v;;'jiflgaE*BHiiT!'Sii«fti(WWi«*etEjrHWw»e 
 
 AMERICAN 
 
 MP . ,p 
 
 Lfc:r^'lNGWELi. 
 
 1 
 
ALBERT R. MANN 
 LIBRARY 
 
 New York State Colleges 
 
 OF 
 
 Agriculture and Home Economics 
 
 AT 
 
 Cornell University 
 
Cornell University Library 
 HD9410.9.U5L49 
 
 American meat and its influence upon the 
 
 3 1924 013 797 679 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013797679 
 
AMERICAN MEAT 
 
AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 AND ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE 
 PUBLIC HEALTH 
 
 BY 
 
 ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D. 
 
 LATE FKESIDSHT OF THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION 
 
 AUTHOR OP 
 
 " ILLEGITIMACY, AND THE RELATION OF SEASONS TO CONDUCT," ETC. 
 
 NEW YORK: THEO. E. SCHULTE 
 
 132, EAST 23TD STREET 
 
 LONDON : G. BELL & SONS, LTD. 
 
 1910 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The pages which follow represent the results of 
 a somewhat unusual inquiry. Up to a recent 
 period, the writer regarded the products of 
 American packing-houses with that implicit and 
 unquestioning confidence which so generally pre- 
 vails in America and England. There had been 
 grave scandals and exposures ; but these had 
 ended in rectification of all abuses, and in perma- 
 nent reforms. The inspection of meat — the over- 
 sight of its manufacture into various products — 
 had been confided to a Department of the Federal 
 Government, where it was supposed there could 
 be no temptation to formulate rules that should 
 be contrary to the public health. It was while 
 passing through one of the great meat-producing 
 establishments of Chicago, that the casual remark 
 of an employee suggested further investigations, 
 leading to a revelation of conditions hitherto 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 unsuspected, which it is the purpose of these 
 pages to make known. 
 
 It will be noted that frequent references are 
 made to the " Meat Trust." The term is here 
 used, not to indicate a business entity of any kind, 
 but simply an influence which proceeds from the 
 financial interests involved. Fifty years ago, in 
 America, men spoke of the "Slave power" as 
 controlling the Government of the United States. 
 In like manner, we refer to the Meat Trust. Of 
 any such financial combination or organisation 
 we have no evidence. But some power exists, 
 capable of making its influence felt regarding 
 everything that touches this trade in flesh. Some 
 power has been able to prevent the total con- 
 demnation of diseased animals for food purposes. 
 Some powerful influence' induced Congress to 
 place the cost of inspecting meat, not upon the 
 producers, but upon the people of the United 
 States. Some influence caused the regulations 
 governing meat inspection to be always more 
 favourable to sordid interests than to public 
 welfare. This malign influence we designate the 
 Meat Trust. The final analysis regarding its 
 origin we leave to others. 
 
PREFACE vii 
 
 It is certain that the conclusions brought forward 
 in these chapters will be disputed by those whose 
 financial interests are in any way concerned. 
 Regret will be expressed because of the publicity 
 given to methods of meat inspection which 
 hitherto have eluded observation and criticism. 
 Distinguished experts will be brought forward 
 to assure us that in their judgment no danger to 
 health is likely to result from the acts herein 
 condemned. But one point is impregnable. In 
 the face of evidence here produced, it is im- 
 possible to deny the practices which the Regu- 
 lations of the United States Department of 
 Agriculture explicitly sanction and permit. Are 
 such permissions in perfect accord with public 
 sentiment in England and America ? That is 
 the problem which we here put to the test. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. THE PACKING-HOUSE OF TO-DAY I 
 
 II. THE NULLIFICATION OF LAW - - - lO 
 
 III. MALIGNANT TUMOURS AND THEIR RELATION TO OUR 
 
 MEAT-SUPPLY - - ■ 25 
 
 IV. TUBERCULOSIS AND AMERICAN MEAT- - 47 
 V. ACTINOMYCOSIS AND AMERICAN BEEF - 68 
 
 VI. TRICHINA AND AMERICAN PORK - 86 
 
 VII. SWINE PLAGUES, AND THEIR RELATION TO PORK 
 
 FOODS - - - 98 
 VIII. OTHER CONDITIONS OR DISEASES AFFECTING 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT - I04 
 
 IX. AMERICAN PURE LARD AND ITS SOURCES - 113 
 
 X. THE FEDERAL INSPECTION OF HORSE-MEAT - - 121 
 
 XI. MEAT INSPECTION IN AMERICAN CITIES AND STATES 127 
 
 XII. THE DEFENCE OF A WRONG ... - 140 
 
 Xin. THE HELP OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE - - 160 
 
 XIV. THE PROBLEM OF REFORM - - 164 
 
 XV. CONCLUSIONS - - - 183 
 
 APPENDIX - - - - ■ - 192 
 
 INDEX .... - . 205 
 
*'/ am not of the opinion of those 
 gentlemen who are against disturbing 
 the public repose ; I like a clamour 
 when there is an abuse. The fire-bell 
 at midnight disturbs your sleep, but it 
 keeps you from being burned in your bed. 
 The hue-and-cry alarms the country, 
 but it preserves all the property of the 
 province." 
 
 Edmund Burke. 
 
AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE PACKING-HOUSE OF TO-DAY 
 
 During the early part of the year 1906, the world was 
 startled by revolting disclosures concerning the stock- 
 yards and great packing-houses of Chicago. By special 
 investigators sent out by the President of the United 
 States, it was shown that the methods of handling and 
 preparing food-products were not only uncleanly, but 
 dangerous to health ; that some of these establishments 
 were not kept even reasonably clean; that a traffic 
 existed in questionable meats; that among the em- 
 ployees tuberculosis existed entirely out of proportion 
 to their number, and that, in short, the conditions 
 there prevalent were a menace to the public health. 
 The financial losses occasioned by these revelations 
 were beyond computation, and their effect probably 
 continues to the present day. 
 
 What are the conditions which at present prevail in 
 the great slaughter-houses of Chicago? It was to 
 obtain light on this question that several visits were 
 made to some of the largest establishments engaged in 
 the preparation of meat. 
 
 I 
 
2 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 In the first place, one is impressed by the courtesy 
 with which the inquiring visitor is received. He will 
 perhaps note a sensitiveness regarding the past criti- 
 cism to which the meat-packers were subjected, and 
 an evident desire to minimise the more revolting 
 accusations. The fact that the great slaughtering 
 establishments have been open to visitors for the past 
 thirty years will be dwelt on, with insistent assertion, 
 as proof that evils so terrible could not have existed, or 
 they would not have escaped the public eye. Attention, 
 perhaps, will be specially directed to the cleanliness 
 now so generally observed in the preparation of animal 
 food-products, and to the Government inspection of 
 whatever is designed to enter our food-supply. 
 
