[ocr errors]

terms. The question must be determined largely upon each case as it arises, with the guidance of the authoritative decisions of the courts, which for the sake of elucidating and explaining the subject are presented in this decision.

United States Food Inspection Decision 87, "Labeling of Corn Sirup," answers several communications received by the Secretary of the State Board of Health, it is therefore quoted in full.

We have each given careful consideration to the labeling, under the pure-food law, of the thick, viscous sirup obtained by the incomplete hydrolysis of the starch of corn, and composed essentially of dextrose, maltose, and dextrine.

"In our opinion it is lawful to label this sirup as 'Corn Sirup,' and if to the corn sirup there is added a small percentage of refiner's sirup, a product of the cane, the mixture, in our judgment, is not misbranded if labeled 'Corn Sirup with Cane Flavor.'

“It must be remembered, however, that the label ‘Corn Sirup' can only be applied to the sirup manufactured from starch of corn; the sirup obtained from starch of potatoes or any grain could not be so labeled."

In view of the many inquiries concerning the use of sulphur dioxid and benzoate of soda in foods and food products, United States Food Inspection Decision 89 is herewith presented.

Amendment to Food Inspection Decision 76, Relating to the Use in Foods of Benzoate of Soda and Sulphur Dioxid.

The question of the addition to food of minute quantities of benzoate of soda and of sulphur dioxid will be certified immediately by the Secretary of Agriculture to the referee board of consulting scientific experts.

Pending determination by the referee board of the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of these substances, their use will be allowed under the following restrictions :

Benzoate of soda, in quantities not exceeding one tenth of one per cent, may be added to those foods in which generally heretofore it has been so used. The addition of benzoate of soda shall be plainly stated upon the label of each package of such food.

No objection will be made to foods which contain the ordinary quantities of sulphur dioxid if the fact that such foods have been so prepared is plainly stated upon the label of each package.

An abnormal quantity of sulphur dioxid placed in food for the purpose of marketing an excessive moisture content will be regarded as fraudulent adulteration, under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and will be proceeded against accordingly.

Food Inspection Decision No. 76, issued July 13, 1907, is hereby amended accordingly.

[blocks in formation]



San Francisco San Francisco A. C. HART, M.D.

Sacramento WALLACE A. BRIGGS, M.D., Vice-President,


Sacramento W. LE MOYNE WILLS, M.D. Los Angeles

N. K. FOSTER, M.D., Secretary Sacramento
HON, J. E. GARDNER, Altorney


STATE BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS. N. K. FOSTER, M.D., State Registrar. Sacramento | GEORGE D. LESLIE, Statistician. Sacramento


University of California, Berkeley STATE FOOD AND DRUG LABORATORY. M. E. JAFFA, M. S., Director

University of California, Berkeley


Registration of Marriages.-The attention of County Recorders is directed to the statistics on Increase of Marriages in this month's Bulletin. If the decreases or small increases shown for some counties are due to incomplete registration, the Recorders concerned must exert themselves to compel ministers and justices to properly register all marriages performed by them. Recorders can readily keep track of these matters by co-operating with the County Clerks who issue the necessary marriage licenses.



INCREASE OF MARRIAGES: 1906 TO 1907. Summary.The marriages registered in California totaled 23,005 for 1907 against 21,317 for 1906, a gain of 1,688, or 7.9 per cent.

The per cent of increase was 9.7 for Northern California and 7.0 for Central California, or 7.4 for both together, against 9.2 for Southern California.

The high rate of gain for San Francisco, 17.5 per cent, in contrast with a slight decrease for the transbay counties, indicates the return of population to the peninsula.

Other high rates of gain were 12.4 per cent for the counties south of Tehachapi except Los Angeles, and 11.6 for the coast counties of Northern California.

Of the individual counties, thirty-eight showed increases in marriages, one no change, and eighteen showed slight decreases.

Marriages increased by at least one-fifth, 20.0 per cent, in the following eleven counties : Inyo, Tehama, Kern, Butte, Napa, Calaveras, Mono, Orange, Madera, Humboldt, and Kings.

