provisions of the act of March 3, 1903, to which you refer, the
jurisdiction and power of your Department, and that of the Treasury
Department, in respect of the matter here considered, end with the
delivery of the imported article from the custom-house to the owner or
consignee, and this provision of the act confers no power to prevent
or punish the false labeling or branding of such imported articles
after such delivery to the owner or consignee. The whole power there
conferred in this respect is to examine such imported articles before
such delivery, and to refuse delivery if found to come within the ban
of the act. Whatever power there may be to prevent or punish the false
labeling or branding of such imported goods after such delivery must be
looked for elsewhere.
If the evils of false labeling of such imported articles have reached
a magnitude requiring Congressional legislation, it would seem almost,
or quite, as important to prevent such false labeling after the
articles have passed the custom-house as before; and it would seem that
Congress, while having the matter directly in hand, has omitted what
would have been very appropriate legislation. But this omission cannot
be supplied by those called upon to interpret or administer the law.
But I think the act of July 1, 1902, may be resorted to for partial
relief from the evil to which you refer. The first section provides:
That no person ... shall introduce into any State or Territory of the
United States or the District of Columbia, from any other State or
Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, or sell
in the District of Columbia or in any Territory, any dairy or food
products which shall be falsely labeled or branded as to the State
or Territory in which they are made, produced, or grown, or cause or
procure the same to be done by others.
The second section provides the penalty for violation of the act.
The prohibition is of the introduction into any State or Territory
or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, and the sale in said District or any Territory,
of dairy or food products which are “falsely branded or labeled as to
the State or Territory in which they are made, produced, or grown.”
It is important to notice that the prohibition extends to falsely
labeled articles introduced or brought from another State or Territory,
and is not confined to articles which are made, produced, or grown
in some other State or Territory of the United States. If dairy or
food products which are falsely labeled or branded as to the State or
Territory of their origin are introduced or brought into one State or
Territory or the District of Columbia from another State or Territory
or the District of Columbia, or are sold in any Territory or said
District, this is clearly within the prohibition of the act, no matter
whether such articles were of domestic or foreign origin. I repeat
the section does not confine or purport to confine its prohibition to
the introduction of falsely labeled articles made, grown, or produced
in this country, but extends it to all such articles introduced from
another State or Territory which are falsely labeled “as to the State
or Territory in which they are made, produced, or grown.”
But, as I have stated above, the act can give only partial relief.
For it is plain from the context that the words “State or Territory”
refer to a State or Territory of the United States, and can not be
extended to include the wider signification of foreign country. Thus,
if articles of foreign origin are imported into New York, for example,
and thence introduced into another State or Territory with a label or
brand falsely stating their origin as to another foreign country, the
case would not fall within the provisions of the statute. On the other
hand, it is certain that if foreign articles imported into New York
are introduced into another State or Territory with a label or brand
showing them to be of New York make or growth, such articles would be
“falsely labeled or branded as to the State or Territory in which they
are made, produced, or grown,” and such introduction would be within
both the letter and the spirit and purpose of the act.
In this respect Congress can interfere only with interstate trade. It
can prevent the use of false labels of dairy or food products only
when they become objects of commerce between different States or
Territories. Hence, the prohibition is confined to articles introduced
from one State or Territory into another. But this does not imply,
nor is there anything to imply, that the prohibition is confined also
to articles made, produced, or grown in the State or Territory from
which they are introduced, or to articles of domestic origin. It is the
use of false labels on dairy and food products in interstate commerce
which is prohibited. And if it is interstate commerce, it is quite
unimportant whether the articles falsely labeled were of domestic or
foreign origin. If an imported article of foreign origin is labeled as
of domestic origin, the article is “falsely labeled or branded as to
the State or Territory in which it is made, produced, or grown;” and
if such article, thus falsely labeled, is introduced from one State or
Territory into another or the District of Columbia, it is a violation
of the act. Nor does it make any difference in this respect whether the
false label or brand be placed on the article before or after leaving
the custom-house in a case of foreign importation.
If it were required, a familiar rule of construction might be invoked
in support of this interpretation. Statutes should be construed in aid
of their manifest purpose and object. And when it is considered that
the sole purpose of this act is to prevent the use of false labels or
brands of dairy or food products, when articles of interstate commerce,
it is manifest that a construction which limits the prohibition to
domestic articles would defeat rather than aid the purpose of the act.
Indeed, the greater and more prevalent evil in this respect is not
in falsely stating a particular State or Territory as the origin of
a domestic article, but is the labeling of a foreign article as the
product of some particular State or Territory, or vice versâ. This is
the more serious and prevalent evil, and in my opinion is as certainly
forbidden by the act referred to as is the labeling of an article of
one State or Territory as being the product of another.
I am, therefore, of opinion that the act of July 1, 1902, applies not
only to domestic articles, but also to those imported from foreign
countries which are labeled as being of domestic origin.
Respectfully,
P. C. KNOX, _Attorney-General_.
(F. I. D. 3.)
NOTICE TO EXPORTERS OF WINES.
A RECENT LAW PASSED BY THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
_November, 1904._
The Argentine Republic has passed a new law relating to wines, and
especially covering the conditions under which wines are to be imported
into that country from foreign countries. There are many provisions of
the law which should be known to the producers and exporters of wines
from the United States. The full text of the new law of the Argentine
Republic is given below:
ARTICLE 1. Only those wines obtained by the fermentation of fresh
grapes, or simply _estacionado_, will be considered as natural wines
in the Argentine Republic.
ARTICLE 2. For the purpose of the present law and of its penal
dispositions the following will not be considered as natural wines:
1. Those manufactured with dried grapes.
2. Those manufactured with the cluster (bunch).
3. Those to which there shall have been added substances which,
though natural in natural wines, alter the composition of them or
modify the equilibrium of the substances composing a natural wine.
4. Red wines containing more than 3.5 percent or less than 2.4
percent of dry extract, the reducing sugar having been deducted. The
executive is empowered to authorize a lower limit to the minimum
below for bottled or dessert wines.
5. White wines containing less than 1.7 percent of dry extract, the
reducing sugar having been deducted, with the exception of fine wines
in bottles.
6. Mixtures of wines enumerated in the five preceding paragraphs with
natural wines.
ARTICLE 3. The following will be considered as lawful œnological
practices:
For musts: The addition of saccharose (sugar), of concentrated must,
of citric, malic, tartaric, and sulfurous acids, pure and neutralized
by pure potassium and calcium carbonates.
For wines: The addition of citric, tartaric, malic, tannic, and
carbonic acids, of potassium and calcium carbonate, of neutral
potassium tartrate, of sulfites of sodium and calcium, and of pure
sulfurous anhydrids.
Pure kaolin and pure albumens and gelatins may be employed in the
clarification of wines.
ARTICLE 4. It is absolutely forbidden to add to the wine or to sell
as such--
1. Liquids containing foreign coloring matters, glucose from starch,
mineral acids, saccharin and other artificial edulcorant matters,
_abrastol_, salicylic acid and others analogous thereto, salts of
aluminum, strontium, barium, lead, and, in general, all bodies not
normally existing in the musts of grapes.
2. Wines containing more than 2 grams of sulfate per liter. A larger
proportion will not be tolerated except for dessert wines.
3. Wines containing more than 0.2 percent of sodium chlorid.
4. Wines containing per liter more than 200 milligrams of sulfurous
acid and 20 milligrams of free sulfurous anhydrid.
5. Damaged wines or wines altered in consequence of disease may
not be sold nor made the object of commerce. These liquids shall
be distilled under supervision of agents of the Treasury or of the
national chemical laboratories, and only the alcohols resulting from
their distillation may be utilized.
ARTICLE 5. The executive is empowered to augment or modify the
authorized œnological corrections in conformity with the progress of
science and the local conditions. He is empowered to add, likewise,
to those specified in the present law other substances recognized as
injurious by their quantity or quality.
ARTICLE 6. The following treatments followed in the preparation of
fine wines are considered legal:
1. The mixture of several natural wines produced from different
classes of grapes or from different harvests.
2. Limited alcoholization in order to insure the preservation of wine.
3. The addition of concentrated must and of pure alcohol in order to
obtain special dessert wines.
4. The addition of saccharose (sugar), of alcohol, of aromatic and
bitter substances, in order to obtain wines whose composition is
similar to vermouth or medicinal wines.
5. The addition of anhydrous carbonic acid and sugar for the
preparation of sparkling wines. The alcoholization authorized by the
present law is for the purpose of insuring the preservation of wine.
The alcohol employed for this purpose and all other products, the
usage of which is authorized, must be chemically pure.
ARTICLE 7. The beverages enumerated in article 2 and all other
similar beverages shall bear the name of “artificial beverages,”
whatever be their nature or process of manufacture, with the
exception of sparkling wines, vermouth, medicinal wines, and cider.
ARTICLE 8. In case natural wines should contain a proportion of dry
extract inferior or superior to that indicated in paragraphs 4 and
5 of article 2, the source of this extract will be determined in
so far as it concerns the wine of the country by the analysis of
grapes serving for the manufacture of this wine, and in so far as it
concerns foreign wines by information based on official analytical
data and of origin.
. . . . . . . . . . .
ARTICLE 10. Beverages which do not comply with the conditions
determined by article 1 may not be imported, circulated, or offered
for sale as natural wines, and must bear upon a part visible to
the recipient the indication of the classification to which they
correspond according to article 7 above.
ARTICLE 11. Foreign wines which shall be imported into the territory
of Argentine for consumption must be sold in the original casks
showing their origin, or put in bottles under the supervision of
Government agents and accompanied by certificates of analysis from
the country where they have been made. Imported wines containing more
than 3.5 percent of dry extract free from reducing sugar shall be
sold under the supervision of Government agents.
ARTICLE 12. Foreign wines shall be subjected to chemical analysis
upon their entrance into the country; native wines shall be subjected
to the same treatment before being delivered for consumption. This
analysis will be made in the national laboratories established or to
be established in Buenos Ayres, Rosario, Mendoza, San Juan, Entre
Rios, Cordoba, Catamarca, Salta, and Tucuman, and in other localities
where the Government may decide to establish them.
. . . . . . . . . . .
ARTICLE 14. The infractions of the provisions of article 10 of the
law shall be punishable by the confiscation of the merchandise
with or without a penalty of 50 centavos per liter or of a month’s
imprisonment of the offenders for each 1,000 liters of liquid or
fraction thereof.
ARTICLE 15. The infractions of the provisions of article 4 shall
be punished by the destruction of the wines and a fine of 30 paper
centavos per liter, or five days’ imprisonment for each 1,000 liters
of liquid or fraction thereof.
. . . . . . . . . . .
ARTICLE 19. The rules and proceedings established by law No. 3884
will remain in force. From January 1, 1905, foreign wines containing
more than 3.5 percent dry extract, free of reducing sugar, shall be
subjected to the provisions of the tariff.
Attention is particularly called to the character of the wines which
will be admitted and the fact that such wines should be accompanied by
an official certificate of composition and also of origin. Under the
authority of Congress the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to
furnish analyses and certificates of food products intended for export
to foreign countries (F. I. D. No. 1).
