• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

WITHD^ LIE NSTITUTE3 OF HlfferH THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION OF FOOD AND DRUGS For the Year Ending October 31, 1911, Warden Co., r™*#^f^g> Oklahoma City. OFFICERS OF ADMINISTRATION J. C. Mahr, M. D State Commissioner of Health, Food & Drugs U. S. Russell Asst. Food & Drug Commissioner Edwin DeBarr, Ph. D. Director of Laboratories IT. O. Tener Food Inspector Caswell Bennett Food Inspector W. G. Short Drug Inspector L. D. Allen Sanitary Inspector Mayme Martin : Stenographer \ 042707 DR. J. C. MAHR, State Commissioner of Health, Food and Drug's. TETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Oklahoma City, Okla... Oct. 31, 1911. To His Excellency, Hon. Lee Cruce, Governor of Oklahoma. Sir: I have the honor to herewith submit a preliminary report covering the Division of Food and Drugs of the Oklahoma Public Health De­ partment, for the year ending October 31st, 1911. Very respectfully, J. C. MAHR. State Commissioner of Health, Food and Drugs. PRELIMINARY REMARKS The fiscal year 1910-1911, covered by this report, has been one of the notable attainments of the Public Health Department of Okla­ homa. Considering the limited appropriation at hand the amount of work accomplished has been most thorough and satisfactory. Inspec­ tions have been made in seventy-two of the seventy-five counties in the State, these inspections covering both character of food and drugs, and sanitary conditions existing about these places where such stocks are handled. GROWTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST At no time since the enactment of the Oklahoma food and drug law has the public manifested such deep interest in this subject. This is largely the result of the campaign of publicity conducted by the Department and the efforts of inspectors and other officers of the Division, as well as the recent agitations in national administrative circles, which has caused the press of the nation and state to become greatly concerned in this important reform work. This interest is not confined to any particular section of the state. The methods adopted by the Department are calculated to foster public appreciation of its labors and to value the individual benefits that may be secured through co-operation, line time has passed when food and drug regulations are to be considered in the light of unreason­ able and unnecessary reform. This was especially made apparent during the month of September and October of this year, when the Department presented an exhibit at five state, county and district fairs in Oklahoma, at which were shown many of the most common adul­ terations and substitutions found in food, as well as exposures of the methods by which adulterations and substitutions are detected. Thou­ sands of visitors were interested in this exhibit at its every appearance. No one who witnessed the reception given this exhibit at various parts of the State will doubt the earnestness of the new concern aroused by this effort. Third Annual Report UNIFORMITY OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS As the crusade for pure food and drugs progresses throughout the nation, it has begun to appear to those in charge of the enforcement features of this work that uniformity of the laws is the solution that' must be presented at no far distant date. Few of the states in the Union are proceeding under food and drug laws that are similar in all features. Many of them are at variance with the national food and drug act. These differences apply in several ways. For instance, one state may prohibit the use of certain preservatives in the manu­ facture or preparation of food products for the markets, while the United States regulations would recognize some of these preservatives as being permissible. Some states have stringent regulations gov­ erning staple products that are not recognized by a border state; then again, the regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture, which only apply to interstate shipments, often varies greatly with those of sister states covering the proper labels of food products. This confusion of regulations and standards has worked a hardship on the manufacturers, and as a result there is confusion among both jobber and retailers as to what can be legally sold in the several states. Unfortunately the marked difference existing in the .national de­ partment have spread to the various states in the Union, and has re­ sulted in the creation of factions among the food officials of tne United States who should be recognized as the elements through which uni­ formity of the legislation can be secured. The Association of State and National Food and Dairy Depart­ ments of the United States has been for several years engaged in factional warfare. This condition is no doubt responsible for the con­ tinuation of the lack of uniformity now existing. The Oklahoma Food and Drug Act of March 20th, 1909, under which the