THE ANALYST. 86 PROPOSED AMERICAN ADULTERATION BILL. BY DR. MUTER, M.A., F.C.S. IN closing the discussion on the paper on the German Adulteration Bill, which Mi.. Hehner read before the Society of Public Analysts on the 19th March last,::: Dr. Muter said : Although I rise to conclude this discussion, I have yet really nothing to say as to the German Bill in addition to what has already been expressed, except to thank Mr.Hehner, in the name of the Society, for a most interesting communication ; but, I have brought with me to-night the draft of a proposed law ( ( t o prevent the adulteration of food and medicine, and to create a State Board of Eealth” in the United States of America. This draft is in the form of a report to the Medical Society of the State of New York, and is published as a special supplement to the rising American journal known as New Remedies.It appears that for a year hack the whole subject has been under consideration by a joint committee made up of representatives from the New York Actdomy of Sciences, the New York Academy of Medicine, the Medical Society of the County of New York, the Therapeutical Society, New York College of Pharmacy, New York Medico-Legal Society, the Public Health Association, md the American Chemical Society, and considerable time has been devoted to the examination of the subject; and two or three drafts of laws besides this have been prepwed a d submitted to discussion.The report opens with critical remarks upon the defects of our (‘ Sale of Food and Drugs Act,” and the following is the summary of these weak points :- First, the law must so clearly define the offence of adulteration in all its various forms, even by repetition in wording the definition where this may be useful, as to make the various forms of the offence plain to the understanding of the persons who * See Analyst, vol.iv., p, 62.86 THE ANALYST. adulterate, rather than by general definitions to leave too much to be decided only by litigation in the courts, If the offence be well defined to the person who adulterates, the first effect will be to prevent or deter him.Secondly, the questions of intent to defraud, and of injury or prejudice to the purchaser of adulterated articles, either ns to health or to cost, are carefully avoided, because in a definite, fully recognized shape they are often entirely wanting in the adulterator, and are always difficult to prove.A very large proportion of the adulterations practised are not attempts at fraud, nor designed to damage health, but are straining efforts to make money. And these efforts are so earnest and so intense, energetic, a d absorbing as to leave all other considerations in the background.That the publio is hurt and cheated is but an accident rather than a malicious intention. In place of these the adulterator is made responsible for the effects of his acts in their more definite and physical relations to the public ; and to the penalties imposed upon them. The offence then consists in the act of debasement, which is so easily proven by the debased article.And a pleading of absence of intent to defraud, or of the harmless character of the debasement to the individual purchaser, would simply amount to a plea of ignorance of the effects of the offence, and would influence the courts--not so much on the question of conviction because the public offence of debasement has been committed-but simply as to the extent to which the adulterator should suffer in order to prevent others frm aimilar acts through similar ignorance.Thirdly, the making it the duty of the consumer who may be injured to prosecute the offenders (using the inspectors merely as witnesses in the prosecutions) has been carefully avoided, because it has been found that very few persons have either the inclination, time, or money, to give to such prosecutions, and that it is much cheaper for individuals to suffer than to prosecute.To carry out the law, State Boards of Health are to be constituted, consisting of two physicians, one chemist, one barrister, and one eminent retired merchant, who are to be duly sworn to appoint analysts and inspectors, and carry out prosecutions. The analysts are to be bound to procure and examine ten samples of food and drugs each meek, and to meet at stated intervals to discuss processes, and fix standardB to be laid before the Board of Health for approval, and when so approved such standards are to t-e binding.All the reports of the analysts are to go before the Board of Health, and no prosecution is to take place, except by their orders, after consideration of the said reports.The offences are described with almost painful attention to minutia!, and with what often savours of apparently vain repetitions. I. The adding of one or more substances to another or others whereby tile strength, purity, quality, or true value of the resulting substance or mixture is reduced or lowered in its nature or composition with the effect of tending to deceive the public by lowering such substance or mixture from its original and true value, or altering the public significance and common meaning of the name by which it is OX was originally known or used.[Corn meal in flow ; chicory, dtc., in coffee ; terra J b a in cream of tartar ; foreign substances in powdered opium.] They are as follows :- 2. The substitution of one substance for another, either wholly or in part,with the effect of tending to deceive or mislead the public or any part thereof, [Artifioial wines and liquorfl rtnd mixtures ; Wiiloial mustard ; powdered oolocynth seed for coloopth.1THE ANALYBT. a7 3.The abstraction of any part of any substance with the effect that the sepamtion shall reduce the value of the substance and thus tend to deceive or mislead by changing the common significance of iihe name by which, 8s a whole, the substance was originally applied to its use.[Cream from milk, partly exhausted coffee, tea and drugs ; thymol from oil of thyme.] 4. The application of a name commonly known or understood to indioate any substance, to m y part or parts thereof, or to any other substance, with the effect of tending to deceive and mislead.[Oleomargarine for butter ; potato starch for arrowroot ; dead oil for carbolic acid.] The presence in any substance of any impurity, or any foreign matter that is 5. either naturd or accidental to it, if in unusual proportion, [Dirt in all food and medicine ; metallic salts in canned provisions.] 6. The admixture of different qualities of the same substance with the effect of tending to deception and fraud, parnagged wheat in flour ; garden rhubarb in medicinal rhubarb.] 7.Any debasement or dilution of any substame whereby it is reduced in intrinsic value asd is yet liable to be given, bought, sold, or used as though it was not debased or diluted. [Diluted milk ; diluted vinegar ; diluted liquor8 ; diluted medicines.] 8.Any coloring, coating, polishing or powdering or any other alteration in the physical condition or sensible properties of any substance, with or without addition to, or subtraction from it, whereby damage is concealed, or it is made to appear better or greater than it really is, either in quality, weight, or measure ; or whereby impurity or defective quality is partially or wholly.masked or hidden, with the effect of tending to deceive or mislead.[Coloring and polishing of green coffees ; powdering and coloring of damaged drugs ; bread from damaged or mixed flour ; '( large '' bread of short weight.] The giving or selling OF offering for sale, or the possession of any adulterate11 article by any person whoEe business it is to make or to deal in articles of food or medicine shall be prima facie evidence of the offence of adulteration.Provided that it be, and it hereby is declared to be, the sole and entire object and intention of this law to protect the public against deception and fraud in the cost and quality of food and medicine through adulteration. And all the provisions of this law shall be construed and applied in nccordance with its sole object, by the rules of common law.Whether these complicated provisions would work in practice is a grave question, and I am inclined to think that our own law, as it now stands, is both simpler and better. The only point which I consider to be a real improvement is the establishment of a Central Board of Supervision, charged with the fixing and approving of processes and standards previously discussed and recommended by conipulsory meetings of the analysts, and the ordering or not of prosecutions. Given that in Great Britain, we should then have an excellent law providing protection to the traders against over- strained prosecutions, and to the analysts against charges of incompetency arising through mere differences of opinion. 9. SONNENSCHEIN.-The death is announced at Berlin of the webknown Qhemist, Professor Sonnensohein, He had only reached the age of aixty-two'