The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1917, 1914-07-28
COURTS DECISION CLARIFIES
PURE FOOD LAZY

tONht - lHtVG
PURE FOOD LAW
On June IL. 1914. the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals. sitting at
Cincinnati In the Sixth Federal Dis
trict. randed down a decisision con-
firming the judgment OF the lower
court in the Coca Cola case. The case
was originally brought before Judge
Sanford of the District court of the
United States for the eastern district
! OF Tennessee on March l3, 1911 and
, was tried Mt great length before n jury
at Chnttan egg, Tenn. a score oe
scientists, Including the nose minent
chemists, pharmacologists and ply
, sicians Of America. testified as expert
| witnesses. At the conclusion of the
! trial the government withdrew all the
f, charges except two and on these two
the Court instructed the jury to return
verdict in favor OF The Coca Cola
Cola Company
The case WAS then appealed. and
/ the recent decision OF the Circuit
Court Of Appeals at Cincinnati, con-
firming the judgment of the Lower
Court, sustains the claim Of The Coca
Oclai Company that its product Is
neither adulterated nor misbranded
within the meaning of the Pure Food
Act.
The following quotation from the
official court record will prove inter-
esting alike to the manufacturers and
consumers OF food products as 1t gives
a. clear exposition of one of the most
important sections OF the Pure Food
Lawfl and ais defines the character
OF Coca Cola, the popular soda foun-
tain beverage.
It reads as follows
There Is middle view, which is
sufficient for the purposes Of this
case and which will recognize the
composite meaning Of added dele
terious" rather than the separate
me nning OF each word. This view is
that In using the word added" with
refrnece to possibly deleterious food
ingredient. Congress had in mind an
addition above and beyond the guam
tity In which such ingredient was
normally found in usual and customry
articles of food. and that no such in
| gredient should be considered as
added" II 1t was present only In tho
quantity & which & eS:sted In THESE
common articles OF food with which
every member OF Congress was fami-
liar, and which had generally been
thought wholesome. Fro example: {:
| Creosote and other pOducts of de-
structive wood distillation are, inde-
pendently considered Injurious. but
they have always been present In
smoked hams. Can tho addition Of
the same preservatives to the same
extent to the same meat be something
that Congress intended to prohibit
The borIc acid, found in apples, ia
o preservative. II certain apples
which are to be preserved are not up
to tho maximum In this element. did
Congress intend to forbid supplying
the deficiency by the same element
from another source? Acetic acid
may. Of course. bo injuriou5. but II
by Its use. an artificial vinegar is
made which is chemically and In ev.
cry way equivalent to the natural
vinegar familiar to the members oi
Congress in many compounds, would
they have thought OF It as dele
tarious addition? No example isl &c
clear as the very one here involved
Every member OF congress had fount
familiar, from childhood. with tea AMI
coffee; perhaps most of them drank
It. The average cup OF coffee contains
more than two grains of caffeine;
the average cup OF tea. one and Q
sa;; grains. a s.ass os Coca Cola
los consumed contains one and one
fifth grains of caffeine. The che.
icel qualities and the physiological
effects of the caffeine which is II
the tea or coffee and OF the caffien,
which is in the Coca Cola are pre-
cisely the same. We are quite con
WINGED that the usa in an artificial
: beverage Of certain elemenet which
:had been one OF its characteristic ele
, ments FOR many years. and when suci
use was nj q less proportion than tn,
i same element was known to make ul
, Z in different natural beverages than II
universal use and generally though
/. | wholesome that such an element Q,
, employed could not have been <withil
{ the meaning OF Congress WIN It chos,
the words added .deleterious ingse
II fifaut1 - = ,.j.A s,,s q s =, !.