 Inasmuch as former complaints were chiefly directed 
 to the uncleanliness of the packing establishments, one 
 could hardly expect other than decidedly improved 
 conditions at the present day. In this respect, there 
 would seem to be little to criticise. Some of the 
 wooden buildings have been far too long in use; but 
 aside from this, money would seem to have been freely 
 spent upon all practicable improvements tending to 
 insure cleanliness in the handling of meat. In one 
 large establishment the floors of rooms intended for the 
 reception of beef recently dressed were of hard wood, 
 highly polished, and lightly strewn with clean saw- 
 dust. Personal cleanliness on the part of the workers 
 is required; printed signs on the walls in English, 
 Polish, and other languages, inform workmen that the 
 white outer garments which they are required to wear 
 will be laundered daily, at the expense of the establish- 
 ment, and must therefore be regularly changed. 
 
THE PACKING-HOUSE 3 
 
 Particular attention seems to be directed to the manu- 
 facture of sausage, an article chiefly composed of pork, 
 and of which some millions of pounds are annually sent 
 from Chicago to all parts of the world. In the various 
 operations incident to the preparation of this article, 
 there would seem to be little occasion for present 
 criticism. The workers, mostly woihen and girls, were 
 dressed in clean white gowns; the rooms were well 
 lighted ; the floors as clean as could be desired. So far 
 as practicable, the operations incident to manufacture 
 were performed by machinery; and in certain cases 
 where much handling was necessary, it was done upon 
 large tables of thick plate-glass, which could be readily 
 cleaned at the close of the day's work. Taken all in 
 all, it would seem that the principal meat-packing 
 estabhshments of Chicago are now conducted with as 
 strict attention to the demands of cleanliness as circum- 
 stances permit, or as the most fastidious critic could 
 require. What the casual visitor may not remember 
 is the fact that the real value of each and every food- 
 product depends not merely upon the nicety with which 
 the processes of manufacture are carried on, hutj^bove 
 everything, upon the quality of the meat composing them. 
 It is probable that on this point the visitor will learn 
 nothing from observation in the packing-house, rjp 
 matter how frequent his visits, or how keen his sighty 
 
 One great evil of the former system, which in many 
 respects does not appear to have been reformed to any 
 notable degree, is the hideous cruelty to living animals, 
 occasioned by the haste with which every operation 
 pertaining to slaughter is carried on. The celerity with 
 which living creatures may be turned into food-products 
 
 1—2 
 
4 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 has long been a matter of subdued pride in slaughter- 
 house society. And yet it would seem that when we 
 had decided to sacrifice an animal in order to devour 
 it, we might at least try to put it to death with the 
 fewest pangs. It would hardly take a moment longer 
 to deprive every animal of sensibility by a blow over 
 the brain or by some similar procedure, as in the case 
 of cattle; but only a small minority of the creatures 
 slaughtered may experience so painless an exit from 
 life. Sheep, led by a little goat into the slaughter-pen, 
 are caught up by the hind-leg in bunches of three or 
 four at a time, passed on to the butcher, who cuts the 
 throat, and then to a long line of assistants, each of 
 whom has one thing to do. It is evident that too little 
 time is allowed for dying, and removal of the skin is 
 almost certainly commenced before sensibility can have 
 ceased. One sees the palpitating dying thing in the 
 hands of someone, actively at work upon it, from the 
 moment it leaves the butcher's hands.^ 
 
 The killing of cattle is more humanely performed. 
 The animal is first stunned by a blow ; it falls on its 
 side, the throat is cut, and the processes of removing 
 the skin and evisceration follow very soon. As a rule, 
 care is taken to strike the animal immediately over 
 the brain; but sometimes one moved its head at the 
 critical moment, and there were scenes over which the 
 memory does not care to linger. All this might be 
 avoided, if the animals were slaughtered with the 
 
 1 Since these observations were made, some of the packers have 
 promised to repress the worst cruelties. As this result has been 
 attained through persistent personal and private influence, we are 
 precluded from giving particulars. 
 
THE PACKING-HOUSE 5 
 
 deliberation and huma-uty which obtains in some 
 foreign lands. 
 
 Some of the worst abuses still prevail in the slaughter 
 of swine. The obese animals, in a long procession, 
 ascend an inclined passage-way which, beginning at 
 the ground-level, ends on the upper floor of the packing- 
 house, where the killing is done. A huge wooden 
 wheel, some ten or fifteen feet in circumference, forms 
 one side of a pen ; stout iron chains, two or three 
 feet in length, hang from its circumference at regular 
 intervals. A man enters the pen, fastens a small chain 
 to the leg of a pig, deftly links it to the chain on the 
 slowly revolving wheel, and the animal, however large, 
 despite all struggles, is slowly lifted into the air and 
 delivered automatically on a tramway, whereon, head 
 down, it comes before the executioner. It is but a 
 thrust of a keen blade, and the casual visitor perhaps 
 questions whether any method of killing could be more 
 merciful. 
 
 But this constant thrusting and letting out of life, 
 this swift evasion of struggling animals and jetting 
 blood, this killing at the rate of one every five or six 
 seconds, cannot but create a terrible sense of weari- 
 ness. The struggling creatures come swiftly against 
 the slaughterer, and yet upon his unceasing activity 
 depends the work of hundreds of men. The animals 
 are supposed to bleed to death ; the carcasses are then 
 plunged into a huge vat of boiling water. But some- 
 times not enough time is allowed for the creature to 
 die ; sometimes the knife misses the artery at which 
 it was aimed ; sometimes, even, the animal passes 
 the butcher without being struck at all, and then 
 
6 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 the terrible spectacle is seen of living creatures 
 writhing in torment, and slowly boiled alive. The 
 packing-house cannot dispute this occurrence; the 
 workmen freely admit that it happens when the haste 
 of butchery passes a certain point, and the writer has 
 seen it more than once. The regulations issued by 
 the Government admit the fact by ruling that " hogs 
 which have been allowed to pass into the scalding vat 
 alive . . . shall be condemned." ' Possibly this regula- 
 tion is strictly carried out, but there are reasons for 
 doubt.2 
 
 Personal observation of Government inspectors at 
 their work left much to be desired. At a certain stage 
 of their transformation into pork the carcasses of 
 the slaughtered animals passed, head downward, on a 
 tramway. One Government inspector, engaged in his 
 duties, was seen in a chair, tipped back against a post, 
 watching the monotonous procession of dead pigs go by 
 him at the rate of six or seven a minute. It is perhaps 
 permissible to question the value of any inspection thus 
 perfunctorily performed. A special committee, report- 
 ing to the Secretary of Agriculture in 1906, declared 
 that, owing to the system of slaughtering in vogue, and 
 the inspector's adaptability to the work, " he is enabled 
 to examine each carcass carefully, although a large 
 number of carcasses pass before him in a day." 
 Probably any grave departure from normal conditions, 
 if sufficiently prominent, might be seen by the skilled 
 
 1 See Appendix, Regulation 13, Section 29. I 
 
 * The italics in this sentence, and in all the quotations which 
 follow, are the writer's. They serve to indicate passages to which 
 the especial attention of the reader should be given. 
 
