Acts intended to prevent fraud in the sale of impure milk, so far as they prevent the sale of milk offered as pure which does not conform to the prescribed standards, are constitutional; People v. Bowen, 182 N. Y. 1, 74 N. E. 489. An act requiring a milkman to subject his cows to the tuberculin test before receiving a license to sell milk is valid; State v. Nelson, 66 Minn. 166, 68 N. W. 1066, 34 L. R. A. 318, 61 Am. St. Rep. 399 ; so is an ordinance requiring an inspection of milk, cows and stables ; Walton v. Toledo, 23 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 547.
The fact that the legitimate as well as the illegitimate article is required to be tagged does not affect the reasonableness of the provision; People v. Bishopp, 106 App. Div. 266, 94 N. Y. Supp. 773. An act requiring renovated butter to be labeled, so as to dis tinguish it, is valid ; Corn. v. Seiler, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 260.
Statutes requiring articles of food to bear a label stating ingredients are valid; Savage v. Scovell, 171 Fed. 566 ; Steiner v. Ray, 84 Ala. 4 South. 172, 5 Am. St. Rep. 332 ; or stating the name and residence of the manufacturer ; State v. Sherod, 80 Minn. 446, 83 N. W. 417, 50 L. R. A. 660, 81 Am. St. Rep. 268; People v. Windholz, 92 App. Div. 569, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1015 ; or stating that the product is an imitation; Woolner & Co. v. Rennick, 170 Fed. 662 (whiskey); Palm er v. State, 39 Ohio St. 236, 48 Am. -Rep. 429 (butter and cheese) ; or that renovated butter is not creamery butter ; Com. v. Seiler, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 260 ; Hathaway v. McDon ald, 27 Wash. 659, 68 Pae. 376, 91 Am. St. Rep. 889 (renovated butter) ; People v. Abraham son, 137 App. Div. 549, 122 N. Y. Supp. 115 ; or stating the age of a calf when slaughter ed; People v. Bishopp, 106 App. Div. 266, 94 N. Y. Supp. 773.
In an act referring to cider vinegar, "pure" means "free from mixture or contact with that which is deleterious, impairs, viti ates or pollutes ; People v. Heinz Co., 90 App. Div. 408, 86 N. Y. Supp. 141. An act relating to the adulteration of food does not make the adulteration of drinks an offence; Coro. v. Kebort, 212 Pa. 289, 61 Atl. 895. An article of food shall be deemed to be adul terated if it contains any added substance which is poisonous or injuribus to health ; Com. v. Kevin, 202 Pa. 23, 51 Atl. 594, 90 Am. St. Rep. 613. Its sale may be pro hibited if its quality is not up to a fixed standard, though no adulterant be used; State v. Smyth, 14 R. I. 100, 51 Am. Rep.
344; State v. Campbell, 64 N. H. 402, 13 Atl. 585, 10 Am. St. Rep. 419; State v. Stone, 46 La. Ann. 147, 15 South. 11; City of Kan sas v. Cook, 38 Mo. App. 660; State v. Cream ery Co., 83 Minn. 284, 86 N. W. 107, 54 L. R. A. 466, 85 Am. St. Rep. 464 ; People v. West, 106 N. Y. 293, 12 N. E. 610, 60 Am. St. Rep. 452; and though the substance used for an adulterant be wholesome ; People v. Girard, 145 N. Y. 105, 39 N. E. 823, 45 Am. St. Rep. 595.
Under an act against adulterating food, a dealer who puts a substance containing poi son into food cannot set up that he did not know it contained poison; Lansing v. State, 73 Neb. 124, 102 N. W. 254; want of knowl edge by the vendor of the character of the article he is selling is no defence ; People v. Meyer, 44 App. Div. 1, 60 N. Y. Supp. 415 ; the question of the vendor's intent is imma terial; People v. Laesser, 79 App. Div. 384, 79 N. Y. Supp. 470 ; People v. Kibler, 106 N. Y. 321, 12 N. E. 795; so of a hotel keeper furnishing oleomargarine to a guest without knowledge that it is not butter ; State v. Ryan, 70 N. H. 196, 46 Atl. 49, 85 Am. St. Rep. 629. An act may create a crime of sell ing adulterated food or drink independent of the seller's knowledge ; People v. Snowber ger, 113 Mich. 86, 71 N. W. 497, 67 Am. St. Rep. 449.
An ordinance making it unlawful to cover with a colored netting, etc., any package of fruit exposed for sale is unreasonable and void ; Frost v. Chicago, 178 Ill. 250, 52 N. E. 869, 49 L. R. A. 657, 69 Am. St. Rep. 301.
The fact that the article is manufactured under United States letters patent does not prevent it from coming under the exercise of the police power; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 Fed. 616, 51 C. C. A. 122, 65 L. R. A. 864.
The legislature may delegate to boards of health the duty of making rules and pre scribing tests in the execution of pure food laws ; Isenhour v. State, 157 Ind. 517, 62 N. E. 40, 87 Am. St. Rep. 228; People v. Van De Carr, 199 U. S. 552, 26 Sup. Ct. 144, 50 L. Ed. 305.
The state has a right to seize and destroy food which is unfit to use, and is not re quired to give previous notice and an oppor tunity to be heard ; but the owner has a right of action after the destruction if the state has acted improperly ; North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306, 29 Sup. Ct. 101, 53 L. Ed. 195, 15 Ann. Cas. 276.