Patterson, H. J., Agricultural Experiment Station, College Park, Md. Phelps, I. K., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Pingree, M. H., American Agricultural Chemical Co., Baltimore, Md. Pope, W. B., 1416 Newton Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. Powdermaker, Miss Florence, States Relations Service, Washington, D. C. Price, T. M., 1811 Irving Street, Washington, D. C. Proulx, E. G., Agricultural Experiment Station, La Fayette, Ind. Quaintance, C. F., Coors Porcelain Co., Golden, Colo. Rabak, Frank, Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D. C. Randall, W. W., State Department of Health, 16 W. Saratoga Street, Baltimore, Md. Rask, O. S., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Rather, J. B., Agricultural Experiment Station, Fayetteville, Ark. Read, Miss E. A., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Redfield, H. W., U. S. Food and Drug Inspection Station, U. S. Appraiser's Stores, New York, N. Y. Reed, J. B., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Remington, R. E., Agricultural Experiment Station, Fargo, N. Dak. Remsburg, C. G., State College of Agriculture, College Park, Md. Roark, R. C., General Chemical Company, Baltimore Works, Baltimore, Md. Robb, J. B., State Department of Agriculture, Richmond, Va. Roberts, O. S., Agricultural Experiment Station, La Fayette, Ind. Ross, S. H., Cudahy Packing Co., E. Chicago, Ind. Rudnick, Paul, Armour & Company, Chicago, Ill. Runkel, Homer, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Sale, J. W., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Schreiner, Oswald, Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D. C. Seeker, A. F., U. S. Food and Drug Inspection Station, U. S. Appraiser's Stores, New York, N. Y. (Since deceased.) Seidell, Atherton, Hygienic Laboratory, Washington, D. C. Sellers, W. S., American Can Company, New York, N. Y. Smith, E. E., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Smith, H. R., U. S. Food and Drug Inspection Station, Park Avenue Building, Baltimore, Md. Smith, J. G., Bureau of Soils, Washington, D. C. Smither, F. W., Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. Spears, H. D., Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexington, Ky. Spencer, G. C., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Stillwell, A. G., Stillwell Laboratories, New York, N. Y. Street, J. P., 405 Indiana Street, Indianapolis, Ind. Sullivan, A. L., State Food and Drug Commission, 16 W. Saratoga Street, Baltimore, Md. Sutton, C. G., B. B. Culture Laboratory, 176 Palisade Avenue, Yonkers, N. Y. Taber, W. C., U. S. Food and Drug Inspection Station, Park Avenue Building, Baltimore, Md. Taylor, G. B., Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C. Taylor, J. N., Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C. Thatcher, A. S., Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co., Long Island City, New York, N. Y. Thomas, E. O., Norfolk, Va. Thompson, E. C., Director of Laboratories, New York, N. Y. Thornton, E. W., State Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C. Todd, A. R., State Food and Drug Department, Lansing, Mich. Toll, J. D., The American Fertilizer, Philadelphia, Pa. Tolman, L. M., Wilson & Company, Chicago, Ill. Treuthardt, E. L. P., Munitions Building, Washington, D. C. Trowbridge, P. F., Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural College, N. Dak. Valaer, Peter, jr., Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C. Van Slyke, L. L., Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, N. Y. Veitch, F. P., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Viehoever, Arno, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Vollertsen, J. J., Morris & Company, Chicago, Ill. Walton, G. P., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. White, W. S., City Food and Drug Inspection, Cleveland, Ohio. Wihlfahrt, J. E., Fleischmann Co., New York, N. Y. Wiley, H. W., Woodward Building, Washington, D. C. Wiley, S. W., Wiley & Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md. Wilson, J. B., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Withers, W. A., College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Raleigh, N. C. Wright, C. D., Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Yanovsky, Elias, Norwalk Tire and Rubber Co., Norwalk, Conn. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS12. INSECTICIDE AND FUNGICIDE LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE ACT OF 1910. By J. K. HAYWOOD (Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C.), President. MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTS: I have read carefully the addresses of past presidents of this association and find they have so fully covered the work of the association that I feel I can not add anything that will be of interest to you. I have, therefore, taken the liberty of departing, to some extent, from the time-honored custom of addressing you relative to the direct work of this association-either past, present or future-and have chosen for my subject "Insecticide and Fungicide Legislation in the United States, with Especial Reference to the Federal Insecticide Act of 1910". While this subject is one which does not specifically deal with the work of the association, I believe that it will interest many, if not all of you, since it is closely allied to our work and is of direct interest to all who are engaged in the enforcement of insecticide and fungicide laws. I will not attempt to follow in detail the numerous insecticide and fungicide laws in the various States which have been enacted and repealed, but will attempt to explain the State laws as they existed seven years before the passage of the Insecticide Act of 1910; in a general way, the history of the Insecticide Act of 1910, the provisions of the act, and the method of its enforcement; and the State laws as they exist at the present time, seven years after the enactment of the Insecticide Act of 1910. EARLY STATE INSECTICIDE AND FUNGICIDE LAWS. In 1903, seven years before the passage of the Insecticide Act of 1910, only six States had passed insecticide laws3, namely, California, Louisiana, New York, Oregon, Texas and Washington. In so far as I can learn, the first insecticide law passed in the United States was Act No. 131 of the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana1, 1 Presented Tuesday morning, November 20, 1917, as special order of business for 11.30 o'clock. * Since this address was prepared, the writer has discovered that certain States