THE PACKING-HOUSE 7 
 
 inspector, ^hen we learn, however, .that during the 
 year ending June 30, 1907, of every thousand hogs 
 which received post-mortem inspection, less than four 
 were totally condemned for food, we may perhaps be 
 pardoned if doubts arise^ Upon the extent to which 
 such doubts are justifiaole the following pages may 
 throw light. What the public needs to know is the 
 extent to which meat derived from diseased animals is 
 officially permitted to be sold as wholesome food. The 
 charge has been made that abuses exist ; the evidence, 
 however, must be sought otherwise than by inspection 
 of the packing-houses. 
 
 The laws which Congress enacted were by no means 
 the measures desired by the advocates of reform. 
 Clauses intended for the protection of the public were 
 antagonised by powerful combinations of capital, and 
 failed to become law. The inspection of animals before 
 their slaughter for food was not made mandatory, but 
 left to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 That the laws meet the demands of medical science in 
 all respects few will assert. At the same time, it is 
 generally believed at the present time, both in this 
 country and abroad, that the legislation of 1906 practi- 
 cally insures the quality of American meat. The laws 
 were apparently as explicit as human ingenuity could 
 devise. The meat-inspection law seemed to be clear 
 enough. There was to be an ante-mortem examination, 
 and another inspection of the carcasses of slaughtered 
 animals.^ " All carcasses and parts thereof of animals 
 found to be unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or 
 otherwise unfit for human food . . . shall be destroyed 
 for food purposes." The soHcitor of the Department of 
 
8 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Agriculture has declared in the most emphatic way 
 possible that meat and meat-products bearing the 
 Government stamp were from healthy animals. " I 
 am authorised to say to you," he declared, " that this 
 Administration has made, and will continue to make, 
 the Federal stamp upon meats and meat-food products 
 stand for something. When you see this stamp upon a 
 product, you may know that the meat is from healthy 
 animals ... It is hoped . . . that all obnoxious re- 
 strictions may be removed, when the various foreign 
 governments understand the Meat Inspection label to 
 be — what it really is — a guaranty by the United States, of 
 the healthfulness, wholesomeness and purity of the product."^ 
 Such assurances are impressive ; they tend to incite 
 confidence. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for 
 incredulity and distrust. We propose to make known 
 facts which seem to indicate that laws, passed by Con- 
 gress for the protection of the public health, have been 
 so construed, and so administered, as largely to favour 
 the pecuniary interests of a great Trust whose rapacity 
 and disregard for human welfare have already led to 
 scandal and abuse. It may be shown upon the authority 
 of Government documents that in some most important 
 particulars the present Federal inspection of meat is but 
 little better than a delusion and a sham. Notwithstand- 
 ing official assurances to the contrary, it shall be shown 
 that at the present time, the flesh of animals killed 
 while suffering from most dangerous and loathsome 
 diseases may be "passed" by Federal inspectors as 
 " healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food." It 
 shall be shown that the law as now executed permits 
 1 See U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Circular loi, pp. 14-15. 
 
THE PACKING-HOUSE 9 
 
 the manufacture of lard — a product which finds itself 
 in so many articles of food — from some of the most 
 disgusting materials it is possible to conceive, and that 
 the highest officials in charge of the execution of the 
 law not only permit the act, but assert in a Govern- 
 ment publication that " not the slightest objection can 
 be raised against this procedure," so far as the pubhc 
 health is concerned. Perhaps the reader who studies 
 the evidence it is proposed to adduce may reach a 
 different conclusion. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE NULLIFICATION OF LAW 
 
 On the last day of June, igo6, as the result- of an 
 agitation which had spread throughout the world, two 
 statutes affecting the public health received the formal 
 approval of the President of the United States. The 
 first of these laws, the Food and Drugs Act, and 
 popularly known as the " Pure Food Law," related 
 chiefly to medicines and drugs, but was made to include 
 within its scope the adulteration of food. The second 
 enactment was in form of an amendment to the Act, 
 which made the annual appropriation for carrying on the 
 work of the Department of Agriculture, and provided 
 for the inspection of meat. Its object was to render 
 illegal the transport from one state to another, or the 
 shipment to a foreign land, of any meat or meat-food 
 product, unless it had been duly inspected and passed 
 by officials of the United States. 
 
 It will be seen that, so far as meat and meat-products 
 were concerned. Congress placed the public health 
 under the charge of the Secretary of the Department of 
 Agriculture. Vast and important powers were conferred 
 upon him ; and the general public, with abiding con- 
 fidence in official wisdom, ceased to take further interest 
 
NULLIFICATION OF LAW ii 
 
 in any reports affecting the quality of American meat. 
 Undoubtedly there had been abuses in the past ; but 
 the law must have rectified them all. Undoubtedly 
 there may have been a time when the flesh of diseased 
 animals had been permitted to be sold for food ; but, of 
 course, this scandal had been made impossible by laws 
 which distinctly made such an act a criminal offence. 
 As a result of the agitation which had lasted for many 
 months, it was believed that these two enactments by 
 Congress must have effected a complete reform of any 
 abuses which had previously existed. 
 
 It is the purpose of the writer to call in question 
 the administration of these laws, and to disturb the 
 confidence now felt in the purity of American meat. 
 As previously stated, many of the horrible conditions 
 revealed during the agitation of 1906 have generally dis- 
 appeared. The visitor to a great packing establishment 
 in Chicago will undoubtedly note evidence of improve- 
 ment at nearly every step, and he may return home to 
 London or New York ready to chant the praises of 
 American slaughter-houses under the new regime. 
 What he cannot possibly discover by any inspection 
 of such establishments are the abuses regarding the 
 quality of the meat, which even under his eye was 
 being daintily manufactured into a food-product destined 
 for some man's table. 
 
 If abuses exist, have they been infractions of the law ? 
 
 . Or has the law been so interpreted and administered as 
 
 to permit them ? Has the law been construed in favour 
 
 of the meat-producers, or in favour of the public health ? 
 
 Have the laws been nullified or disobeyed ? 
 