Under this law exporters who desire analyses of their products to show
that they are in conformity with the laws of the country to which they
are exported may apply to the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department
of Agriculture for such an investigation. The analysis blanks for
making the application, instructions for taking the samples, and form
of affidavit to accompany the samples will be furnished intending
exporters on application. In this connection attention is called to the
fact that often American food products are rejected at foreign ports,
and as a result thereof complaint is made to the State Department
and samples of the rejected foods are furnished for analysis. The
Department of Agriculture always complies with the requests of the
State Department for assistance in adjusting difficulties of this kind.
It is evident, however, that all such difficulties would be avoided by
shippers taking advantage of the provision of the law quoted above, to
secure the proper certification of their products before shipment.
(F. I. D. 4.)
SUGGESTIONS TO IMPORTERS OF FOOD PRODUCTS.[49]
[49] Circular No. 18, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Dept. Agr.
_August 6, 1904._
In order to facilitate the execution of this law [F. I. D. No. 1]
and to avoid any unnecessary delay in the inspection of products
on arrival, the attention of importers is called to the following
suggestions:
1. The inspection of food products includes foods, beverages, and
condiments, and ingredients of such articles.
2. The inspection, under the language of the law, relates to the
following points:
(_a_) To ascertain if the imported products be injurious to health.
(_b_) If they be falsely branded or labeled in regard to the contents
of the packages.
(_c_) If they be falsely branded or labeled as to the place of
manufacture or production.
(_d_) If they be forbidden entry to or be restricted in sale in the
country in which they are made or from which they are exported.
3. A food product, in the absence of contrary judicial interpretation,
will be deemed by the Department of Agriculture to be adulterated--
(_a_) If any valuable ingredient naturally present therein has been
extracted.
(_b_) If a less valuable ingredient has been substituted therefor.
(_c_) If it be colored, powdered, or polished, with intent to deceive,
or to make the article appear of a better quality than it really is.
(_d_) If it be a substitute for or imitation of a genuine article and
offered under the name of that article.
4. Products will be deemed injurious to health in the absence of
contrary judicial determination--
(_a_) If any substance, with the exception of the long-used, well-known
condimental substances, viz., common salt, spices, sugar (sucrose or
saccharose), wood smoke, and vinegar be added thereto for preserving,
coloring, or other purposes, which is injurious to health, either as
determined by actual experimental evidence or in the predominating
opinion of health officers, hygienists, and physiological chemists.
(_b_) If the products be decomposed, filthy, decayed, or in any unfit
condition for human consumption.
5. Products will be considered by the Department as misbranded in the
absence of contrary judicial determination--
(_a_) If any false name or property be assigned thereto in the label,
directly or by implication.
(_b_) If any false statement be contained in the label relating to the
place of manufacture or production of the contents of the package,
directly or by implication.
(_c_) If they be not of the nature, substance, and quality commonly
associated with the name under which they are sold or offered for sale.
6. Food products will also be excluded from entry into the United
States if they be of a character or kind forbidden entry in the country
where they are manufactured or from which they are exported.
7. Food products will also be excluded from the United States if they
are forbidden to be sold or be restricted in sale in the countries in
which they are manufactured or from which they are exported.
ILLUSTRATIONS.
Until further notice, or until the matter shall have been determined by
judicial decisions, or until the permanent standards for the products
mentioned have been established by proclamation, the Department submits
the following illustrations for the guidance of importers, as an index
to the action of the Department in cases where the product hereinafter
mentioned, and like products, are offered for import:
1. _Wine bearing a classed name_, that is, brands of wine of high
grade, recognized by law and by commercial usage, must be true to name;
for instance, a wine bearing the name Chateau Larose must be wine
coming from the vineyard covered by that appellation and no other.
Importers should be ready to furnish certificates, when asked for, of
conformity of the wine to the label used. Stretched wine, that is,
wine containing a part of the original wine, or a similar wine from
a different vineyard, should not be labeled with the name of a true,
classed wine.
2. _Wine containing sulfurous acid_ in amount greater than that first
mentioned below, added as a preservative or for other purposes,
should carry upon the label “Preserved with sulfurous acid,” and the
declaration accompanying it should state approximately the quantity
of sulfurous acid present. The admission of wines containing not more
than 200 milligrams of sulfurous acid per liter, added in the usual
cellar treatment, of which not more than 20 milligrams shall be free
acid, is permissible without notification. Wines containing more than
350 milligrams per liter of sulfurous acid should not be offered for
importation under any conditions.
3. _Sugar wines_ are wines which are made partly by the addition of
sugar to the must or otherwise previous to fermentation, and should
bear upon the label “Sugar wines,” or some similar legend, and the
quantity of sugar employed in their manufacture should be stated in the
declaration before the consul.
4. _Mixed wines_, that is, blended wines, should not bear the name of
the vineyard from which a part of the mixture is made unless the label
plainly indicates that it is a blend or mixture with other wines. If
wine from any other country than that where the mixture is made, or
from which it is exported, be employed, a statement to that effect
should be found upon the label and in the declaration. Wines, sulfured
wines, sugar wines, and mixed wines should not contain over 14 percent,
by volume, of alcohol.
5. _Fortified wines_, that is, wines to which additional alcohol has
been added, under the law of the United States regulating fortification
of wines, should contain no added alcohol except that derived from
the distillation of wine, and the brandy so used should be properly
aged in oak casks in order to be free from injurious compounds such as
fusel oils, etc. Raw brandy made from the lees, pomace, and refuse of
the winery, and containing excessive quantities of fusel oil and other
injurious ingredients, should not be used in the fortification of wines
imported into the United States. Importers are requested to secure such
information from their agents abroad as may enable them to certify
to the character of the brandy used for fortification when any doubt
exists.
6. _Brandy_ (potable brandy) is the distillate from wine, properly aged
by storage in wood to eliminate the greater part of the fusel oils,
etc., which may be present. Brandy should contain not less than 45 nor
more than 55 percent, by volume, of alcohol and not more than 0.25
percent of total solids (extract). The content of fusel oils should not
exceed 0.25 percent. Brandy should not be mixed with alcohol from any
other source than that of distilled wine. The distillate from the lees,
pomace, and refuse of the winery, is not entitled to bear the term
“brandy” in the potable sense. “Cognac” is only admitted as a name in
the case of brandies made in Cognac from wines grown and manufactured
there. No artificial color other than that derived from the wood in
which they are aged is admitted in brandies.
7. _Whisky_ is the distilled product of fermented cereal grains,
properly aged in wood in order to remove the greater part of the
fusel oils, etc., produced during the distillation. Whisky should not
contain less than 45 nor more than 55 percent, by volume, of alcohol
and not more than 0.25 percent of total solids (extract). The content
of fusel oils should not exceed 0.25 percent. No artificial color other
than that derived from the wood in which it is stored is admitted in
whisky. Blended whisky is whisky made of two or more whiskies. Compound
or “rectified” whisky is whisky made with or without the use of some
whisky from neutral, cologne, or silent spirits; that is, pure alcohol,
to which artificial flavoring and coloring matters may be added.
Such whiskies should be plainly branded on the label “Compound” or
“Compounded,” even if containing a percentage of pure whisky.
8. _Beer_ is the fermented product of cereal grains, the starch of
which has been converted into sugar by malt or malting, and to which an
infusion of hops has been added.
9. _Fruit compounds_, such as jams, jellies, marmalades, etc., are
preparations made from pure fruits or fruit juices, with the addition
of sugar. The presence of artificial coloring matter, flavors,
glucose, preservatives, and other added substances is not admitted for
the pure products, and when used the fact should be plainly indicated
in the English language upon the label. These bodies should not bear
the name of any one fruit alone if they are made from mixtures of fruit
or fruit juices.
10. _Sausage_ is the comminuted edible meat of healthy slaughtered
animals, commonly used as food, mixed with salt and condimental
substances. The packages should bear the certificate of an official
inspector as to purity, and if pork, that it is free from trichinæ. The
addition of preservatives should be plainly stated upon the label, and
if these preservatives be deemed injurious to health, such sausages
can not be admitted. Coloring matters when used are under similar
restrictions.
11. _Salad (edible) oils_ shall bear the name of the substance from
which they are made, namely, olive, cottonseed, sesame, peanut, etc.
The designation “salad oil” is not sufficient. If mixtures, this fact
should be plainly stated upon the label, in harmony with the principles
already laid down. The ingredients of a mixed oil should have their
origin (country) named upon the label in order to conform with the
provisions of the law.
12. _Vinegar_ should contain not less than 4 percent of acetic acid.
The kind of vinegar should be named upon the label, namely, cider
vinegar, wine vinegar, malt vinegar, spirit vinegar--meaning vinegar
derived from the acetous fermentation of cider, wine, malt liquors, or
distilled spirits, respectively. Any added coloring or other foreign
matter should be noted upon the label and in the declaration.
13. _Labeling._--If more than one article be present in a food
product, the name of one of the substances alone is not deemed to be a
sufficient label. If peas or beans have a portion of copper, the label
should state that fact. The various natural constituents of a food
product need not be noted, for the presence of the usual condimentary
substances employed in foods, viz., sugar, salt, spices, vinegar, and
wood smoke. The term “sugar” is used in its usual signification, viz.,
sugar made from sugar cane, sugar beets, maple trees, sorghum etc. When
sugars are made by the artificial hydrolysis of starch, by an acid or
salt, that fact should be noted on the label by the term “glucose,” or
starch sugar. “Grape sugar” is not admitted as a correct term for such
products.
GENERAL STATEMENT.
The above specific illustrations indicate the position of the
Department in regard to the general character of food products which
may be imported without question.
The importer will do well to require his agents in foreign countries to
carefully comply with the general principles set forth. In a few words
they may be summarized as follows: Freedom from deleterious substances,
notification of added foreign substances, truthfulness in labeling.
The standards of purity for food products, which have been fixed by
the Secretary of Agriculture in harmony with existing law, are given
in Circular No. 13 of the Secretary’s Office and are applicable to
imported foods, which should conform to these established standards.
(F. I. D. 5.)
PROPOSED REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LABELING OF IMPORTED FOOD
PRODUCTS.[50]
[50] Circular No. 21. Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Dept. Agr.
_November 17, 1904._
(_a_) ARTIFICIAL COLORING MATTER (ESPECIALLY SULFATE OF COPPER).
The use of sulfate of copper as a coloring matter in certain green
vegetables has become quite prevalent. Sulfate of copper is a substance
which in itself acts as a quick emetic and irritant, and therefore its
presence in food products must be looked upon as undesirable.
Copper sulfate is irritant or mildly escharotic, and, when in dilute
solution, stimulant and astringent. At one time it was given in
_epilepsy_ and other nervous diseases, but at present it is never
used internally, except for its influence upon the gastro-intestinal
mucous membrane. In _chronic diarrhea_ with ulceration it is often
a useful remedy. In doses of 5 grains it acts as a powerful, prompt
emetic, without causing general depression or much nausea, but it is
too irritant to be used freely.
A dose of copper sulfate as an astringent is a quarter of a grain (16
milligrams); as an emetic, 5 grains (330 milligrams).--(United States
Dispensatory, 18th edition, p. 468.)
