[49] 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.
[50] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.