on the food product; that it is engaged in a struggle for it; that the condition of humanity depends upon the quality of its food and that the people are prepared for this struggle for existence in proportion as its food products are kept pure and wholesome; that we can tell the standard and character of a people by the wholesomeness and purity of their food products, by the food they eat-we can then see, and understand, how necessary it is to have a pure and wholesome food product, a stable ration, and wise and wholesome food laws, and officers authorized to enforce them, and have them rigidly enforced, thus guarding the people, and protecting them from the manufacturers and dealers in impure and unwholesome foods and food products.

Pure food laws, therefore, teach us how to protect ourselves against impure, unwholesome and falsely labeled food and drink which undermine health, caused either by ignorance, neglect or dishonest desire for illicit gain,

The adulteration and falsification of alimentary products is by no means an invention of modern times; it has always been practiced, as the citation of ancient recorded cases prove. We learn from these that in past ages adulteration of foods and drink was punished not only by fine and imprisonment but with more humiliating penalties, and to expiate their infamy the adulterators of food were often compelled to wear in public a placard with the announcement "Falsifier" or something similar written in conspicuous characters.

When, as in ages past, alimentary products were grown and manufactured by the consumer himself or the consumer bought direct from the farmers the raw materials, such as grain, meats, fruits, etc., and prepared the foods himself, he was certain, or at any rate had greater security, that he was consuming the pure article. With these principles involved food legislation in this country-national and state-has identified itself.

Congress in 1906 passed the national fod and drug law, modeled along these lines, providing for the proper labeling of all food products, and that all food products should be so manufactured and prepared that the purchaser might know from the label that they were properly prepared and were wholesome and not injurious to the health, also provided a system of food inspection and analysis, and the legislatures of the different states are taking up this food question and passing laws in harmony with this new national food law, and it affords me great pleasure to state that the state I have the honor of representing is not behind in this work, that Illinois is one of the first states in the union to take up the work of co-operation with the national food authorities and to secure the enactment of a pure food law modeled after and along the lines of the new national food law; that our present general assembly is not behind that of any other state in the union in food legislation. It took up the question of food legislation as soon as the national food law was passed and revised the Illinois state food law along the lines of the new national food law. It is a model law and the approval of the Illinois food law by Governor Deneen will give Illinois, in my opinion, the best food law of any state in the union.

It is therefore only since the passage of this national food law by congress and the revision of the state food laws by our legislatures of the various states of the union that there could be co-operation between national and state food authorities. Now that we have national and state food laws, modeled along the same lines and in harmony, we can have uniformity in labels, standards and rulings for the various food products of our country, and no more will our honest manufacturers be bothered by state lines, for when he has his foods prepared, labeled and sold in conformity with the requirements of the national law it will then meet with the requirements of the state food laws of the different states, and he will not, as in the past, have to keep a supply of labels to meet the requirements of the national food law and also a different set of labels in order to meet the requirements of the food laws of the different states in which he may desire to sell food products.

The proper labeling of all food products is especially provided for, and a commission to fix standards is also provided for and the national and state food authorities are empowered to make rulings and regulations controlling the preparation, manufacture and sale, as well as the proper labeling, of all articles of food. The state food authorities have not only the authority to provide for the proper labeling of food products within the state, but also to make requirements in regard to goods coming across the border line

of the state, and this co-operation of the food authorities of the nation and the states and the agreement as to standards and labels in regard to foods coming across the border line of the state under the interstate commerce law will simplify the work very much and make it more effective, as it gives the national and state food officials authority to co-operate without regard to state lines as to the question of violating interstate commerce laws.

Under the provisions of these new laws, national and state, the work of enforcing the laws has been greatly helped and the food departments strengthened by increasing the number of inspectors and chemists and by additional funds for carrying on the work of inspection and analysis and prosecution of violators of the law.

The guaranty clause is only one of the many sections that is novel in our new national and state food laws, and the addition of this section will make manufacturers more careful.

The creation of a "food standard committee" for the purpose of determining and adopting standards of quality, strength and purity for the various food products is a new

provision.

HON. ALFRED H. JONES, Food Commissioner of Illinois.

