The responsibility of the pharmacist in his attitude toward fraud and
quackery was never more important than it is at the present time, and
there should be no reluctance on the part of the members of the
profession to serve the public in the capacity of disseminators of
information concerning this important subject which is everywhere under
discussion, the Food and Drugs Act.
In the United States the actual control of the quality of food and drugs
within any given State is a power of the State and not of the federal
authority, and owing to the previous absence of legislation controlling
interstate commerce the authorities within the individual States
(usually the Dairy and Food Commissioner) were confined to the
boundaries of these States in bringing prosecutions. In order to control
the sale of products made outside of the State and shipped into it, the
seller, often an innocent victim, had to be proceeded against, and the
manufacturer, the real offender, was secure from any punishment as long
as he remained without the State.
This condition of affairs, of course, worked hardship upon persons who
were not morally responsible, who were made defendants in criminal
prosecutions and were compelled to resort to the civil courts for
redress, which was usually inadequate.
On June 30, 1906, by the passage of the act known as the Food and Drugs
Act, which went into effect legally on January 1, 1907, this condition
of affairs was changed, and every article of interstate commerce is now
subject to the act, the rules and regulations of which have occasioned
much serious thought among the large class of manufacturers of products
which come within its scope.
The underlying principles of the act, and the rules and regulations
which have been drafted for its enforcement, are not obscure. They
are based upon common honesty. That is, no hardship is worked upon
persons who sell their products for what they are, without any
misrepresentation. This at first glance would not seem to be a harsh
requirement, but when we go into the subject a little more fully we
are confronted with the fact that the present era of advertising has
developed a carelessness of statement to say nothing of numerous
instances of wilful misrepresentation suggesting that the allegation
of P. T. Barnum that the American people like to be humbugged, was
never more true than at the present time.
Academic questions as to the harmfulness of certain preservatives or
colors, or substitutes for this or that well-known foodstuff, do not
enter into the question at all. The phrase “caveat emptor,” let the
buyer beware, is not applicable to foodstuffs, for the buyer as a rule
is not capable of judging as to the presence or absence of certain
constituents which may or may not be harmful according to the
idiosyncrasy of the consumer.
For example, fifty or seventy-five years ago the commonly used chemical
preservatives, salicylic and benzoic acids and saccharin were unknown
and when they were resorted to by manufacturers of foodstuffs it was
done secretly and without notice to the consumer. While the presence of
a small amount of any one of these substances might not occasion any
disturbance in a normal individual there are many instances in which
even small amounts are absolutely contraindicated. Under commercial
conditions existing previous to the passage of the act mentioned the
buyer never could tell just what was contained in a package, which might
be marked absolutely pure and be decorated with representations of
dozens of medals and prize awards, often based upon superficial judgment
of the products so honored.
The misbranding clause is Section 8 of the law and reads as follows:
“That the term ‘misbranded’ as used herein shall apply to all drugs or
articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of food,
the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design or device
regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained
therein, which shall be false or misleading in any particular and to any
food or drug product which is falsely branded as to the State, territory
or country in which it is manufactured or produced.”
Since the act has become effective the products of certain large packing
houses, which were formerly called potted ham or potted tongue are now
labeled “potted meat, ham-flavor” and “potted meat, tongue-flavor.” The
substance has not been changed. It is simply designated by its right
name and all the claims for purity made by these firms in the past are
now to be judged by the actions of these same firms when under
compulsion and in fear of the law.
Several years ago a well-known Philadelphian became sponsor for a brand
of coffee which was advertised and sold under the caption of
“tannin-free coffee.” This purported to be coffee from which the
poisonous (?) tannic acid had been removed. Investigation showed it to
be coffee from which a chaff-like substance lying between the segments
of the bean had been removed by mechanical means, and, as this
chaff-like substance was found to contain less tannic acid than the
original coffee, and, as the statement as to the tannic acid being
poisonous was equally unwarranted, it was one of the most reprehensible
of the class of what would now be termed misbranded substances.
As a matter of fact the tannic acid in coffee is in such intimate
combination with the caffeine and other valuable constituents of the
bean that it would be absolutely impossible to remove it without
destroying the properties of the coffee so that it would be
unrecognizable.
The ultimate fate of this article, which perished along with several
associated ventures, did not prove a deterrent to another and still more
glaring fraud of a similar character which has been advertised during
the past year, _i. e._ a brand of coffee called “Digesto Coffee” which
claims to be as harmless as the well-known cereal substitutes for this
agreeable beverage by virtue of the fact that the poisonous (?) caffeine
and poisonous (?) tannic acid have both been removed. I need scarcely
say that such claims are without the slightest foundation in fact, and
an analysis recently made by me of the contents of a package of the
article showed a slightly higher percentage of caffeine than the average
in coffee, and no perceptible diminution in the amount of tannic acid.
