FOOD, Adulteration of. The first pro tective food law on record was English and bears date of 1203. It was designed to restrain dishonest British bakers from preying upon the public. A few years later butchers, brewers and wine makers were added to those needing legal restraint against fraudulent adulterations. At that time the utmost publicity was given to the offense, the culprit being hauled in a filthy wagon throughout the city or town to receive the execrations of the populace. And, in some cases, at the end of his ride he was placed in the pillory, where, doubtless, the rabble saw to it that a due portion of contempt should be meted out to him. Subsequently, hardened of fenders were punished by the destruction of their shops, and banishment from the scenes of their nefarious labors. Nevertheless, the prac tice of adulterating food continued, and even increased, until nearly every line of standard food was the subject of a special law —a con dition indicating that food adulteration was rife.
In Germany, as early as 1390 wine sellers were banished for selling °false wine,° and some of them were branded, as evidence to every one that they were frauds.
In the early part of the 18th century the British government combated continuously the adulteration of teas, at first with large fines, and later with imprisonment. Coffee and beer also received special attention in the prohibi tory laws. About 1850 the London Lancet made a raid on the adulterators of foods, printing the charges openly with the names of die offend ing firms. From this crusade grew the British °Adulteration of Food and Drink Act" of 1860, the first comprehensive attack upon food adulteration made in the name of the public. One serious defect in this law was the shield ing of the offender from publicity until the second conviction, a leniency which robbed the law of much of its power for protection. Another defect, and a fatal one, placed the penalty at °not to exceed which, of course, an active offender would cheerfully spare from his ill-gotten gains for the privilege of cheat ing the uneducated public. The continued suc cess of the adulterators led to the passage in 1872 of the °Adulteration of Food and Drugs Ace which raised the penalty to a fine not ex ceeding $250 for the first offense, and imprison ment for the second. This seems to have been
entirely too stringent for the fraudulent food manufacturers, for three years later it was superseded by the °Sale of Food and Drugs Act>' of 1875. This act specifically forbids the selling to a purchaser °any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature demanded by the purchaser' under penalty of not more than $100 fine. A following section of the law throws the burden largely upon the vigilance and intelligence of the purchaser by providing that there shall be no liability under the act if the adulterations are not made fraudulently, that is, to increase the weight or bulk, or to conceal inferior quality, and provided that the customer receives notice by a label distinctly written or printed that the article is adulter ated. A placard hung upon a wall in the store where the adulterated food was sold was ad judged sufficient legal notice, whether the pur chaser read it or not. The burden of reading such notice was placed on the purchaser, and the adulteration of food was permitted on that basis. The warfare between the food adultera tors and the agents of the people (inspectors) went on without cessation. The percentage of adulterations had been reduced from 192 in 1877 to 10.3 per cent in 1885, but the number of analyses had increased by 300 per cent, so that the actual number of adulterations found by the inspectors had nearly doubled. A special committee appointed to investigate the opera tion of the food law reported that the penalty of a fine was insufficient to deter adulterators, their profits being so enormous that they were willing to pay over and over again any fines imposed. It was therefore recommended that imprisonment should be made the penalty for the third offense. The committee's findings re sulted in the "Sale of Food and Drugs Act" of 1889. This, however, was not a new law, but merely an addition to the act of 1875. It still continued to be a "labelling" act, and not a pre ventive of adulterations.