Heretofore there have been no standards fixed in the law for food products, nor any authority provided for making them. This lack of standards has, in the past, placed food officials at great disadvantage; it has placed the burden of proof in prosecutions for violations of the law upon the officers appointed to enforce the law, and each case had to be proven up by expert testimony as if no other has ever been tried. The uncertainty of conditions due to these facts weakened the law, and made it hard to convict and encouraged violators of the law to continue their transgressions.

Now, under our new national and state food laws, we will have standards for such articles of foods, and the discovery of fraud in foods and the evidence of same will simply mean a question of analysis and comparison of samples with the standards as fixed by these laws.

Under these new food laws, national and state, and the standards and labels prepared under them our manufacturers, dealers and food officials as well as the consumers of these various food products will be equally and fully informed as to the precise requirements in the composition of all articles of food, as well as the manner in which they should be prepared, labeled and sold. Thus much unnecessary and costly litigation will be thereby avoided.

This necessity for standards and labels for all food products and for co-opeartion in making and enforcing these regulations in regard to them is due to the fact that in the com

petition in trade which exists in all food products unscrupulous manufacturers and dealers are placing inferior foods upon the markets without notice of their adulterations, to the great injury of the public, both as respects value and health. I regard these provisions for food standards and labels for all food products as of vast importance and that they will strengthen the laws, state and national, and aid in their enforcement very materially.

The manufacturers, packers and jobbers and trade interests generally, as a general proposition, are in favor of an honest label, one which defines to the consumer the true character of the article it covers. There is a minority that claims that when once a food product is admitted to be pure and wholesome it should not come under the jurisdiction of a food law and should be sold as any other article of merchandise; and also that when a food law undertakes to protect the people from fraud and deception it is going beyond the question of pure food. This position is untenable, as an impure and unwholesome food product undermines the health of the people and thus affects the welfare of the nation and the state, which is not the case with other sorts of merchandise.

The fundamental principle is that every consumer is entitled to choose as to the kind and quality of the food offered for sale. For example, whether they shall receive honey when desiring to purchase that article or a mixture of honey and glucose, absolutely pure fruit jelly or some questionable imitation, and this comparison is equally applicable and true as applied to all foods and food products.

The most important effects of these laws, national and state, upon the manufacturers and packers are that it urges them to make the public familiar with their foods. The agitation over the country for "pure foods" has aroused the public thoroughly for the first time to the paramount importance of finding out what they eat. As in every revolution there is violent reaction and a state of chaos before the reforms aimed at are secured, so in the present "pure food movement" the ultimate results have not yet been achieved.

With the agitation for "pure food" and the consequent legislation, state and national, the consumer learned for the first time of hundreds of adulterations and cases of mislabeling which he never before dreamed of. The first result of this was, of course, to make him suspicious of every can or package of food. He has heard of coal tar dyes, benzoate of soda, sulphate of copper, salicylic acid, formaldehyde and a score of other things that are used to "dope" the various food products, until he has come to believe that there is no manufacturer who does not use some drug or adulterant in his food products. It, of course, makes no difference that there are thousands of honest manufacturers of foods whose food products have always answered in every way to these new food laws. At present the consumer does not believe this, and for the next few years at least the most important work of these manufacturers who will be able to hold their trade in the markets will be to make the consumer of their food products certain as to the purity of their goods and that they are properly prepared and labeled. Many manufacturers are slow to recognize the fact that at present the public is suspicious of all food products.

It is hard to make the individual or corporation that has been manufacturing a standard brand and putting it on the market for a quarter of a century or more understand that on a sudden his customers would become suspicious of him. Yet this is precisely the condition at the present time. The honest manufacturer who knows that his goods have always been up to the standard and the demand of these laws cannot believe that customers of twenty-five years' standing would doubt him, but he must remember that in any great reform movement the honest man is at first likely to be classed with the dishonest by the public at large, who are ignorant of true conditions.

At such a time as this, when the good housewife who buys for the household has become suspicious of all brands because of what she has read in the newspapers and magazines, as well as the bulletins and reports of the state and national food authorities, of adulterated and poisonous foods, it is up to the honest and wise manufacturer to seize every means in his power of assuring her of the excellence of his goods and re-establishing them with her.