I refer to both of these instances specifically, as under all previous
laws it was impossible to proceed against either of these firms, while
under the new law they are both amenable to the section on misbranding.
As regards the subject of drugs, the work of Samuel Hopkins Adams in
_Collier’s Magazine_, together with the assistance of Mr. Bok in the
_Ladies’ Home Journal_, is too well-known to require repetition, and yet
I fear that the force of these arguments is lost upon many persons who
look upon them as the fulminations of yellow journalism. Nothing could
be further from the truth. The half has never been told and the real
truth will probably never be known by the public concerning the numerous
changes which have been made in many well-known preparations which must
now declare the presence of certain constituents which are enumerated in
the body of the law. Among the better known of these substances may be
mentioned alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, chloroform, chloral
hydrate, cannabis indica and acetanilide.
Many proprietors of nostrums which have been entirely dependent upon
their alcoholic strength for their medicinal and remedial effect, have
changed the formulas so as to be less liable to criticism, still
retaining enough of the original features, however, to make them
objectionable to those who see through the subterfuge.
The number of persons in the community who are really able to judge such
preparations is wofully small and it will require a constant campaign of
education for many years to bring the every-day consumer of preparations
of this class to a sense of his personal responsibility in such matters.
Even the medical profession has suffered by this gigantic bunco game.
Antikamnia, a proprietary preparation which was advertised for years
under the claim that it was a definite synthetic compound, in spite of
the fact that every one who knew anything about organic chemistry knew
better, has at last been publicly unmasked as a mixture of acetanilide,
caffeine and sodium bicarbonate; and in refuge from the necessity of
declaring the amount of acetanilide upon the label, the firm which makes
it has changed the formula so as to substitute phenacetine for
acetanilide, and yet the same unwarranted and extravagant claims are
made for the preparation that were made before, with no notice to the
medical profession that a radical change has been made in its
composition, and entirely ignoring the stultification of the former
claims as a definite uniform chemical compound.
Other instances might be cited, but enough has been said, I think, to
show you that the effect of the law is being felt by those who have made
themselves amenable to it.
One important feature must be remembered. It is this: On every package
of foodstuff or drug put up under the new law, the words “Guaranteed
under the U. S. Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, Serial No. ——”
appears. This is being used in such a way as to make it appear that the
Government in some unknown way stands sponsor for the quality of the
substance, when in truth it is but a compliance with that part of the
Act, Sec. 9, which says:—
“No dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act when he
can establish a guarantee signed by the wholesaler, jobber,
manufacturer, or other party residing in the United States, from whom he
purchases such article, to the effect that the same is not adulterated
or misbranded within the meaning of this act designating it.”
Thus it will be seen that the guaranty means nothing more than the word
of the manufacturer that he will be responsible in case of prosecution,
and I fear that not a few of the guarantees at present published are
given without due regard to facts, in the hope that the Department of
Agriculture, with the tremendous task confronting it of putting the
rules and regulations into practice, may be a long while reaching some
of these articles.
Meanwhile many persons will be deluded into purchasing such articles in
the belief that the phrase referred to is evidence that the Government
is responsible for the claims made, when in point of fact nothing of the
kind is meant.
An instance recently coming to my attention, presumably of this kind, is
that of an article which is being advertised in the prominent daily
newspapers in the form of reading notices (a most reprehensible form of
advertising) as a remedy for consumption and bronchial affections. An
examination of the substance shows it to be a fictitious product
containing oil of turpentine, gum turpentine, with evident traces of
copaiba and sandalwood. It bears a label which indicates a somewhat
mixed origin, as two widely differing plants of the pine family are
included in the botanical name which is given for it.
In the regulation of the narcotic drugs, such as opium and its
derivatives, morphine, cocaine, etc., a wonderful step has been taken.
If the public could realize the harm that has been done to persons who
have unconsciously formed drug habits by taking proprietary catarrh
cures there would be universal amazement at the depths of degradation to
which a manufacturer will lower himself in order to increase the profit
on an article by stimulating an increase in its sale. Instances have
come before the authorities at Washington in which manufacturers have
frankly admitted that they had added morphine or cocaine to their
nostrums in order that their continued use might be assured.
There is much work still to be done in the near future in connection
with the enforcement of the act to render its provisions effective, but
I believe that I have given enough examples from the hundreds which I
have at my disposal to indicate that the ultimate effect of the Food and
Drugs Act, if it be wisely enforced, as is expected, will be very
material in benefiting the health of the community at large.