 Almost immediately after the passage of the two laws 
 
12 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 of June, 1906, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a new 
 series of regulations governing meat inspection. These 
 rules, which bore date July 25, 1906, differed but slightly 
 from similar regulations put forth in June, 1904, long 
 before any agitation began concerning the packing- 
 houses. On April i, 1908, still another series of 
 regulations governing the inspection of meat were 
 issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, and these are 
 the rules which are now in force. Proceeding from the 
 Department of Agriculture, a bureau devoted to further- 
 ance of the interests of the agriculturist and stock- 
 raiser, what ought the public to expect regarding 
 regulations of this kind ? On the one hand is the 
 public welfare, and the will of the people, expressed 
 by laws. On the other hand, in some respects 
 antagonistic to the public health are vast financial 
 interests, which would be detrimentally affected by 
 a scrupulous regard for the common good. In 
 formulating rules regarding inspection of animals or 
 carcasses of animals intended for food, which interest 
 should we naturally expect to control conduct, the 
 public welfare or the financial benefit of the Meat Trust ? 
 Let us look at a few typical instances wherein regula- 
 tions have been changed, and see if we can discern for 
 what reasons, or in whose interest, the changes have 
 been made. 
 
 It would seem to have been the design of the framers 
 of the meat-inspection amendment to require an 
 examination of the living animals intended for slaughter 
 before they entered the pens of the packing-house. The 
 provision of the statute by which it was hoped to secure 
 this object reads as follows : 
 
NULLIFICATION OF LAW 13 
 
 " That for the purpose of preventing the use in interstate or 
 foreign commerce, as hereinafter provided, of meat and meat- 
 food products which are unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or 
 otherwise unfit for human food, the Secretary of Agriculture, at his 
 discretion, may cause to'^be made, by inspectors appointed for that 
 purpose, an examination and inspection of all cattle, sheep, swine, 
 and goats before they shall be allowed to enter into any slaughtering, 
 packing, meat-canning, rendering, or similar establishment, in 
 which they are to be slaughtered and the meat and meat-food 
 products thereof are to be used in interstate or foreign commerce ; 
 and all cattle, swine, sheep, and goats found on such inspection to 
 show symptoms of disease shall be set apart and slaughtered 
 separately from all other cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, and when 
 so slaughtered the carcasses of said cattle, sheep, swine, or goats 
 shall be subject to a careful examination and inspection, all as 
 provided by the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the 
 Secretary of Agriculture as herein provided for." 
 
 The reason for this wise provision is evident. Carried 
 into effect, it would at least have tended to secure that 
 no animal manifestly suffering from certain diseases 
 could find admission to the pens of the packing-house. 
 Unfortunately for the general public, this form of 
 inspection outside the precincts of the packing-house 
 was abandoned under the clause of the law which left it 
 to the discretion of the Secretary. The solicitor of 
 the Department of Agriculture thus explains the reason 
 for this decision : 
 
 " The Secretary has directed that the ante-mortem inspection 
 shall not be made until the animal becomes the property of the 
 establishment which is to slaughter it. . . . Until the animal 
 becomes the property of the establishment, the Department has no 
 control over its disposition, and cannot enforce the provision of 
 law that all animals suspected of disease on ante-mortem examina- 
 
14 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 tion shall be slaughtered and the ante-mortem diagnosis confirmed 
 or disproved by the post-mortem inspection."* 
 
 There are those, undoubtedly, to whom this excuse 
 will seem ample. We cannot so regard it. If the 
 law permits an owner to withdraw his stock after they 
 have been inspected and condemned, then more ample 
 powers should have been asked. We are not concerned 
 so much with the action of unscrupulous owners 
 outside the stock-yards, as with what may become of 
 diseased cattle or hogs or sheep after they have entered 
 the pens from which Congress hoped to exclude them. 
 The Department of Agriculture has decided that the 
 packing-houses must first buy the diseased animals, 
 and then bring them upon their grounds, before the 
 ante-mortem inspection shall take place. We can guess 
 what will happen, from the experience of preceding 
 years. During the period 1901-1906 inclusive, over 
 660,000 post-mortem inspections were made of animals, 
 which before slaughter had been rejected in the stock- 
 yards as apparently diseased. Of these, only 85,000 — 
 less than one in eight — were finally condemned as wholly 
 unfit for food purposes.^ May it not be possible that, 
 on the whole, the average profits of the meat-packers 
 upon animals suspected of disease are even greater than 
 upon sound and healthy animals ? We shall see reasons 
 for this inquiry. 
 
 Another important provision of the law of 
 June 30, igo6, is that which makes obhgatory a 
 
 * U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Circular loi, 1907, p. 5. 
 
 ^ Since July i, 1906, these most important facts have been 
 withheld from publication, and no longer are to be found in the 
 official reports. 
 
NULLIFICATION OF LAW 15 
 
 post-mortem examination of all carcasses of animals 
 butchered outside the packing-houses before they 
 can be brought therein. The law sa^ : 
 
 " The foregoing provisions shall apply to all carcasses or parts 
 of carcasses of cattle, sheep, swine, and goats, or the meat or meat- 
 products thereof which may be brought into any slaughtering, 
 meat-canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment, 
 and such examination and inspection shall be had before the said 
 carcasses or parts thereof shall be allowed to enter into any depart- 
 ment wherein the same are to be treated and prepared for meat- 
 food products.'' (Italics ours.) 
 
 Now this provision of the law seems very plain. So 
 far as one can discover, there is conferred upon the 
 Secretary of Agriculture no power or right to annul or 
 revoke this clause of the law. Its wisdom is evident. 
 It was designed to keep away from the packing-house 
 the carcasses of animals slaughtered without Govern- 
 ment supervision and possibly diseased, unless they 
 could be inspected with all the internal organs and 
 parts attached. Without such provision as this, 
 diseased meat to almost any extent might find its way 
 to the manufacturers of canned goods and of sausage. 
 Yet on December 5, igo6, this provision of the law was 
 partly annulled by the Secretary of Agriculture for 
 reasons so extraordinary that they deserve quotation in 
 full. A circular issued by the Department of Agri- 
 culture affords us the following authoritative state- 
 ment : 
 
 " The law provides that the ante-mortem and post-mortem 
 inspections shall apply to all carcasses or parts of carcasses of the 
 four animals, or the meat or meat-food products thereof, which 
 may be brought into any establishment where inspection is main- 
 
i6 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 tained, and thai such examination and inspection shallbe had before 
 the carcasses or parts thereof are admitted into the establishment. 
 Under this clause of the law, the Department ruled, originally, 
 that carcasses of animals which had been killed without inspection, 
 and from which the viscera had been removed (such as animals 
 killed upon the farm), could not be admitted into establishments 
 where inspection was maintained. The ruling was deemed neces- 
 sary, because of the fact that all meat- inspection authorities agree 
 that it is impossible to conduct an eflficient post-mortem examina- 
 tion of the carcass unless the principal viscera be present and held 
 with natural attachments. 
 