It is claimed by some manufacturers, chemists, and hygienists that
copper sulfate when added to green vegetables, forms compounds which
are harmless to health.
Pending investigations which are now making, all food products colored
with sulfate of copper, or to which sulfate of copper has been added
for any purpose, should contain upon the label a statement in English,
in letters not smaller than long primer caps, as follows: “Colored
with sulfate of copper,” or, if preferred, “Prepared with sulfate of
copper.” A statement of the quantity of copper, if any, which may be
permitted in food products under the provisions of the law is reserved
until further study of the question can be made.
Food products artificially colored with other substances than sulfate
of copper should bear upon the label, in letters of the size described
above, the legend “Artificially colored,” or, if the manufacturer
prefers, the statement “Colored with anilin dye,” or whatever dye-stuff
may be used.
(_b_) GLUCOSE.
Manufactured food products in which glucose (sugar made by hydrolysis
with an acid or otherwise from starch) has been used instead of sugar,
or for other purposes, should bear upon the label in English, in
letters of the size above mentioned, “Prepared with glucose,” or some
statement of similar import. The glucose which is used must be free
from arsenic or other injurious substances.
(_c_) FOODS PREPARED WITH OIL.
In countries where olive oil is the common edible oil the expression on
food products “Prepared with oil” or “Packed in oil” will be construed
to mean olive oil. Where a mixture of oils is used, or another oil than
olive oil, a statement to that effect should be made upon the label.
This regulation in regard to labeling will go in effect on March 16,
1905. Importers are requested to immediately acquaint their agents
in foreign countries with this ruling, in order that the proper
preparation of the labels may be secured.
(F. I. D. 6.)
STYLE OF LABEL REQUIRED FOR IMPORTED FOODS.
[Note size of type.]
PREPARED WITH GLUCOSE.
COLORED WITH SULFATE OF COPPER.
ARTIFICIALLY COLORED.
(F. I. D. 7.)
NOTICE TO EXPORTERS OF DESICCATED FRUITS.
_August 31, 1904._
The Governments of Prussia and Saxony, in order to unify the practices
of inspectors of desiccated fruits, have issued decrees fixing the
limit of sulfurous acid in desiccated fruits at 0.125 percent.
Exporters of such products from the United States are asked to take
notice of this regulation and to refrain from sending to the countries
named desiccated fruits containing an amount of sulfurous acid in
excess of that mentioned above.
By authority of Congress, the Department of Agriculture will inspect
cargoes of desiccated fruits intended for exportation, free of charge
to exporters who may request such inspection. On application to the
Bureau of Chemistry all necessary blanks will be sent. Exporters are
urged, in order to avoid refusal or confiscation by other countries, to
avail themselves of this opportunity to ascertain, before shipment, the
percentage of sulfurous acid contained in goods intended to be exported.
(F. I. D. 8.)
NOTICE TO IMPORTERS OF LIQUID EGG PRODUCTS.
_December 14, 1904._
This Department has made examinations of invoices of liquid eggs--yolk
of egg, or white of egg, or the two together--offered for import
into the United States. These food products have been uniformly
found preserved with boric acid or borax, a substance which the
investigations in this Department have shown to be injurious to health.
Notice is hereby given to importers that the Secretary of the Treasury
will be requested to refuse admission of food products of this
character consulated subsequent to December 15, 1904.
(F. I. D. 9.)
NOTICE TO IMPORTERS OF DRIED EGG PRODUCTS.
_February 24, 1905._
In regard to the importation of egg products in a dry state, preserved
with boric acid or with other preservatives, with the exception of
salt, sugar, vinegar, or wood smoke, further importation will be
regarded as a violation of the provisions of the existing law. Refusal
to admit such importations will not be requested of the Secretary of
the Treasury on invoices consulated prior to January 21, 1905.
(F. I. D. 10.)
TREASURY DECISION ON REFUNDING DUTIES PAID ON CONDEMNED IMPORTATIONS OF
FOOD PRODUCTS.
_February 20, 1905._
The Secretary of the Treasury has informed the Secretary of
Agriculture, under date of February 17, 1905, in regard to the duties
paid upon imported food products before the inspection thereof has been
completed by the Department of Agriculture, that in case the inspection
is of such a character as to require the reshipment of the products in
question beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, estimated duties
paid under such circumstances will be refunded to the importer when
delivery has been refused and the merchandise has been either destroyed
or exported under the regulations.
(F. I. D. 11.)
SUSPENDING REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LABELING OF IMPORTED SARDINES AND
OTHER FOOD SUBSTANCES PACKED IN OIL.
_March 1, 1905._
Referring to Circular No. 21 [F. I. D. No. 5_c_], respecting the
packing of sardines and other food substances in oil, representations
have been made to this Department, officially and otherwise, that in
some countries where fish--namely, sardines--are packed in this way
olive oil is not the common edible oil of the country, and therefore
the regulation would not apply. I have directed that investigations be
made of the character of the oil found in imported packages of sardines
and other fish for the purpose of determining the character of the oil
which has been employed.
Pending the result of these investigations, and in view of the fact
that the packages intended for export to this country were prepared
in many cases prior to the publication of the proposed regulations,
that part of the circular referring to the marking of the packages
respecting the character of the oil employed will be suspended until
the investigations are concluded and until further notice.
(F. I. D. 12.)
ABOLISHING THE RULE TO ADMIT IMPORTATIONS OF FOOD PRODUCTS IN THE CASE
OF FIRST NOTIFICATION.
_March 1, 1905._
At the beginning of the enforcement of the legislation relating to
the inspection of imported food products, in order to fully acquaint
importers with the provisions of the law before any penalties were
imposed, the inspecting officers were instructed in cases of first
offense, where no purpose or intent to evade the law could be imputed
to the importer, to pass the invoice under inspection, with notice that
this was done without prejudice to future decisions.
The food-inspection law has now been in force since July 1, 1903, and
it is presumed that every importer is acquainted with its existence
and its requirements. Notice is therefore given that on and after
March 16, 1905, the exception which has been made in the case of first
notification will be abolished.
(F. I. D. 13.)
PROVISIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE LIMIT OF SULFUROUS ACID IN IMPORTED WINES.
_March 1, 1905._
The regulations in regard to the amount of sulfurous acid permissible
in imported wines, as prescribed in Circular No. 18 [F. I. D. No. 4],
were based upon the regulations adopted by the consulting committee of
hygiene of the Seine. Since the publication of these regulations the
quantity of sulfurous acid in wines has been the subject of another
investigation by an official French committee, with the result that
the maximum limit of sulfurous acid in wines in France has been
increased to 400 milligrams of total acid per liter, with a toleration
of 10 percent. Results of the investigations of the French committee
have been communicated to the Department of Agriculture and are
under consideration. Investigations have also been conducted by the
Department of Agriculture relating to the effects of sulfurous acid
upon health and digestion.
Pending the final conclusions which may result from a study of all
these data the provisional limit of sulfurous acid in imported wines
will be established as follows: For dry wines, as defined in the
standards of purity fixed by this Department in Circular No. 13 of the
Secretary’s Office, entitled “Standards of Purity for Food Products,”
200 milligrams of total sulfurous acid per liter; for wines containing
not more than 2 percent of sugar, 250 milligrams per liter; for wines
containing not to exceed 3 percent of sugar, 300 milligrams per liter;
for wines containing over 3 percent of sugar, 350 milligrams of total
sulfurous acid per liter. These provisional standards will be in effect
until further orders.
(F. I. D. 14.)
ANALYSES OF EXPORTS MUST BE MADE BEFORE SHIPMENT, ON SAMPLES TAKEN FROM
ACTUAL CARGO.
_March 10, 1905._
In the case of an attempt to introduce a condensed beef juice into
Turkey the Turkish Government refused to admit the product “until an
analysis thereof and a report on such analysis, duly certified by the
Government of the United States and by the Turkish consul at New York,
is presented to the Turkish authorities.” Application being made to
the Department of Agriculture, through the Department of State, for
such certified analysis, the blank forms used for such certifications
were supplied, when the following features of the case were developed,
as set forth in a letter from the counsel of the company desiring the
certificate:
The forms which you inclose relate to a specific shipment of goods to
any particular country and call for the selection of samples from the
particular lot of goods set aside for shipment....
The Turkish authorities evidently do not require that such analysis
and certificate should be presented in connection with each shipment,
but only that a general analysis and certificate should be given.
Upon the presentation of such general certificate permission can
be obtained for the introduction of such goods without subsequent
analysis and certificate.
In view of these facts the Department, under date of March 10, 1905,
rendered the following decision:
I regret that we are not able to adopt the views of the Turkish
authorities of which you speak, and in harmony therewith make an
analysis of your product and give a general certificate, as you
desire. Under the regulations established for carrying out the
law, to which the Secretary of State called your attention, this
Department can only make analyses of samples from the actual cargo
before its shipment.
(F. I. D. 15.)
PLACING PRESERVATIVES IN VINEGAR.
_April 10, 1905._
Food products which are artificially colored will be admitted
temporarily provided the color contained therein is not injurious to
health. In regard to a preservative in vinegar, in the first place I
can see no possible reason why a preservative should be put in vinegar,
which is itself a preservative. In the second place, not knowing its
character I could base no opinion on its admissibility. If flavoring
matters are placed in vinegar--that is, aromatic substances--there
is no objection whatever to their presence. Preservatives, with the
exception of salt, sugar, vinegar, and wood smoke, are non-condimental,
and therefore can not be excused on the ground that they add any flavor
or taste to the substance.
(F. I. D. 16.)
FALSE LABELING OF VINEGAR.
_April 21, 1905._
It is held that the term “vinegar” applied to products made in France
and other wine-producing countries where vinegar is made chiefly from
wine should apply only to such goods or to vinegar made from cider.
The analytical data in a given case show that the vinegar in question
is not derived from either of these sources, but is evidently the
product of oxidation of low wines or alcohol. It does not comply with
the standard either for vinegar or wine vinegar on page 14 of Circular
No. 13[51] of the Secretary’s Office. It is evidently a vinegar such as
is described under paragraph 6[52] of the same page and being such a
vinegar should have been so labeled. It is held, therefore, that this
product is falsely labeled.
[51] 1. _Vinegar_, _cider vinegar_ or _apple vinegar_ is the product
made by the alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentations of the
juice of apples, is lævo-rotatory, and contains not less than four
(4) grams of acetic acid, not less than one and six-tenths (1.6)
grams of apple solids, and not less than twenty-five hundredths
(0.25) grams of apple ash in one hundred (100) cubic centimeters.
The water-soluble ash from one hundred (100) cubic centimeters of
the vinegar requires not less than thirty (30) cubic centimeters of
decinormal acid to neutralize the alkalinity and contains not less
than ten (10) milligrams of phosphoric acid (P₂O₅).
2. _Wine vinegar_ or _grape vinegar_ is the product made by the
alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentations of the juice of grapes
and contains, in one hundred (100) cubic centimeters, not less than
four (4) grams of acetic acid, not less than one and four-tenths
(1.4) grams of grape solids, and not less than thirteen hundredths
(0.13) gram of grape ash.
