The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-02-02

Whereupon the saccharin advertis-
ers say: Use saccharin to sweeten,
and do not hesitate to declare its
presence on the label Such decoration
full"
Could effrontery go further? BY all
means, DO not hesitate" to declare II
on the label IL the goods 60 into inter-
state commerce-otherwise@ you may
be fined or sent to jail.
That is how the warning should
read under the federal decision.
These remarkable statements are
based on Missouri decision, which
in reality decided that the law could
not prohibit the presence of an in
gredient unless IL were proven to be
injurious in the amounts in which 1t
was present; and, secondly. that the
particular law at issue was uncon-
stttuttonal, because 1t was call leRis-
lation, and prohibited the use OF sac
charm in one class of products only,
l.. e., soft drinks. and was therefore
discriminatory.
On which slender foundation the
saccharin manufacturers have erect
ed a brave edifice proving the superb
sweetener, and its healthfulness and
economy! ="
Better fortune attended the recent
test case tried in New York city
against the Excelsior Bottling Works.
BY vote OF to / the special ses-
sions justices sustained the ordinance
OF the board of health and decided
that the prohibition of saccharin in
food products was constitutional. "The
lowering Of quality by substituting a
material of no food value for one Of
high value is the foundation for this
decision in the interests Of preventing
imposition and fraud.
1t is to be noted that while the
point Of injuriousness is not present,
neither is 1t denied. Judge Russell
says: Although as an ingredient Of
food 1t may not be deleterious, the
possibility remains and the law pro-
hibits the use Of a food as injurious
If ut contains any ingredients that
may render such article Of food in
| furious to health"
The law does not require that the
poisonous ingredient shall in all cases
and under all conditions be injurious
the possibility of harm is enough to
exclude 1t.
It was cleverly urged that saccharin
is used only for its continental value,
and. therefore the question Of food
value is not pertinent. But 1t must
| be remembered that the natural con-
diments, such as salt and pepper have
also distinct functions in the body, the
salt being necessary to digestion, and
the pepper being a stomachic-where-
as the saccharin plays no part what
ever in the body economy
| And furthermore. it is substituted
for a product not exclusively condi-
mental, sugar having both flavor and
food value. If we substituted salt or
pepper in a product for one of the
food elements 1t would also be OBJ
tectionable, although to less degree
than in the case of saccharin.
Those Who Need Protection.
One especially cheering feature Of
Judge RusseIls opinion is this state
ment: Nor will a suitable label af-
ford a sufficient protection to the pub
lie against fraud. The bland and IL
literate are entitled to the full pro-
lection of the law"
This is a master stroke!
The poor might also be included;
they are usually the same as the illit-
crate, and they get the cheap adulter-
ated products Of this kind every time,
and are. the least able to protect
themselves from the imposition or to
support the loss in food value.
Our food law is becoming only a
misbranding and labelling act. Any
thing goes-if only it Is mentioned on
the LABEL
The New York case, while most en-
couraging after the Missouri decision,
will probably be appealed. The end is
not yet, and eternal vigilance only
can bring complete defeat when such
marked economic advantage. Ito the
organized general welfare"
When the Camel Saccharin gets it's
nose in the Pure Food Tent it won't
be long before Good Old Sugar will
be sitting in the road outside.
Just now the Germans aren't furn-
fishing the world with sweets-and
you can't get saccharin at profitable
prices; but when the Teutons go back
to their normal pursuits-if in the
meantime legal liberation is obtained
for saccharin under cover of a small |
type declaration on label Chat most
consumers never see)-then watch
developments!
Not only the sodas and ginger ales
and canned corn and preserves and
candies (the two last named could
then be made up for the absent sweet
ness), but any and all foods calling
for sugar, could legally contain in
stead this coal tar product, admitted
ly guiltless of any food value and ad-
mittedly dangerous to health l you
get over a certain amount
Beware The Cheap Substitute.
Only zone hundredth of i per cent"
in your ginger ale. 1t takes a small |
man to bubble over that, doesn't it? |
But-suppose you make up the Gin
jurious'' amount from other sources? |
And, supposing you are not injured |
at all, are you interested in saving a |
thousand year to the food manufac- |
turers by cutting down the quality |
and food value Of these several foods?
About 80 have been known to contain |
saccharin. Debasing quality by the
substitution of non food material for
true foods is one Of the most insidious
forms of food adulteration.
We don't hear anything Of reducing
the price Of foods in which this cheap
err artificial sweetener is placed. Nor
shall we hear of it!
Truth to tell, we don't believe that
even the average food manufacturer,
or the Gamers and others who have
ideals for their trades and pride in
their output, would use this gubsti-
tute any more than they use benzoate
of soda because they can. but they
might be forced by unfair competi-
ton to do so if short sighted policy
localized this specious fraud. just as
millers are forced bv unfair competi-
ton into bleaching fN'r.
Don't help to make this possible by
failing to read labels and to turn
down products substituting saccharin
for sugar!
It's the housekeeper's responsibility
to back up pure food PRINCIPLES by her
i - -