 " It was found that the strict application of this rule was a hard- 
 ship to the farmer, particularly in the eastern part of the country, 
 as it limited their market for their farm-dressed hogs and calves. 
 The Secretary of Agriculture, as you are probably aware, is a 
 practical farmer ; his heart is with the fanner, and he will not let 
 the farmer suffer if he can help it. . . . The regulation has been 
 amended to permit the entrance into establishments where inspec- 
 tion is maintained of carcasses of animals which have been 
 slaughtered without Federal inspection, if the head and all viscera 
 except the stomach, bladder, and intestines are present, and held 
 together by natural attachments. Inspection is then had ; and if 
 the carcass is found to be free from disease and otherwise fit for 
 food, it is marked ' U.S. Inspected and Passed,' and admitted into 
 the establishment. And Secretary Wilson is satisfied, because the 
 farmer has been taken care of."^ 
 
 We are not satisfied with the reason for the 
 Department's action, thus officially announced. This 
 is partial inspection. It does not seem to be that 
 post-mortem examination which is required by the 
 regulations in regard to animals slaughtered in the 
 packing-houses. It is not the inspection demanded 
 
 1 Circular loi, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issued Janu- 
 ary 4, 1907 : "An Address on the New Meat Inspection Law," by 
 George P. McCabe, Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture, 
 pp. 6, 7. (Italics ours.) 
 
NULLIFICATION OF LAW 17 
 
 by the regulations of 1904 for animals killed at other 
 than regular hours, when not only the thoracic viscera 
 were left attached, but all other viscera were to be 
 identifiable. We may be certain that Congress had in 
 view no partial and incomplete inspection like this. 
 To-day, animals slaughtered outside the packing-house 
 without Government supervision may be brought to 
 the producers of meat with bladder, stomach and 
 intestines removed, and if then found satisfactory, the 
 carcass may be transmuted into food-products, and 
 stamped with the guarantee of the United States. 
 Undoubtedly " the farmer has been taken care of," 
 and the meat-packers as well. But was it quite fair 
 to the consumer to decrease in any way the few 
 existing safeguards established for the protection of the 
 public health ? 
 
 The tendency to favour a lax construction of the 
 law is perceptible in other directions. Take lard, for 
 example. To Great Britain alone we sell annually an 
 average of over two hundred million pounds. Regard- 
 ing animals the carcasses of which were brought into a 
 lard-making or rendering establishment, the law was 
 explicit : they could not be admitted unless a post- 
 mortem inspection had been made under the usual 
 formalities. In accordance with these provisions, the 
 regulations of 1906 stated that " animals that die in 
 abattoir pens, and those in a dying condition before 
 slaughter . . . in all cases shall be condemned. ... No 
 dead animals shall be brought into an establishment 
 for rendering, from outside the premises of said estab- 
 lishment." The necessity for this regulation is evident. 
 It was intended to keep suspected carcasses away from 
 
 2 
 
i8 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 the tanks where lard is rendered. Yet hardly two years 
 later — in April, 1908 — another regulation is framed 
 which makes this prohibition depend on the will of an 
 of&cial. The clause at present reads thus : 
 
 Regulation 13, Section 30. — " No dead animals 
 shall be brought into an establishment for 
 rendering from outside the premises of said 
 establishment, unless permission is first obtained 
 from the Chief of the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry." (Italics ours.) 
 
 Why were the words in italics added to the regulation 
 of 1906 ? How does it happen that a plain requirement 
 of the law may be thus nullified, if " permission is first 
 obtained " ? Who asked for this change, and for whose 
 benefit was this peculiar clause made a regulation ? By 
 what packing-houses, and how many times, has this 
 permission to bring in dead animals from outside been 
 requested ? If so plain a provision of the law may be thus 
 made void, to what extent may not other provisions of 
 the laws of the United States be abrogated, if " per- 
 mission is first obtained from the Chief of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry " ? 
 
 Take another instance of the method by which the 
 law is interpreted. What is a meat-food product ? 
 Probably the average man would define it as a sub- 
 stance derived from an animal, and intended for human 
 consumption. The Regulations of 1906 gave the follow- 
 ing definition : 
 
 " Meat-Food Products.— This term shall mean any product 
 used for food, into the composition of which any portion of the 
 carcass enters, or in the preparation of which any portion of the 
 
NULLIFICATION OF LAW 19 
 
 carcass is used, including lard, mince-meat, extracts, gelatin, oleo- 
 margarine, butterine, soups,'' etc' 
 
 This is certainly a fair definition. Evidently it did not 
 satisfy the manufacturers of certain products. Might 
 it not be within the bounds of possibility to define a 
 meat-product in such way as would permit it to escape 
 the stringency of the law ? It would appear that some 
 manufacturers desired this ; it is not easy, upon any 
 other hypothesis, to understand what followed. Human 
 ingenuity has few limitations when great interests desire 
 a more favourable interpretation of the law. Within 
 less than two months after the regulations governing 
 the inspection of meat had gone forth in 1906, the 
 Department of Agriculture issued an amendment, 
 giving another definition of meat-food products, one 
 the tendency of which would be to remove certain 
 articles from the supervision of the law. The amend- 
 ment, in part, was as follows : 
 
 " A meat-food product, within the meaning of the Meat Inspec- 
 tion Act, and of the regulations made thereunder, is considered to 
 be any article intended for human consumption, which is derived 
 or prepared from any portion of the carcass of cattle, sheep, swine, 
 or goats, and which, when eaten, is capable of supplying nourish- 
 ment or energy to the human body, or of repairing body waste." ^ 
 
 This definition- has been most carefully phrased. It 
 would seem to have been made so that it might be 
 possible to exclude from inspection all of the various 
 extracts of meat, which so largely enter into the pre- 
 
 '^ See Regulations issued July 25, 1906, p. 10. 
 
 2 See Amendment No. 2 to B.A.I. Order No. 137, issued by the 
 Department of Agriculture, September 17, 1906. Twenty-third 
 Report, B.A.I., p. 382. 
 
 2— a 
 
20 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 paration of certain foods, but which cannot be said to 
 " supply energy or repair waste." Then, too, the meat 
 must be a considerable portion of the article : 
 
 " A mixture of which meat is an ingredient will not be considered 
 a meat-food product, unless the meat contained therein is a definite 
 and considerable portion of the said mixture. . . . Where such a 
 mixture is prepared in an establishment where inspection is main- 
 tained, the sanitation of that portion of the establishment in which 
 said mixture is prepared will be supervised by the Department, 
 and the meat or meat-food product which enters the said mixture 
 will be inspected before it enters the said mixture. TAe mixture 
 will not be officially labelled." 
 
