Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

County Totals.-The table below shows the counties for which at least 100 births were reported to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics in 1907 and 1906, respectively:

Rank of Counties with at least 100 Births: 1907 and 1906.

[blocks in formation]

* Includes 6 births in Imperial County, formed August 15, 1907.

There were thirty-one counties with at least 100 births registered in 1906 and thirty-four in 1907, El Dorado dropping out and Ventura, Humboldt, Madera, and Lake entering the list. Similarly, while there were only twenty counties reporting at least 200 births for 1906, there were twenty-three reporting this number for 1907, the additional counties being Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Shasta. On the other hand, there were fifteen counties reporting 300 births for 1906, but only thirteen for 1907, Orange and Tulare falling below this limit.

Comparison of the ranking of counties in the number of births registered shows gains in certain cases. Thus, Sacramento supplanted San Bernardino in sixth place in the ranking, while Riverside rose from twelfth place to eleventh, Santa Cruz from fourteenth to twelfth, Tulare from fifteenth to fourteenth, and Monterey from nineteenth to seventeenth. Contra Costa County rose from twenty-second place to fifteenth, passing Orange, Solano, Butte, Nevada, Monterey, Marin, and

Siskiyou. San Mateo County rose from twenty-third place to twentyfirst, San Luis Obispo from twenty-fifth to twenty-fourth, Mendocino from twenty-seventh to twenty-sixth, and Shasta from twenty-eighth to twenty-third. Ventura and Humboldt counties rose from below thirtyfirst place to twenty-ninth and thirtieth, respectively.

City Totals. The following table gives the comparative ranking of the nineteen freeholders' charter cities reporting births for 1907 and 1906, as well as the supplemental ranking of the five additional cities of this class reporting births for 1907 alone (Alameda, Long Beach, Riverside, Eureka, and Santa Monica):

[blocks in formation]

Berkeley, Sacramento, and Pasadena rose from rank 6, 7, and 8, respectively, in 1906, to 4, 5, and 6 in 1907, passing San José and Fresno. San Bernardino rose from fifteenth place in the ranking to eleventh, passing Santa Barbara, Vallejo, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz. At the same time Santa Cruz rose from fourteenth place to twelfth, passing Santa Barbara, Vallejo, and Santa Rosa. Watsonville and Napa rose from rank 17 and 18, respectively, in 1906, to 16 and 17 in 1907, passing Grass Valley.

It may be noted that the 12,654 births in the nineteen freeholders' charter cities in 1906 form 60.3 per cent of the 20,974 births registered in the whole State, and that the 14,985 births in these same cities in 1907 form 60.7 per cent of the 24,674 births registered in California. Including the five additional cities reporting births for 1907 alone, the twenty-four freeholders' charter cities reported 15,786 births, or 64.0 per cent of the State total.

VITAL STATISTICS FOR MAY.

Births. The living births registered in May number 2,400, against 2,110 for April. For an estimated State population of 2,019,519 the May total represents an annual birth-rate of 14.0 as compared with 12.7 for April.

The May totals were highest for the following counties: San Francisco, 634; Los Angeles, 524; Alameda, 269; Santa Clara, 93; and Fresno, 85.

The births registered in the leading freeholders' charter cities for May were as follows: San Francisco, 634; Los Angeles, 364; Oakland, 149; Berkeley, 41; San José, 39; Pasadena, 34; San Diego, 31; Fresno, 30; Sacramento, 29; and Alameda, 26.

Marriages. The marriages reported for May number 1,653, against 1,618 for April, and represent an annual rate of 9.7, as compared with 9.8 for the preceding month.

The May totals were greatest for the following counties: Los Angeles, 333; San Francisco, 307; Alameda, 208; Sacramento, 66; Fresno and Santa Clara, each 59; and Marin, 55.

Deaths. Altogether, 2,554 deaths, exclusive of stillbirths, were reported for May, against 2,525 for April. The annual death-rate for May is 14.9, as compared with 15.3 for April.

The May death totals were highest for the following counties: San Francisco, 542; Los Angeles, 467; Alameda, 268; Santa Clara, 104; Sacramento, 93; San Joaquin, 81; Fresno and San Bernardino, each 80; Sonoma, 60; and San Diego, 52.

Deaths for May were reported as follows, for the leading cities: San Francisco, 542; Los Angeles, 296; Oakland, 141; Sacramento, 61; San Diego, 45; Berkeley, 41; Stockton, 39; San Jose, 35; Fresno, 28; and San Bernardino, 25.

