Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-09-29

per cent Oh 1at, or Win the who're Inlk VI
the ordinary herd. which contains almost
per cent Of fat.
A standard, therefore, does not always
mean guaranty Of purity, as. for In
only 8 per cent or less Of fat, as far as
purity is concerned, is just as free from
criticism as the milk Of the Jersey COW
containing per cent Of fat. The object
protect the consumer against receiving an
adulterated article or a natural article OF
an inferior quality.
In 1903 Congress passed an act author.
ling the Secretary OF Agriculture to FIX
standard of purity for food products, and
to enable him to reach just decisions he
was authorized to consult the committee
Of the Association Of Official Agricultural
Chemists and such other experts as he
deemed necessary. Acting under that au-
thority. the Secretary of Agriculture has
all of the common food products These
revised and perfected standards are~ pub
hshed as Circular No. 10. Office Of the
Secretary. The food standards established
milk. cream, butter. cheese, ice cream
whey, kumiss. cereal grains and flours and
meals made therefrom, fruits. evaporated
jams. jellies. marmalades. fruit but.
tiers. vegetables. dried vegetables, canned
vegetables, pickles, sauerkraut, ketchup,
sugar, maple sugar, molasses, syrups, glu-
cose and glucose products, candy, honey.
spices, peppers favoring extracts, edible
vegetable oils and fats, tea coffee and CO.
Goa products. fermented fruit juices, includ-
ing wines, cider and vinegar. and salt.
Protection Of Consumers.
All Of these standards have been very
carefully considered, the people who manu-
facture the goods have been consulted, and
expert opinion of all kinds has been Sc
cured respecting them. 1t is believed, there
fore, that they are just and equitable, and
will meet the approval of practically all
persons who are interested in the matter
save those who desire to manufacture and
sell adulterated articles aad articles of
inferior quality. These standards, as has
already been intimated, have been approved
by many of the states, and in a few in
stances have been enacted by the legisla-
lures Of the states the legal standards
therefor. Their general adoption will do
much toward unifying the practices before
the state and federal courts in all matters
relating to the adulteration or misbranding
of food products.
There are many forcible objections to
the adoption of standards other than those
coming from the manufacturers and dealers
in adulterated. msbranded and inferior
food products. IT, for instance, minimum
standard of purity be established, as in the
case of milk, where the national standard
established by the Secretary of Agriculture
requires that there shall not be less than
3.25 per cent Of butter fat, it is claimed
by many that this will be an inducement
to the degradation of the average milk to
the basis Of the standard. 1t is we'll known
that the average milk furnished by the
dairy herds throughout the United States
contains in round numbers almost 4 per
cent Of butter fat 1t would be possible,
therefore, to So debase the average milk
of the United States as to abstract from
it in round numbers three-fourths Of l
per cent of fat and still have it comply
with the standard in this particular. But
1t must be remembered that the standard
does not permit Of debasement, and it's
chief object is to prevent inferior arti-
cles from being sold standard foods.
If, therefore, the standard for milk were
fixed at 4 per cent, which is the average
of the mlks of the United States, 1t would
exclude from the markets fully half Of
all the milk produced. for it may be as
sumed that the standard being an indeter-
inmate point, one-half Of all the milks
produced in the United States would fall
below this standard and one-half would be
above it.
Thus to fix standard to represent the
average quality would be unreasonable
and imDracticable 1t must be remem-
product, no difference whether it is
above or below the standard, is it
self an adulteration. and is punish
able as such under all state and
federal laws 1t has been proposed in Eng
land to fix the standard of water in butter
at 16 per cent. An argument was recently
presented to the Society of Public Analysts
in London against the changing Of the
standard because the average content of
water in English butter is only II per cent,
and If the maximum standard were made
16 per cent there would be an effort made
on the part Of all butter makers to incor-
porate much additional water in the but
ter would be possible without trans
crossing the maximum standard. To this
it may be replied that to fix the standard
of water in butter at II per cent. which is
about the average, would exclude perhaps
half Of the pure buffers the market
which contain slightly above II per cent
Of water. If it were shown that butter
which naturally has II per cent of water
were purposely SO manipulated as to in
crease its content to 16 per cent that but
ter would be adulterated anyway, whether
1t transgresses the standard for water or
not.
The purposes, therefore, for which stand
ards of foods fixed must not be lost
sight of if those standards are to be used
a basis of protection to the public. Il
standards fixed solely as an induce
ment to producers to improve the quality
of their goods then they should be made
in all cases high, representing the very
best qualities Of the articles produced.
Considering all the arguments which
have been advanced for and against food
standards, l think it is undoubtedly true
that they are beneficial, and, as basis
for the enforcement of food laws, neces-
sary.