 In other words, the manufacturer of a " mixture " was 
 warned that if he makes up his compounds within an 
 inspected establishment, the stuff will be inspected. He 
 is not obliged to submit to such inspection anywhere 
 else, and he is allowed no official label. So far as one 
 can see, he has no advantage over the manufacturer 
 who declines Government inspection altogether, and 
 makes his " mixtures " wherever he desires. Then 
 follows this significant ruling : 
 
 " Mixtures such as mince-meats, soups, etc., which come under 
 this ruling, and which are not officially labelled, are allowed in 
 inter-state and foreign commerce without inspection and without 
 certificates, subject to the provisions and requirements of the Pure 
 Food Law and the regulations made thereunder." 
 
 These two clauses, with but slight changes in 
 phraseology, have been incorporated in the regulations 
 of 1908. The meat which enters into the composition 
 of " mince-meat, soups, etc.," must pass Government 
 inspection, but these delicacies, when complete, "are 
 allowed in interstate and foreign commerce without 
 
NULLIFICATION OF LAW 21 
 
 further inspection, and without certificates." It is 
 difficult to surmise any reason creditable to the various 
 manufacturers of " mince-meats, soups, etc.," or per- 
 taining to the purity of their products, which could 
 have induced them to ask from the Department of 
 Agriculture such a ruling as this. The definition of 
 a food-product in the regulations of 1906 was a distinct 
 safeguard for the customer. Why was it altered ? At 
 whose solicitation was it changed ? Why should certain 
 products — especially those covered by the compre- 
 hensive " etc." — be made in any way exempt from 
 official inspection ? We may be told that in England 
 and in some other countries there are consumers of 
 American " mince-meats, soups, etc.," who are entirely 
 indifferent to the possibilities of adulteration, but we are 
 quite certain that for the majority of us these rulings 
 will give occasion for suspicion and doubt. 
 
 If there be a single article, regarding whose purity 
 and quality there should be no question whatever, it 
 would seem to be the meat extracts, so frequently 
 prescribed by physicians for the use of invalids. One 
 manufacturer and meat-packer enthusiastically adver- 
 tised his product as " the best extract of the best 
 beef" — a designation which describes what it should 
 be, whether or not it is capable of "supplying energy 
 or repairing waste." In the regulations concerning 
 meat inspection, issued in July, 1906, these extracts of 
 meat are included with other meat-food products which 
 were subject to the examinations required by law. Yet 
 the first amendment to the regulations, dated Septem- 
 ber 7, 1906, exempted these products from the ordinary 
 requirements. It reads as follows : 
 
22 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 "Medical Meat-Products.— J?«^«/a^/<7« 51. Products such 
 as meat juice, meat extract, etc., which are intended only for 
 medicinal purposes, and are advertised only to the medical pro- 
 fession, are not considered meat-food products within the meaning 
 of B.A.I. Order No. 137, and this amendment!''^ 
 
 This is most ingenious, if we regard it as a method 
 of evasion. If these extracts are not " considered 
 meat-food products " by the Department of Agriculture, 
 are they, then, outside that surveillance which the law 
 was intended to secure ? Certainly, it would be.interest- 
 ing to know the whole history of this singular ruling. 
 Who were the firms or manufacturers of meat extracts 
 " only for medicinal purposes " at whose request or 
 suggestion this " ruling " was issued ? What makers 
 of this article were anxious to escape that supervision, 
 which was imposed by the regulations of igo6 ? 
 
 It would seem possible, therefore, that in some 
 respects, the laws passed by Congress for the pro- 
 tection of the consumers of American meat have been 
 interpreted chiefly in the interest of the Meat Trust. 
 But might not the intent and purpose of x such laws 
 be yet further strained in behalf of those financial 
 interests which the Department of Agriculture was 
 established to promote? Suppose, for instance, that 
 a way could be devised, by which old abuses might 
 continue, and the carcasses of animals, found affected 
 by disease, be turned into food-products under the 
 guarantee of the Government of the United States 
 — how illimitable would seem the pecuniary profit that 
 might thus accrue ! At first thought, one would deem 
 
 ^ See also Regulations of 1908, p. 8, Section 9. 
 
NULLIFICATION OF LAW 23 
 
 this an impossibility. There is the law of the United 
 States, passed by Congress in order to prevent such 
 an abuse. It distinctly declares that 
 
 " all carcasses and parts thereof of all such animals found to 
 be unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit 
 for human food . . . thus inspected and condemned, shall 
 be destroyed for food purposes." > 
 
 There, too, is the Pure Food Law, which expressly 
 forbids the sale of food, 
 
 " if it consists in whole or in part of . . . any portion of an 
 animal unfit for food, or if it is the product of a diseased 
 animal."^ 
 
 Is there any ambiguity or double meaning perceptible 
 in these provisions of the two laws, passed by Congress 
 for the protection of the public health ? Does it not 
 seem clear that the law-makers intended to forbid the 
 utilisation of diseased animals for food ? This is the 
 meaning which the Department of Agriculture, through 
 its official exponent, declared to be the intention of 
 this enactment. It is officially affirmed that, when one 
 sees the Government stamp on a meat-product, " he 
 may know the meat is from healthy animals."* And 
 yet there are reasons for doubting the accuracy of 
 this statement. It has been asserted that laws of the 
 United States, designed for protection of the public 
 health, have been so construed as to permit the Meat 
 Trust to use diseased animals as wholesome food, as 
 was the case in the years before the legislation of 1906. 
 
 1 The Meat Inspection amendment. See Regulations Govern- 
 ing Meat Inspection of April i, 1908, p. 46. 
 
 2 See Food and Drugs Act, Section No. 7, Clause 6. 
 
 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Circular No. loi, p. 14. 
 
24 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 The gravity of such a charge is apparent ; it touches the 
 interests of the consumers of meat, not only in America, 
 but throughout the w6rld. We propose, not only to 
 investigate its truth, but to indicate the tremendous 
 import of such a practice, in its possible relation to 
 some of the most terrible diseases which scourge the 
 human race. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 MALIGNANT TUMOURS AND THEIR RELATION TO 
 OUR MEAT-SUPPLY 
 
 Of all the ailments which affect the human race at the 
 present time, none is more mysterious than the various 
 forms of malignant disease. Everything pertaining to 
 cancer is significant of horror : its mysterious and yet 
 undiscovered cause ; its slow beginnings, its gradual 
 ravages, its sometimes agonising end. So painless are 
 its first advances, that, in innumerable cases, the only 
 chance of relief has passed when the sufferer becomes 
 aware of the terrible character of his disease. Except 
 through surgery, no certain cure is known to medical 
 science at the present day. 
 
 "Cancer," says Dr. Roswell Park, "with all its 
 local characteristics and its fatal termination, is a 
 disease without a symptomatoJogy of its own. Take 
 any organ you like — the stomach, for instance ; there 
 is nothing distinctive in the way of symptoms about 
 cancer of the stomach." As Dr. Park points out, until 
 this disease has fastened itself, often beyond the possi- 
 bility of cure, it generally reveals to its victim no definite 
 signs of its presence. 
 