[52] 6. _Spirit vinegar_, _distilled vinegar_, _grain vinegar_ is the
product made by the acetous fermentation of dilute distilled alcohol
and contains, in one hundred (100) cubic centimeters, not less than
four (4) grams of acetic acid.
(F. I. D. 17.)
LABELS ATTACHED TO WRAPPERS INSTEAD OF PACKAGES; STATEMENTS RELATING
TO WHOLESOMENESS OF ADDED SUBSTANCE. PASTER LABELS.
_April 21, 1905._
Our examination showed that these packages of jams were wrapped
with paper, to which was affixed a paster containing the legend
“ARTIFICIALLY COLORED” in large type, followed in small type by the
phrase “With an infinitesimal proportion of absolutely harmless
coloring.” While there can be no legal objection to the additional
phrase, it will be understood that the determination of this point is
especially reserved by law to this Department.
On removing the paper wrappers of the packages the label which appeared
on the outside of the packages was found attached to the stone jars,
but the paster was missing. It is a reasonable construction of the law
to say that the label required should be the permanent and not the
temporary label. In subsequent imports, therefore, of goods of this
kind it is deemed necessary to have the paster attached directly to or
immediately above or below the principal label on the jar itself. The
use of a paster is permitted provided it is as firmly attached as the
original label in such a way as not to be easily removed, and further
that it is applied to goods which are already labeled before March
16, 1905. In goods packed subsequent to this date it will be required
that the part of the label which gives information in regard to added
products shall be made an integral part of the original label.
(F. I. D. 18.)
STATEMENT OF QUANTITY OF ADDED SUBSTANCE IN FOOD PRODUCTS.
LETTER OF IMPORTER.
_April 21, 1905._
We note certain imported tins containing peas labeled “This tin
contains ³⁄₄ grain of copper as preservative.” Permit us to inquire if
the Department accepts this as correct branding.
In default, would your Department accept “Prepared with the addition of
an infinitesimal amount of sulfate of copper not exceeding ³⁄₄ grain
per tin?”
Pardon us for asking these questions, our reason being that in
thirty-five years’ dealing in so-called greened peas by our senior,
not a single case of injury has ever come to his knowledge, and the
bare statement now required on the tins of “Colored” or “Prepared with
sulfate of copper” would appear to the consumer as a new and hitherto
unused ingredient fraught with possible danger, thus seriously injuring
the commerce in this article and reducing the revenue derived from its
importation.
We beg to assure you that we would not thus appear to insist upon
qualifying the label, if we deemed the article injurious, our personal
consumption, as well as that of numerous friends, supported by the
report of the council of hygiene of Paris in 1889, appearing to us as
absolute proof of the innocuity of vegetables where the chlorophyl is
thus fixed.
DECISION OF DEPARTMENT.
_April 26, 1905._
When a label with letters of proper size and legibility contains
the statement that it [the food product] is colored with sulfate of
copper we consider that the conditions required by law are fulfilled.
This statement, however, should not be in any way connected with any
other matters. If the importers desire to put additional labels on,
stating “This tin contains ³⁄₄ grain of copper,” we should have no
objections thereto. If, also, they should desire to add to the label
required the phrase, “Prepared with the addition of an infinitesimal
amount of sulfate of copper not exceeding ³⁄₄ grain per tin,” we could
not reasonably object. This descriptive matter, however, should not
be connected with the label required, namely, “COLORED WITH SULPHATE
OF COPPER.” The fact that the people of this country might object to
eating goods thus marked is the strongest argument you could give
showing the justice of the marking. The object of the law was to
prevent deception being practiced upon our people.
If any added supplementary statement is shown to be false by the
results of the analysis it would be considered then as a misbranding,
and treated accordingly.
(F. I. D. 19.)
FALSE BRANDING OF MUSHROOMS.
LETTER OF IMPORTER.
_April 25, 1905._
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 18th advising that a
certain shipment of mushrooms consigned to us ... are misbranded, for
the reason that the tins contain nothing but stems and scraps from the
cannery.
In answer we beg to advise you that the goods in question are not sold
by us as regular mushrooms to the trade. This particular packing is
used by only the hotel and restaurant trade for the purpose of making a
sauce, and on this account are branded “Hotels.” This is the trade-name
given to the character of the goods in question, and it is always
understood that they contain nothing but stems and pieces which are
left over in the packing of the other grades.
Under these conditions we cannot believe that we are importing goods
that are misbranded, and would ask you to kindly release the shipment
in question.
DECISION OF DEPARTMENT.
_April 29, 1905._
In this connection I desire to state that the understanding of the
trade respecting branding of food products is not one which should
always guide the officials in charge of the pure-food law. The object
of the law is the protection of the consumers particularly and not of
the trade. The addition of the word “Hotel” to the word “Champignons”
in no way describes the character of the product except to those who
are initiated in the secrets of the trade. After all, the consumer is
the one who suffers, as he eats the mushroom sauce, which is not made
of mushrooms at all, and thus the deception is complete, although the
purchaser may understand the character of the goods. It is extremely
doubtful whether under the terms of the law such goods would be
entitled to importation under any name, as they certainly are not to be
considered as edible. They should bear the label “FRAGMENTS AND SCRAPS
FROM MUSHROOM CANNERY,” or “CHAMPIGNONS, PIECES AND STEMS” in order to
be properly described. I am not able to see why the patrons of hotels
and restaurants should be subjected to a deception of this character.
I beg to say, therefore, that your explanation does not satisfy me
respecting the suitability of this invoice for entry.
(F. I. D. 20.)
STATEMENTS ON LABELS REGARDING HEALTH LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES.
_May 17, 1905._
I beg to call your attention to a shipment of beans.... We note after
the legend “COLORED WITH SULFATE OF COPPER” the additional legend
“ACCORDING TO FRENCH HEALTH LAWS.” Inasmuch as the French laws do not
apply to this country, the addition of this phrase is regarded as a
complication of the labeling, having for its object to influence the
consumer respecting the character of the added product. Inasmuch as the
Congress of the United States has placed upon this Department the duty
of deciding upon the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of substances
added to foods, we regard such a label as an attempt to forestall the
judgment which this Department may render in accordance with the act of
Congress above referred to. While in the present instance we would not
consider the addition of the second legend as a cause for rejecting the
articles, your attention is called to the undesirability of any such
statement appearing upon the label, and it is suggested that in the
future it be omitted.
Attention is further called to the fact that in so far as we can
discover by a study of the French laws there are no regulations
therein respecting the addition of sulfate of copper to food products.
In this respect, therefore, the second phrase, “ACCORDING TO FRENCH
HEALTH LAWS,” must be considered as a misstatement. It may be that the
addition of copper is not forbidden by the French law, but we do not
believe it is added under any regulations thereof. It will be decidedly
advisable to omit the phrase.
(F. I. D. 21.)
RELABELING IMPORTED FOOD PRODUCTS AFTER ARRIVAL IN THIS COUNTRY.
_May 26, 1905._
The purpose of the law in regard to labeling is clear, namely, that the
labels should be properly attached at the time of packing the goods.
Should exceptions be made to this principle and importers be allowed
to relabel goods offered for import after inspection and refusal of
entry, it would be impossible to secure a proper compliance with the
terms of the law. Manufacturers and exporters in other countries and
importers in this country would prefer in these cases to import the
goods as usually labeled and thus, if the invoices were not inspected,
they would enter without delay. If, on the other hand, the invoices
were inspected they would feel that they could then exercise the
privilege of relabeling. A courtesy of this kind to one importer would
necessarily be extended to all, and for this reason a proper compliance
with the purpose of the law would not be secured. The request for
permission to relabel is therefore denied.
(F. I. D. 22.)
ILLEGIBLE OR CONCEALED LEGENDS ON LABELS.
_May 29, 1905._
There has been presented for the opinion of this Department a label
in brass marked in large letters “CONSERVES ALIMENTAIRES” and which
by ordinary inspection reveals no legend of any kind relating to any
artificial color which has been used in its preparation. By very
careful inspection an almost totally illegible label is found printed
in extremely small letters in this way: The word “artificially” is in
the upper left-hand corner surrounding a circular mark near the margin,
and the word “colored,” similar as to position and letters, is in the
upper right-hand corner.
Printing the legend “Artificially colored” in this way can only be
construed as an attempt to comply with the letter of the law and to
evade its spirit. This Department holds that in so far as the purpose
of labeling is concerned these words are entirely insufficient. As a
result of this decision the packages of goods bearing the label have
been declared to be misbranded.
(F. I. D. 23.)
LABELING OF PRESERVES SWEETENED WITH CANE OR BEET SUGAR AND GLUCOSE.
LETTER OF IMPORTER.
_June 2, 1905._
With reference to the label on preserved strawberries and other fruits
imported from Germany, etc., we would thank you to advise us whether
you would permit the legend descriptive of the added substance (part of
the original label) to read, for instance:
PRESERVED STRAWBERRIES
ARTIFICIALLY COLORED
PREPARED WITH PURE SUGAR AND GLUCOSE.
The sirup is almost entirely pure sugar, and it would therefore be an
injustice to be compelled to say that it was composed exclusively of
glucose.
DECISION OF DEPARTMENT.
_June 5, 1905._
When a label with letters of proper size and legibility contains the
statement that the goods are prepared with glucose, or with sugar
and glucose, we consider that the conditions required by law are
fulfilled. Manufacturers may add to the label required a statement of
the percentage of glucose in the goods. If any statement on the label
is shown to be false by the results of the analysis or otherwise, the
package will be considered as misbranded and treated accordingly.
(F. I. D. 24.)
ADULTERATION OF DOMESTIC FOOD PRODUCTS BY THE ADDITION OF
PRESERVATIVES, COLORING MATTERS, AND OTHER INGREDIENTS NOT NATURAL TO
FOODS, NOT REGULATED BY DEPARTMENT.
_June 14, 1905._
The Department of Agriculture is not authorized by law to make any
regulations concerning the above-mentioned substances in food products
of domestic manufacture and intended for domestic commerce either
within the State where made or for interstate purposes.
For foods intended for export to foreign countries the Department is
authorized to make examinations and certify whether or not the foods
so offered are in harmony with the laws regulating food products in
countries to which the products are to be sent.
In the case of imported foods the decisions and regulations of the
Department are contained in the circulars and regulations issued
herewith.
Numerous inquiries reach this Department respecting the addition to
food products of preservatives, coloring matters, and other ingredients
not natural to foods. This Department has authority of law to fix
standards of purity for food products, and these standards when
completed will cover all the points above mentioned in so far as the
authority of Congress extends. The Department has no authority besides
this to establish regulations or conditions affecting the domestic
manufacture of and commerce in food products containing the ingredients
above mentioned. This power at the present time is exercised, if at
all, solely by the several States. The food standards, in so far as
they have been established, are embodied in Circular No. 13, Office of
the Secretary, which can be had upon application to this Department.
(F. I. D. 25.)
FOOD PRODUCTS OFFERED FOR ENTRY AND AFTERWARD DECLARED TO BE FOR
TECHNICAL PURPOSES.
_June 21, 1905._
On June 14 this Department was asked to release an invoice of egg
albumen which had been found to be preserved with boric acid, thus
containing a substance prejudicial to health and refused admission on
that ground, on the statement of the importer that the product would
be reserved solely for technical purposes. It is manifest that the
action of this Department should not be based upon any statement of the
importer made subsequent to the sampling of the invoice for examination.
