shall request the Secretary of the Treasury to refuse to deliver the shipment in question to the consignee, and to require its reshipment beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. REGULATION 39. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS. [Revoked June 16, 1913. See F. I. D. 151, p. 159, post.] REGULATION 40. ALTERATION AND AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS. These regulations may be altered or amended at any time, without previous notice, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. The above rules and regulations are hereby adopted. LESLIE M. SHAW, Secretary of the Treasury. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. VICTOR H. METCALF, Secretary of Commerce and Labor. WASHINGTON, D. C., October 17, 1906. FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS.1 F. I. D. 40 (Oct. 25, 1906). FILING GUARANTY.2 In order that both the department and the manufacturer may be protected against fraud it is requested that all guaranties of a general character filed with the Secretary of Agriculture in harmony with regulation 9, Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, be acknowledged before a notary or other official authorized to affix a seal. Attention is called to the fact that when a general guaranty has been thus filed every package of articles of food and drugs put up under the guaranty should bear the legend, "Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," and also the serial number assigned thereto, if the dealer is to receive the protection contemplated by the guaranty. No other word should go upon this legend or accompany it in any way. Particular attention is called to the fact that nothing should be placed upon the label, or in any printed matter accompanying it, indicating that the guaranty is made by the Department of Agriculture. The appearance of the serial number with the phrase above mentioned upon a label does not exempt it from inspection nor its guarantor from prosecution in case the article in question be found in any way to violate the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. F. I. D. 41 (Oct. 25, 1906). APPROVAL OF LABELS. Numerous requests are referred to this department for the approval of labels to be used in connection with articles of food and drugs under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. This act does not authorize the Secretary of Agriculture nor any agent of the department to approve labels. The department therefore will not give its approval to any label. Any printed matter upon the label implying that this department has approved it will be without warrant. It is believed that with the law and the regulations before him the manufacturer will have no difficulty in arranging his label in harmony with the requirements set forth. If there be questions on which there is doubt respecting the general character of labels, decisions under the Food and Drugs Act will be rendered, of a public character and published from time to time, covering such points. 1 Food Inspection Decisions Nos. 1 to 39, inclusive, were issued prior to the passage of the Food and Drugs Act. For Scope and Purpose of Food Inspection Decisions," see F. I. D. 44. Where not otherwise stated, these decisions were signed by the Secretary of Agriculture. 2 See regulation 9, p. 19, ante, and F. I. D. 62, 70, 72, 83, 96, and 99 on guaranties; also F. I. D. 153, amending this decision. F. I. D. 42 (Oct. 30, 1906). The following communication has been received respecting the mixing of flours of different cereals: In conformity with the custom of a century or more, the manufacturers of rye flour, in order to produce a lighter and more easily worked flour, have added a proportion of wheat flour to their rye and branded it "Rye Flour." This custom simply conforms to the consumers' demand for a whiter loaf and from every standpoint is a perfectly legitimate operation. Under the interpretation of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, apparent restrictions are placed upon this compounding, and I would therefore respectfully ask your ruling upon the following points: 1. Under this interpretation will it be necessary to add the word "compound" to the brands? 2. Will it be necessary in accordance with this interpretation to name in the brand the fact that a wheat admixture has been made, in addition to the use of the word "compound," providing that word is necessary? 3. Referring to paragraph f, regulation 17, which reads as follows: "An article containing more than one food product or active medicinal agent is misbranded if named after a single constituent," will it be permissible to still name the rye-wheat admixture "rye-flour?" The Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and the rules and regulations made thereunder, provide for the proper marking of food products and penalties for misbranding. The act also provides that a food product is not misbranded "in the case of articles labeled, branded, or tagged so as to plainly indicate that they are compounds, imitations, or blends, and the word compound,' imitation,' or 'blend,' as the case may be, is plainly stated on the package in which it is offered for sale." Keeping in view these provisions of the law, and rules and regulations made thereunder, it appears that the mixing of rye flour and wheat flour is not prohibited by the law provided the package is marked "compound" or "mixture," the word standing alone and without qualification, and also if the label contain the information which shows that it is properly branded. The mixture may also be denominated a "blend" if rye flour and wheat flour be regarded as like substances. It is held that this information in the case mentioned would be a statement of the ingredients used in making the compound. It is further held that the use of an ingredient in small quantity simply for the purpose of naming it in the list of ingredients would be contrary to the intent of the law, and therefore that the ingredients must be used in quantities which would justify the appearance of their names upon the label. The statement made of the constituents used should be of a character to indicate plainly that the article is a compound, mixture, or blend.1 It is evident from the above explanation that the naming of a mixture of this kind" rye flour" would be plainly a violation of the law and the regulations made thereunder. Attention is called also to the act of Congress approved June 13, 1898, United States Revised Statutes, sections 36 to 49, inclusive, imposing special taxes under the supervision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on mixed flour. 