FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONSFrom June 30, 1906, the date the Food and Drugs Act became a law, until January 1, 1907, when it went into effect, numerous questions were propounded to the Bureau of Chemistry by interested parties respecting the scope and meaning of many of its requirements. The Bureau of Chemistry to the best of its ability interpreted, as the prospective enforcing unit, the intent of the law. Following the usual customs in such cases these opinions were taken to the Secretary of Agriculture for signature. The last Food Inspection Decision prior to 1907 was No. 48, issued Dec. 13, 1906. For a few days after January 1, 1907, the Bureau of Chemistry was unrestricted in its first steps to carry the law into effect. Although all matters relating to adulteration or misbranding were now solely to be adjudicated by the Bureau, it was decided to continue to have these opinions, as heretofore, signed by the Secretary. The first decision under the new regime was signed by the Secretary Jan. 8, 1907. It discussed the time required to render decisions. It was prepared because many persons presenting problems were complaining of delay. An open break in the plan of preparing decisions by the Bureau of Chemistry for the Secretary came in the case of F. I. D. 64, signed. by the Secretary March 29, 1907. The question was, "What is a sardine?" The Bureau prepared a decision that only the genuine sardine prepared on the coasts of Spain, France and the Mediterranean Islands was entitled to that name. The Secretary, due to protests from the Maine packers, referred this problem to the Fish Commission of the Department of Commerce. The Fish Commission, which had no function whatever in describing what was a misbranding, made a decision diametrically opposed to that reached by the Bureau. It was as follows: Commercially the name sardine has come to signify any small, canned clupeoid fish; and the methods of valuation are so various that it is impossible to establish any absolute standard of quality. It appears to this Department that the purposes of the Pure Food law will be carried out and the public fully protected if all sardines bear labels showing the place where produced and the nature of the ingredients used in preserving or flavoring the fish. The Fish Commission, being in the Department of Commerce, would consider any commercial process or practice as of more importance than the plain provisions of the food law looking to the protection of the public against misbranding. The Secretary of Agriculture ignored the protest of the Bureau of Chemistry to this decision, placing a trade practice above the plain precepts of the law. The Secretary of Agriculture said: In harmony with the opinion of the experts of the Bureau of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture holds that the term "sardine" may be applied to any small fish described above and that the name "sardine" should be accompanied with the name of the country or state in which the fish are taken and prepared and with a statement of the nature of the ingredients used in preserving or flavoring the fish. The Ambassador of France earnestly indicated to me in a personal interview his feeling that the sardine packers in France would be subjected to a ruinous competition by permitting young sprats and young herrings to be prepared according to the manner of the French sardine and thus enter into direct competition therewith. I believe also the French Ambassador voiced his objection to this decision in a diplomatic way with a protest filed with the Secretary of State. Both this protest and the plain provision of the law that the Bureau of Chemistry should decide all cases as to whether or not the articles were adulterated and mi sbranded failed to have any effect whatever on the Secretary of Agriculture. This was the second official departure of the Secretary of Agriculture from the plain provisions of the law. His whisky decision, which Secretary Bonaparte turned down, was the first.
|