 Cancer appears everywhere to be increasing. From 
 
 25 
 
26 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, 
 Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, and other countries 
 of Europe, we have the same report of a steadily 
 advancing mortality out of all proportion to the increase 
 of population, /In the United States, according to the 
 last census report, we are told, that, as compared with 
 1890, there was a decided increase in the death-rate 
 due to cancer and tumour, varying from 15 to 27 per 
 cent.j In certain states, upon whose statistics we may, 
 perhaps, place especial dependence, the cancer death- 
 rate for women rose in ten years from 6go to 832 per 
 million of the population. The statistics relating to the 
 mortality of this disease in England and Wales are 
 of great value ; and, as elsewhere, they indicate a 
 constant tendency to an increased mortality, year after 
 year. In the year igo2, for example, the various forms 
 of malignant disease in England and Wales demanded 
 a death-toll of 27,872 lives ; in 1903, the mortality rose 
 to 29,089 ; in 1904, it was 29,682 ; in 1905, the deaths 
 numbered 30,221 ; in 1906, they were 31,668; and in 
 1907 — the last year for which facts are now available — 
 the total demanded by cancer was 31,745. A significant 
 illustration of its progressive fatality is seen by com- 
 paring its prevalence among women between the ages 
 of forty-five and sixty-five. Thirty years ago, in 1875, 
 of all deaths of women at this period of life, in round 
 numbers, one in ten was due to malignant disease. 
 Ten years later, in 1885, the corresponding mortality 
 was one in eight. In 1895, cancer claimed upwards of 
 one in seven ; and in the three years, 1905-1907, of all 
 the deaths of women between the ages of forty-five and 
 sixty-five, one in every five and a half was due to some 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 27 
 
 form of malignant disease. How long will it be, before 
 this disease will be responsible for every third or fourth 
 death among women who shall have reached the middle 
 period of life, if the increase in mortality is to go on 
 unchecked ? 
 
 /Most significant is the fact that in England, and 
 arheng the female population, the mortality from cancer 
 is now greater than the mortality from consumption^ 
 Thirty years ago, say in 1880, the mortality from 
 phthisis among women was nearly three times as great 
 as from malignant disease. In 1897, the contrasted 
 death-rates from phthisis and cancer were as 1,156 to 
 924. ( In 1903, for the first time, the death-rate from 
 cancel exceeds that from consumption ; from malignant 
 disease, there is a death-toll of 1,003, and from con- 
 sumption, pp>J^ From this time onward, there is but 
 one year in which cancer does not demand from women 
 the greater mortality ; in 1907, for instance, 1,026 per 
 million living, perished from this form of disease, as 
 compared with 952 from phthisis. 
 
 A remarkable phenomenon pertaining to malignant 
 disease is that the death-rate from cancer in no two 
 countries is precisely alike, and in certain lands and 
 among certain races the disease is relatively infrequent. 
 /Dr. Bainbridge tells us that " cancer is comparatively 
 rare in hot countries, especially in those whose in- 
 habitants subsist largely on vegetable diet. "With 
 certain exceptions, it seems to be prevalent where 
 animal diet is mostly consumed." y ^or instance, 
 cancer is rare in Egypt, in Tunisia and Algeria, and in 
 certain other parts of the African continent. In certain 
 ' The New York Medical Record, September i, 1906. 
 
28 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 parts of China, Burmah and India, cancer is very rare ; 
 in Persia it is seldom seen ; in Borneo, it appears to be 
 comparatively unknown^ In Japan, where the statistics 
 of mortality are far sffperior to those of the United 
 States, cancer is increasing as in England and America, 
 out of all proportion to the increase in population ; but 
 the people of Japan are fast ceasing to hold to the 
 vegetarian diet of former years. One theory of cancer 
 ascribes the inception of the disease to abnormal con- 
 ditions pertaining to prenatal life. To others, it seems 
 more probable, that some unknown and undetected 
 cause, whose malignant potency we cannot estimate, 
 is steadily at work among the most civilised races of 
 our globe, producing a disease of the most terrible 
 character ; a cause as yet unrecognised, and whose 
 nature we can only surmise. 
 
 The universality of malignant disease is yet another 
 important fact. It is now asserted that cancer occurs 
 throughout the entire vertebrate creation, with almost 
 the same essential characteristics. It is not beyond 
 possibility, therefore, that cancer is one of a consider- 
 able number of germ-diseases, which, affecting first the 
 lower animals, is being passed upward to the human 
 race. We need not assert this as an undoubted fact ; 
 it suffices to suggest it as a working hypothesis, for 
 which evidence seems to exist. Let us grant that it is 
 merely a matter of significant possibility ; but it is one 
 that cMicerns the most terrible destroyer of the human 
 race. [We know now that there are germs of disease so 
 infinitay small, that the human eye, even when aided 
 by the most powerful instruments, is powerless to discern 
 them. The germs of malignant disease may be of this 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 29 
 
 cliaracter, and may be resistant to temperatures that 
 suffice to kill the majority of such bodies.) 
 
 What, then, are some of the facts which seem to 
 point to the theory that cancer, or malignant disease, 
 occurring in the human subject, is due to germs, 
 probably invisible, which are transmitted in some 
 article of food, from animals to man ? 
 
 I. In the first place, malignant disease is peculiarly 
 liable to attack organs or parts pertaining or relating 
 to the digestive system, fin the United States, at the 
 last census (1900), of each thousand cases of cancer 
 aniong men, the seat of the disease in almost exactly 
 two-thirds of the cases was the stomach, the abdomen, 
 or the li-ver. I If one studies the statistics of the Registrar- 
 General 0/ England and Wales during the first seven 
 years of the present century, it will be found that, 
 exclusive of disease affecting the mammary glands and 
 generative system, the location of malignant disease 
 resulting in death, in over 70 per cent, of the cases for 
 men and 71 per cent, of the cases among women, was 
 either in the stomach, the intestines, the liver, or in 
 some part or organ .pertaining to the digestive system. 
 Nor is this an irregular phenomenon ; the proportions 
 during the six-year period, 1901 to 1906, remain almost 
 exactly the same, with a slight tendency to increase 
 the proportion for both sexes. 
 
 II.I In the United States, the proclivity to malignant 
 diseaW seems to be greatest among the white foreign- 
 born population, or in other words, among the poorest 
 class of the American people. \ 
 
 It is unfortunate that tne mortality statistics of the 
 United States do not apply to the entire country, but 
 
30 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 only to a very considerable portion, known as the 
 " Registration Area," and to certain cities in other 
 states, the mortality statistics of which appear to be 
 worthy of consideration. For the last census year, 
 igoo, we are able to contrast the mortality from cancer 
 and tumour between foreign-born and native population, 
 and in three sections of the country, the rural districts 
 and cities of the States having a satisfactory registration 
 of deaths; and in certain cities of other states. The 
 results of such comparison may be seen in the following 
 table : 
 
 Death-rate according to Nativity from Cancer and 
 Tumour per 100,000 of the White Population. (1900.) 
 
