REPORT OF DR. T. J. BRYAN, STATE ANALYST.

Hon. A. H. Jones, State Food Commissioner, Chicago, Illinois:

DEAR SIR-I have the honor to submit to you the following report indicating the work done in the State Food Laboratory during the year 1910.

During the year there has been a change in the laboratory quarters. There has been no appropriation for the equipment of a laboratory since that made in the original Act creating the department. At that time fifteen hundred dollars was appropriated for the necessary expenses in furnishing and fitting up a laboratory. The law enforced at that time. provided for the employment in the laboratory of a State Analyst without any assistants. Under the present law as amended by the present Legislature, the State Analyst is assisted by seven chemists devoting their time to the analysis of human foods and two chemists analyzing stock foods; and there is also provision for one bacteriologist, who up to the present time, has not been appointed due to the fact that the laboratory facilities were inadequate.

It can readily be seen that with the increased force thus provided for, a large amount of additional space was necessary. It was also necessary to secure a considerable amount of new apparatus. This change in the size of the force has not, however, been as speedy as might be presumed from the preceding remark, as prior to 1905, the State Analyst was given one assistant by an appropriation act and in 1905, the passage of the Stock Food Law provided for another chemist. By the revision of the food law in force July 1, 1907, the number of assistant chemists to be employed on human foods was increased to five, and by the amendment of 1911, this number was changed to seven.

July 1, the laboratory had confronting it, the problem of changing and renewing almost all of the plumbing if it retained the quarters in which it was then located. The desks and laboratory work tables were ill-arranged and the oldest ones were in an insanitary condition and could not be repaired. The space occupied by the laboratory could not be added to and give a very desirable arrangement, and it was therefore decided that it would be better to secure new quarters. These were found in the north end of the same floor of the Manhattan building as that formerly occupied by the commissioner's offices.

The new desks, tables and other fittings necessary for equipping the laboratory were ordered from the State Board of Prison Industries,

according to the requirements of the law, and the first and largest consignment was to have been delivered October 5, 1911. There was, however, a great deal of delay in the shipment of this furniture and the` laboratory, up to the present time, has not received the microscope and balance table and the hoods, without these the work of the laboratory is still retarded to a great extent. Altogether the work of the laboratory has been put back fully three months, most of the time was lost in making this change in location and waiting for the fittings for the present laboratory. Another cause delaying the work in the laboratory during the past year was the fact that the decision of the Attorney General early in February, 1911, with reference to fee offices resulted in the State Treasurer refusing to pay the salaries and expenses of the members of the Stock Food Department until the Emergency Appropriation Bill providing for the payment of such fees was passed in June. This took two chemists out of the laboratory for practically five months. Altogether members of the laboratory force have spent eighty-two days in court.

As a result of the delays caused by moving the laboratory and by the decision affecting the Stock Food Department, the number of samples analyzed by the department this year has been unusually small. The total number of official samples analyzed was 3,622, of which 2,432 were legal and 1,190 were illegal. In addition to this there has been analyzed by the State Food Laboratory for the State Board of Administration 129 samples of flour and twenty-eight miscellaneous samples. During the coming year the number of samples analyzed will, of course, be more than double that of the past year, due to the increased number of chemists and the better facilities for work.

It was absolutely necessary to secure new furniture for the laboratory on account of the fact that the old furniture could not be torn out without breaking and it would not have been in proper sanitary condition, could it have been moved, for the purposes of the new Sanitary Food Law enacted by the present Legislature.

CHANGES IN THE FOOD LAW.

In my last report I recommended to you that the Legislature be requested to amend the food law by changing section 4. The purpose of that change was to make it possible for the different chemists in the laboratory to devote their time each to a special branch of food chemistry in order that they might become specialists with reference to the analysis and interpretation of analysis of the class of foods submitted to them. This suggested change was enacted into the law by the present Legislature and has already shown itself to be of great value, not only by giving the individual chemist an opportunity to work on special lines but also by increasing the speed of analysis.

During the spring of the year I appeared before the several committees of the House and Senate with reference to the changes in the food law and stock food law, and also advocated the passage of the sanitary law, being present in Springfield for that purpose at your suggestion.

The changes in the food law are as follows:

In section 1, compensation of several of the offices of the department was increased and the number of chemists engaged in the analysis of human foods was changed from five to seven.

Section 3 was strengthened rendering it a misdemeanor for anyone to hinder or in any way obstruct an inspector or officer of this department in the enforcement of his duty.

