In the case of the German sausage referred to, both boric and salicylic acids are prohibited by the German laws. Boric acid has been declared by this Department to be injurious to health. It does not appear that there is any convincing reason for the use of any preservatives in sausages except the usual condimental ingredients—salt, vinegar, spices, and wood smoke.
Until the results of experiments conducted in the Bureau of Chemistry are declared, small quantities of benzoic acid and benzoates, salicylic acid and salicylates, sulfurous acid and sulfites and copper sulfate are permitted in food products when plainly declared upon the label and when not forbidden by the laws of the countries where the foods are produced or from which they are exported. With respect to sulfurous acid in wine, this decision is not intended to supplant the principles laid down in [F. I. D. 28]. This permission is given without prejudice to any future decision of the Department excluding such substances by reason of excessive quantity or as being prejudicial to health, or for other legal causes.
Approved:
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 16, 1906.
(F. I. D. 35.)
MODIFYING IN CERTAIN CASES PROVISIONS IN [F. I. D. 12] AND [F. I. D. 26].
Experience has shown that in some cases the literal execution of the provisions of F. I. D. 12, of March 1, 1905, relating to first notice to importer, and of [F. I. D. 26], relating to the date at which relabeling after arrival in the United States may be permitted, namely, September 1, 1905, may cause unnecessary annoyance and inconvenience. It is therefore ordered that these two decisions be modified to permit in certain cases the importation of an article not labeled strictly in harmony with the provisions of the food-inspection laws after it is relabeled in a manner satisfactory to the Department. Such action seems especially desirable at the smaller ports, where exact information respecting the requirements of the inspection of foods is not so easily obtainable.
[F. I. D. 26] is also amended so that in certain cases importation after relabeling will be permitted. It is difficult to state exactly in what cases these amendments to [F. I. D. 12] and [F. I. D. 26] will be applied. In general, it may be said that where a food product is misbranded, but no substance deleterious to health has been added, and where neither the importer nor the shipper has had notice of the existence of the law or of its requirements, permission to relabel may be given. A similar permission will be extended to all food products already afloat at the time of receiving the first notice, or which are so advanced in shipment that they can not be countermanded by cable or otherwise. Other miscellaneous requests for permission to relabel will be decided upon the merits of the case presented, and permission to relabel be granted when it is evident that neither negligence nor indifference is responsible for the failure to secure a proper branding of the product. A similar permission will also be granted when it is apparent that the purpose of the law may thereby be fully accomplished. This action is not to be taken in case of food products containing added substances injurious to health or forbidden by the laws of the country from which the substance comes.
In this connection it is suggested to importers that all orders for food products in the United States be given subject to the passing of the inspection at the ports of entry. It will not be considered a sufficient excuse for the importation of improperly branded or otherwise objectionable food products to show that they were paid for before the inspection took place. The law has now been in force long enough to acquaint foreign exporters with its existence and domestic importers with its provisions. It is therefore held that paying for food products before inspection is completed will not be deemed a sufficient excuse for asking for the relabeling, remarking, or admission thereof.
There are certain other cases in which relabeling of an importation of food products may be permitted, but in no case will such a courtesy be extended where it is evident that either importer or exporter has had ample opportunity and notice to comply with the provisions of the law. Such cases include those where evidently honest attempts have been made to comply with the conditions of the law and where failure has been due to ignorance of the exact nature of the conditions required, or some unavoidable cause. These amendments are made to prevent unnecessary annoyance and hardships, and will not be construed in any way to excuse a failure to comply with the conditions of the law where it is evident that these conditions have been fully understood and opportunity afforded for their application.
Approved:
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 16, 1906.