Causes of Death.-In May there were altogether 398 deaths, or 15.6 per cent of all, from tuberculosis, and 387, or 15.2 per cent, from diseases of the circulatory system.

Other notable causes of death in May were: diseases of the nervous system, 259; violence, 258; diseases of the respiratory system, 240; diseases of the digestive system, 195; Bright's disease and nephritis, 142; cancer, 139; and epidemic diseases, 135.

The leading epidemic diseases in May were: typhoid fever, 45; whooping-cough, 24; diphtheria and croup, 20; measles, 15; scarlet fever, 12; and all others, 19.

Further details appear in the following table, which gives the number of deaths from certain principal causes reported for California in May, as well as the proportions from each cause per 1,000 total deaths for both May and April:

[blocks in formation]

Geographic Divisions.-The table below shows the number of deaths from main classes of diseases reported for May for the several geographic divisions of the State, including the metropolitan area, or "Greater San Francisco," in contrast with the rural counties

Tehachapi :

north

of

[graphic][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][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

DEPARTMENT OF PURE FOODS AND DRUGS.

PROF. M. E. JAFFA, DIRECTOR.

FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTION.

This Department is just in receipt of some United States Food Inspection Decisions, Nos. 94 and 96, which appear to be of vital interest to the manufacturers and dealers of this State. These decisions are therefore reproduced, with the necessary references to the California law.

UNITED STATES FOOD INSPECTION DECISION 94.

THE LABELING OF MEDICINAL AND TABLE WATERS.

The Department has received many letters from various water manufacturers. and mineral water dealers asking which waters it will be necessary to label as "artificial" or "imitation." It is thought that all manufactured waters should be labeled as either artificial or imitation, the choice of words being left to the manufacturer and applying to waters contrived by human art and not made in imitation of a natural water, as well as to those so contrived and made in imitation of a natural water. A water which is designated by some name alone, without any characterizing adjective to tell whether it is natural, imitation, or artificial, will be considered a natural water. It is suggested that the words "artificial" or "imitation" be in as large type as the name of the water in question, and on a uniform background.

All waters which, though natural in the beginning, have anything added to them or abstracted from them after they come from source, should either be labeled as "artificial" or should be so labeled as to indicate that certain constituents have been added to or extracted from them. It is suggested that the word "artificial" or the above explanation, as the case may be, should appear in as large type as the name of the water in question and on a uniform background.

The following examples are explanatory of the above principles: If lithia be added to a natural water, the water should either be labeled as "artificial lithia water," as "water artificially lithiated," or as "water treated with lithia." Again, if carbon dioxid be added to a natural water, whether the carbon dioxid be of the manufactured variety or collected from the spring itself, the water should either be labeled as "artificially carbonated water," "water artificially carbonated," "water treated with carbon dioxid," or "contains added carbon dioxid."

No water should be labeled as a natural water, unless it be in the same condition as at source, without additions or abstractions of any substance or substances.

No water should be labeled as "medicinal water" unless it contains one or more constituents in sufficient amounts to have a therapeutic effect from these constituents when a reasonable quantity of the water is consumed. No water should be named after a single constituent unless it contains such constituent in sufficient amounts to have a therapeutic effect when a reasonable amount of the water is consumed. No manufactured water should bear upon the label any design or device that would lead the consumer to believe that the water is a natural one. Among such designs may be mentioned pictures of springs, fountains, woodland streams, etc. No water should be characterized by a geographical name which gives a false or misleading idea in regard to the composition of said water. For example, it would not be correct to designate a water as "Lithia water" merely because the water came from Lithia, Fla., or Lithia, Mass.

Manufactured water may be named after a natural water in case the words "imitation" or "artificial" are used, but such manufactured waters must clearly resemble in chemical composition the natural waters after which they are named. In accordance with Regulation 18 (California) no natural American spring water should be named after a foreign spring, unless the name of the foreign spring has become generic and indicative of the character of the water, except to indicate a type or style, and then only when so qualified that it could not be offered for sale under the name of the foreign spring. In these cases, the State or Territory where the spring is situated should be stated on the principal label.

Inasmuch as mineral waters are largely purchased because of their supposed freedom from contamination, any showing such contamination will be considered as adulterated and therefore in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.

« ForrigeFortsett »