These regulations have not the force of law, but they indicate the views of the Board as to the proper construction of the act, and will answer many questions sent to the Secretary or the Director of the Laboratory,

It may be well, however, in more detail to set forth the views of the Board as to the use of dyes in and the proper labeling of soft drinks.

1. As to the use of coal tar dyes.

The use of any dye, harmless or otherwise, to color or stain a food in any manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, or whereby the purchaser is deceived or misled, is specifically prohibited by law. The use in food, for any purpose, of any mineral dye or any coal tar dye, except those coal tar dyes hereinafter listed, will be grounds for prosecution. Pending further investigations now under way and the announcement thereof, the coal tar dyes hereinafter named, made specif. ically for use in foods and which bear a guaranty from the manufacturer that they are, and which are, as a matter of fact, free from subsidiary products and represent the actual substance, the name of which they bear, may be used in foods.

The coal tar dyes which may be used in this manner are given numbers, the numbers preceding the names referring to the number of the dye in question as listed in A. G. Green's edition of the Schultz-Julius Systematic Survey of the Organic Coloring Matters, published in 1904. The list is as follows: Red shades : 107. Amaranth.

56. Ponceau 3 R.

517. Erythrosin.
Orange shade : 85. Orange I.
Yellow shade. 4. Naphthol yellow S.
Green shade : 435. Light green S. F. yellowish.

Blue shade :. 692. Indigo disulfo acid. Each of these colors shall be free from any coloring matter other than the one specified and shall not contain any contamination due to imperfect or incomplete manufacture.

The use of coal tar dyes, as hereinabove permitted, is allowed at this time and temporarily only, for the reason that it appears that dyes tested, certified, and guaranteed, as required by Food Inspection Decision 77, issued by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, are not to be had in the market at the present time, and this ruling will be in effect only until the Board determines that dyes tested, certified and guaranteed, as required by Food Inspection Decision 77, can be had in the market.

In all cases, persons using coal tar dyes will be required to establish the fact that the dyes used are such as are permitted in this ruling, and until that fact is established, the use of any coal tar dye will be deemed to be in violation of the California Pure Foods Act, March 11, 1907.

Persons or firms using coal tar or aniline dyes should insist that those from whom they purchase coloring matter furnish them very satisfactory proof that the dyes purchased conform to the above requirements.

2. As to the labeling of colored drinks. Whenever such drinks have been artificially colored or flavored, the fact should be stated on the principal label. Otherwise artificial coloring or flavoring will be regarded as a violation of Sections 4 and 6 of the act.

The use of the term “Artificial” alone is not regarded as sufficient in such cases. The words “Artificially Colored,' or “Artificially Flavored,” or Artificially Colored and Flavored," as the case may be, should be used. For example, a soda water artificially colored and flavored to represent a product of the strawberry, may be labeled “Strawberry Soda, Artifically colored and flavored.” Or, if really flavored by the used of that fruit, and artificially colored, it may be labeled “Strawberry Soda, artificially colored. This rule obtains whether the coloring matter used be aniline dye or not.

In the case of soda water labels printed and on hand May 20, 1908, and reading substantially as follows: "Artificial Strawberry," the same may be used on artificially colored and flavored water; but the burden will be upon the persons using the same to prove that they were printed and on hand May 20, 1908.

It should be remembered in this connection that the absence of any label will not justify the sale of any article under a false or misleading


Pending further investigations and until further notice in this Bulletin, the use of saccharin, as a sweetener, in soda waters, will be permitted, providing it is so stated upon the label; but the quantity used shall be in no greater proportion than one sixth of one grain to eight ounces of the beverage.



Examples of mislabeling and misbranding of fruit have been brought to the notice of the State Laboratory. For instance, a box is labeled “Extra Fancy Black Tartarian Cherries." The contents of a box so labeled should consist entirely of Black Tartarian cherries, as far as possible; but a box so labeled and containing but one layer of Black Tartarian cherries, the rest of the contents consisting of extremely small red cherries, is in direct violation of the California Pure Foods and Drug Law, particularly of Section 6, Subdivision 2, which reads:

Food and liquor shall be deemed mislabeled or misbranded within the meaning of this act in any of the following cases :




If it be labeled or branded or colored so as to deceive or mislead, or tend to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or if it be falsely labeled in any respect, or if it purport to be a foreign product tend to mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package.

The above statements with reference to cherries are used merely as an illustration; the principle involved applies to all fruits. In other words, the package must be honestly labeled. This warning is published for the guidance of those interested, because any violations in this respect will have to be dealt with according to the law.

[blocks in formation]



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

Sacramento WALLACE A. BRIGGS, M.D., Vice-President, 0. STANSBURY, M.D..

Sacramento | W. LE MOYNE WILLS, M.D.

Los Angeles
N, K. FOSTER, M.D., Secretary .Sacramento
Hon. J. E. GARDNER, Altorney



N. K. FOSTER, M.D., State Registrar. Sacramento | GEORGE D. LES LIE, Statistician..



ARCHIBALD R. WARD, D.V.M., Director..