The plain provision of the law requires the inspection of food products
when deemed advisable, and their exclusion in certain circumstances.
When a food product is thus excluded under the regular application of
the law, it can not be released and permitted entry on a subsequent
declaration that it will be reserved for technical purposes only. Any
product which may be used either for technical purposes or for food
will be regarded as a food product, irrespective of any declaration
subsequent to inspection respecting the use to which it is to be put.
The use of a food product for other purposes is incidental, and
should not be construed as exempting food products of that class from
examination in the regular way.
F. I. D. 26.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISION 26.
LABELING IMPORTED FOOD PRODUCTS.
By reason of representations which were made before this Department
on June 14 by a committee representing the importers of New York,
it is hereby ordered that all cases of inspection of imported food
products to date, where exclusion thereof has been required by reason
of misbranding or false labeling, may be reopened with permission to
relabel, if granted by the Secretary of the Treasury, under supervision
of an official detailed from the Treasury Department for that purpose.
These labels shall be in the form of a paster attached securely to, or
just above or below the principal label, in a manner not to be easily
detached, and bearing a legend showing the contents of the package
not of the nature represented by the principal label, in letters not
smaller in size than long primer capitals of the usual facing, such
labels to be submitted to the proper representative of this Department
and be approved as satisfactory before the release of the invoice.
In order to more clearly set forth the requirements of this Department
as contained in Circulars 18 and 21 of the Bureau of Chemistry (F. I.
D. 4 and 5) and in other publications of the Department, the following
general principles of labeling of food products are to be observed:
1. A food product should be designated by its usual name, English
name preferred, and need not bear any further description of its
components or qualities. Food products which are prepared by
established processes of refining need not bear upon the label any
statement respecting the refining process. For illustration, the term
“flour” is sufficient for the food product known by that name; the
term “olive oil” is sufficient for the food product known by that
name. The usual processes of manufacture and refining in these cases
are not required to be stated.
2. When any foreign substance is added to a food product other than
that necessary to its manufacture or refining, the label should bear
a statement to that effect. For instance, a food product which is
artificially colored or to which a preservative has been added should
have these facts appear upon the label. If a substance which itself
is not a coloring matter be added to a food product for the purpose
of preserving or intensifying the natural color of the food, the name
of the substance shall be specifically mentioned, as, for instance,
when sulfate of copper is used to intensify or preserve the green
color of food products.
3. Where a substance which is generally understood to have specific
qualities in the preparation of a food product is replaced by
another substance either of a similar nature or entirely different
thereto but with some of the same qualities, the name of the
substituted substance should appear upon the label. For instance,
sugar is the usual sweetening substance in the preparation of
certain food products. If the sugar is wholly or in part replaced
by another substance, such as glucose, that fact should appear.
If the sweetening substance used be saccharin, a substance which
is not related to sugars at all, the label should indicate such
substitution. Where olive oil is used in the preparation of foods and
where it is understood by the term “oil” that olive oil is indicated,
the substitution of any other edible oil for the olive oil should be
noted on the label.
4. Where a substance is made up of fragments or scraps of the
material usually known by the name upon the label, the name of the
substance alone will be deemed a misbranding. For instance, if the
fragments of stems and pieces of mushrooms which remain after the
canning of the mushrooms themselves be labeled “mushrooms” alone it
will be deemed misbranding. Such a package should be labeled “pieces
and stems of mushrooms” or some similar appellation. If the cores and
peelings of apples be labeled “apples” alone a similar condition is
presented and the name will be deemed insufficient and misleading.
5. If any essential or important ingredient of a food product be
abstracted, and such abstraction is not necessary nor usual in the
preparation or refining of such food body, the label should plainly
indicate the ingredient thus removed. For instance, if a portion
of the butter fat be removed from milk, even if there remain a
sufficient quantity of butter fat to comply with the standard, such
an abstraction is to be noted on the label.
6. A food product which is misbranded in respect to the locality
or country where it is made, produced, or manufactured, under the
provisions of the law is misbranded and is not entitled to entry. For
instance, if the product of one country, as the olive oils of Spain,
be sent to an Italian port and there bottled and labeled as Italian
oil, such a label will be deemed to be a misbranding. If wine grown
in Algeria or Italy be bottled in France as a French wine it will be
deemed a misbranded product.
7. If a food product bear a name which is in any way misleading in
regard to the quality, character, or origin of the product it is a
misbranding under the law and is a sufficient cause for the exclusion
of the goods covered by the invoice from entry.
8. The addition of the ordinary condimental substances to a food
product, such as sugar, vinegar, salt, spices, and wood smoke, may be
practiced without any notice to this effect appearing upon the label.
9. Food products of any given name are to correspond in quality to
the standards established by authority of Congress for such products,
and if they vary from this standard a notice to that effect is to
appear upon the label.
10. The presentation of properly labeled food products as outlined
above does not insure their admission. Such products, even when
properly labeled, may be refused entry because of threatened injury
to health or because they are of a nature forbidden in the country in
which they are made or from which they are exported.
11. The principal label on a food product, that is, the part of
the label which declares the character of the product, should not
be connected with any statement relating to the wholesomeness or
hygienic qualities of the product itself, nor should it contain any
reference to the laws relating to such products either applying to
the country where made or to this country. These are questions which
are reserved especially for the consideration of this Department by
act of Congress, and any attempt to prejudice the consumer regarding
the matter should not be connected in any way with the label itself.
12. The actual form and character of the label are left to the
judgment of the manufacturer. The regulations require certain notings
of added substances to be in the English language and of a size and
distinctness easily legible and occupying a position directly on the
label and not to the side nor on the margin, nor in any position
where the label itself could be read without the attention of the
reader being directed to the name of the added substance or other
special inscription.
13. The privilege of relabeling after arrival at a port in this
country, as hereby extended, shall cease on and after September 1,
1905, thus giving ample time for all cargoes now afloat to reach our
ports.
14. The name of the added substance or of the abstracted substance
required by the above regulations should appear as nearly as possible
in connection with the name of the food product upon the original
label and in a position as conspicuous as that of the food product
itself and as legible. The size of type required, namely, not smaller
than long primer capitals, is the minimum size which it is deemed
would be easily legible to a consumer in looking at a package of
food products as offered him in ordinary trade. The letters should
be not less in size nor less distinct in facing than the following
legend:
COLORED WITH SULFATE OF COPPER,
and in all cases this descriptive matter is to be printed in the
English language, whatever be the language used in naming the food
products. In all food products packed subsequent to September 1,
1905, the descriptive matter mentioned in this circular as necessary
for proper labeling will be required to be a part of the original
label and not attached as a paster. In food products packed and
labeled prior to September 1, 1905, the paster above described will
be admitted upon certificate of this fact until May 1, 1906, after
which only original labels of correct form are to be admitted as
sufficient for the purpose of correct labeling.
Previous decisions not in harmony with the present order are hereby
modified in accordance with the above regulations.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _June 22, 1905_.
F. I. D. 27-30.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS 27-30.
(F. I. D. 27.)
ADMISSION OF SARDINES BOILED IN PEANUT OIL AND PACKED IN OLIVE OIL.
As a result of the conference held between the Chief of the Bureau of
Chemistry and the manufacturers and packers of sardines in Nantes,
Bordeaux, and Paris, it appears that it is a practice somewhat common
among the packers of sardines to boil the fish in peanut oil previous
to packing. It is claimed by some manufacturers that this process
improves the quality of the fish and also the color, and is a distinct
advantage in the preparation of the fish in packing. Subsequent to the
boiling in peanut oil the fish are so placed as to secure a perfect
drainage, so that all oil which naturally would exude from the fish is
separated therefrom. In this condition they are afterwards packed in
pure olive oil. A small quantity of peanut oil remaining in the fish
diffuses in this way with the olive oil to such an extent that the oil
gives a distinct reaction for peanut oil.
Pending further investigations of this process and its necessity,
inspectors at the different laboratories are permitted to admit
sardines labeled “Packed in Olive Oil” in which a small quantity
of peanut oil is found; provided the invoice be accompanied by a
certificate, approved by the consul, to the effect that the oil used
in packing the sardines was pure olive oil, and that previous to the
packing the sardines had been treated in hot peanut oil as described
above. The regulations, F. I. D. 5 c and F. I. D. 11, are therefore
accordingly modified, permitting the importation of sardines labeled
“Packed in Olive Oil” when the quantity of peanut oil therein is
found not to exceed 5 percent, as nearly as can be determined with a
reasonable toleration for difficulties of analysis, and variation in
duplicates.
This amendment is of a provisional nature and will be in force until
further investigations can be made and until further ordered.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _September 23, 1905_.
(F. I. D. 28.)
MAXIMUM QUANTITY OF SULFUROUS ACID IN WINES.
As a result of a conference between the Chief of the Bureau of
Chemistry and Professor Gayon and other members of the French committee
of œnology and exporters of wines, held at Bordeaux, August 26, 1905,
the following modifications of F. I. D. 13, issued March 1, 1905, are
made:
It was learned from the French expert, Professor Gayon, who is the
principal advisor of the committee of œnology, that steps have already
been taken to prevent the excessive use of sulfur, which, it is
admitted, in years past has been practiced at times in the preparation
of French white wines. The quantities of sulfur which are now permitted
to be burned are prescribed for each kind of wine in order to avoid
any excessive use. It is believed that by these new regulations the
wines which are prepared subsequently to the issue of the regulations
of March 1, referred to above, namely, the wines of the vintage of 1905
and of subsequent vintages, will not contain a quantity of sulfurous
acid in excess of the amounts specified in the regulations of F. I. D.
13. Wines prepared previous to these regulations, however, may still
contain, even in the absence of notable quantities of sugar, more
sulfurous acid than would be permissible under the existing provisional
standards.
With the desire to meet the wishes of the French makers and exporters
who are endeavoring now to diminish the quantity of sulfurous acid
in white wines hereafter made, it is deemed advisable to modify the
provisional regulations slightly to avoid as much as possible any
retroactive intent. It is therefore prescribed, provisionally, in
modification of F. I. D. 13, that wines imported into the United States
from France or other countries, containing not to exceed 350 milligrams
of sulfurous acid, may be admitted without respect to the quantity of
sugar contained therein. There will also be permitted a tolerance of
20 milligrams per liter to cover the difference in different samples
and the variations incident to duplicate analyses. This modification
of F. I. D. 13 will not apply to the wines of the vintage of 1905 nor
to succeeding vintages. To wines of these vintages the provisional
standards provided in F. I. D. 13 will still apply until further orders.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _September 23, 1905_.
(F. I. D. 29.)
COLORING MATTERS IN SYNTHETIC FOODS.
The term synthetic food as herein used is applied to a food product
made of a mixture of various other food products and not of itself
possessed of any of the characteristics of a natural or uncompounded
food. Such food products should bear some special name not indicative
of natural origin, character, or quality. A class of products typifying
such synthetic foods is the product known as candy or confection. It
has been customary to use harmless artificial colors in such foods
in preparing them for consumption. Such colors are not calculated to
deceive or mislead, because the foods themselves do not represent any
natural food product. The regulations of this Department applying to
imported food products require that such products, when artificially
colored, should bear a legend on the label to that effect. This
regulation should be construed to apply only to food products which
of themselves have a natural color and in which the use of artificial
colors would tend to mislead or deceive the purchaser.
