The Washington times., 1911-08-24
THE TERRoRS OF IMPURE
FooDLAW ADMINISTRATION

FOOD LAW ADMlNlSI SIKAI1ON
Under the domination of the amiabl
McCabe, it surely must be referred I
as the impure food law. It is the mos
humorous enactment on the statut
books; standing joke, by-word an
an absurdity.
We are just in receipt of q batch o
Notices of Judgment under the foo'
and drugs act, which illustrates wha
is the matter with that excellent piec'
of legislation since Mr.. McCabe became
its guardian. Here is one case,
Analysis Of samples Of this produc
(tomato catsup) showed the first lot Il
contain yeast and spores So per one
stxueth centimeter; bacteria, 1900, ,0o'
per centimeter; mold filaments In 50 pei
cent of the fields -
The second lot was rather worse
there were l5O,oo0yO00 bacteria pei
centimeter in it, which is some bac.
terra. In conclusion, the statement
says:
Adulteration was therefore charged
because the product contained a filthy
decomposed, and putrid animal and
vegetable substance.
A filthy, decomposed, and putrid'
animal and vegetable substance! You
might expect, in view of the severe
penalties of the food law, that some
thing right disagreeable would be done
to the people purveying that sort OF
a product to the public. What did
they dot =
Read the conclusion of the matter:
On January q, 1911, the court de-
creed the destruction Of the merchandise
in question.
That's all. Anybody finedr Hardly.
Anybody locked upf Not seriously.
The merchandise was ordered destroy
ed. That's all
The manufacturer could go ahead
and make more of it-"flthy, decom-
posed, and putrid"-and if it didn't
happen to get seized, he could sell it
W Iue peOpIe 10 eat.
The notice doesn't state whether
there was benzoate of soda in that
catsup. We would like to know. Ben
zoate of soda is alleged to be used to
disguise and embalm "filthy, decom-
posed, and putrid animal and vegetable
substances.' Was it used in this case
The notice is No. l,OO6. Perhaps the
Department of Agriculture can say
whether there was benzoate in it.
Here is a particularly edifying case.
'Humbug Oil" was the name under
which a preparation was sold, guaran-
teed to cure the most virulent cases of
diphtheria The food authorities ex-
amined it, and found that there was
nothing in it that would have any
effect at all in virulent cases of diph-
iberia. Its makers had been honest
in the name, at least; they called it
"Humbug Oil,'' and it was just that.
But it was guaranteed" under the
food and drug act, "to cure the most
virulent cases of diphtheria." Now,
thousands and tens of thousands of
people die annually of diphtheria. Chill
dren, defenseless and innocent, are
doped with whatever may be handed to
their parents from the drug store
shelves. Guaranteed to cure the most
virulent cases."
Who can guess how many lives
might be sacrificed in order that "Hum-
bug Oil" might make some genuine
profits to the humbuggers who made
and sold 1t!
1t strikes an average citizen as a
peculiarly wicked outrage. This prep
aration was utterly without merit. It
was valueless. You might as well have
your money into the sewer and
bought absent treatment over the long
distance telephone for your sick baby.
1t was an imposition on the credulity
of parents, an indirect method of muir
dering the babies. Surely, a severe
penalty should be invoked for such a
case.
And what happenedf
THE COURT IMPOSED A FINE OF
IS!
That under the McCabe administra-
ton of the food and drug act.
1t is hard to find language with
which sufficiently to condemn such
of law that ought to be
saving the babies.
These are two sample cases out of
/ long list. Is the pure food act to be
eviscerated, destroyed, by
such enforcement as thisf