Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1908-12-04

Food products, or articles entering
INTO the composition of foods. may be
illegal because of adulteration or mis-
branding, or both. We have already
discussed some of the forms of adult
Grafton of which the law takes cogni-
zance, and will now consider the more
common forms of msbranding that
are specifically mentioned in the law.
Section of the Washington State
law provides that the term misbranded
shall apply to any article of food, or
articles which enter into the compost
tion of food, the package or label of
which shall bear any statement, de-
sign or device regarding such article
or the ingredients or substances con-
tanned therein, which shall be false or
misleading in any particular, and to
any food which is falsely branded as
to the state. territory, or country in
which it is manufactured or produced.
This is an exceedingly broad provision,
and has far reaching application.
A later clause in the same section
reitreates and emphasizes a part of
the above with a statement that food
shall be regarded as misbranded if it
be labelled or branded so as to deceive
or mislead the purchaser, or purports
to be foreign product when it is not
The necessity for such a provision as
this is very great, as will be seen
from the following cases which came
under our personal observation before
it was incorporated in our state law
A sample of so called honey was
sold in g. very. attractive nsckages the
iaoe O. winch tSpr25Sated tee have
with an industrious lot Of bees flying
around it. This picture. in conjunc-
tion with the presence of bits of honey
comb and dead bees in the bottle, Ger
tainly had a tendency to deceive the
purchaser into the belief that the
glucose contained in the bottle was
real honey. In this case the sample
was adulterated by substitution and
was also misbranded.
/ A sample of cottonseed oil was
/ sold as 'salad oil. " Now cottonseed
oil is one of several vegetable oils
that are used for salad purposes,
hence the sample could not be classed
as aduterated; but on the label was
an olive branch bearing leaves and
olives. This was a case of misbrand-
ng because the label bore a device
which was misleading.
A sample of imitation maple syrup
was sold simply as "syrup," but on
the label was a picture representing
the boiling of maple sap in the midst
of a forest of maple trees. This article
was misbranded because the label
carried a device which was intended
to mislead and deceive the purchaser
A sample of baking powder was
sold under the brand Grape" and
on the label was pictured a bunch of
grapes. No direct claim as to the
character of the baking powder was
made. but the name Of the brand and
the label both suggested the source
of cream of tartar and thus caused the
purchaser to believe that it was a
cream of tartar baking powder when
such was not the case. Hence, the
sample was misbranded and therefore
illegal.
A certain brand of "olive oil" sold
extensively at one time, was in reality
cottonseed oil put up in this country,
but its label, which was in the French
language. bore the name and ad-
dreess of a purely fictitious French
manufacturer. This was misbranded
because it purported to come from a
foreign counry when it did not,
A brand of "gluten flour" was re-
commended on the package was espe-
ciallly suited to the use Of persons
afflicted with diabetes, because of its
low starch an consequently high
gluten contents. Examination showed
it to be practically nothing but ordi-
nary whole wheat flour, and no more
suitable for the use of diabetes than
ordianry wheat flour. This same de-
ceptive statement was formerly on
every package of a very popular
cereal breakfast food, but now does
not appear. Such deception as this is
most reprehensible and cannot be too
strongely condemned. Diabetes are
very properly advised to use gluten
-four, but most of the gluten fours on
the market are lite better than ordi-
nary -four and are not etitled to the
Continued TO page q.