REPORT OF STATE PURE FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTOR NASHVILLE, TENN., January 25, 1909. To the Honorable State Board of Health, Nashville, Tenn.: GENTLEMEN-I beg to submit the following as a report of the work of my office since your last meeting: Since the report in April I have collected about 517 samples of various articles of food, endeavoring to concentrate my work, as much as possible, along the lines of vinegars, extracts, sausages, syrups, milks, butters, maple products and soft drinks. As a part of this report I attach a detailed list of the legal and illegal products examined, together with the persons from whom these articles were purchased, and, in most cases, the manufacturers thereof. The results of this work may be briefly tabulated as follows: I have in almost every case collected these samples myself, the law giving no appropriation sufficient for the regular service of a subinspector. I have visited most of the cities and larger towns of the State in the course of this work, and have disseminated information wherever possible regarding the food law and the regulations thereunder. I have also issued, from time to time, circular letters to the trades interested, giving them the position of this inspection upon the products in which they are interested. These circular letters I append to this report as a part thereof. By law the Federal authorities in charge of the inspection of foods and drugs are given the right to make rules and regulations, which have the effect of law governing the enforcement of the act. The same is the case in most of the States. In Tennessee we have no such provision. It is desirable to have this, but probably not absolutely necessary, for the reason that a position taken by this inspection is taken only after full conference with the Attorney General of the State. This being the case, the inspector is prepared to back up his opinion by an appeal to the courts. Any person who differs with him is at perfect liberty to appeal to the courts in like manner; but, as a matter of fact, such appeal is resorted to unwillingly on account of the fact that the publicity given to any one so resisting the well-considered opinion of the inspector is extremely undesirable, puts the one who resists in the attitude of opposition to the food laws, and tends in that way to an enormous loss of business, and to placing the objector in a most undesirable light before the public, which, after all, is the arbiter in all such matters. It would appear, therefore, that we can proceed effectively in this State without such power being given to the food inspector. Besides the gathering and analysis of samples I have endeavored to keep in touch with advanced sentiment along these lines, and to this end, after conference with members of your honorable board, I attended, in August, the meeting of the Association of State and National Food and |