« ForrigeFortsett »
DEPARTMENT OF VITAL STATISTICS.
GEORGE D. LESLIE, STATISTICIAN.
VITAL STATISTICS FOR APRIL.
Births.—The living births registered in April number 2,110, as compared with 2,135 for March. For an estimated State population of 2,019,519 the April total represents an annual birth-rate of 12.7 against 12.5 for March.
The April totals were highest for the following counties : Los Angeles, 478; San Francisco, 363; Alameda, 299; Santa Clara, 114; Fresno, 84; San Bernardino, 62; San Joaquin, 53; and San Diego, 50.
The births registered in the leading freeholders' charter cities for April were as follows: San Francisco, 363; Los Angeles, 333; Oakland, 179; Berkeley and Fresno, each 46; San José, 36; Alameda and Sacramento, each 35; Stockton, 33; San Diego, 30; and Pasadena, 27.
Marriages. The marriages reported for April number 1,618 against 1,470 for March, and represent an annual rate of 9.8, as compared with 8.6 for the preceding month.
The April totals were greatest for the following counties: Los Angeles, 331; San Francisco, 294; Alameda, 190; Sacramento, 68; Santa Clara, 66; Fresno, 58; Orange, 57; and Marin, 53.
Deaths.-Altogether 2,525 deaths, exclusive of stillbirths, were reported for April against 2,866 for March. The annual death-rate for April is 15.3, as compared with 16.8 for March.
The April death totals were highest for the following counties : Los Angeles, 507; San Francisco, 482; Alameda, 303; Santa Clara, 93; Sacramento, 79; San Bernardino, 75; San Joaquin, 66; San Diego, 57; Napa and Sonoma, each 56; and Fresno, 55.
Deaths for April were reported as follows for the leading cities : San Francisco, 482; Los Angeles, 305; Oakland, 164; Sacramento, 55; San Diego, 47; Alameda, 46; Berkeley, 45; San José, 36; Stockton, 34; Fresno, 31; and Pasadena, 27.
Causes of Death.-In April there were altogether 423 deaths, or 16.8 per cent of all, from tuberculosis, and 364, or 14.4 per cent, from diseases of the circulatory system.
Other notable causes of death in April were diseases of the respiratory and nervous systems, violence, diseases of the digestive system, Bright's disease, cancer, and epidemic diseases.
The leading epidemic diseases in April were diphtheria and croup, 33; typhoid fever, 28; whooping-cough, 16; scarlet fever, 15; measles, 9 and all others, 21.
Further details appear in the following table, which gives the number of deaths from certain principal causes reported for April, as well as the proportions from each cause per 1,000 total deaths for both April and March.
Proportion per 1,000.
Cause of Death.
15 16 33
55 155 101
62 206 364 213 64 40 14 116 163 36 78 67 161 140
11.1 1.2 0.8 3.6 5.9 6.3 13.1 2.8
3.6 145.7 21.8 61.4 40.0 24.5 81.6 144.1 84.4 25.4 15.8
5.5 45.9 64.6 14.3 30.9 26.5 63.8 55.4
12.2 1.7 0.3 5.9 1.7 4.5 13.6 9.4
3.5 134.0 27.6 49.9 39.8 22.7 69.4 154.2 99.8 27.9 14.7
5.6 45.7 60.4 12.2 26.9 24.8 71.9 59.7
Geographic Divisions.—The table below shows the number of deaths from main classes of diseases reported for April for the several geographic divisions of the State, including the metropolitan area, or “Greater San Francisco,” in contrast with the rural counties north of Tehachapi:
DEPARTMENT OF BACTERIOLOGY.
DR. A. R. WARD, DIRECTOR.
THE CONTROL OF DIPHTHERIA.
one new case.
The American Journal of Public Hygiene for November, 1907, contains an interesting article by Dr. H. W. Hill on "Time Limit versus Culture Limit in Diphtheria Release.” Lack of space prevents reprinting the paper here, but his concluding paragraph presents the gist of the whole :
But wherever the truth may lie as regards the handling of convalescents from diphtheria, the fact seems to be that whether handled by time limit or by culture limit, rather less than two per cent of new cases are accounted for by failures in either method. Since diphtheria morbidity is not on the decrease, although its fatality is, every case of diphtheria now existing must give rise on the average to
The settling of the question as to convalescents, however interesting, will necessarily leave 98 per cent of the reproduction of diphtheria unaccounted for. It would seem much more important to search for the methods to control the, as yet, evidently uncontrolled source of this 98 per cent than to devote all attention to search for those errors in handling convalescents which result in the reproduction of at most two per cent. If we may tentatively accept the teaching that diphtheria is chiefly reproduced by early, unrecognized and concealed cases, the ultimate control of diphtheria to the point possibly of abolition becomes a matter of early diagnosis—which involves culture taking from all sore throats, with isolation until the report is received-or the prompt immunization of all sore throat cases, together with the immunization of all potential receivers—or a judicious combination of both methods, "a word and a blow—the blow first," i. e., give antitoxin first and inquire about it (by means of a culture) afterwards.
The work in the control of diphtheria in schools in California and elsewhere goes a step farther than Dr. Hill has recommended to the general practitioner. It involves a search, by culture, for the mild and unrecognized cases among school children.
OF PURE FOODS AND
PROF. M. E. JAFFA, DIRECTOR.
FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTION.
It was the aim of Congress, by the passage of the National Pure Food Act of June 30, 1906, to insure to the consumer foods and food products honestly labeled and free from adulteration; and to the honest manufacturer, protection from undesirable competition of those who, in various ways, were sophisticating their products.
In order to best attain these ends, it is absolutely essential that there shall be active and efficient coöperation between the State and the Federal laboratories. The national law deals only with imported foods, or with foods and food products manufactured in one State and sold in another; it can not exercise any supervision with reference to foods and food products manufactured, and sold only in the same State, hence the necessity for the State law, and the establishment of the State Laboratory.
Naturally, it is not possible, during the first few months of the Laboratory's existence, to correct all the evil influences arising from food and drug adulteration. The seemingly most important infringements are first taken up, and it appears to those in charge of the work that one of the most imperative needs is to remedy the evils of the adulteration of meats and meat products. This is not only important for the protection of the consumer, but it is of vital interest to the honest manufacturer, and particularly to those who are interested in meats and meat food products intended for interstate commerce. These people are under Federal inspection, and without the coöperation of the State would be forced to submit to competition of those within the State who are not under such inspection, because the latter do not send their goods outside of the State.
Notice is therefore given to all dealers and manufacturers, and those concerned in the manufacture or sale, of meats and meat food products in California, except those to whom the Federal meat inspection law applies, that, in accordance with Section 3 of the California law, reading: “The standard of purity of food and liquor shall be that proclaimed by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture"; the State Board of Health will coöperate with the Federal authorities to the extent of collecting and analyzing samples of meats, and meat food products manufactured in this State. Any infringements of the Federal law with respect to the use of preservatives or coloring matter will be considered as violations of the California law.
For the guidance of those interested, the following excerpts from the Federal law may be of interest :
A meat food product, within the meaning of the meat-inspection act and of these regulations, is considered to be any article of food intended for human use which is derived or prepared in whole or in part from any edible portion of the carcass of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, if the said edible portion so used is a considerable and definite portion of the finished food.
No meat or meat-food shall contain any substance which lessens its wholesomeness, or any drug, chemical, harmful dye, or preservative, other than the preservatives, common salt, sugar, wood smoke, vinegar, pure spices, and, pending further inquiry, saltpeter.
Regulation 39 provides that no dye, unless authorized by the Federal statute, shall be used in any meat food product until the use of such dye has been specifically authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture. It has been decided to allow the use of certain dyes on sausage and other casings when the character of the casings is such that the dye will not penetrate into the meat food product contained in the casing. Cloth casings which it is desired to color with these dyes shall first be dipped in uncolored paraffin. Permission has been granted for the use of annatto for this purpose. In addition, the dyes permitted under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as enumerated in Food Inspection Decision 76, may be used for dyeing casings but for no other purpose. These dyes are as follows: Red shades : 107. Amaranth.
56. Ponceau 3 R.
Blue shades : 692. Indigo disulfo acid.
False or deceptive names.—No picture, design, or device which gives any false indication of origin or quality shall be used upon any label. Any statement, design, or device regarding the virtues or properties of the materials contained in the package that is false in any particular is prohibited by law; for example, the picture of a pig appearing on a label which is placed upon beef product; the picture of a chicken appearing upon a label placed upon a product composed of veal or pork; the picture of a leaf or leaves appearing in connection with the word “Lard” is considered deceptive, except that when used on packages containing leaf lard it may appear separately from the word “Lard” as a brand; e. g., "Maple Leaf Brand.' Such words as “Special," "Superior," "Fancy,” “Selected," etc., placed upon prod
'' ucts which are more inferior than implied by the term used are false and deceptive.
Geographical names.-Geographical names may be used only with the words "Cut," "Type," "Brand,” or “Style," as the case may be, “?
' except upon foods produced or manufactured in the place, State, Territory, or country named; for example, “Virginia Ham," not produced in Virginia, must be marked “Virginia Style Ham”; “English Brawn” must be "English Style Brawn”; “English Sausage" should be “English Style Sausage”; “Bologna Sausage” should be “Bologna Style Sausage”;“Frankfurter Sausage should be “Frankfurter Style Sausage”; “Cumberland Middles'
should be “Cumberland Cut Middles”, “Winchester Sausage” or “Winchester Ham,” should be
; “Winchester Brand Sausage” or “Winchester Brand Ham,” etc.
Names of breeds of live stock and names of persons.—Names indicative or imitative of distinctive types or breeds of live stock can not be used unless the product is actually made of the meat from animals of those breeds; for example, “Berkshire Pork” can not be used unless the product is from the Berkshire breed of hogs.
Names of persons, when used as brands or applied to cuts, will not be considered deceptive.
Products prepared for another establishment.—When an article is prepared by an establishment for another firm or individual, if the name of the said firm or individual is to appear upon the label, the statement must be made that the article was “prepared for” or “manufactured for” the firm or individual. Names of the subsidiary companies which have legal entity may be used without the prefix “prepared for" or "manufactured for”; and such subsidiary companies must make application for inspection under the establishment number of the parent organization. The name of a firm or individual may appear as the distributor of the product. Hams.—The word “Ham,” without a prefix indicating the species
” of the animal, is considered to be a pork ham. Trimmings removed from the ham and used in the preparation of potted or prepared meats or sausage, or when used alone, may be known as “Potted Ham” or “Ham Sausage. The word “Ham' can not be used on any prepared ham product without some word clearly and truthfully indicating the method of preparation ; thus, “Potted Ham," "Deviled Ham," "Minced Ham," "Ham Sausage."