, wholly or in part. (3) If any valuable constituent has been wholly or in part abstracted.

(4) If it be mixed, colored, coated, powdered, or stained in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed.

(5) If it contain any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render it injurious to health.

(6) If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, or putrid animal or vegetable substance, or any portion of an animal unfit for food, or if it be the product of a diseased animal, or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter.

And a food is deemed to be misbranded:

(1) If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.

(2) If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents shall have been substituted in whole or in part, or if it fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any narcotic or habit-forming drug which it contains.

(3) If, when sold in package form, it fails to bear a correct statement of weight, measure, or numerical count of its contents; provision being made for reasonable variations and for certain exemptions.

(4) If the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design, or device which is false or misleading in any particular.

The exact wording of the definitions, and the corresponding definitions of adulteration and misbranding as applied to con