Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-07-23

While a great deal of publicity has
been given to the pure food law resu-
lations, and many of the more import
ant cases which have been decided
under them have been written up at
some length, yet it is doubtful whether
the public generally is well informed
"A to the manner in which the law mas
worked out and the direct and imme-
Atate benefits which have resulted to
the consumer from it's enforcement
Rv direct benefits is meant the erect
Of the judgments obtained in Specihc
cases of interstate shipments-the only
ones to which the pure food law Is APP
plicable-in the Supreme Court OF the
District of Columbia and the various
United states district courts before
which criminal information was Iaid,
with reference to the subject matter
directly involved and without regard
TO the future deterrent results OF the
Judgments.
cases brought before them as result
of the activities Of the board OF food
and drug inspection are publlshed py
the government in a series OF pamph-
lets issued by the Department OF Agri-
culture pursuant TO section 4 OF the
pure food and drug law. as Notices OF
Judgment" The board is composed
of Dr. Harvey w. Wiley. chief chemist;
Frederick r., Dunlap. associate chem
list. and George p. McCabe. solicitor
The first of these pamphlets was Is
sued on May ., 1908, the judgment winch
covered a case of misbranding or apple
cider 10 which sugar had been added TO
increa g the alcoholic content, being rem
dered on April 90, 1905. No. SOi. which
ordered the destruction OF tomato paste
as putrid, filthy and decomposed and UNI
ii. for human consumption, Is dated 'ay
d 1911 and was issued June Is, 1911.
That is the board of food and drug IN
spection has in the short space OF three
years and twenty-seven days presented 10
the courts 500 distinct cases.
As N eh have zen expected, there
were more eases OF adulteration than of
any other cffense, 401 matters OF this ma
ture having come up. Misbrandng by the
use OF false statements as to the &C ntentS
or effect OF the article, particularly IN the
case OF drug products and preparations,
was the cause OF complaint In Zi5 IN
stances: m!shranding as TO the quality OF
the goods occupied the attention OF the
board $50 times: misbranding as to the
place of manufacture CT origin of the az
ticle was the least common, occurring
only fifty-siX times In the entire list, and
there were seventy-five cases Of shortage
in quantity.
Speaking generally. the courts imposed
400 fines, amounting in the aggregate to
81, 296ol, and ranging from $500 Tor
so-cal1ed headache cure" which was
both misbranded and ,adaIterated, to
fine of I cent as penalty for shortage
in weight of two dozen cans of peas. In
addition to the two fines mentioned. the e
were three of 500 each. sixteen of 500
one OF S1S5. ei h OF $3.50 three of $l2o,
nfty-seven OF 800. four of So and six of
81 each, the balance ranging from 50 to
SIS, the greater number being fines OF $40
or sos. Costs were assessed in every
instance Of the 1.2oS. and the amount
ranged apparently from Sill upward but
II is given in SO few instances that the
total cannot even be estimated
But il is when one comes to examine
the individual eases aud groups of cases
AFFECTING the same food OF drug product