Until further orders synthetic food products, as described above, not
having of themselves any natural color nor bearing any name which would
indicate an origin relating to a food product of a definite color, may
contain harmless coloring matter without notice on the label. This
permission is not to be construed, however, in any way which would
permit the use of coloring matter if the product by its name indicates
a special origin. For instance, candies which are sold under the name
of chocolates should not be permitted to carry a color imitating the
natural color of chocolate, and this principle should apply to other
confections bearing names of definite origin. The Department will not
undertake to specify by name the colors which may be used further than
to say that they must be of a harmless character, not injurious to
health, and must comply with the laws and regulations of the countries
from which the food products are imported.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _September 27, 1905_.
(F. I. D. 30.)
THE USE OF PACKAGES MADE OF TIN PLATE, ON WHICH LABELS HAVE BEEN
PRINTED FOR PRESERVED VEGETABLES, ETC., ORDERED AND DELIVERED TO
MANUFACTURERS PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1905.
From the investigations lately made by the Chief of the Bureau of
Chemistry, it appears that in a few instances European manufacturers
of preserved vegetables, intended for export to the United States,
had provided a large number of packages made of tin, on which the
labels had been printed previous to the manufacture of the tin cans.
The printed matter can not be erased from the cans, nor can it be
conveniently covered without destroying the artistic appearance of
the packages. These tin cans had been ordered and delivered to the
manufacturers before the publication of F. I. D. 26, requiring the
presence of preservatives, coloring matters, etc., to be indicated upon
the original label and not attached by means of pasters subsequent to
September 1, 1905. In many cases considerable expense has been incurred
by the manufacturers in the purchase of these tin cans with the labels
printed thereon.
Inasmuch as these packages were purchased in good faith and were not
intended to disregard the regulations of the law relating to imported
food products, permission will be given to use them in packing
preserved vegetables for the season of 1906 on the following conditions:
1. That the tin cans in the possession of manufacturers shall have been
ordered and delivered previous to September 1, 1905.
2. That the manufacturer shall make a statement before the consul in
each case of the number of such packages which he had on hand at the
date mentioned.
3. That the manufacturer shall attach a special paster, in a
conspicuous place on the label, in such a way as to make it practically
irremovable, indicating the presence of the preservative, coloring
matter, etc., which may have been used in the preparation of the
contents of the package, by the use of type not smaller than long
primer capitals, as shown in F. I. D. 6, and submit samples thereof to
this Department prior to shipment.
4. That these packages already on hand may be used for the crop of
1906, but not for a longer period.
5. That the importation of these packages into the United States under
the regulations above mentioned shall not continue longer than May 1,
1907.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _September 29, 1905_.
F. I. D. 31.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISION 31.
LABELS ON DETACHABLE WRAPPERS.
In the examination of certain imported goods to ascertain whether the
requirements of F. I. D. 17, of April 21, 1905, have been complied
with, instances have been found where wrappers on which a part of the
label only is printed are used with packages, and the declarations
required in the principal label (in conformity with the decision
referred to and other decisions) are omitted. Inspectors of imported
food products will be instructed to regard a package as misbranded if
a wrapper is placed over the label attached to the package and the
statements on said wrapper omit any of the declarations required on the
principal label.
An illustration of this ruling is found in the examination of a recent
importation on the principal label of which it is stated that salicylic
acid was used in the preparation of the sample. The package is inclosed
in a wrapper on which is found a part of the label, namely, the name
of the substance together with the name of the manufacturer, but no
statement of the fact that salicylic acid was used in its preparation.
Inasmuch as these packages may be sold without the removal of the
wrapper, the wrappers would not in their present form convey the
necessary information to the purchaser and consumer.
The provisions of this decision will be enforced on and after January
1, 1906.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _October 14, 1905_.
F. I. D. 32.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISION 32.
FOODS ENTERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE TO OUTGOING SHIPS.
An importer has made the following statement relating to the labeling
of certain products, namely:
We should like, however, to point out to you that our trade is one
by itself, and these goods, and mostly all the other goods that we
import, are not for consumption in the United States, but are shipped
by us on board foreign-going vessels. Our business is the ship-supply
trade, and these importations are brought in to enable us to give
the same supplies to the different vessels as we are in the habit
of furnishing in Great Britain. Under the circumstances, therefore,
we hope if we furnish bonds or give you a guarantee that any goods,
such as marmalade, imported by us would not be consumed in the United
States it would enable you to pass the goods as they have been of
late.
This is a case similar to F. I. D. 25, “Food Products Offered for Entry
and Afterwards Declared to be for Technical Purposes.” The principle
involved is that a declaration respecting the uses to which a food may
be put does not in any way affect its inspection when offered for entry
and delivered to the consignee. If a food product be regularly offered
for importation into the United States the subsequent use to which it
may be put is not a matter which can affect in any way the duties of
the inspecting officers. It is not the duty of these officers to follow
the food into consumption nor to see what becomes of it after it is
delivered to the consignee. The duty of these officers is to see that
the food at the time of inspection conforms to the provisions of the
law, that it has had no injurious substance added to it, that it is
in a state fit for consumption, that it is properly labeled, and that
it is not of a character forbidden sale or restricted in sale in the
country where it is made or from which it is exported. If the foods in
question conform to these provisions of the law, they are permitted to
be delivered to the consignee. The purpose of the consignee in securing
the goods and the disposition which he makes of them after they are
secured do not appear to have any bearing upon the subject of the
inspection itself. In the present case it is declared that the goods
are intended to be sold to outgoing steamships. At the time of sailing
these steamships are subject to the laws of the United States. The
provisioning of these ships is made under the laws of the United States
with articles of food produced in or imported into the United States.
In the enforcement of the law it makes no difference whether the foods
are intended for disposition in this way or for ordinary consumption.
If it is desired to use such foods for transshipment, they could be
entered in bond, never passed through the custom-house, and removed
from bond and reshipped. If the foods are treated in this way, and
thus never brought within the jurisdiction of the United States, this
Department will have no control over them in any way whatever. They
would remain solely under the control of the Treasury Department, and
that Department would see to it that they were reshipped beyond the
jurisdiction of the United States. Even in this case it does not seem,
however, that it would be possible to sell such goods for consumption
on ships carrying the American flag. The application of the importer
for a special ruling, therefore, in such cases is denied.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _October 30, 1905_.
F. I. D. 33-36.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS 33-36.
(F. I. D. 33.)
THE IMPORTATION OF A BEVERAGE UNDER A MISLEADING NAME.
A shipment of food product has been offered for importation labeled
_Raspberry Vinegar_. On notice that it was held for inspection, a
representative of the importer appeared and stated that the substance
was not a vinegar, but a drink, and intended to be used as a beverage.
In this case the material is held to be misbranded, as a vinegar is
never intended for a beverage, but only as a condiment.
Notice is given that after May 1, 1906, importations of this
description, or similar thereto, will not be admitted if misbranded in
the manner mentioned. The name of the article, if descriptive, must
indicate its true character. It is suggested that the term _Raspberry
Beverage_ is a suitable designation. It will be held, however, that
if so labeled it must be a beverage made solely from raspberries or
raspberry juice, and not preserved with any substance unmentioned on
the label, except sugar, vinegar, or spices. Any substance added to
such a product must not be injurious to health nor in violation of the
laws of the country whence it comes.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _January 16, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 34.)
PRESERVATIVES IN SAUSAGES.
An importer has made the following request:
About two years ago we had some difficulty with the Department of
Agriculture on account of an added preservative or acid being found
in German Frankfurter sausages. Our manufacturer has discontinued
using any preservative, and we find that the sausages do not keep
very well without this added preservative. We would ask you to kindly
let us know if there is any objection to our using salicylic acid,
boracic acid, benzoic acid, or, in fact, any preservative, if it is
plainly stated on the label.
Inasmuch as letters of this nature are occasionally received, it
is deemed advisable to make a general statement concerning the
attitude of this Department in matters of this kind. It is neither
practicable nor advisable for the Department to act in the capacity of
scientific adviser to any importer or manufacturer of food products.
The Department should be left free in all cases to decide according to
the existing law the fitness of any food product to be delivered to
the consignee. It can not, therefore, advise in respect of the use of
any preservative or any other added substance further than is done in
the regular decisions published in this series. The addition of any
preservative of any kind to a food product may be objected to for three
reasons.
(1) It may be a case of misbranding when the added body is not
mentioned on the label.
(2) The added substance itself may be deemed to be injurious to
health either as the result of present knowledge or of subsequent
investigations.
(3) The added substance may be forbidden by the laws of the country in
which the foods are made or from which they are exported.
In the case of the German sausage referred to, both boric and salicylic
acids are prohibited by the German laws. Boric acid has been declared
by this Department to be injurious to health. It does not appear that
there is any convincing reason for the use of any preservatives in
sausages except the usual condimental ingredients--salt, vinegar,
spices, and wood smoke.
Until the results of experiments conducted in the Bureau of Chemistry
are declared, small quantities of benzoic acid and benzoates, salicylic
acid and salicylates, sulfurous acid and sulfites and copper sulfate
are permitted in food products when plainly declared upon the label and
when not forbidden by the laws of the countries where the foods are
produced or from which they are exported. With respect to sulfurous
acid in wine, this decision is not intended to supplant the principles
laid down in F. I. D. 28. This permission is given without prejudice
to any future decision of the Department excluding such substances by
reason of excessive quantity or as being prejudicial to health, or for
other legal causes.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _January 16, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 35.)
MODIFYING IN CERTAIN CASES PROVISIONS IN F. I. D. 12 AND F. I. D. 26.
Experience has shown that in some cases the literal execution of
the provisions of F. I. D. 12, of March 1, 1905, relating to first
notice to importer, and of F. I. D. 26, relating to the date at which
relabeling after arrival in the United States may be permitted, namely,
September 1, 1905, may cause unnecessary annoyance and inconvenience.
It is therefore ordered that these two decisions be modified to permit
in certain cases the importation of an article not labeled strictly in
harmony with the provisions of the food-inspection laws after it is
relabeled in a manner satisfactory to the Department. Such action seems
especially desirable at the smaller ports, where exact information
respecting the requirements of the inspection of foods is not so easily
obtainable.
F. I. D. 26 is also amended so that in certain cases importation after
relabeling will be permitted. It is difficult to state exactly in what
cases these amendments to F. I. D. 12 and F. I. D. 26 will be applied.
In general, it may be said that where a food product is misbranded, but
no substance deleterious to health has been added, and where neither
the importer nor the shipper has had notice of the existence of the
law or of its requirements, permission to relabel may be given. A
similar permission will be extended to all food products already afloat
at the time of receiving the first notice, or which are so advanced
in shipment that they can not be countermanded by cable or otherwise.
Other miscellaneous requests for permission to relabel will be decided
upon the merits of the case presented, and permission to relabel be
granted when it is evident that neither negligence nor indifference is
responsible for the failure to secure a proper branding of the product.
