Page images
PDF
EPUB

Have we any reason to suppose for one moment that animals killed in the small uninspected slaughter-houses would show a larger proportion of healthy animals?

Consumers are entitled to protection from diseased meat. The Pure Food Law provides a statute by which no diseased meat may be sold, but who can tell whether or not the meat is diseased unless the state makes provision for inspection by competent veterinarians?

Meat inspection is more necessary for the consumer than is the appropriation of large sums of money to provide good roads for automobiles. Many States provide the latter and not the former. We should not cease in our demands until laws are enacted in every State whereby Federal inspectors may have the co-operation of State inspect

ors.

Each State should enact stringent slaughter-house and meat inspection laws with a sufficient appropriation to ensure that competent inspectors may be provided and that the law may be enforced, not merely remain a law on the statute books.

The Bureau of Animal Industry continually urges this co-operation on the part of the States.

Until we have this legislation consumers have no protection against the dangers of eating diseased meat or meat from animals killed in filthy, unsanitary slaughter-houses, except in those few States that have already enacted protective laws. Pennsylvania was the first State to provide a competent meat inspetion law, although Montana and a few other States have enacted some legislation on similar lines, Cleveland is one of the few cities that has efficient municipal meat inspection.

Several of the States have curious meat laws.

Maryland provides (in Chapter 69, Sec. 55a) as follows: "No person shall kill for human food or shall carry or

offer to carry to any butcher at any slaughter-house any animal that is so far disabled by sickness as to be unable to walk."

In Florida (Chapter 5,665, p. 162), Section 1 reads: "It is unlawful to kill for any purposes any bull, steer, cow, heifer, yearling or calf without inspection by a regularly appointed inspector except as provided in Section 2.

Section 2 then undoes all the force of the statute by declaring that "the butchering of any such animal by the owner, his or her agent, if killed in the presence of one or more reputable witnesses shall

not be unlawful."

South Carolina forbids the sale of the flesh of an animal that was disabled or seriously injured at the time of slaughter or which died a natural death or "which may be found dead from a cause or causes unknown to such person." The natural inference is that if the animal was found dead from a cause known its flesh may be used for food.

The Food Committee of the Consumers' League began its work on behalf of a State slaughter-house inspection law eighteen months ago.

Mr. McCabe is drafting a model meat and slaughter-house inspection law at the request of the food committee of the Consumers' Leagne.

This draft will be ready for our use next winter. We shall then ask the assistance of this body of food officials in placing this draft before the Legislatures of those states not already provided with an adequate law.

Next winter we shall have the model slaughter-house and meat inspection law ready to be presented to the legislatures of those states where such a law is needed. We shall then ask the assistance of this body of officials to help us in our work.

In order to correct the abuses that arise in many instances when animals.

Continued on page 35.

[ocr errors][merged small]

HONESTY AND SCIENCE.

Out of the prolonged and jejune controversy about benzoate of soda a simple and valuable principle emerges, to wit:

The people will always accept the science of the man whose character they

trust.

Dr. Wiley has the confidence of the country, and it is hard to discredit with the people his scientific conclusions, simply because they believe in the man.

He has proved by many years of public service that he is utterly single-minded, and uninfluenced by commercial or political considerations.

And this is the same thing as to say that the people recognize in Dr. Wiley the true scientific temper.

Heady men who call themselves scientists may sneer at the idea that private character has anything to do with scientific truth.

But it certainly has everything to do with getting the outgivings of science accepted and acted upon.

Science is not really science until it comes to be common knowledge.

And the people cannot know what they cannot believe; and they can't believe what is told them by men whom they don't trust.

And when the trustworthy doctors disagree, the patient will accept the prescription of the doctor he trusts most.

The Remsen Board decided that four grams per day of benzoate, taken in a man's food, was not deleterious to his health.

Dr. Wiley says it is.

And the public passes the benzoate of soda to the Remsen Board.-New York American.

PURE FOOD LAW BROUGHT IN

TO DISREPUTE.

After Dr. Wiley said that benzoate of soda was bad for us, the Remsen board said it was not bad for us, and now a committee of the National Association of State Dairy Departments is going to render a verdict on the same issue. Whatever it says, we have no doubt another bunch of scientists will be gathered who will say somewhat

otherwise, and from that verdict there

will be another appeal, and so on and so on, if not ad infinitum, at least until we get a census of scientific opinions on this question of benzoate. Then, we suppose, it will be incumbent on those of us who know nothing about the matter whatever to agree with the majority -to eat uncomplainingly benzoate, alum or any other preservative even if a majority of only one decides that it is harmless, or to shut our mouths to it resolutely if an equal majority should decide contrariwise.

All of which, this persistent appeal from one bunch of scientists to another bunch of scientists, is doing considerable to bring our pure food law into disrepute. It seems itself to have been somewhat adulterated; the caption of the act appears to be a case of misbranding.

