Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-05-20
SUPREME COURT ASKED TO RE.
VERSE RULING AS TO
ADULTERANTS
GOVERNMENT FILES PLEA
ASKING FOR REVISION
Attorney Gene raj McReynolds Points to
Danger of Combined Effect Of Linn
tied Amount Of Poison in Various
Articles of Food-History of the
Case.

Washington, May 20.-The question
whether food manufacturers can add
adulterants and poisons to food pro-
ducts at will so long as it can not posi-
lively be shown that the effect on the
human system is injurious, is directly
raised before the supreme court of the
United States in the case OF the United
States. petitioner VS.. the Lexington
Mill ard Elevator Company, claimant,
respondent.
on the decision in this case, pro-
viding the supreme court reviews IT,,
as it has been asked TO 90 by Attorne.
General McReynolds, depends the life
and effectiveness of the pure food ana
drug act.
If the contentious of the manufac-
turers are upheld, then the public. the
consumer of food and drugs, is put in
the position Of having the burden or
proof thrown upon it 10 show that
given quantity of poisonous material
added to an article makes it percept-
IDLY injurious to health. The danger
Gus nature of the doctrine that he
public must prove such injury is too
apparent to need discussion.
The Question Involved.
The case involving this question Is
before Tho supreme court on petition
filed by the attorney general asking u
writ OF certiorari TO review the 1uds-
ment Of the circuit court OF Appeals
for the Eight circuit. That court held
gainst the public. The question in
volved. as stated by the attorney gem
eral is this:
.Wnether The food and drugs act
prohibits the addition of any poison
Gus ingredient in any quantity what
ever to an article of food, or whether
poison may be added to an article OF
food in the discretion of manufac-
turers If the quantity added in any one
article of food is so small that 1t can
no; he positively demonstrated that
the particular article of food may be
injurious to- health"
The answer depends on the con-
straction of that par, Of tie FOOD ana
drugs act which Saws a food article
si.s..l be deemed aduiTeratc1 IF it con-
tain any added poisonous or other
acGed deletcrious ingredient which
may render such articles Injuries 10
h. Attn"
While this case does no, directly in
yolve purity in drugs. 1T Is patent mat
IL the bars are to be let down III re-
srect to foods. those re;ating to drugs
vii, so eventually be dropped.
History Of Case.
The facts in the pending case are
these:
The libel was filed in the district
court for the western district of Mis-
souri, to condemn -four. adulterated and
naisbranded. The lower court sustained
the govern ment The court of appeals
reversed the lower court.
The -four was bieached by electricity.
the Alsop process. and the libel
charged that the Hour was caused
TO contain added poisonous and other
added deleterious ingredients winch
NAV render the same injurious TO
health. to-wit. nitrites or nitric react
ing material. nitrogen. peroxide gas
nitrous acid. nitric acid and other pol
sonous and deleterious ingredients ana
substances.
The trial court held that the statute
forbade the addition of any poison to
am article of food, even tho the guam
titv be minute and the resulting in
iurv 10 health from the particular ar
ticle of food be incapable of measure
ment.
The court OF appeals, in reversing the
case and ordering new trial. took the
opposite view, and held that the poi
sonous ingredient must be added IN
such quantity that the jury must find
that there is possibility of injury to
health due to the added ingredient and
in the quantity in which ii is added
Where Would II Stop?
The government contends the con
s.ruction by the court of appeals is
exceedingly dangerous" to the public
II contends that the statute forblds
all nelson's artifcially ADDED and that
if the manufacturers can use poisons as
| the court of appeals would permit, con-
sidaring the large number of articles
ordinarily used by an individual IN a
dsr, there is grave danger OF whole
sale poisoning.
! II Is contended by the government
| that many articles of food now con-
| tain poisops injurious N themselves oa'
! in such small quantities IT is impos'
| sihle to trace specific injury.
| els there no protection from such
] foo6s?' asks the attorney general in
! his3petitlon. For instance, is the ven
! dor. of milk, which contains tornado
/ hyde. to be punished If the consumer
! is made sick by drinking it,?
| Accumulation of Poisons.
| The attorney general adds:
IF minute quantities of nitrites mas
be added to -four. of borfc acid to eggs
Of cron,ate of lead to the coffee bean
| OF sulpfate of copper to peas. Of arsenic
! or lead TO baking powder. of Bartius
yellow 20 macaroni. of wood alcohol &c
| favor,ng extracts, so long as IL is not
! provable that enough In each case mas
been added to possibly injure the
/ health of some one. then the statute
is incapable Of enforcement.
Again. some of these poisons, as
i arsenic accumulate in the system, am
a person may ultimately be seriousl,
! poisoned: but there is no remedy. be-
cause it can not be said that enough
poison was contained in one article
eaten at one time to cause injury.