A similar permission will also be granted when it is apparent that the
purpose of the law may thereby be fully accomplished. This action is
not to be taken in case of food products containing added substances
injurious to health or forbidden by the laws of the country from which
the substance comes.
In this connection it is suggested to importers that all orders for
food products in the United States be given subject to the passing
of the inspection at the ports of entry. It will not be considered
a sufficient excuse for the importation of improperly branded or
otherwise objectionable food products to show that they were paid for
before the inspection took place. The law has now been in force long
enough to acquaint foreign exporters with its existence and domestic
importers with its provisions. It is therefore held that paying for
food products before inspection is completed will not be deemed
a sufficient excuse for asking for the relabeling, remarking, or
admission thereof.
There are certain other cases in which relabeling of an importation of
food products may be permitted, but in no case will such a courtesy be
extended where it is evident that either importer or exporter has had
ample opportunity and notice to comply with the provisions of the law.
Such cases include those where evidently honest attempts have been made
to comply with the conditions of the law and where failure has been due
to ignorance of the exact nature of the conditions required, or some
unavoidable cause. These amendments are made to prevent unnecessary
annoyance and hardships, and will not be construed in any way to excuse
a failure to comply with the conditions of the law where it is evident
that these conditions have been fully understood and opportunity
afforded for their application.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _January 16, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 36.)
SUBSTANCES, ORDINARILY FOOD PRODUCTS, INTENDED FOR TECHNICAL PURPOSES.
The question has been raised on several occasions whether food products
which are offered for importation for other purposes than to be used
in foods are subject to the inspections of similar products when
intended for consumption. It has been held (F. I. D. 32) that it is
not the purpose of the law, nor is it possible, to follow the ordinary
food product into consumption in order to determine to what use it is
finally put. The law levying duty on olive oils specifically provides
that when such oil is imported for mechanical purposes it is free from
duty as an edible oil, provided it is in a condition of rancidity or
other state which renders it unfit for consumption as human food. There
is no statute covering a similar condition for other food products. It
seems only reasonable, however, to apply this principle of law to other
food products when it can be done without complicating the question of
the ordinary inspection.
It is therefore held that a substance which ordinarily is considered a
food product, when offered for importation for technical purposes may
be admitted without inspection on the following conditions:
(1) That in the invoice and accompanying declaration it is specifically
stated that the substance in question is to be devoted solely to
technical use.
(2) That the substance be so denatured, either by natural or artificial
means, as to render it unfit for consumption as human food.
This Department reserves the right to determine in any given case
whether or not the denaturing process is of a character which would
render it impracticable to recover the article in a form suitable for
consumption as human food. When substances ordinarily food products are
presented hereafter for import into this country with the invoice and
declaration above mentioned and in the denatured condition specified,
they will not be detained for inspection by this Department longer
than is necessary to ascertain the above facts. A denaturing process
will be held to be valid provided it so changes the taste of the
food product as to make it impossible for it to be consumed for food
purposes, as, for instance, by the addition of an excessive quantity
of common salt or other denaturing agent which would impart a taste of
such a character as to cause it to be rejected by any one attempting to
consume it.
This decision shall not be considered in any way to change the opinion
of this Department with reference to food products offered as such
for importation and afterwards declared to be intended for technical
purposes, as stated in F. I. D. 25, of June 21, 1905.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _January 18, 1906_.
F. I. D. 37-38.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS 37-38.
(F. I. D. 37.)
LABELING OF CHOCOLATES.
The question of the proper marking of plain or bitter chocolates and
sweet chocolates has arisen on several occasions in the inspection of
imported food products, and, after full investigation of all the facts
of the case and the relations of previous decisions thereto, it appears
that the following points are established:
1. Chocolate, plain or bitter, is imported for cooking and not for
directly edible purposes.
2. Sweet chocolates are imported practically as a candy or confection.
This question is covered to a certain extent in F. I. D. 26, section 8,
which reads as follows:
8. The addition of the ordinary condimental substances to a food
product, such as sugar, vinegar, salt, spices, and wood smoke, may be
practiced without any notice to this effect appearing upon the label.
Section 9 limits the application of section 8. It reads as follows:
9. Food products of any given name are to correspond in quality to
the standards established by authority of Congress for such products,
and if they vary from this standard a notice to that effect is to
appear upon the label.
It appears from the standards adopted by authority of Congress
(Circular No. 13, Office of the Secretary) that chocolate, plain or
bitter, can not have any substances added to it not noted in the
standard and remain a standard product. If, therefore, chocolate, plain
or bitter, have any starch or other substance added thereto for any
purpose whatever, or sugar in insufficient quantities to make it a
sweet chocolate, the addition of these bodies should be indicated by an
appropriate statement on the label.
On the other hand, sweet chocolate, being intended for and plainly
being a confection, would not require a statement to the effect
that sugar had been added or a statement in regard to any of the
other substances mentioned in the standard. If, however, any foreign
substance other than that mentioned in the standard should be added to
a sweet chocolate, a proper statement indicating that fact would be
required upon the label.
This decision is given without prejudice to revision in case it should
become advisable, as a result of experience, to further distinguish
between these two bodies by some appropriate designation.
“Milk chocolate” will be considered as a sweet chocolate to which whole
milk (fresh, evaporated, or desiccated) has been added.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _March 30, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 38.)
LABELING OF COCOAS.
Cocoas, in the preparation of which alkalis or other substances have
been employed in order to increase the apparent solubility of the
product, should bear on the label a declaration of such treatment.
The phrase “Prepared with Alkali” (or alkalis) or “Manufactured with
Alkali” (or alkalis), or some similar treatment, would be a sufficient
notification. This declaration should also be in keeping with the
provisions of F. I. D. 26. The denomination of such products as
“soluble cocoas” will not answer, since the term “soluble,” as used
in this connection, is, to a certain extent, misleading. The apparent
increased solubility of products treated as above is due rather to the
suspension of the particles than to their solubility. The descriptions
of the manufacture of these products show that potassium carbonate,
sodium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, ammonium carbonate, and ammonium
hydroxid are the principal alkaline salts employed. Tartaric acid is
also at times used to correct any undue alkalinity produced by these
added substances. The subject of the wholesomeness of these added
products is reserved for further consideration.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _March 30, 1906_.
F. I. D. 39.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
(F. I. D. 39.)
PRESERVATIVES AND ARTIFICIAL COLORS IN MACARONIS.
Inspection of recent importations of macaroni, noodles, and similar
products has shown that these goods sometimes contain chemical
preservatives, such as fluorids, which are regarded as injurious to
health. A small amount of coloring matter is also frequently added to
macaroni. It appears that Martius yellow is often used for coloring
these products. This substance is held to be injurious to health and is
so classed by the laws of several European countries, especially Italy,
which has decreed that, among other colors, Martius yellow (dinitro
yellow, naphthol yellow, Manchester yellow, saffron yellow, and gold
yellow) must not be used in the preparation of foods. In view of this
fact no importation of macaroni colored with Martius yellow or other
colors forbidden by the Italian law, or preserved with fluorids or
other preservatives injurious to health, will be permitted after June
1, 1906, and all importations of macaroni which contain any permissible
coloring matter must be labeled with the words “Artificially colored,”
in accordance with F. I. D. 26.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _May 1, 1906_.
F. I. D. 40-43.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS 40-43.
(F. I. D. 40.)
FILING GUARANTY.
In order that both the Department and the manufacturer may be protected
against fraud it is requested that all guaranties of a general
character filed with the Secretary of Agriculture in harmony with
Regulation 9, Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the Food
and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, be acknowledged before a notary or other
official authorized to affix a seal. Attention is called to the fact
that when a general guaranty has been thus filed every package of
articles of food and drugs put up under the guaranty should bear the
legend, “Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906,” and
also the serial number assigned thereto, if the dealer is to receive
the protection contemplated by the guaranty. No other word should go
upon this legend or accompany it in any way. Particular attention is
called to the fact that nothing should be placed upon the label, or in
any printed matter accompanying it, indicating that the guaranty is
made by the Department of Agriculture. The appearance of the serial
number with the phrase above mentioned upon a label does not exempt it
from inspection nor its guarantor from prosecution in case the article
in question be found in any way to violate the food and drugs act of
June 30, 1906.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _October 25, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 41.)
APPROVAL OF LABELS.
Numerous requests are referred to this Department for the approval of
labels to be used in connection with articles of food and drugs under
the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906. This act does not authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture nor any agent of the Department to approve
labels. The Department therefore will not give its approval to any
label. Any printed matter upon the label implying that this Department
has approved it will be without warrant. It is believed that with
the law and the regulations before him the manufacturer will have no
difficulty in arranging his label in harmony with the requirements set
forth. If there be questions on which there is doubt respecting the
general character of labels, decisions under the food and drugs act
will be rendered, of a public character and published from time to
time, covering such points.
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _October 25, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 42.)
MIXING FLOURS.
The following communication has been received respecting the mixing of
flours of different cereals:
In conformity with the custom of a century or more, the manufacturers
of rye flour, in order to produce a lighter and more easily worked
flour, have added a proportion of wheat flour to their rye and
branded it “Rye Flour.”
This custom simply conforms to the consumers’ demand for a whiter
loaf and from every standpoint is a perfectly legitimate operation.
Under the interpretation of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906,
apparent restrictions are placed upon this compounding, and I would
therefore respectfully ask your ruling upon the following points:
1. Under this interpretation will it be necessary to add the word
“compound” to the brands?
2. Will it be necessary in accordance with this interpretation to
name in the brand the fact that a wheat admixture has been made, in
addition to the use of the word “compound,” providing that word is
necessary?
3. Referring to paragraph f, Regulation 17, which reads as follows:
“An article containing more than one food product or active medicinal
agent is misbranded if named after a single constituent,”
will it be permissible to still name the rye-wheat admixture “rye
flour”?
The food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, and the rules and regulations
made thereunder, provide for the proper marking of food product and
penalties for misbranding.
The act also provides that a food product is not misbranded “in
the case of articles labeled, branded, or tagged so as to plainly
indicate that they are compounds, imitations, or blends, and the word
‘compound,’ ‘imitation,’ or ‘blend,’ as the case may be, is plainly
stated on the package in which it is offered for sale.”
Keeping in view these provisions of the law, and rules and regulations
made thereunder, it appears that the mixing of rye flour and wheat
flour is not prohibited by the law provided the package is marked
“compound” or “mixture,” the word standing alone and without
qualification, and also if the label contain the information which
shows that it is properly branded. The mixture may also be denominated
a “blend” if rye flour and wheat flour be regarded as like substances.
It is held that this information in the case mentioned would be a
statement of the ingredients used in making the compound. It is further
held that the use of an ingredient in small quantity simply for the
purpose of naming it in the list of ingredients would be contrary to
the intent of the law, and therefore that the ingredients must be used
in quantities which would justify the appearance of their names upon
the label. The statement made of the constituents used should be of a
character to indicate plainly that the article is a compound, mixture,
or blend.
It is evident from the above explanation that the naming of a mixture
of this kind “rye flour” would be plainly a violation of the law and
the regulations made thereunder.
