DRUGS AND HEALTH Yes, but why are we sick? Are we sick because we obey Paregoric relieves (it doesn't Why do we take drugs? Because we are sick. Is sickness due to right living or to wrong living? the laws of health or because we disobeyed them? cure) green apple colic in the boy. Is eating green apples a sensible act? Pepsin and bismuth relieve (they don't cure) indigestion. What causes indigestion? Is it the result of eating proper food in proper amount in the proper way? Or, is it the result of eating improper food in improper amount in an improper way? If the latter, why do it? Is it our large amount of common sense which leads us to it? What is good for a cold? Syrup of wild cherry, syrup of squills and paregoric mixed together make a "good cough medicine." Yes, but why overeat and breathe bad air and so make a cold. You don't have to overeat, and you don't have to breathe foul air. Just observe closely the next not follow a big feed and Live on plain well-cooked, time you have a cold and see if it did close confinement in an unventilated room. well-chewed food, breathe pure air, be temperate and you will never have a cold, pneumonia and other diseases of the breathing organs. We don't have to have colds and then take squills, paregoric and wild cherry to cure (?) them. The whole business is simply evidence of our impracticability, of our foolishness. What drugs are good for (relieve) constipation? Salts or cathartic pills, of course. Yes, but why eat spices, why eat ham, bacon, highly spiced sausage or other embalmed flesh and constipating foods in such large quantities? Why neglect nature and engender constipation? Is it wisdom that makes constipation? Yea truly-An ounce of prevention (right living) is worth a pound of cure. THE REASONING OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT. He prepares himself A young man chooses medical science as his life work. in the schools. He complies with the requirements of the law governing the entrance to practice. He now has duties to fulfill-to the state, to his patients and families and to medical science. His first duty to his state is to completely obey its laws. Disputing their justice and constitutionality if he thinks best, but still obeying them until repealed or nullified by the courts. His duties to his patients and his families are not fulfilled until he has obeyed fully the laws upon which he leans for protection. The law commands him to report the deaths, births and infectious diseases which come under his professional supervision. Not to do this, marks him as a violator of law and as not performing all of his duties to his patients. The argument closes as follows: The decision of the lower court is sustained. The appellant did not completely fulfill his duties to his patient. He is not entitled to a fee.-Exchange. How about food manufacturers disobeying the law? United States Department of Agriculture, Board of Food and Drug Inspection. MISBRANDING OF DISTILLER'S DRIED GRAINS. (As to Protien and Fat Content.) The facts in the case were as follows: On December 16, 1907, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture purchased from Henry & Missert, 92-94 Michigan street, Buffalo, N. Y., a sample of distiller's dried grains labeled "R. Distiller's Dried Grains. 26 per cent. Protein. 10 per cent. Fat. The J. W. Biles Co., Cincinnati, Ohio," which was a part of a shipment made by the J. W. Biles Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, to Henry & Missert, Buffalo, N. Y. The sample was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture and the following results obtained and stated: Moisture Fat Protein 10.99 9.40 21.22 It was apparent, therefore, that the goods were misbranded as they were labeled as containing 26 per cent. of protein and 10 per cent. of fat, whereas they contained only 21.22 per cent. of protein and 9.40 per cent. of fat. The Secretary of Agriculture having on July 14, 1908, afforded the manufacturers an opportunity to show any fault or error in the findings of the analyst and they having failed to do so, the facts were duly reported to the attorney-general and the case referred to the United States attorney for the Southern district of Ohio, who filed an information against the said J.W.Biles Company, with the result that defendant Co. pay $1.00 fine and costs of prosecution. ADULTERATION OF EGGS. (Presence of Putrid and Decomposed Animal Matter.) The facts in the case were as follows: On or about December 22, 1908, an inspector of the dairy and food division of the Pennsylvania department of agriculture, acting under authorization from the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to James Foust, dairy and food commissioner of said State, in accordance with regulation 3 of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, found in the possession of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company at Philadelphia, Pa., twenty-five cases of eggs, which had been delivered for shipment from that city to Louis Lazar, New York, N. Y. Samples of the eggs were procured and subjected to analysis and found to be decomposed and unfit for human consumption. The facts were reported to the United States attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, by whom libel for seizure under section 10 of the act was promptly filed and prosecution instituted under section 2, resulting that defendant pay a fine of $50.00 and cost of prosecution to the amount of $51.08. ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF STOCK FEED. The facts in the case were as follows: On or about March 15, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, acting in conjunction with R. E. Stallings, State chemist of the State of Georgia, found in the possession of the Nickajack Milling Company, at Atlanta, Ga., 200 bags of a feed product labeled "Protein 11.00; Fat 6.00; Carbo Hydrates 53.00; Fiber 11.00. Stafolife. Manufactured by Lawrence & Hamilton Feed Co., Ltd., New Orleans, La." and to each of these bags was attached a tag on which was the following: "Stafolife Feed. Manufactured by Lawrence & Hamilton Feed Co., Limited. New Orleans, La. Guaranteed Analysis. Guaranteed Analysis. Crude Fiber 11.00; Fat 6.00; Protein 11.00; Carbo Hydrates 53.00. Composed rice bran; corn; cottonseed meal; molasses. Net weight 100 pounds." These goods had been shipped by the manufacturers, the Lawrence & Hamilton Company, from New Orleans, La., to Atlanta, Ga.; on March 4, 1909. A sample of the product was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and it was found that, in addition to the ingredients noted on the label, the feed contained 5 per cent. of rice hulls. It was evident that the product was both adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of sections 7 and 8 of the act; adulterated in that rice hulls had been mixed with and substituted in part for rice bran, corn, cottonseed meal, and molasses, thereby reducing, lowering, and injuriously affecting the quality and strength, and misbranded in that it purported to contain only rice bran, corn, cottonseed meal, and molasses, whereas it contained 5 per cent of rice hulls. These facts were accordingly reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States attorney for the northern district of Georgia on March 27, 1909, and libel for seizure and condemnation. was duly filed, with the result that defendant Co. file a $500 bond and pay the costs of prosecution. ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF A CEREAL. (As to Presence of Wheat.) The facts in the case were as follows: On or about March 22, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture. found in the possession of Haas, Baruch & Co., Los Angeles, Cal., 500 sacks of a food product labeled "Iowa Rolled Oats Mixture, Manufactured by Acme Mills Company, Portland, Oregon." The goods had been shipped by the manufacturer, the Acme Mills Company from Portland, Ore., to Haas, Baruch & Co. Los Angeles, California, on or about January 28, 1909. A sample of the product was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture and found to consist of 50 per cent. of oats and 50 per cent. of wheat. It was apparent, therefore, that the product was both adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of sections 7 and 8 of the act; adulterated for the reason that wheat had been substituted in part for the oats, and misbranded in that it was labeled "Iowa Rolled Oats Mixture," whereas it was not a mixture of oats, but a mixture of wheat and oats. On March 23, 1909, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States attorney for the southern district of California and libel for seizure and condemnation was duly filed, with the result that the defendant Co. give a $1,000 bond and pay the cost of prosecution. MISBRANDING OF A CANE SIRUP. (As to Presence of Glucose.) The facts in the case were as follows: On March 16, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture purchased from the Crawford Grocery Company, Greenville, Miss., a sample of sirup, which was labeled, "Wilder's Uniform Brand Syrup. Canned only by the D. R. Wilder Mfg. Co., Atlanta, Ga." the same being printed in a quadrangular space formed by an arrangement of the words "Georgia Cane" printed in capital letters, which were represented as being interwoven with cane stalks, and on the opposite side of the cans appeared the following words "Best in the world," "The syrup that made Georgia famous," and on the side of the can in small type together with other descriptive matter, "This package contains eightyfive per cent. pure Georgia cane and fifteen per cent. pure corn syrup which is added to prevent granulation." The sample was part of a shipment made by the D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Company from Atlanta, Ga., to the Crawford Grocery Company, Greenville, Miss., on or about June 22, 1907. The sample was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the following results obtained and stated: It was apparent that the article was misbranded within the meaning of section 8 of the act, because labeled to represent that it was Georgia cane sirup, whereas it was a mixture of cane sirup and glucose, and the statements in the label, "Georgia cane," "Best in the world," and "The syrup that made Georgia famous," were false and misleading. The Secretary of Agriculture having on October 5, 1908, afforded the manufacturers an opportunity to show any fault or error in the aforesaid analysis, and they having failed to do so, the facts were, on January 9, 1909, reported to the attorney-general and the case referred to the United States attorney for the northern district of Georgia, who filed an information against the said D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co., with the result that the Wilder Co. pay a fine of $25.00 and cost of $214.10. MISBRANDING OF VERMONT OR MAPLE SUGAR. As to Presence of Cane Sugar. The facts in the case were as follows: On or about January 13, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture found in the possession of E. M. Sheetz, 505 Twelfth street NW., Washington, D. C., 150 pails (4,970 pounds) of sugar which had been manufactured by J. M. Beeman & Son, Fairfax, Vt., and shipped to said Sheetz by the J. M. Washburne Company, of 50 Broadway, New York. The pails bore no label or other marks which would indicate the nature of the contents and the consignment was sold, billed, and shipped as "Vermont sugar." The contents of each pail had the color and other appearances of maple sugar. A sample of this product was collected by the inspector and subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture and the following results obtained and stated: It was apparent that the product was a mixture of cane and maple sugar and was misbranded within the meaning of sections 7 and 8 of the act, because it had been invoiced and sold under the name of "Vermont sugar" and had the appearance, color, and general semblance of a food product known as maple sugar or "Vermont sugar" and bore no label, brand, mark or device of any kind showing the true character of the article. On January 14, 1909, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia and libel for seizure and condemnation under section 10 of the act was duly filed with the result that the defendant Co. furnish a bond in the penal sum of $500.00 and pay the cost of prosecution. MISBRANDING OF PRESERVES. The facts in the case were as follows: On or about March 30, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture found in the possession of Hugo, Schmeltzer & Co., San Antonio, Tex., 190 cases (each containing 4 dozen cans) of preserves labeled and branded, "One Ful Pound Convenient Preserves, Wm. Numsen Sons, Baltimore, Md." These goods had been shipped to said Hugo, Schmeltzer & Co. by Wm. Numsen & Son, from Baltimore, Md., on or about October 24, 1908. A number of the cans were weighed in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the average net weight was found to be 141⁄2 ounces. The goods were, therefore, misbranded within the meaning of section 8 of the act, and on March 31, 1909, the facts were reported by the Secretary of Agriculture to the United States attorney for the western district of Texas, and libel for seizure and condemnation was duly filed, with the result that a $1,300 bond to be filed by the Co. and pay the cost of prosecution. ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF COTTONSEED MEAL. (As to Presence of Cotton Seed Hulls.) The facts in the case were as follows: On or about April 22, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture found in the possession of F. A. Nave, Attica, Ind., 600 sacks of a product purporting to be cottonseed meal, which had been shipped to him on or about April 2, 1909, by the J. Lindsay Wells Company, Memphis, Tenn. An analysis. of a sample taken from this shipment was made in the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and found to consist of approximately 50 per cent of cottonseed hulls It was apparent that the product was both adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of sections 7 and 8 of the act; |