The increases were also above the State average, 7.9 per cent, in fourteen other counties, as follows: San Francisco, Yuba, Santa Barbara, Modoc, Fresno, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Monterey, Tulare, Nevada, Glenn, Santa Cruz, Mendocino, and San Diego.

Comparison of the ranking of the leading counties in marriages registered shows notable rises in rank for the following counties : Orange, Humboldt, Santa Barbara, Butte, Napa, Kern, Kings, and Tehama.

Geographic Divisions.-Altogether 23,005 marriages were reported by County Recorders to the California State Bureau of Vital Statistics for 1907 as compared with 21,317 for 1906, these being the first calendar years covered by the operations of the present registration law enacted in 1905. The increase of marraiges for 1907 over 1906 was 1,688, a gain of 7.9 per cent.

In the counties north of Tehachapi the marraiges reported for 1907 totaled 15,728 against 14,650 for 1906, an increase of 1,078 or 7.4 per cent. For Southern California the totals were 7,277 in 1907 and 6,667 in 1906, a gain of 610, or 9.2 per cent.

The per cent of increase for San Francisco was no less than 17.5. This high rate of gain indicates that the inhabitants who were driven elsewhere by the great fire in April, 1906, were re-establishing themselves in homes in the new San Francisco throughout 1907. Confirmation appears from the fact that the group of other bay counties, instead of showing the usual increase of marriages, suffered a slight decrease for 1907 as compared with 1906. The net gain for the entire metropolitan area was thus 7.4 per cent, or the same as for the rural counties north of Tehachapi.

In Southern California, Los Angeles shows an increase in marriages of 7.6 per cent, against no less than 12.4 per cent for the surrounding counties.

The rate of gain for Northern California alone was 9.7, being as much as 11.6 for the coast counties and 7.8 for the interior counties. The corresponding rate for Central California alone was 7.0, the per cent of increase for the coast counties other than the metropolitan area being 3.3 and that for the interior counties being 7.9, or the same as for the entire State.

The following table shows the number and per cent of increase in marriages for the several geographic divisions of the State, in 1906 to 1907 :

Increase of Marriages, for Geographic Divisions: 1906 to 1907.

[blocks in formation]


Counties.—The table on the following page gives the increase (or decrease) of marriages for each county, as well as the per cent of increase for those showing gains in 1907 over 1906.

The apparently high rate of gain shown for Inyo County is due only to the fact that complete returns for 1907 are contrasted with incomplete ones for 1906.

The per cents of increase in marriages were highest for the following counties: Tehama, 39.3; Kern, 35.5; Butte, 31.4; Napa, 27.2; Calaveras, 26.8; Mono, 25.0; Orange, 21.8; Madera, 20.4; Humboldt, 20.3; Kings, 20.0; San Francisco, 17.5; Yuba, 17.1; Santa Barbara, 16.1; Modoc, 15.2; Fresno, 14.8; Sacramento, 13.9; San Bernardino, 13.4; Monterey and Tulare, each 12.6; Nevada, 12.5; Glenn, 11.1; Santa Cruz, 10.4; Mendocino, 8.5; and San Diego, 8.1. Each of these twenty-four counties shows a rate of gain above the average rate for the State, 7.9 per cent.

There were also increases in marriages, but at rates below the State average, in the following thirteen counties arranged in descending order: Los Angeles, 7.6; San Luis Obispo, 6.0; Sonoma, 4.7; Riverside, 4.2; Stanislaus, 4.0; Tuolumne, 3.3; Ventura, 3.1; Lake, 3.0; Placer, 2.3; Contra Costa and San Mateo, each 2.0; Merced, 1.3; and Santa Clara, 0.5. For Plumas County exactly the same number of marriages were reported in 1907 as in 1906.

There were decreases in marriages for 1907 as compared with 1906 in the following eighteen counties arranged alphabetically: Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Lassen, Marin, Mariposa, San Benito, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sutter, Trinity, and Yolo. In most of these cases, however, the der teases were only slight.

[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

*Includes 5 marriages in Imperial County, formed August 15, 1907.

« ForrigeFortsett »