Attention is called also to the act of Congress approved June 13, 1898,
U. S. Revised Statutes, sections 36 to 49, inclusive, imposing special
taxes under the supervision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on
mixed flour.
Approved:
W. M. HAYS,
_Acting Secretary_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _October 30, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 43.)
RELABELING OF GOODS ON HAND.
The following is a type of numerous communications received concerning
the operation of the food law:
The retail grocers of our city, as well as some of the jobbers, are
very much concerned over stocks of canned goods and other similar
goods they might have in stock on January 1, 1907, when the new
pure-food act goes into effect.
We are under the impression that where there is nothing deleterious
to health contained in such goods so held it is not the Department’s
intention to interfere in any way, shape, or form with them.
Where these goods are held by retailers in our own city does this
come within the jurisdiction of the National law, or is it controlled
only by State laws?
Similar letters have been received relating to drugs, medicines, and
other articles affected by the operation of the law. A general answer
is deemed advisable, which, it is hoped, wilt cover the cases in
question.
Section (_i_) of Regulation 17 provides that--
The regulation regarding the principal label will not be enforced
until October 1, 1907, in the case of labels printed and now on
hand, whenever any statement therein contained which is contrary to
the food and drugs act, June 30, 1906, as to character of contents,
shall be corrected by a supplemental label, stamp, or paster. All
other labels now printed and on hand may be used without change until
October 1, 1907.
It is held that under this regulation labels which contain statements
relating to the name of manufacturer, the place of manufacture,
etc., which are not in harmony with the general meaning of the law
may be used if on hand on the 1st of January, 1907, the day on which
the regulations become effective. Any statement, however, respecting
the character of the contents which is false or misleading should be
corrected as indicated. The correction should secure the obliteration
of the misstatement either by placing the supplemental label or paster
over it or obliterating it in some other way. If the goods contain
artificial color or preservative other than ordinary condimental
substances (salt, sugar, vinegar, wood smoke, spices, and condiments
of all kinds), that fact should appear upon the supplemental stamp or
paster. If any of the words required to be placed upon drugs and foods
in the specific wording of the act do not appear upon the label, such
as alcohol, opium, etc., it is held that the correction must include
the enumeration of these substances, as provided for in Regulations 28
and 29.
If goods that are packed and sealed in a carton which contains the
bottle or other package also sealed and labeled were not in the hands
of the manufacturer after January 1, 1907, but had been already
delivered to the jobber or dealer, it will be held sufficient to mark
the external carton alone, provided the goods are sold only in the
unbroken carton. If the container, however, holds a large number of
separate packages, it will be necessary that each of the separate
packages to be sold as such shall be labeled with the words required
specifically by the act.
It must not be forgotten that Regulation 17, section (_i_), is for
the purpose of avoiding the expense of relabeling articles already
packed and branded at the time the regulations go into effect and which
necessarily could not have been so packed and branded with any intent
to evade the provisions of the law, and it is expected that jobbers and
dealers will do everything in their power to bring the packages now
on hand into as close harmony with the provisions of the act and the
regulations made thereunder as possible.
All articles in the hands of manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers on
the 1st day of January, 1907, which are sold wholly within the State
in which they are found on that date are exempt from the provisions
of the act. Thus the use of the supplemental label, stamp, or paster
is required only on those articles which on or after the 1st day of
January, 1907, enter interstate commerce or are offered for sale in
the District of Columbia and the Territories. It is believed that
the provisions of Regulation 17, section (_i_), can be complied with
without great annoyance and expense. It will be deemed sufficient if
the supplemental pasters and labels are attached at the time the goods
are shipped beyond the State line, that is, they need not necessarily
be attached to such article on the 1st day of January, but at any
time thereafter when prepared for interstate commerce. Thus the labor
of meeting this requirement will be distributed according to the
exigencies of actual trade. On and after October 1, 1907, the label
must be originally properly printed, and no further amendment will be
considered.
Approved:
W. M. HAYS,
_Acting Secretary_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _November 6, 1906_.
F. I. D. 44-45. Issued December 4, 1906.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS 44 AND 45.
(F. I. D. 44.)
SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF FOOD-INSPECTION DECISIONS.
From the tenor of many inquiries received in this Department it appears
that many persons suppose that the answers to inquiries addressed to
this Department, either in letters or in published decisions, have
the force and effect of the rules and regulations for the enforcement
of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906. The following are
illustrations of the inquiries received by this Department:
Must we stamp all goods as conforming to the drug and food law,
whether they have alcohol and narcotics therein, or not?
On a brand of salad oil, which is a winter-strain cottonseed oil, can
it be sold under the brand of salad oil, or must it state that it is
cottonseed oil?
It seems highly desirable that an erroneous opinion of this kind
should be corrected. The opinions or decisions of this Department do
not add anything to the rules and regulations nor take anything away
from them. They therefore are not to be considered in the light of
rules and regulations. On the other hand, the decisions and opinions
referred to express the attitude of this Department in relation to
the interpretation of the law and the rules and regulations, and they
are published for the information of the officials of the Department
who may be charged with the execution of the law and especially to
acquaint manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers with the attitude of
this Department in these matters. They are therefore issued more
in an advisory than in a mandatory spirit. It is clear that if the
manufacturers, jobbers, and dealers interpret the rules and regulations
in the same manner as they are interpreted by this Department,
and follow that interpretation in their business transactions, no
prosecution will lie against them. It needs no argument to show that
the Secretary of Agriculture must himself come to a decision in
every case before a prosecution can be initiated, since it is on his
report that the district attorney is to begin a prosecution for the
enforcement of the provisions of the act.
In so far as possible it is advisable that the opinions of this
Department respecting the questions which arise may be published. It
may often occur that the opinion of this Department is not that of the
manufacturer, jobber, or dealer. In this case there is no obligation
resting upon the manufacturer, jobber, or dealer to follow the line of
procedure marked out or indicated by the opinion of this Department.
Each one is entitled to his own opinion and interpretation and to
assume the responsibility of acting in harmony therewith.
It may be proper to add that in reaching opinions and decisions on
these cases the Department keeps constantly in view the two great
purposes of the food and drugs act, namely, to prevent misbranding
and to prohibit adulteration. From the tenor of the correspondence
received at this Department and from the oral hearings which have been
held, it is evident that an overwhelming majority of the manufacturers,
jobbers, and dealers of this country are determined to do their
utmost to conform to the provisions of the act, to support it in every
particular, and to accede to the opinions of this Department respecting
its construction. It is hoped, therefore, that the publication of the
opinions and decisions of the Department will lead to the avoidance
of litigation which might arise due to decisions which may be reached
by this Department indicating violations of the act, violations
which would not have occurred had the opinions and decisions of the
Department been brought to the attention of the offender.
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _December 1, 1906_.
(F. I. D. 45.)
BLENDED WHISKIES.
Many letters are received by the Department making inquiries concerning
the proper method of labeling blended whisky. Manufacturers are anxious
to know the construction placed by the Department upon this particular
part of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, and to ascertain under
what conditions the words “blended whisky” or “whiskies” may be used.
The following quotation from one of these letters presents a particular
case of a definite character:
On account of the uncertainty prevailing in our trade at the present
time as to how to proceed under the pure-food law and regulations
regarding what will be considered a blend of whiskies, I am taking
the liberty of expressing to you to-day two samples of whisky made up
as follows:
Sample A contains 51 percent of Bourbon whisky and 49 percent of
neutral spirits. In this sample a small amount of burnt sugar is
used for coloring, and a small amount of prune juice is used for
flavoring, neither of which increases the volume to any great extent.
Sample B contains 51 percent of neutral spirits and 49 percent of
Bourbon whisky. Burnt sugar is used for coloring, and prune juice
is used for flavoring, neither of which increases the volume to any
great extent.
I have marked these packages “blended whiskies” and want your ruling
as to whether it is proper to thus brand and label such goods.
My inquiry is for the purpose of guiding the large manufacturing
interests in the trade that I represent.
In a subsequent letter from the same writer the following additional
statement is made:
The reason for wanting your decision or ruling in this matter is just
this: No house in the trade can afford to put out goods and run the
risk of seizure and later litigation by the Government on account of
the odium that would be attached to fighting the food and drugs act.
The question presented is whether neutral spirits may be added to
Bourbon whisky in varying quantities, colored and flavored, and the
resulting mixture be labeled “blended _whiskies_.” To permit the use of
the word “whiskies” in the described mixture is to admit that flavor
and color can be added to neutral spirits and the resulting mixture
be labeled “whisky.” The Department is of opinion that the mixtures
presented can not legally be labeled either “blended whiskies” or
“blended whisky.” The use of the plural of the word “whisky” in the
first case is evidently improper for the reason that there is only one
whisky in the mixture. If neutral spirit, also known as cologne spirit,
silent spirit, or alcohol, be diluted with water to a proper proof for
consumption and artificially colored and artificially flavored, it does
not become a whisky, but a “spurious imitation” thereof, not entirely
unlike that defined in section 3244, Revised Statutes. The mixture of
such an imitation with a genuine article can not be regarded as a
mixture of like substances within the letter and intent of the law.
JAMES WILSON,
_Secretary of Agriculture_.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _December 1, 1906_.
F. I. D. 46, as amended. Issued March 22, 1907.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY,
H. W. WILEY, CHIEF OF BUREAU.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISION 46, AS AMENDED.
FICTITIOUS FIRM NAMES.
F. I. D. 46, ISSUED ON DECEMBER 13, 1906, ON THE SUBJECT OF
FICTITIOUS FIRM NAMES, IS HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF OBVIATING ANY AMBIGUITY THAT MAY HAVE EXISTED IN THE
ORIGINAL DECISION. THE AMENDED PORTION IS SET IN ITALICS.
The following extract from a letter is typical of a question frequently
asked:
In connection with our manufacture of flavoring extracts, we produce
an article containing a certain percentage of artificial coumarin and
vanillin. This product has been placed on the market under the name
of ---- and Company, a fictitious firm, although dealers have always
understood that it was our product. Is there any objection to our
continuing to brand the product as manufactured by ---- and Company?
The same question has frequently been asked by importers who state that
they desire to assume the responsibility for particular brands.
It has been held by the Attorney-General (F. I. D. 2) that--
the words “... Daisy Sugar Corn, ---- ---- Company, Milwaukee, Wis.,”
clearly imply that the goods referred to are manufactured or prepared
by that company in Wisconsin. The general public, unfamiliar with
trade practices, would inevitably reach that conclusion.
Regulation 18 provides that if the name of the manufacturer and the
place of manufacture be given, they must be the true name and the
true place. If would appear, therefore, that the use of a fictitious
name in such a manner that it would be understood to be the name of
the manufacturer would be clearly a violation of Regulation 18. It is
apparent that the provisions of Regulation 18 will not be fulfilled by
the nominal incorporation of a fictitious firm. The regulations require
that goods must be actually manufactured by the firm represented on the
label as the manufacturer.
When a proper name, other than that of the manufacturer, is placed upon
a label it must not be used in the possessive. For instance,
CHARLES GASTON’S
OLIVE OIL
BORDEAUX
can only be properly used on an oil manufactured by Charles Gaston at
Bordeaux. The same is true if the designation