Manifestly there is a factious quarrel among those who have something to do with the execution of the law, and it will become interminable unless the president himself interposes his power. There ought to be someone in the Pure Food Bureau whose opinion, right or wrong, will govern at least long enough to enable experience to test it. As it is now, a manufacturer may adulterate his stuff, and before his appeal can run its course

[graphic][merged small]

Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, presented with a loving cup by the members of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists at the Denver Convention.

he will have disposed of the whole deleterious output. That possibility makes the law a kind of joke, very much,doubtless, to the delight of those who have been selling poison under food labels; for they see in these quarrels a chance to get the whole law either repealed or emasculated.

Dr. Wiley has shown a disposition to construe the law strictly. He seems to have given the people the benefit of any

doubts he has had. That is the reason of the war that has been made on him. It might be well to let him have his own way, at least long enough to determine whether his rules and regulations impose an unnecessary hardship on manufacturers. They have their recourse in the courts, and that gives them all the obstructive facilities we can reasonably grant in a controversy that involves the health of the people--Galveston News.

Only HEALTH-CULTURE

[graphic]

404 St. James Bldg., New York. Enclosed find 25c. for "On trial" subscrip

returned if not satisfied. Address tion to Health-Culture. Money to be

THE USE OF BENZOATE OF

SODA IN FOOD PRODUCTS.

HON. H. E. BARNARD, FOOD COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA.

No question which has arisen in the enforcement of the Pure Food and Drug Law has aroused such interest and been the subject of so much controversy as that which followed the action of the Department in ruling against the use of benzoate of soda in food products. Shortly after the passage of the Pure Food Law, the seventh paragraph of Section 2 of which prohibited the use of antiseptics or preservatives, the State Board of Health in a ruling declared against the use of all of the chemical antiseptics and preservative substances except table salt, saltpeter, sugar, vinegar, spices, etc. Among the antiseptics thus ruled against were salicylic acid, boric acid, hydrofluoric acid, benzoic acid, sulphurous acid and compounds or salts of these acids, formaldehyde, betanapthol and other preservatives injurious to health. An exception was made in this rule however, to the effect that until further notice benzoate of soda might be employed in quantities not to exceed one-tenth of 1 per cent. for the preservation of tomato catsup. A later rule of the Board limited the use of benzoate of soda in tomato catsup to the season of 1908. As a consequence of the action taken by the Board, which practically prohibited the use of benzoate of soda in food products, actions were begun by out-of-the-State manufacturers in both the Federal Court and in the Circuit Court of Marion County, praying that an injunction might be issued against the State Board of Health and State Food Commissioner to restrain them and him from enforcing that portion of

the law which prohibits the use of preservatives. In both instances the court refused to issue the temporary injunction and the cases are still pending their final settlement. In the preparation of these cases a very large amount of data has been collected, both in favor of and against the use of benzoate of soda in food products. The Referee Board of the Department of Agriculture has practically authorized its use as a noninjurious preservative. The American Medical Association has gone on record as opposed to its use, and in a resolution has urged upon Congress the necessity of amending the National Pure Food and Drugs Act to prohibit absolutely and unqualifiedly the use of benzoate of soda and similar preservatives in the preparation and preservation of foods destined for interstate commerce.

In order that the health officers and physicians of Indiana might have an opportunity to go on record as to their views upon the propriety of using benzoate of soda in food products, a list of questions was sent out from the Laboratory of Hygiene of the State Board of Health to all of the health officers of the State and also to a large number of physicians. The replies to the questions asked came in very promptly and are most valuable, in that they express the convictions of a class of men who by reason of their training and experience with drugs and their effect upon the human system, are perhaps better qualified than chemists, manufacturers or food experts to answer them. These questions and replies have been tabula

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The result of the investigation shows. that the physicians of this State, at least, are very strongly opposed to the use of benzoate of soda as a food preservative. In but few instances do physicians take a strong stand in favor of its use, while on the contrary a large number of physicians express themselves very positively as opposed to it. In answer to the third question physicians express themselves as follows "It should be unlawful to use it in any quantity?" "It should be absolutely forbidden." "Do not approve of limitation, as I do not believe law would limit." "No, if it is injurious, there would be no safe limit." "Its use establishes a dangerous precedent." "Pass a law prohibiting the use." "Food preparations that require its use. should not be eaten." "Its use should be absolutely prohibited in any quantity, no matter how small." "Its continued use must certainly interfere with digestive functions." "It is injurious to health of some individuals, not all. The indiscriminate use is unsafe. The law should prohibit its use in any quantity." "There is no limit, as we cannot limit the amount of food eaten at a time." "Only 'limit' it out entirely." none. A little added to a little more makes too much."

"Use

The answers to the other questions are equally positive, and the summary indicates that for one physician in this State who approves of the use of this preservative, at least ten are pronounced in their opposition to it.

Note. The State Board recognizes this is opinion evidence only, for none of the answers give details of experiments with conclusions. Of course, the probContinued on page 28.

« PreviousContinue »