The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1886-08-27
HAS THE PUBLIC A RIGHT TOT
BUY AND USE GENUINE
RITTER ?

There is no lack of valid reasons for
the legal prohibition of the imitation but
ter business, since it is clearly.a gross
adulteration against which the public
can have no adequate protection by any
means short of the absolute prevention
of its manufacture. Adulteration does
not necessarily imply that deleterious
product is mixed with another. IF the
public are likely to be deceived or inn
posed upon by the mixture, that alone
is sufficient to- class it as an adulteration.
Water, for instance, does not injure milk,
only the consumer gets less food for
his money. and is incapable of protect
ing himself by paying enough more to
buy the genuine article, because the
competition of the adulterated, through
the custom which low prices is sure to
attract from those who are Indifferent as
to quality or incapable of discrimination
in this respect, would drive the seller of
pure milk out of the market and deprive
those who want it of the privilege of buy
ing it and as the public has right to
the purchase of the genuine article, and
cannot determine when water and other
harmless ingredients are mixed, the laws
prohibit dng naartatTe.
And so they should in the case of but
ter prohibit the mixture of everything
not used in its ordinary manufacture.
The mixtures of some of the animal fats
| with butter may indeed result in com.
pound which no one can show to be I'M
wholesome or less ready of digestion
than pure butter, but, nevertheless, when
colored, sailed, grained and favored, as
is done in these imitation butter factor
les, the product should clearly be classed
as an adulteration. 1t is the mixture Of
a cheaper article with an ordinary food
| product in such a manner that the pub
lie may be imposed upon land as mat
ter of fact is largely imposed upon) in the
purchase of this degraded butter for the
genuine. At the very best it must be
considered as diluted butter. with the
tpubhc powerless to detect the dilution
| Ii may be conceded that there are
people who are Indifferent whether the,
consume preparations of tallow or larl
III lieu of butter, and likewise that there
are those of such marrow income tina
| they cannot afford to use butter, but Cal
afford to use cheaper preparations o
lard and tallow.s These people, perhaps
should not be denied the opportunity o
purchasing lard and tallow preparations
and manufacturers should be accorded
the right to prepare lard and tallov
for those who, from any cause, prefer o
desire to purchase such. But the matte
of rights and privileges is not confined t,
these parties. The public has som,
| rights and privileges which cannot be ig
nored, and a large majority of the pub
lie prefers butter, pure and simple, un
. adulterated and undiluted with anythin,
else, and regards with suspicion and dis
like all admixtures It has a right t
purchase the genuine, undiluted article
and to the opportunity of exercising it
selection in the matter As the prepaIa
), tons of lard and tallow are now put Vi
it is impossible for the public desirin
butter to know that it is getting butte
! when it pays for it. And so it seem
fair to insist that when preparations {
lard and tallow are put up to be ult
: mately used as substitutes for butter tbs
it should be required that some form
given them which shall prevent the
e being imposed as pure butter by un
q scrupulous persons upon those who al
5 DESTROYS of purchasing that articl