1 See William Henning & Co. v. United States, p. 506, post; Frank et al v. United States, p. 490, post; United States v. 75 Boxes of Alleged Pepper, p. 502, post; and also United States v. Ela Mfg. Co., Notice of Judgment 118. 40066-14-3 F. I. D. 43 (Nov. 6, 1906). RELABELING OF GOODS ON HAND.1 The following is a type of numerous communications received concerning the operation of the food law: The retail grocers of our city, as well as some of the jobbers, are very much concerned over stocks of canned goods and other similar goods they might have in stock on January 1, 1907, when the new pure-food act goes into effect. We are under the impression that where there is nothing deleterious to health contained in such goods so held it is not the department's intention to interfere in any way, shape, or form with them. Where these goods are held by retailers in our own city does this come within the jurisdiction of the National law, or is it controlled only by State laws? Similar letters have been received relating to drugs, medicines, and other articles affected by the operation of the law. A general answer is deemed advisable, which, it is hoped, will cover the cases in question. Section (i) of regulation 17 provides that— The regulation regarding the principal label will not be enforced until October 1, 1907, in the case of labels printed and now on hand, whenever any statement therein contained which is contrary to the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, as to character of contents, shall be corrected by a supplemental label, stamp, or paster. All other labels now printed and on hand may be used without change until October 1, 1907. It is held that under this regulation labels which contain statements relating to the name of manufacturer, the place of manufacture, etc., which are not in harmony with the general meaning of the law may be used if on hand on the 1st of January, 1907, the day on which the regulations become effective. Any statement, however, respecting the character of the contents which is false or misleading should be corrected as indicated. The correction should secure the obliteration of the misstatement either by placing the supplemental label or paster over it or obliterating it in some other way. If the goods contain artificial color or preservative other than ordinary condimental substances (salt, sugar, vinegar, wood smoke, spices, and condiments of all kinds), that fact should appear upon the supplemental stamp or paster. If any of the words required to be placed upon drugs and foods in the specific wording of the act do not appear upon the label, such as alcohol, opium, etc., it is held that the correction must include the enumeration of these substances, as provided for in regulations 28 and 29. If goods that are packed and sealed in a carton which contains the bottle or other package also sealed and labeled were not in the hands of the manufacturer after January 1. 1907, but had been already delivered to the jobber or dealer, it will be held sufficient to mark the external carton alone, provided the goods are sold only in the unbroken carton. If the container, however, holds a large number of separate packages, it will be necessary that each of the separate packages to be sold as such shall be labeled with the words required specifically by the act. It must not be forgotten that regulation 17, section (i), is for the purpose of avoiding the expense of relabeling articles already packed 1 See also F. I. D. 78. and branded at the time the regulations go into effect, and which necessarily could not have been so packed and branded with any intent to evade the provisions of the law, and it is expected that jobbers and dealers will do everything in their power to bring the packages now on hand into as close harmony with the provisions of the act and the regulations made thereunder as possible. All articles in the hands of manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers on the 1st day of January, 1907, which are sold wholly within the State in which they are found on that date are exempt from the provisions of the act. Thus the use of the supplemental label, stamp, or paster is required only on those articles which on or after the 1st day of January, 1907, enter interstate commerce or are offered for sale in the District of Columbia and the Territories. It is believed that the provisions of regulation 17, section (2), can be complied with without great annoyance and expense. It will be deemed sufficient if the supplemental pasters and labels are attached at the time the goods are shipped beyond the State line, that is, they need not necessarily be attached to such articles on the 1st day of January, but at any time thereafter when prepared for interstate commerce. Thus the labor of meeting this requirement will be distributed according to the exigencies of actual trade. On and after October 1, 1907, the labels must be originally properly printed, and no further amendment will be considered. F. I. D. 44 (Dec. 1, 1906). SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS. From the tenor of many inquiries received in this department it appears that many persons suppose that the answers to inquiries addressed to this department, either in letters or in published decisions, have the force and effect of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. The following are illustrations of the inquiries received by this department: Must we stamp all goods as conforming to the drug and food law, whether they have alcohol and narcotics therein, or not? On a brand of salad oil, which is a winter-strain cotton-seed oil, can it be sold under the brand of salad oil, or must it state that it is cotton-seed oil? It seems highly desirable that an erroneous opinion of this kind should be corrected. The opinions or decisions of this department do not add anything to the rules and regulations nor take anything away from them. They therefore are not to be considered in the light of rules and regulations. On the other hand, the decisions and opinions referred to express the attitude of this department in relation to the interpretation of the law and the rules and regulations, and they are published for the information of the officials of the department who may be charged with the execution of the law and especially to acquaint manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers with the attitude of this department in these matters. They are therefore issued more in an advisory than in a mandatory spirit. It is clear that if the manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers interpret the rules and regulations in the same manner as they are interpreted by this |