216 TRE ANALYST. ~ ~~ NOTE ON THE ADULTERATION LAW8 IN TEE DNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BY JOHN MUTER, PH.D., B.I.C. (Rend before the Soociety nt the Xoethag OIB 19th .iVoveut6ei., 1884.) 1 HAVE received a copy of the statutes that the legislature of the State of Nassachusetts has just passed with reference to the adulteration of food and drugs, and I proceed to lay an abstract of the scme before the Society, so that its members may contrast them with the law under which we are compelled to act in this country, First, as to the AdzcZteratiolz of Food.--The State Board of Health are empowered to expend, annually, an amount not exceeding ten thousand dollars, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, provided that not less than three-fifths is expended for the enforcement of the laws against the adulteration of milk and milk products. Every person selling milk must be licensed, and his name, the number of his license, and his place of business, must be placed on each side of the conveyance used by him, or his servant, in the sale of milk.If any part of the cream has been removed, the words (( skimmed milk ” must be distinctly marked in letters not less than on0 inch in length on the outside of the vessel. Mixtures made in imitation or semblance of butter must be labelled I ( imitation butter,” or oleomargarine,” and those made in imitation of cheese muat he marked ‘‘ imitation cheese,” in bold Roman type, of notless than one half-inch in length. Milk, shown by analysis to contain more than eighty-seven per cent. of watery fluid, or to contain less than thirteen per cent.of milk solids, is deemed to be aduhrated. The terms butter ’’ and l 4 cheese ” mean the products usually known by those names, and are manufactured exclusively from milk or cream, with salt and rennet, and with or without colouring matter. The general provisions for other articles of food run as follows :-(I.) If any substance or substances have been mixed with any article of food, so as to reduce, or lower, or injuriously affect its quality or strength; (2.) I f any inferior substance or substances have been substituted wholly, or in part, for it ; (3.) If it is in imitation of, or is sold under the name of, another article; (4.) I f it consists wholly, or in part, of a diseased, decomposed, putrid, or rotten animal or vegetable substance, whether it is manufactured or n9t, or, in the case of milk, if it is the produce of a diseased animal; (5.) I€ any valuable constituent has been wholly, or in part, abstracted from it ; (6.) If it is coloured, coated, polished, or powdered, whereby damage is concealed, or if it is made to appear more valuable than it really is ; (7.) If it contains any added poisonous ingredient which may render it injurious to the health of a perc3on consuming it ; the article shall be deemed to be adulterated.Both the manufacturer and seller of any beverage adulterated with Indian cockle, vitriol, grains of paradise, opiuin, alum, capsicum, copwas, laurel water, logmood, Brazil .mood, cochineal, sugar of lead, or any other substance which is poisonous or injurious to health, are subjected to very heavy penalties.I f when sold under or by a name recogaised in the United States Pharmacopoeia, it differs from the standard Secosirl, (is to the AcZdtem5on of Dvup-The Act Bays :-(I)THE ANALYST. 21’7 of strength, quality, or purity laid down therein, unless the order calls for an article inferior to such standard, or unless such difference is made known or so appears to the purchaser at the time of such sale ; (2) If when sold under or by a name not recognised by the U.S.P., but which is found in some other Pharmacopoeia, or other standard work on moteritz medicfi, it Were materially in strength, quality, or purity laid down in such work; (3). I f its strength or purity falls below the professed atandard under which it is sold ; they shall be deemed to be adulterated.” The penalties for infringement of the provisions of the Act range from a fine of thirty dollars to an imprisonment for three yeare.The expense of the analysis is not to exceed twenty dollars (say $4) in any one case, and may be included in the cost of the prosecution. The analyst is to divide each article and retain one half sealed up, which he must deliver on application to the defendant or his attorney in case of prosecution. All this reads very nicely on paper, but in each of the sections providing for penalties the word ‘‘ knowingly ” occur^, and dnless the American attorney8 are less cute ’’ than they are taken for, it should prove as fatal to successfd prosecution as it did with us under the old Act of 1872.The chief point of interest to us as a Society is the milk standard, and it is a question whether the simple method of requiring 80 much total milk solids is after all not the simplest plan. American milk must, homepel-, be much richer thm that currently considered as a, fair average in this country. DISCUS6ION. DR. DUPRE said they were much obliged to Dr. Muter for bringing this before them; it was always well to learn what other countries were doing. He quite agreed with the proposal that if any standard was to be laid down for milk, it should be a total solid