The public can make its influence felt in another way; it can patronize those manufacturers and dealers who have honorably distinguished themselves by a strict compliance with these laws. It can insist on getting its food products only from honest dealers or manufacturers. It can decline

to receive substitutes of questionable quality and or not plainly and intelligently labeled. It will thus make it to the interest and advantage of the manufacturer or dealer to properly prepare and turn out the right kind of food. If the public would follow this rule there would be a reformation at once in the food markets of the nation.

Under this national food law passed by congress and which became a law June 30, 1906, and became effective January 1, 1907, congress empowered the heads of three important branches of our government, the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Treasury and the Department of Commerce and Labor, to make rules and regulations to govern the administration of this law and secure its enforcement.

These officials in turn publicly invited all parties affected by the law to appear before their representatives in the city of New York during the week of September 17 to 23 to explain their views.

It was at these conferences that the two great food law questions, "What is a harmful substance?" and "What is a harmful label?" received the careful and analytical consideration of the largest producers and distributors in foods of this country for the first time in its history.

It was also as a result of these conferences that the policy of the national authorities and officers appointed to enforce the "food laws" was settled, and the policy of co-operation between the national and state. food authorities and the food interests and industries of the country was secured.

THIS POLICY OF CO-OPERATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND WITH THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITIES AND THE FOOD INTERESTS AND INDUSTRIES OF THE COUNTRY TO SECURE REASONABLE AND JUST INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, NOT REVOLUTIONARY TO THE TRADE INTERESTS, AND WHICH STANDS FOR PURE FOOD TRUTHFULLY LABELED.

As a result of the hearings before this national food commission the food interests procured an extension until October 1, 1907, to dispose of and use labels on hand, which did not misrepresent the contents of the carton or package.

Another of the important results obtained from the hearings before this food commission was the issuance of the regulation which left open for further scientific investigation by the secretary of agriculture and the national and state food authorities the determination of the wholesomeness of colors, preservatives and other substances which have been customarily added to food products, thereby preventing any unhasty action in the decision of these questions.

The power of congress or the state legislatures to make requirements as to the form of label to be used and fix reasonable standards for the various food products has been judicially sustained and all doubts have been settled as to the power of the government to enforce standards when incorporated into or made part of the food laws.

It has also become evident that the national food law, while not perfect in all its provisions, was nevertheless destined to become THE MODEL FOOD LAW, and one after which the various states of the union might follow and decisions under it form the basis for decisions under similar state food laws throughout the union.

There is a sentiment abroad in the land that the enactment of these national and state food laws will bring about an immediate "pure food millennium," and I will say to all those who cherish these views that they are likely to meet with disappointment. If the millennium in food products ever arrives it will be by the same process of all great reforms, by keeping before the people of the nation and the state the great principles involved, and what has already been accomplished in this struggle for pure food and what is sought to be accomplished. For already the enactment of these laws, national and state, has produced a marked improvement in the manufacture and sale of food products.

It cannot be doubted that with the enforcement of both national and state food laws this improvement will continue in the future and that adulterated and misbranded food products will be reduced to a minimum, but the people of the state and of the nation must bear in mind that this "pure food millennium" can never be brought about except by a unity of action and harmony in the work of enforcing these laws, for food adulteration in this country has become so entrenched that it will take a mighty struggle to suppress it, for neither the national or state food laws will, all at once, change man's nature and free him from avarice, and while these elements remain what they are the struggle for pure food and pure drink is likely to be an everlasting struggle.

THE GUARANTY CLAUSE.

BY E. W. MAGRUDER, CHIEF CHEMIST, DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE OF VIRGINIA.

There is no part of the food and drugs act which has been more talked about, written about, discussed and abused than the guaranty clause, except the whisky clause.

Let us see why this clause has been so discussed and abused. In Section 9 of the food and drugs act it is provided, "That no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act if he can establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufacturer, or other party residing in the United States from whom he purchased such articles, to the effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, designating it."

