Tenth annual convention of the Association of State and National Food and Dairy Departments, held at Hartford, Connecticut, July 17-20, 1906.

  • Association of State and National Food and Dairy Departments 1906 : Hartford, Connecticut)
Date:
1907
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Tenth annual convention of the Association of State and National Food and Dairy Departments, held at Hartford, Connecticut, July 17-20, 1906. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/366 (page 5)
    REMARKS OP DR. SCOVELL. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: I am greatly surprised to learn that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Flanders) has paid so little attention to the National Pure Food Bill that he does not even now know whether the President has signed it or not. But I am glad to know that there really are some New- Yorkers who are not politicians, for politicians would know that if the President failed to sign the bill before the adjournment of Congress, it would necessarily fail to become a law. I believe that co-operation between the State and the national pure food laws will become a great benefit, and especially will the States be benefited by a national law. The first thing that a national law will tend to do is to unify standards and regulations. At the present time we have many State laws, but they differ widely in some respects in their operation, in their regulations, and in their standards. Take, for instance, milk. In some States the standard for fat is 3 per cent, in others 3^ per cent, and in some still more. The national standard is 3.25 per cent, and I assume that when the law goes into effect these standards will also be used. At the present time in Illinois 3 per cent milk is passed, while in Kentucky milk with only 3 per cent fat would be considered adulterated. Take another instance : glucose fruit-butter is shipped into several States and no one label seems to be sufficient for every State. Some State laws require that the label read contains glucose.” The regulations of another State would compel it to read “imitation fruit-butter”; still another, “adulterated fruit-butter”; and in some States not only must it be labelled adulterated,” but the name and percentage of the adulterant must be given. In the State of Michigan the sale would be prohibited because it would be called “adulterated,” and the Michigan law provides that “no adulterated food product shall be sold in the State.” In Kentucky, on the contrary, an adulterated article may be sold if it contains no harmful sub- stances and if it is so labeled as plainly to show what it does main- tain. Now it is evident that, with a national law being enforced, the tendency will be for the various States to co-operate so far as possible in making uniform standards and regulations. This will