standard, irrespective of solids not fat. It was merely a matter of indifference to the man who bought the milk whether he got 3 per cent. of fat and 10 per cent. solids not fat, or 4 per cent, of fat and 9 per cent.of solids not fat, though the probability was that he might be better satisfied with the fonnex No doubt 13 per cent would be too high, but he thought about 12.5 might not be far wrong. He was quite convinced that if some standard, be it 12 or 12*5, mere adopted, all difficulties would vanish, and there mould then be practically no difference between analysts. With regard to drugs, he might perhaps lay claim to the definition as his own. He was the one who laid it down years ago, and it was almost exactly in the words in which he put it before tho Committee of tho Sooiety, which was appointed many years ago to act in the matter of drugs. He ~hould like to put in his strongest protest against the joke interpolated while reading the paper, about the American chemists being able to make a nicer analysis for four guineas than they could for 10s.6d. (Laughter.) He must say he did not think it a laughing matter. He remembered some years ago a case of adulteration of bread, where a man had certified the bread to be puye, and when it was found by another analyst to contain alum, he said, Of course, I only got 10s. foi- the walysis ; and if I had had wore I should have found ont that there was alum in the bread.’’ He (Dr.218 TEE ANALYW. Dtrpr6) could not insist upon it too strongly, especially in the presence of the younger members of the profession, that if they took an analysis in hand at all, they should do it as well as they could, whether they received one guinea or ten guineas for it.If they could not do it for one guinea, let them decline it; but if they did it, then let them do it accurately. Mr. Hehner said there was one clause he should like to see adopted in England- and that was, the division of samples by the Analysts. It was an exceedingly painful matter that the reputation of the Analysts should be placed at the mercy of the Inspectors. There were many cases of this sort. Quite lately they had a very striking case, where Mi-. Allen found a very large quantity of lead in a sample of lemonade ; whereas in the duplicate sample there was none. This duplicate sample had not been divided, but was a whole bottle; and the nemspapers of course, spoke of the incompetence of the Anztlyst. There shoidd not be any possibility of this occurring.Every sample should be divided in the presence of the Analyst, and if the Analyst mere present he mould say :-(‘I don’t want another bottle or a a whole loaf. I want part of yours.” He had often had a whole loaf brought to him, and he always felt that his reputation was more or less in the hands of the baker. He should be exceedingly sorry if Analysts were made judges of diseased or decomposed articles. I f they did so they would usurp the function which at present belonged to the Medical Officer of Health, a d Analysts were not competent to do that. He should also like to see a standard fixed for milk, but 13 per cent, solids mould be quite out of the question, 11.5 or 12 would be about it. Dr. Wynter Blyth said in criticising that Act one saw that there were some things very good and a distinct improvement upon ou19 own Act, and other things distinctly retrograde.One improvement certainly was including the costs of the analysis in the fine. That would probably have rt very good effect if introduced into our own law, because, at the liresent time, the fines were very inadequate indeed. Latterly certain London magistrates had commenced to raise the fines, but still they were seldom commensurate with the adulteration. That part of the Act as to milk was certainly good. Of course the standard solids was certainly high, a legal standard of 12 would be quite sufficient j but, if they had a legal limit fixed, it would be more simple, and would woyk veiy well, to place it simply on the totd solids and not on an37 other constituent of the milk, I t wouldbe found that the total solids in duplicate analyses fairly agreed, the differences at present found, partly arising from tohe various processes atill in existence, and partly from difference in the iimnipdation.Another retrograde movementi was the adulteration of liquors ; there were only five out of the ten substitutes mentioned which were called poisonous (exclud- ing alum) which might be really so. Even laurel water was used as a harmless flavour- ing agent, and it depended upon the quantity, whether that was poisonous; cochineal was used in temperance drinks, and was not poisonous. He could not conceive how it was that, in this 19th century, these harmless substances coulct have crept into an Act of that kind. The Analyst was to return half the sample to the Aftornq ; this would act seriously in this country, and he did not suppose people Were more honest in America.I\BE ANALYST. 