This is an eminently just and fair provision and places the responsibility on the party who should bear it-the manufacturer, wholesaler, etc. For the manufacturer, etc., knows or should know whether the goods he puts up or sends out are pure or not, and at all events he is in a much better position and can find out the nature and composition of the goods much easier and more cheaply than the retailer. Then, too, the manufacturer is the one above all others who should be held to account for the goods he puts on the market. And on the other hand, it would be manifestly unjust to require every roadside storekeeper to have each variety of goods he may sell analyzed, when frequently he does not sell more than a few dollars' worth of some kinds a year.

In furtherance of this clause in the "Rules and Regulations for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act," it is speci fied how the manufacturer or dealer may assume the responsibility and relieve the retailer and amongst other methods it is provided that (b) "A general guaranty may be filed with the secretary of agriculture by the manufacturer or dealer and be given a serial number, which number shall appear on each and every package of goods sold under such guaranty with the words "Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906."

By thus registering a guaranty with the U. S. Dept. Agriculture and having a number assigned to it, the manufacturer can place that number on each package of his goods with the legend "Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," and by this means notify all of his customers that he holds himself responsible to them for any misbranding or adulteration of such goods. By this means the manufacturer is saved the trouble of sending with each shipment of goods a separate guaranty and the dealer is saved the. trouble of having always to see that this guaranty is received and the further trouble of having to keep such guaranties to be used in case of adulteration or prosecution.

This is a very good provision as it saves trouble all around, provided it is not abused, but therein comes the trouble. It has been abused most decidedly. The impression has gotten out and it has been widely circulated that "Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," means that the U. S. Department of Agriculture guarantees the goods which have on them a serial number and the above legend, to be pure and without adulteration.

To such an extent has the serial number been abused that the secretary of agriculture has found it necessary to issue a decision (No. 70) on the subject warning all that "The Department of Agriculture accepts no responsibility for the guaranty which the manufacturer or dealer files"; and that it must not be stated or implied that the Department of Agriculture or the U. S. government guarantees or indorses the product to which the guaranty or serial number is attached and he further states and emphasizes it that "The guaranty represented by the serial number is the guaranty of the manufacturer and not of the government."

These statements are certainly plain enough for all to understand and that too, without the possibility of a misunderstanding, provided they are seen. But therein comes the trouble. Very few, comparatively, see "Food Inspection Decision No. 70," but all see the serial number and the guaranty and all dealers see the agents selling such goods, and the agents can simply call attention to the serial number which is furnished by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and to the guaranty which is prescribed by the department to accompany the serial number and allows it to be inferred, even if they do no worse, that as the government furnished the serial number and the form of the guaranty, it likewise guarantees the product, but they do not call attention to Decision No. 70 or to the fact that the guaranty is that of the manufacturer and not that of the government. So the abuse of the serial number and guaranty is likely to continue, to a less extent it

is true, but still to a large extent, for some time to come, and many consumers will for a long time yet believe that the goods they purchase bearing the serial number and the guaranty are guaranteed to be pure by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

The wording of the guaranty required by the Department of Agriculture is unfortunate and lends itself to the false interpretation which has been put upon it by the manufacturers and dealers. This requirement is a serial number accompanied by the phrase "Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," and this question is naturally asked, guaranteed by whom? Unfortunately the guaranty does not state, but as it is guaranteed under the food and drugs act, and bears a number assigned by the Department of Agriculture,

Fol

If the phraseology of the guaranty were changed only slightly I believe all trouble would be avoided and the possibility of a misunderstanding be done away with. The change that I would suggest is that the guaranty be put in such a form as to make the responsibility rest on the manufacturer, and that by reading the guaranty, the person giving the guaranty would be stated in such a manner that there could be no misunderstanding. I would suggest the following as a form that would be suitable and relieve all ambiguity. lowing the serial number have "Guaranteed by the undersigned under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," and then would follow the name and address of the manufacturer, wholesaler, jobber, or whoever guarantees the article. Then if the question as to who guaranteed the article were asked, the answer would be plain enough, "The Undersigned," and the name of the undersigned would be there to bear the responsibility, and it would not be possible to shift it to any one else.

I am not wedded to the above phrase as any order which clearly places the responsibility for the guaranty would suit me as well. "We the undersigned guarantee the within substances under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," followed by the name and address of the guarantor might be better, but the first form given is shorter and perfectly plain so I would prefer it.