BULLETINS ISSUED SINCE JULY 1, 1907. STATE FOOD COMMISSION. 1627 Manhattan Building, Chicago. BULLETIN No. 1. August 3,1907. Milk and Cream in Hotels, Restaurants and Lunch Rooms. It has come to the notice of the State Food Commission that it has become a common practice with keepers of hotels, restaurants and lunch rooms in the State to serve to the public, milk which has been adulterated either by the addition of water or preservative, or the taking of a portion of the cream from the same. The practice is a fraud perpetrated on the traveling public, and others taking meals in public places and the effect of selling such impure milk or milk of such inferior quality, must be to create a prejudice against this most useful and wholesome of all foods, and to destroy the market for great quantities of pure milk of standard quality. It is a practice wholly indefensible, morally; and is a violation of the State law which prohibits the addition of any foreign substance to milk intended for sale, and provides a penalty of not less than $25 nor more than $200 or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding ninety days, or both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the Court, for violation of the statute. It is thus clearly seen that no one may add any foreign substance to milk intended for sale, neither shall any one sell milk from which all, or a portion of the cream has been taken, unless he notifies the purchaser that the same is skimmed milk. Keepers of hotels, restaurants, and lunch counters, where milk is served, are as clearly sellers of milk as are those who sell milk from a wagon on the streets. This is a public notice that our inspectors have strict orders to take samples from any or all such places, and that this department will prosecute any one selling illegal milk or cream anywhere in the State to the full extent of the law. The use of coloring matter in food products has recently received much attention from food officials and the drastic action in some cases has led to a somewhat general adoption of a false opinion regarding the injurious character of these substances. It is necessary that these false ideas should be corrected and that the individual should not be governed by a false prejudice in the purchase of food. The use of color in food products has been carried to an extreme. In some cases the ingredients furnishing the natural color to the food are seldom used and dyes are substituted. An instance of this is found in lemon extract whose natural yellow color is derived from the peel. The peel is now seldom used and aniline dyes are in general use to supply the desired color. This custom is of long standing and has given rise to the false idea that the depth of color shows the strength of the extract. This idea is directly opposed by the facts. The manufacturer of the cheaper extracts generally puts in the most artificial color and the best extracts naturally colored, though possessing a marked color when freshly prepared, soon lose all or nearly all of it. We have never found a lemon extract that was colorless or nearly so, that did not conform to the standard of pure lemon extract (five per cent oil of lemon) while a large percentage of the highly colored brands are found below standard (zero to three per cent oil of lemon). Preserved strawberries, etc., soon lose their natural red color but the artificially colored brands are commonly accepted by the people as the best. The color conceals the presence of all partially ripened and defective fruit so that the consumer is deceived by the appearance. In this way aniline dyes, vegetable and animal or mineral colors when added to food always make it difficult or impossible for the purchaser to judge of the quality of the food he is purchasing; or else the color makes the article look more desirable than it really is as judged by its real food value. Looked at from this standpoint, all colors not natural to a specific article of food should be prohibited from use in that food. There are some articles of food, as colored sugars, most candies, etc., in which the color used does not indicate to the purchaser anything in regard to the purity, quality or flavor of the food itself or any of its ingredients. The color in such cases is added purely and simply to please the eye without introducing any possible fraud, if labeled colored. The only question is are the colors harmless. Mineral colors except ultramarines and certain compounds of iron are regarded as harmful. Animal and vegetable colors are considered harmless. Aniline dyes, coal tar colors and synthetic colors are different names for the same substance. These are classed as a whole by some inexperienced and uneducated persons as poisonous. This classification is false. Some coal tar colors are harmful and many are harmless. Each color must be stamped as poisonous, harmful or harmless, according to the result of experiments Many of these colors have been fed to dogs and Guinea pigs in an effort to detect their poisonous or non-poisonous character. The results have shown some to be harmful and others harmless. Some of the colors recognized as injurious are the following: Ponceau S. R. B.; crocein scarlet 3 B.; cochineal red A.; crocein scarlet 7 B.; crocein scarlet O extra; safranin; picric acid; Martius yellow; acme yellow; Victoria yellow; orange 11; metanil yellow; Soudan 1; orange 1V; napthol green B.; methylene blue B. R. G.; Bismarck brown; Vesuvian B.; fast brown G. (acid brown); chrysodin. The popular prejudice against coal tar colors may have been founded on the poisonous impurities remaining in these colors as formerly manufactured. Coal tar colors were formerly prepared either by the use of poisonous metals or acids containing such substances as impurities, and were liable to retain the poisonous substance in the final product. New methods of manufacture and use of pure acids, metals, etc., have now practically eliminated this danger in colors prepared for use in foods. The popular prejudice is partly due to the fact that coal tar colors give to wool a fast color, and to the repulsive notion that this color in food would have a similar effect on the digestive organs of the body. If such a color were imparted to the digestive organs, it is safe to say that each American has already eaten enough color so that any subsequent dose would only result in a slight change in the shade. Doubtless those who have such a feeling would have an equal ob jection to their druggist introducing in tooth powders and tinctures, color derived from dried insects (cochineal) which is a practice recognized by the U. S. Dispensatory, and they would have the writer's sympathy in their objection. So far as their effect on health is concerned, the coal tar colors which have proved harmless to small animals such as the Guinea pig, even when administered continuously in large doses, may be as safely added to food as any vegetable or animal color. The true objection to the use of color in food products is that color frequently conceals fraud. If food containing added color is conspicuously labeled ARTIFICIALLY COLORED, the consumer is put on his guard. This commission is about to institute a vigorous campaign against all foods (except butter and cheese in which color is permitted by law) containing added color that are not so labeled. When not so labeled the goods are adulterated according to the plain reading of the law. Every manufacturer, jobber and retailer must take immediate steps to properly label all artificially colored food in his possession. T. J. BRYAN, State Analyst. Bulletin No. 3 is superseded by the Tentative Standards, of this report. STATE FOOD COMMISSION. 1627 Manhattan Building, Chicago. BULLETIN No. 4. Name of Dealer. November 14, 1907. It has come to the notice of this department that large quantities of foods are being placed on sale in this State which are not labeled with the true name of the manufacturer, jobber or dealer selling same. Under section 9 of the law defining misbranding, paragraph 4 reads as follows: "That for the purpose of this Act an article shall be deemed misbranded: If it be a manufactured article of food or food sold in package form, and is not distinctly labeled, marked or branded with the true name of the article, and with either the name of the manufacturer and place of manufacture or the name and address of the packer or dealer who sells the same." That there may be no misunderstanding as to what is included in the term "Food," we quote section 7 of the law which defines food as follows: "The term 'Food' as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed or compound, and any substance used as a constituent in the manufacture thereof." There is no good reason why this law should not be fully complied with, and this circular is issued as a special warning to manufacturers, jobbers and retail dealers in all foods, confectionery and liquors, etc., not to ship or sell goods in this State which are not labeled as above required, and that prosecution must and will follow failure on their part to comply with the provisions of the law. ALFRED H. JONES, State Food Commissioner. STATE FOOD COMMISSION. 1627 Manhattan Building, Chicago. BULLETIN No. 5. Baking Powder. November 14, 1907. During the past few months this department has collected samples of a great many of the various brands of baking powder being sold in the State, and it has been found that a very large per cent of the samples do not meet the requirements of the law. |