Section 9 was amended by the insertion of the word "also" at the end of the first paragraph defining "Misbranding." The insertion of this word broadens the definition and makes it conform with the National Food and Drug Act of 1906.

Section 10 was so amended as to define the processes of the law to be followed in the condemnation of adulterated and misbranded foods.

Sections 11 and 12 were amended by the addition of one sentence to each section, bringing violations of these sections within the misbranding portion of the Act.

Section 20 was amended so that the methods for the analysis of cream would conform to commercial practices.

Section 21 was changed so as to apply to cream as well as milk. Section 40 was so amended as to change the time wherein prosecution might be brought by this department from ninety days to six months. Section 20b was inserted requiring persons operating milk or cream apparatuses to determine the percentage of butter fat in milk or cream for the purpose of purchasing the same, to pass an examination showing their ability, after which upon the payment of one dollar, a license should be granted.

Section 39a was added making violations of the standards in section 39 a misdemeanor.

THE SANITARY FOOD LAW.

The Sanitary Food Law was enacted at the present session of the Legislature. Its passage marks an epoch in food legislation in this State and its enforcement will give as great a degree of protection to the consuming public as was assured them by the enforcement of the food law. The general provisions of this law may be summarized as follows:

The Illinois Sanitary Food Law requires:

1. That every place where food is manufactured, stored or offered for sale, and all cars, vehicles and trucks used for moving or transporting food be kept clean.

2.

That all tables, shelves, platforms and utensils be kept clean.

3. That refuse, dirt and waste products be removed daily.

4.

That buildings be so constructed that they can easily be kept clean.

5. That the place shall be properly lighted, ventilated and plumbed, and

furnished with toilets and washing facilities.

6. That windows and doors be properly screened.

7.

8.

That food be protected from flies, dust and all foreign contamination.
That the employés be clean and wear clean clothes.

9. That the employés be free from infectious or contagious disease.

10.

That the place shall not be used for sleeping quarters.

PENALTY.

The penalty for a violation of any of the provisions of the law is from $10.00 fine to $200.00 fine and ninety days in the county jail for each and every day said provisions are violated, and the abatement of the nuisance.

OFFICIAL SAMPLES ANALYZED IN 1911.

THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF FOOD LAWS.

In spite of the fact that both the National and State Food Law has been in force for about three years, there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding as to the amount and kind of protection assured the consumer by each. Many seem to feel that the greater amount of protection to the consumer is given by the Federal law, while others look at the State law as being of the greatest value to the purchaser of foods.

SCOPE OF THE NATIONAL LAW.

The National law has jurisdiction over all foods which come into the State from foreign countries or from other states. In other words, there must be a shipment of the goods across the State lines before the Federal authorities can take action within a state against any corporation or individual for the sale of adulterated or misbranded foods. It is very evident that the first thing which must be established in order to prove a violation of the Federal law is that there has been an interstate shipment of the food in question. It will then readily be seen that the National law does afford protection to the consumer in the case of foods which are manufactured in other states transported into this State and sold here in the original package. The Federal law does not apply to foods that have entered into interstate commerce after the original package has been broken. The amount of protection thus afforded to the individual in the State is necessarily proportioned to the amount of foods which are brought in from foreign countries or other states of the Union, and consumed within that State. This proportion is necessarily larger in those states which have a very small number of food manufacturers, and the proportion of protection is smaller in those states which have a larger number of food manufacturers whose goods are sold and consumed within the State. The latter is true of Illinois, one of the largest, if not the largest food manufacturing State in the Union. She supplies foods for her inhabitants to a greater extent than any other State in the Union, and inasmuch as these foods do not enter into interstate commerce, the amount of protection afforded by the National law with reference to these foods is necessarily small. There is some protection from the National law, however, for the large manufacturers find it impracticable to have two classes of goods under the same label; one for State consumption and the other for interstate traffic; consequently the large reputable manufacturer aims to have all his goods comply with the Federal law.

SCOPE OF THE STATE LAW.

It will be noted from what has just been said that the National law applies to goods sold only in package form. A large proportion of goods sold are purchased in small amounts after the original package has been broken. In such cases, the Federal law has no jurisdiction no matter how badly the goods may be adulterated, for it has jurisdiction only in the case of goods in the original package which entered into interstate commerce, still intact and unbroken. Under the State law, however, its police power is extended to cover the sale of foods whether in package form or sold in bulk. The State law by requiring that the true name of every food which is sold in package form be marked on the label of the package and by requiring the branding of all manufactured foods sold in bulk affords the greatest protection to the public.