219 About two years ago he had a sample of butter substituted for the one originally analysed, although the fraud was detected, and the man heavily fined ; but that sort of thing often occurred, and the Analyst was blamed unjustly. Mr.Heisch concurred on the point that it would be very much better for the Analyst to be present at the division of the sample. Analysts used to divide the samples, as they might;, perhaps, remember. From the manner in wbich samples brought to him were frequently sealed, he had a very strong feeling that if a man knowingly Bold an adulterated article, the probability was that the sample left with him would be altered.It was not at all an easy thing to seal up a sample so that it should not be tampered with, and inspectors are not cautious in their proceedings, especially when taking a milk sample in the open air-unless they get into a quiet place. Mr. Hehner said that iu the case of the butter referred to by Dr. Blyth, the sample mas sealed up in such a way that there wars no difficulty whatever in slipping apiece of genuine butter in, Dr. Dupr6 recalled the fact that in the &st sample ever referred to Somerset; House the magistrate said he was bound by their decision. It was evidently a case of a substituted sample. Dr. Muter and Mr. Wigner had portions, and they all agreed that it was adulterated, and yet Somerset Housa found theirs to be genuine. Dr.Vieth said that he knew very well that his Company had a great deal of milk with as much solids as 13 per* cent., but not all the year. They had between 900 and 1,000 samples a month, and often averaged total solids of 13%. The worst was 13.08; the March and April average was only 12.7 and 12.8, and sometimes it came down to 12. Mr. Stewart said that he remembered a cam, a good many years ago, where amilk, which they had certified .to be adulterated, was forwarded to another Analyst. Their sample was 9.8 total solids, and the other was 13. They communicated with the other Analyst, who examined the bottle which had containedthe milk mbmitted to him, and, holding it up to the light, he saw another figure on the label. He took off the label, and found another label nnder it.'when they examined their sample with this other label, they found it closely agreed with the milk submitted to the other Analyst. They afterwards found that the vendor of their milk, who lived in the same street as another milkman whose milk had been sampled, had taken the label off his own sample and gummed it on the other milkman's. He did not have the gumption to take the old label off, but actually stuck the new one over it, and then sent that sample to the other Analyst. He (Mr. Rewart) also had a sample of coffee tied up in a bag and sealed, and, by a little manipulation, he slipped the tape off, took out the sample, and put in a new one, and fastened it up again without breaking tho seal. With butters, if the Inspectors do not take the precaution when they put them in bottles to wipe the grease carefully off the neck, the cork will oome out easily.In some cases Inspectors had a small crowd round them, and then it wad not very easy to seal up samples carefully. With reference to divisions by the Analyst, or in the presence of the vendor, the old Act put everything in tho hands of the Analyst, Now it has to be divided in the-- 220 THE A.NAXYST. presence of the vendor. It seemed to him that the vendor might object to the sample being divided out of his sight just as much as the Analyst. The more reasonable thing would be for the Analyst to follow thehilector into every shop, or for the vendor to go to the laboratory and see the sample diyided ; and that was impossible. Inspectors wore generally honest, and it was pretty safe to leave it to them He did not think that any other plan would be possible, and they would have the trade complaining still more.As to the American style of the Analyst dividing the sample and sending it to thevendor, he thought the way would be for the Analyst to divide it and send it to another Analyst. With regard to what Dr. Dqr6 had said as to an Analyst doing as good an analysis €or 10s. as for ten guineas, that was very pretty in theory, but not in practice. He did not think th~ycould subscribe to that. Take a water analysis, for instance. Would Dr. Dupr6 cam to make a complete mineral analysis, with combustion, dbuminoid ammonia, and so on, for 10s. 3 DK Dqr6 said he cei4ainly gm-c the Andyst an alternatit-e plan, and if anyone came and asked hiuz to make EL water analysis for 10s. he should s h o ~ him the cloor. Mr. Ashby said that sealing was not necessary. Sealed, or otherwise secured,” were the words of the Act. For years past he had induced Inspectors to clo away with seals, they simply provic’ed themselves with lined envelopes, geiierally inscribed with the bovough a m , and the bottle of illilk or buttel- or other sample was put inside, and the Inspector wrote his signature vith an aniline pencil across the junction of the flap with the envelope. He always insisted on the use of these envelopes, and never had any difficulty with them; they even had envelopes large enough for loaves and samples of water. Dr. Muter, in closhg the discussion, said that nearly every analyst had met with instances of changed samples, but his had been by the vendors only. Ho had a milk case now pending, his sample containing under 10 per cent. solids, and the other sample nearly 13 per cent. CONCLUSION OF THE PROUEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS.