(4) That pharmacists themselves must share in the work of elevating the standards of pharmacy.
If we are clear on these principles, sincere in our professions and earnest in our endeavors, the details can easily be worked out.
THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT IN ITS RELATION TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
By Charles H. LaWall.
The responsibility of the pharmacist in his attitude toward fraud and quackery was never more important than it is at the present time, and there should be no reluctance on the part of the members of the profession to serve the public in the capacity of disseminators of information concerning this important subject which is everywhere under discussion, the Food and Drugs Act.
In the United States the actual control of the quality of food and drugs within any given State is a power of the State and not of the federal authority, and owing to the previous absence of legislation controlling interstate commerce the authorities within the individual States (usually the Dairy and Food Commissioner) were confined to the boundaries of these States in bringing prosecutions. In order to control the sale of products made outside of the State and shipped into it, the seller, often an innocent victim, had to be proceeded against, and the manufacturer, the real offender, was secure from any punishment as long as he remained without the State.
This condition of affairs, of course, worked hardship upon persons who were not morally responsible, who were made defendants in criminal prosecutions and were compelled to resort to the civil courts for redress, which was usually inadequate.
On June 30, 1906, by the passage of the act known as the Food and Drugs Act, which went into effect legally on January 1, 1907, this condition of affairs was changed, and every article of interstate commerce is now subject to the act, the rules and regulations of which have occasioned much serious thought among the large class of manufacturers of products which come within its scope.
The underlying principles of the act, and the rules and regulations which have been drafted for its enforcement, are not obscure. They are based upon common honesty. That is, no hardship is worked upon persons who sell their products for what they are, without any misrepresentation. This at first glance would not seem to be a harsh requirement, but when we go into the subject a little more fully we are confronted with the fact that the present era of advertising has developed a carelessness of statement to say nothing of numerous instances of wilful misrepresentation suggesting that the allegation of P. T. Barnum that the American people like to be humbugged, was never more true than at the present time.
Academic questions as to the harmfulness of certain preservatives or colors, or substitutes for this or that well-known foodstuff, do not enter into the question at all. The phrase “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware, is not applicable to foodstuffs, for the buyer as a rule is not capable of judging as to the presence or absence of certain constituents which may or may not be harmful according to the idiosyncrasy of the consumer.