The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1914-11-26
PROF. LADD HAS EN- GOING
AGAIN.

The Independent is in receipt Of a
copy of an article which appeared in
the Nov. 18th issue Of the New York
Produce Review and after carefully
reading it, we are inclined to think
that the poultry dealers of the east
are considerably exercised over the
ruling of Prof. Ladd, North Dakota s
pure food commissioner, who declares
that undrawn poultry cannot be legal
ly sold in this state. We don't know
much about the poultry business but
we believe that Prof. Ladd knows
what he is talking about. 1t stands to
reason that the flavor Of poultry will
not be improved by the presence of
the intestines. We give below the ar
ticle in question, which is very clever
ly written and our readers may take it
for what it is worth:
According to ar article in the
Butchers Advocate, the food commits
sioner of North Dakota has declared
that undrawn poultry cannot be legal
ly sold in that state-not because of
any specific law against it, but because
of supposed effect of the net weight
and the pure food law. A law provides
that "all weight shall be net, excluding
the wrapper or container;" and the
food law declares food to be adulter-
ated "if it consists wholly or in part
of diseased, decomposed, filthy or put
q nj oo] atoH1 IL ,h,%o
And the commissioner declares that
'swhen poultry is weighed and sold
with the intestines and crop removed,
it consists in part of a decomposed,
filthy or putrid substance" also that
"the weighing of poultry without first
drawing. removing the contents of the
crop and the head, cannot be consid-
cred net weight"
On this remarkable basis a dealer
is said to have been fined for selling
undrawn poultry, 1t seems astounding
that such Interpretation of law could
be upheld in any court. Misguided at
tempts to prevent the sale of undrawn
poultry by specific laws have been
made at intervals for same years past;
whenever they have received any i'm.
partial consideration, and any ade.
quate investigation of the facts has
been made, they have failed. The re.
searches of the United States Depart.
ment of Agriculture have fully veri.
fled and explained the scientific rea.
sons for the empirical knowledge OF
market men that undrawn poultry
keeps better and is far less subject to
contamination that drawn poultry
There is no more reason for regarding
the intestines and crop of sound poul.
try, properly handled and kept from
food before killing. as being filthy
than for so regarding the liver anc
heart. which are commonly eaten. The
fact that the intestines are not eater
does not make them "filthy"-cer.
tainly not decomposed or putrid. 1r
fact, sausages are not regarded as
filthy because encased in sacks made
of intestines. Furthermore, the pure
food law is general in it's application
and if the North Dakota commissioner
were right in his decision, he would
have to apply his ruling to all sales OF
Poultry. The farmers would have tc
kill and draw the poultry before sell
ing (which would be seriously de.
structive of the quality of the product
To say that the weight of an un.
drawn fowl is not it's net weight be.
cause part is commonly thrown away
in practice, is certainly an absurdity
Why not insist upon the removal Of
the bones also? Must we peel pota-
toes before selling them? And take the
shells from eggs? And does the com.
missioner imagine that a dealer car
sell drawn poultry at the same price
per pound as undrawn? Even the
head of chicken is food for cat.