Department is now proceeding, is, with a few exceptions, a re-adoption of the national food and drug law, and the rules and reg­ ulations adopted by the federal department. Now that it is an open secret that the National Department has been engaged in a serious internal strife, and that many of the regulations adopted have been the result of compromises, or have been based upon questionable foundations, it is apparent, that Oklahoma, having tied itself to the recognition of the Federal regulations, is likewise, being crippled by the lack of harmony so manifest at Washington. It is the belief of your Commissioner that uniformity of food and drug legislation can only be secured when the United States Depart­ ment of Agriculture, through its head officials, manifests a desire to compromise their own differences and correct the effect their past actions have created in the several states by making the first overture towards unification of the several state laws. KJ KlUIHflllll "'" J~" "V *-* >*?<•" '"IVUl. U. S. RUSSELL, Assistant in Charge of Food and Drugs. 10 Third Annual Report HISTORY OF THE OKLAHOMA FOOD AND DRUG LAW Prior to statehood there was no restriction whatsoever placed about the sale of food and drugs in Oklahoma Territory or Indian Territory. As a result this great field of opportunity was a tempting morsel to the manufacturers of food products who cared little for the character of goods marketed. The two territories were, therefore, figuratively speaking, a dumping ground for adulterated and mis- branded foodstuffs. This condition continued to prevail until several months after the first state legislature convened. In 1908 the initial food and drug regulation was adopted. This bill placed food, dairy and drug inspection under the control of a Commission of which the President of the State Board of Agricul­ ture was chairman, and the secretary of the State Board of Health was ex-officio secretary. It was soon found that this arrangement was not satisfactory, so the following year the present food and drug stat­ ute was adopted by the second legislature, and the inspection of claries was transferred to the Dairy Department of the State Board of Agriculture. This act placed the State Commissioner of Health in charge of food and drug regulations. In many respects the present food and drug act of Oklahoma is an admirable statute, yet its deficiencies have, by a thorough test, been made so manifest as to warrant the application of remedies that are now necessary for a successful administration of the law. In brief, I respectfully refer to the peculiar verbage of the pres­ ent food and drug act of this state, covering the procedure in the en­ forcement of the law against parties charged with violations of any of its various provisions. For some reason, which seems at this time unexplainable, the method of procedure was copied verbatum from the national food and drug law, rules and regulations. As a result a peculiar situation pre­ sents itself. For instance: Even though an inspector detects a party willfully selling decomposed meat, he has, under the present law, no authority to arrest the party, and is required to serve on the offender a summons requesting his appearance before the State Commissioner of Health to show cause, if any he has, why he should not be prose­ cuted. Should the offender deny the charge, he is, under the Con­ stitution of Oklahoma, protected from giving testimony that might incriminate himself. After the Commissioner is convinced that the offender should be prosecuted, he must, under the present law, cer­ tify the case to the county attorney in the county in which the offense was supposed to have been committed, and recommend prosecution. It is here that a serious obstacle presents itself. From experience al­ ready had your Commissioner is convinced that it is indeed difficult to secure the aggressive co-operation of a county attorney wherein a citizen of his county is charged by the state officer with a crime that is declared by the statute to be but a misdemeanor. Another feature of the Oklahoma Food and Drug Law which is inconsistent with that of the food departments of the National Gov­ ernment and sister states, is that section of the statute applying to H. 0. Tener, Food Inspector Caswell Bennett, Food Inspector Edwin DeBarr, Ph. D., State Chemist W. C. Short, Drug Inspector L. D. Allen, Sanitary Inspector 12 Third Annual Report a "compound lard." Oklahoma has prescribed a most stringent regu­ lation covering the labeling of so-called compound lard. In terms not to be misunderstood the statute declares that this product must be plainly labeled "compound lard," while the regulation of the na­ tional government and sister states recognize this product merely by the term of ''compound." As a result the packing industry of Oklahoma is at this time following the requirements placed upon them by the national government, and which governs in interstate ship­ ments.

Load more

  128

Copy Link