The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-08-24
~ reno az rHE ~ RE room Law.

/ MAsHINgroN. Aug n The act com
monty known A. tho purr food Law. ap
proved June ~. tgS. was entitled An ac'
4 tpr preventing tho manufacture. SAX, ~
Transformation It adultnrat.si or rnia
hrtnd~i ur pnispnniIS or delsterious foods
d-'Ig-, medicines and liquors and for reRu
Lifting ~" tuafiic therein 4 question nj
"n~' arus" regarding tho results 10 the
usr - certain chemicals ss preserving
agents One ~ III" Substances commonly
u-''d Tor that rTrp---a - henzoate 1T -nts
. Ia" law provided that examinations ri
specimens 10 fnrds and drugs should ~
made by tho hurrdu - chemistry oI
III" department ~ Agriculture. and the
machinery of that bureau was employed
m a series Il practical studies of the
effects II lpnznatc of so-ln on the human
system.
Asa result of th"cVTcriments the bureau
very d"Cid"iIy pat l-.nloatc II -oda IN
ia" dcl.t.rious class Immediately there
cam" a roar NJ protest from Gamers and
plckl"rs Who declared that their business
would ~ ruined II was asserted that
many million, 1t dollars were at stake.
that th" canning industry and the pickling
industry would h- destroyed. that the
farmers woIld !nSe an important and val
unhle market for their products. and that
Cunsumrrs would he deprived 81 many Of
their table supplies.
The then President. instead 81 sta ndin &
loyalty 10y the legally constituted official
bureau. which many thought his only
proper course caused the appointment OF
the special commission that camc TO be
known IA the Rensen hoard. After q
series 81 moro or less elaborate tests. this
referee bnard submitted a report ex-
pressing a view contrary To that Of the
official bureau. The official chemists were
overriddon 10y a departmental order. with
the approval 81 tho President. and on
the lasis Il tho finding ~ the referee
board the usa of benzoate % soda was
officially recognized and permitted. The
question has now reappeared this time
in the Federal courts.
Some six years ago the State ~ Indiana
placed on its statute books a law prohibit
ing the manufacture and sale ~ articles
~ food in which -deleterious preserva-
tlVes' are used. and constituting the State
Board " Health tho authority in the de-
termination of what in and what In not
-dsleteriuus By the decision ~ that
body hanInato 81 soda went into the pro-
hluited group and the doors were closed 10
the sale II fnodstuffs in which IL IL used
a. a preserving agent. This interfered
with the ~ 10 II merrha ndse manufactured
IN other States and sold 10 dealers in In
diana. Producers ~ canned goods and
pickles IN Rochester y Y. and Detroit.
Mich brought suit against tho State n
Indiana and some 81 its officials. asking
Al e tVatN lion
restraining tho State authorities from
preventing the sale of their mercha ndise
~ Indiana 90 the right ~ that state IN
prohibit IN" sale ~ a deleterious sub
~'1noe there can H. no morr question than
tIe-r - - Its right 20 prohibit the sale
u intoxicating liquors The question il
whether hcn1nate II soda IL properly
Ci1S.Hd a. q daleterious substance II
II - ny pr'rr-lv 80 ciass.ad. the sale 81
fo'dstvfs in which II IL used ~ not prn-
h.ri'"d by stat" law. and the Gamers and
pi"k.Hr- = Indiana and other States may
1850 o. 90 merchandise for sale To IN" In
dllninr~ b. frr'Iv - th"v might u>a salt
IN meats n- sugar loo preserves
~ part .t 're legal proceedings the
Attorney General ~ Indiana - now in
Washington taking testimony for presen-
uiI'n "a Tho trial in the Federal court in
Indiana no has made complaint Of I'M
far treatment by the Depa n ncnt of Agri-
culture. asserting that in obtaining the
testimony u tho referee board that de-
Cii"t IN favor ~ tho us~ - hen1oate oi
soda u" had the approval and the cooper
at.'n - III" department. while he has en-
CpuntcTcd obstacles IN tho DEPARTMENT
m his ofprts ~ s.cur" the testimony ~
pr Wiley and his assistants who were
and sil.l an" strongly opposed 10 the use
- that chemical a. preserving agent
His ch1rg" u p:'icial partlahtv appea ~
- ~ fairly supported. hut he ~ getting
what he wanted. and ~ may be supposed
that the experts " the official bureau are
not aN"rs-' o. giving support 20 the posi- /
tIon taken earlier Nv them
II the decision Il tho Federal court In |
lndi1nt SUPPORTS tho opinion of the Rem |
sol boart IN. result will doubtless ba the |
issuance Of Q Federal Injunction over
ridi1E q SCT' law and the Interpretation |
~ thu' INV hv the state officials Pre- ]
-GTulhiv. the Sta'a would carry its case /
20 o. higher courts II tho decision shall |
- IN acyprtanCa with 'he experience and /
view ~ IN" experts ~ the bureau ~ chem
isirv II the Department ~ Agriculture
the accepted opinion ~ tho Remsen hoard /
would - ~ disCrciIied as TO make its
reloc'i'n almost q necessity