Some of the results of the work performed by the New York State Board of Health during the year 1882 are tabulated below:-- ----------------+-----------+--------------+-------------- | Number of | Number | Per cent. of Article. | Samples | found to be | Adulterated. | Tested. | Adulterated. | ----------------+-----------+--------------+-------------- Butter | 40 | 21 | 52·50 Olive oil | 16 | 9 | 56·25 Baking powder | 84 | 8 | 9·52 Flour | 117 | 8 | 6·84 Spices | 180 | 112 | 62·22 Coffee (ground) | 21 | 19 | 90·48 Candy (yellow) | 10 | 7 | 70·00 Brandy | 25 | 16 | 64·00 Sugar (brown) | 67 | 4 | 5·97 ----------------+-----------+--------------+-------------- In interpreting the significance of the foregoing table, it should be borne in mind that in the vast majority of cases the adulterations practised were not of an injurious nature, but consisted of a fraudulent admixture of some cheaper substance, the object being an increase of bulk or weight resulting in augmented profit. Much of the embarrassment experienced by health authorities in their efforts to bring persons guilty of food adulteration to punishment is due to the lack of explicit detail in the law. It is far easier to substantiate the fact of the adulteration than it is to produce the offender in court and secure his conviction. Numerous cases are on record illustrating the peculiar contingencies which at times arise. Probably with the best intention, a milk vendor labelled his wagon, “Country skimmed milk, sold as adulterated;” an inspector bought a sample, not noticing the label, and the magistrate convicted the vendor, doubtless on the ground that due attention had not been directed to the advertisement.[3] Chief Justice Cockburn, in referring to an analogous case, said: “If the seller chooses to sell an article with a certain admixture, the onus lies on him to prove that the purchaser knew what he was purchasing.” In most instances, when in ostensible compliance with the law, a package bears a label purporting to state the actual nature of its contents, the label is either printed in such small type, or is placed in so inconspicuous a position, that the buyer is in ignorance of its existence at the time the purchase is made. A confectioner in Boston was suspected of selling adulterated candy, and while it was proved that a sample bought of him contained a dangerous proportion of a poisonous pigment--chromate of lead--he escaped conviction, on the plea that candy was not an article of food within the meaning of the existing law, which, it seems, has since been amended so as to embrace cases of this kind.