.University of California, Berkeley


-University of California, Berkeley


Registration of Births.--The attention of County Recorders and City Health Officers is directed to the statistics on Increase of Births in this month's Bulletin. If the decreases or small increases shown for some counties and cities are due to incomplete registration, the Recorders and Health Officers concerned must exert themselves to compel physicians and midwives to properly register all births attended by them.

If physicians are without enough local pride to register all the births they attend, in order to make a good statistical showing for their respective communities, then the County Recorders and City Health Oficers in charge of birth registrations should warn these physicians that they must obey the State law by promptly registering all births, or else suffer prosecution for misdemeanor.




Summary.—The births registered in California numbered 24,674 for 1907, against 20,974 for 1906, an increase of 3,700, or 17.6 per cent, partly due to improved registration.

The per cent of increase was 18.6 for the counties north of Tehachapi, as compared with 15.6 for those to the south.

For the metropolitan area, comprising San Francisco and the other bay counties, the rate of gain was as great as 34.0, and for Los Angeles County it was 21.9, the per cents of increase being much less for other groups of counties.

Of the individual counties, thirty-four showed increases in births, two no change, and twenty-one showed decreases.

The increases were above the State average, 17.6 per cent, in the following twenty counties: Humboldt, Mariposa, Mono, Sutter, Contra Costa, Ventura, Colusa, Inyo, Lake, Trinity, Alameda, Shasta, San Mateo, San Francisco, Tehama, Monterey, Los Angeles, Merced, Lassen, and Marin.

The rate of gain was 18.4 for the nineteen freeholders' charter cities and 16.5 for all the rest of the State.

The cities showing increases in births were as follows, in descending order: San Bernardino, Berkeley, San Francisco, Pasadena, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Sacramento, Oakland, Stockton, Salinas, Los Angeles, Santa Rosa, Napa, and Fresno.

Comparison of the ranking of the leading counties in births registered shows gains for the following counties : Sacramento, Riverside, Santa Cruz, Tulare, Monterey, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Luis Obispo, Mendocino, Shasta, Ventura, and Humboldt.

In the comparative ranking of cities there were also rises in rank for Berkeley, Sacramento, Pasadena, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Napa.

Altogether 60.3 per cent of the births registered in California in 1906 were in nineteen freeholders' charter cities, and 64.0 per cent of the State total for 1907 were in the twenty-four cities of this class reporting births that year.

Geographic Divisions.--Exclusive of stillbirths, altogether 24,674 births were registered in 1907 and 20,974 in 1906, under the law of 1905 requiring physicians to file certificates with County Recorders and City Health Officers for transmittal to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics. The increase of births for 1907 over 1906 was 3,700, or 17.6 per cent, part of the gain being due to more complete registration.

The births registered in the counties north of Tehachapi totaled 16,752 for 1907, against 14,121 for 1906, a gain of 2,631, or 18.6 per cent. The totals for Southern California were 7,922 in 1907 and 6,853 in 1906, an increase of 1,069, or 15.6 per cent.

The per cent of increase was no less than 30.7 for San Francisco and 38.4 for the other bay counties, or 34.0 for the metropolitan area, against 4.5 for the rural counties north of Tehachapi. Similarly, the rate of gain was 21.9 for Los Angeles, but only 1.2 for the other counties of Southern California.

Further details appear in the table below giving the number and per cent of increase in births for the several geographic divisions of the State, in 1906 to 1907:

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

[blocks in formation]

Counties. The table on the following page gives the increase (or decrease) of births 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 Humboldt County is explained by the incompleteness of the returns for 1906, while the high rates for Mariposa and Mono counties are unimportant on account of the very small totals each year.

The per cents of increase were highest for the following counties : Sutter, 80.4; Contra Costa, 61.7; Ventura, 53.8; Colusa, 46.7; Inyo, 45.5; Lake, 44.3; Trinity, 40.0; Alameda, 38.8; Shasta, 33.8; San Mateo, 32.2; San Francisco, 30.7; Tehama, 30.6; Monterey, 25.6; Los Angeles, 21.9; Merced, 21.2; Lassen, 19.4; and Marin, 19.2. Each of these seventeen counties shows a rate of gain above the average rate for the State, 17.6 per cent.

There were also increases in births, but at rates below the State average, in the following fourteen counties, arranged in descending order: Madera, 16.1; San Diego, 15.1; Amador, 14.8; Sacramento, 13.4; Fresno, 9.6; Kings, 8.8; San Bernardino, 8.6; San Luis Obispo, 7.7; Yuba, 4.2; Glenn, 3.7; Santa Clara, 3.5; Napa, 2.2; Sonoma, 1.6; and Solano, 0.4. For Alpine and Calaveras counties exactly the same number of births were reported in 1907 as in 1906.

« ForrigeFortsett »