Opinion ID: 2597548
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The emergence of state pure food and labeling statutes

Text: During the latter half of the 19th century, awareness gradually increased throughout the nation concerning a combination of related problems in the supply of food and beverages. Some food and beverage products were mere imitations or dilutions of what they purported to be; other products, subject to spoilage, were adulterated by a soaring employment of chemical preservatives. (Young, Pure Food (1989), p. 126.) Many of these preservatives  such as salicylic acid, employed as a preservative in wine ( id., at p. 105)  were used in excessive quantities dangerous to health. ( Id., at pp. 110, 112, 126.) As a result, it was found that more than 73 per cent of the milk in Buffalo [New York] was watered, 69 of 171 samples of ground coffee collected in New York were adulterated, 71 percent of the olive oils examined in New York and Massachusetts were mixed with cotton seed oil which had been shipped from the United States and returned as `olive oil' [, and] [f]orty-six percent of candy samples collected in Boston contained mineral pigments, chiefly lead chromate. (Hart, A History of the Adulteration of Food Before 1906 (1952) 7 Food Drug Cosmetic L.J. 5, 21); see also McCumber, The Alarming Adulteration of Food and Drugs (Jan. 5, 1905) The Independent, 28, 29-31 [listing common adulterations of various products].) Wines too were subject to abuses. Some were made from cheap substances and then doctored up. (Regier, The Struggle for Federal Food and Drugs Legislation (1933) 1 Law & Contemp. Probs. 3, 8.) Others were mislabeled as to place of origin. (Carosso, The California Wine Industry: A Study of the Formative Years (1951), p. 25 (California Wine Industry); see also Fanshawe, Liquor Legislation in the United States and Canada (1892), p. 308.) In response to the general threat to the food and beverage supply, many if not most states exercised their traditional police powers to regulate generally the marketing of impure or deceptively labeled foods and beverages. (See, e.g., Dig. of Pure Food and Drug Laws, Sen. Rep. No. 3, 57th Cong., 1st Sess. (1901).) [14] The vast majority of the resulting general pure food statutes broadly covered liquors and wines, as well as the mislabeling of those products. For example, in 1879 Wisconsin enacted a general pure food, drugs, and liquors statute, making it illegal to manufacture or sell any food (defined to include drink), accompanied by any label, mark or device whatever, so as and with intent to mislead or deceive as to the true name, nature, kind and quality thereof . . . . (1879 Wis. Laws, ch. 248, § 3, p. 502.) A similar labeling law was enacted in North Dakota. (1903 N.D. Laws, ch. 6, §§ 1-2, pp. 9-10; 1905 N.D. Laws, ch. 11, §§ 1-2, pp. 19-20.) An Ohio statute, enacted in 1884, made it illegal to manufacture or sell any food (defined to include drink) if by any means it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is, or if it contained any impure substance not distinctly labeled as such. (1884 Ohio Laws, § 3, p. 67; 1890 Ohio Laws, § 3, p. 248.) Substantially similar labeling statutes were enacted in Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington. (1899 Ind. Acts, ch. 121, § 1, pp. 189-190; 1882 Mass. Acts, ch. 263, §§ 1-3, pp. 206-207; 1895 Mich. Pub. Acts, No. 193, § 3, p. 358; 1895 Pa. Laws, No. 233, § 3, p. 317; 1899 Wash. Laws, ch. 113, §§ 1-3, pp. 183-184.) A Maryland statute, enacted in 1890, required that food or drink be so manufactured . . . or sold, or offered for sale under its true and appropriate name and required that the purchaser be fully informed by the seller of the true name and ingredients . . . of such article of food or drink . . . . (1890 Md. Laws, ch. 604, § 1, p. 733.) Similar laws were enacted in Connecticut, North Carolina, and Tennessee. (1895 Conn. Pub. Acts, ch. 235, §§ 1, 2, p. 578; 1895 N.C. Sess. Laws, ch. 122, §§ 1, 2, 5, pp. 176-178; 1897 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 45, §§ 1, 4, pp. 177-178.) Finally, a New York statute (1893 N.Y. Laws, ch. 338), subsequently amended in 1903 and 1905, prohibited adulterated or misbranded food. The statute defined as misbranded  and illegal  any food or beverage package . . . or label that bore any statement regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which statement [is] false or misleading in any particular, or if the same is falsely branded as to the state or territory in which it is manufactured or produced . . . . (1903 N.Y. Laws, ch. 524, § 1, p. 1192, italics added; 1905 N.Y. Laws, ch. 100, § 1, p. 141.) A substantially identical labeling law was enacted in South Dakota. (1905 S.D. Laws, ch. 114, §§ 6, 8 & 10, pp. 162-163.) [15]