had passed insecticide and fungicide laws which should properly have been included in the address. Reference is therefore made to the following State laws: Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Ohio, and Wisconsin (U. S. Dept. Agr., S. R. A., Insecticide, 21: (1918)]. Subsequent to November, 1917, a considerable number of new State insecticide and fungicide laws have been passed which will shortly be reported in the Service and Regulatory Announcements of the Insecticide and Fungicide Board of the United States Department of Agriculture. U. S. Bur. Chem. Bull. 76: (1903), 57. Acts of Louisiana, 1890, No. 131, 171; U. S. Bur. Chem. Bull. 76: (1903), 58. relative only to Paris green, approved by the governor July 10, 1890, and becoming effective September 1, 1890. This law, among other provisions, required the board of agriculture or the commissioner of agriculture to distribute circulars each season, setting forth the brands of Paris green and their percentage of arsenic as claimed by the dealer, and directed that brands containing 50 per cent or more of arsenic be classed as "strictly pure" and brands containing less than 50 per cent of arsenic be classed as "impure". It further directed that the commissioner of agriculture prepare labels for Paris green marked "Guaranteed Strictly Pure" or "Guaranteed Impure", and containing certain other information. These labels were to be furnished to the manufacturer on payment of a certain sum, if said manufacturers had complied with the various provisions of the act. It was made the duty of every person offering Paris green for sale as an insecticide to attach one of these labels to each of their packages of Paris green, a violation of this provision being punishable by a fine. It will thus be noted that the law, to all intents and purposes, established a standard for Paris green, which standard required that pure green contain 50 per cent of arsenic. It is probable that the law really meant 50 per cent of white arsenic (As2O3) and should have so stated, since even the purest Paris green does not contain so much as 50 per cent of metallic arsenic. The next State insecticide law passed in the United States was an act to amend the agricultural law of the State of New York' to prevent fraud in the sale of Paris green. This act became a law March 23, 1898 by the approval of the governor. It required that State manufacturers and dealers in original packages of Paris green file a certificate with the commissioner of agriculture, setting forth the brand of Paris green sold, the number of pounds contained in each package offered for sale, the name of the manufacturer and the place of manufacture, and the amount of arsenic that the Paris green contained. This statement was considered a guarantee to the purchaser that every package of Paris green contained not less than the amount of arsenic set forth in the statement. It further directed that the commissioner of agriculture furnish dealers and State manufacturers of Paris green, who had complied with the above-mentioned provision of the act, with a certificate which would authorize them to deal in Paris green in New York State. The law required that all Paris green, or any product analogous to it, sold or offered for sale in the State as such, contain at least 50 per cent of arsenious oxid, thus establishing a legal standard for this article. Fines for violations of the act were included and a method of enforcing the law outlined. 1 Laws of New York, 1898, 1: ch. 113, 215; U. S. Bur. Chem. Bull. 76: (1903), 59. In Bulletin 204 of the Geneva (New York) Agricultural Experiment Station, published December 1910, it is stated: AMENDMENT TO THE PARIS GREEN LAW. In accordance with the suggestions made by us last year, that portion of the Paris green law which related to the definition of Paris green was changed. The essential portion of the amended law embodying this change is as follows: Paragraph 112. Composition of Paris green or analogous products. Paris green, or any product analogous to it, when sold, offered or exposed for sale, as such, in this state, shall comply with the following requirements: First. It shall contain arsenic in combination with copper, equivalent to not less than fifty per centum of arsenious oxid. Second. It shall not contain arsenic in water-soluble forms equivalent to more than three and one-half per centum of arsenious oxid. Upon looking up this supposed amendment in the New York State statutes, I failed to find it, and have been informed by the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry of the New York Department of Agriculture that, while the amendment was prepared, it did not become a law. In 1899 two States, Oregon and Texas, passed insecticide laws or combined insecticide and fungicide laws. The Oregon' law was approved by the governor February 17, 1899, and became effective at once. This law made it unlawful for any person or corporation doing business in the State to sell Paris green, arsenic, London purple, sulphur or any spray material or compound for spraying purposes, in quantities exceeding one pound, without providing with each package sold a certificate signed by the seller, guaranteeing the quality and per cent of purity of the materials. It required that all of the materials mentioned conform to the certificate furnished, and provided a fine for a violation of the act. A method of carrying out the provisions of the act was also outlined. The Texas law was approved March 25, 1899, and became effective at once. This law was entitled "AN ACT for the better protection of the farmer in the purchase of commercial fertilizers and commercial poisons used for destroying bollworms and other pests". Relative to insecticides, it required that before any commercial poison, or any chemical or mixture used as a commercial poison, such as London purple, arsenic, Paris green or any poison used for the purpose of destroying the bollworm or other pests, be sold or offered for sale in the State, a fair sample be taken by the manufacturer, agent, importer or party selling the product, be sent to the professor of chemistry of the Agricultural and Mechanical College under seal, who was in turn to have the sample analyzed after he had been paid an analysis fee of fifteen dollars by the consignor. It was directed that the analysis be printed in the form of a label, which 1 General Laws of Oregon, 1899, H. B. 238, 98; U. S. Bur. Chem. Bull. 76: (1903), 61. 2 General Laws of Texas, 1899, ch. 46, 64; U. S. Bur. Chem. Bull. 76: (1903), 61. |