The arrangements for the administration of he law are all that can be desired. Manu acturing in disobedience of the provisions of he law is made a crime. The penalty for a first offense is a fine not to exceed $500, or znprisonment for one year, or both; for a second offense, a fine of not less than $1,000, 3r imprisonment for one year, or both. For outside of the manufacturing indus sy the penalties are less. In addition, the adulterated or misbranded goods are subject o libel proceedings, and may be seized and destroyed. The Department of Justice has zharge of prosecutions, and the United States district attorneys everywhere are required to act upon the presentation of satisfactory evi dence. The judgments of the courts are given publicity by the Department of Agriculture. In the year ending 30 June 1915 the Depart ment of Agriculture transferred 767 cases of infraction of the Food and Drugs Act to the Department of Justice for prosecution: 276 for criminal proceedings and 491 in which seizures were recommended. During the year there were terminated (including 492 cases com ing over from the preceding year) 501 criminal cases and 457 civil cases. In 220 of these, fines were imposed ranging from $1 up to $400. The majority of the fines were small, more than half being $25 or less: there were hut 15 fines above $100. The total amount collected was $10,831. Decrees of condemnation and for feiture were entered in 387 cases; in 209 the goods were actually destroyed; in 140 they were released on bond to be made over to con form to the law ; and in 30 cases they were sold on account of the government for uses not contrary to law.
The laws of many of the States which follow in the main the Federal law are much more rigid, and a large proportion of goods salable under the Federal law cannot be sold in those States. In Alabama, for example, any foreign matter mixed with sugar syrup or mo lasses makes it unsalable in the State, no matter how it is labelled; in California, truthful label ling does not exempt an adulterated article from the penalties of the law ; in Colorado, wines, beers and liquors containing any ingre dient not normal cannot be sold however labelled ; Georgia forbids absolutely the sale of bleached flour; in Michigan, maple products adulterated in any way cannot use the word on the label; in New York, maple syrup and maple sugar and honey may not be sold if adulterated, no matter if so announced on the label; in Pennsylvania such preparations as "Coffee Com pound" may not be sold; the law says it is not coffee if compounded with another substance; in Rhode Island adulterated or impure spiritu ous liquors may not be sold under any label; in Wisconsin the prohibitions are many and in flexible, and goods which may be sold freely in most of the other States are barred from Wis consin trade. The State Food Department of Illinois calls the attention of the people of that State to the fact that while the Federal law forbids misrepresentation on the label, it does not require the labelling, except in a few in stances. On the other hand, the Illinois law requires that °every manufactured article of food and all foods sold in package form shall be branded with the true name of the article." Maple sugar is instanced as an example. In other States such sugar is usually sold without a label and is generally heavily adulterated with glucose and cane sugar. In Illinois it must be labelled, and it cannot be sold as maple sugar unless bearing a label declaring its purity. The department warns the people of the State that °the consumer can protect himself by reading the label, and reading all of it, not only the prominent words." A warning is also given that though the law is complied with when the words °Artificially Colored" are placed upon the label, at the same time a deception is prac tised, as when green fruit is made to look like ripe, in preserves; when canned old peas are made to look like fresh; when catsup that has been made from over-ripe tomatoes is colored to look as if from new and freshly ripened fruit. Attention is also called to the trick of
putting two labels on the same package, a small and inconspicuous truth-telling one on a side of the package where it is not readily noticed. The State of Wyoming requires that the full statement of contents shall be placed on the principal label. North Carolina meets this trickery by prohibiting the placing of two different labels on one package. Tennessee decides that inconspicuous type on a label is in itself an evasion of the law. In several of the States an exaggerated picture, or a name which closely resembles some well-known brand, is an attempt to deceive, and incurs the penalty therefor.
The widespread use of benzoate of soda as a preservative in certain kinds of foods had aroused so much question as to its harmfulness that upon passage of the law the Bureau of Chemistry under the direction of Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, its chief chemist, began an investi gation to decide the matter. A so-called °poison squad" 'of healthy young men were fed with benzoate of soda in varying quantities for a period of several weeks. The most careful scientific watch was kept upon them, and de tailed records were made at great length. The conclusion of the bureau was that benzoate of soda was a "deleterious substance" in the mean ing of the law. Its use in foods was thereupon forbidden by the Secretary of Agriculture. The food manufacturers who were using it in im mense quantities appealed from the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture direct to Presi dent Roosevelt, who suspended the decision pending a report of the referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts which he ap pointed to make the examination. This board also conducted a series of experiments with a °poison squad" and brought in a report that in the small quantities used in preserving food benzoate of soda could not be proved injurious to health. The Secretary of Agriculture then issued a new ruling permitting the use of ben zoate if the percentage used in the food was truthfully stated on the label. The other chemical substances claimed to be injurious to health were submitted to the same board after the Bureau of Chemistry had condemned them. After two years the board decided against the use of saccharine, and after two more years against sulphate of copper in foods. In April 1914 the board reported that alum baking powders were no more injurious than other baking powders. The question as to sulphur ous acid and sulphites had not been decided up to 30 June 1915, and in all States whose food laws follow closely the Federal law, sausages and preserved meats may lawfully contain sulphites, and often in so large a per centage as to be plainly evident to the taste. In some States, however, these preservatives are absolutely forbidden, in accordance with the adverse decision of the Bureau of Chem istry, published in Bureau of Chemistry Circular 37. The controversy as to flour bleached by the so-called °nitrate process was taken to the United States Supreme Court, which held that this process could lawfully be used under the Food and Drugs Act until distinct proof was given that the flour so bleached was poisonous, or deleterious to health. Nevertheless, many States have specifically condemned this nitrated flour, and forbidden not only its sale, but also its manufacture within the State boundaries.