 Nativity. 
 
 Registration Area, 
 U.S.A. 
 
 Cities 
 
 OF OTHER 
 
 States. 
 
 Rural 
 Districts. 
 
 Cities. 
 
 Of Foreign Birth 
 Both Parents of Ameri- 
 can Birth 
 
 119 
 75 
 
 IIS 
 65 
 
 140 
 49 
 
 If we take the same statistics for the year i8go, we 
 are confronted by a precisely similar result. Whether 
 it be the rural districts or the larger cities, within or 
 without the Registration area, everywhere the death- 
 rate from malignant disease was greatest among that 
 class of the general population upon whom the burden 
 of poverty most severely presses. A fact like this is 
 rather suggestive, though not conclusive. But suppose 
 it were practicable to-day to distinguish in England 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 31 
 
 and America between the mortality from malignant 
 disease among the rich or well-to-do classes, and its 
 rate among what may be called the working class, 
 should we expect to find a difference in proclivity to 
 this scourge of our race ? And if difference were dis- 
 covered to exist, would it be favourable to those whose 
 means permit use of the best and choicest kinds of 
 food, or to those who are compelled to subsist on the 
 cheapest and the poorest varieties ? 
 
 III. Among the foreign -born population of the 
 United States or their offspring, the mortality due to 
 malignant disease is not uniform, but varies very widely 
 according to different races and nationalities.^ 
 
 This phenomenon is peculiarly significant. The 
 facts are clearly shown in the table on page 32, 
 which gives the mortality-rate from malignant disease 
 among those of the population whose mothers were 
 born in foreign lands, according to the country from 
 which they came. To bring out the facts still more 
 clearly, the mortality is calculated for three different 
 sections of the United States. 
 
 One can hardly fail to note the singularity of the 
 phenomena here revealed. These figures relate to 
 three quite different sections of the United States ; 
 and yet for each nationality there is a remarkable 
 agreement between the cancer death-rate in the rural 
 districts, in the cities belonging to the registration 
 states, and in the cities which are in other sections of 
 the country. 
 
 ^ The statistics which make up these tables are to be found in 
 the Twelfth Census of the United States, vol. iii., pp. clxxxii, and 
 after. 
 
32 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Nor is this all. The Federal census of 1900 permits 
 us to contrast the tendency of different nationalities to 
 certain special forms of malignant disease which con- 
 ceivably may owe their origin to some articles of food. 
 If we take cancer of the stomach, we find that the 
 death-rate per hundred thousand of the population 
 whose maternal ancestry was English, Irish, Scotch, oi: 
 
 United States : Death-rates from Cancer and Tumour, 
 PER 100,000 OF the White Population, of which the 
 Mothers were born in Different Lands. (Census of 
 1900,) 
 
 Birthplaces of Mothers. 
 
 Registration 
 States. 
 
 Cities 
 
 Total. 
 
 Rural 
 Districts. 
 
 Cities. 
 
 States. 
 
 Italy 
 
 Russia and Poland 
 Hungary and Bohemia ... 
 
 Scandinavia 
 
 Canada '. 
 
 United States 
 
 England and Wales 
 
 Ireland 
 
 Germany 
 
 Scotland 
 
 France 
 
 20 
 26 
 21 
 
 30 
 48 
 64 
 79 
 90 
 
 n 
 
 104 
 
 89 
 
 24 
 
 30 
 32 
 37 
 41 
 5° 
 77 
 82 
 88 
 90 
 89 
 
 39 
 26 
 40 
 35 
 41 
 34 
 80 
 86 
 82 
 62 
 121 
 
 25 
 
 29 
 34 
 35 
 44 
 S3 
 78 
 84 
 84 
 90 
 98 
 
 German, was from two to three times as great as for 
 those whose mothers were born in Poland, in Italy, or 
 in Hungary. If we study cancer of the liver, there 
 again is the same phenomenon ; the death-rate of those 
 whose maternal ancestry went to England, Ireland, 
 Germany, Scotland, or France, is about double that 
 of men and women whose mothers belonged to Italy, 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 33 
 
 Russia, Scandinavia, or Canada. These figures are 
 too uniform to be due to chance. They point to the 
 existence of some law. Shall we say that there is a 
 constitutional tendency to degeneration, in England 
 and Ireland for instance, twice or three times as great as 
 that in Italy or Russia ? It is inconceivable. 
 
 IV. Let us consider these facts in their relation to 
 another hypothesis. TLet us suppose that malignant 
 disease, in some of its manifestations, if not in all, is due 
 to germs which find their way into the human system 
 through the use of meat derived from animals which 
 were suffering from cancer at the time they were killeq> 
 According to this hypothesis, much that is otherwise 
 obscure becomes somewhat more clear. We should ex- 
 pect, then, to find cancer more prevalent among the poor 
 than among the rich, and especially prevalent among 
 those who from ignorance or necessity consume as 
 food the cheapest kinds of American meat. We should 
 expect to find malignant disease a cause of greater 
 mortality among emigrants from England, Ireland, and 
 Germany, than among those whose ancestors have 
 dwelt for one or two generations on American or 
 Canadian soil, and whose greater prosperity enables 
 them to purchase the better qualities of meat, and to 
 exclude from their tables the cheap products of the 
 packing-house. Since emigration from Russia and 
 Poland to^he United States is very largely made up of 
 Jews, whose aversion to meat, affected in the slightest 
 degree by disease, is grounded upon religious in- 
 junctions, we should expect to find a population 
 thus guarded from the cheap products of the Meat 
 Trust, to show, despite their poverty, a far less pro- 
 
 3 
 
34 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 clivity to malignant disease. Doubtless investigation 
 would demonstrate that emigrants from Italy are more 
 careful in their choice of meat than the newly-arrived 
 adventurers from England, Ireland, or Germany ; it is 
 certain that at home their consumption of animal food 
 is far less. 
 
 A careful study of statistics of mortality, extending 
 over many years, has led to the discovery of a certain 
 phenomenon, to which attention has not hitherto been 
 directed, and which tends to prove the germ origin of 
 malignant disease. It is not easily explicable without 
 recourse to diagrams, but a brief reference may be here 
 made to it. 
 
 As revealed by statistical evidence, all social pheno- 
 mena which depend upon the action of fixed causes 
 upon a race or nation, tend to exhibit, year after year, 
 a peculiar uniformity that seldom fails in its manifesta- 
 tions. The number of male children born in England 
 to each thousand female children born, was 1,041 in 
 the year 1862, and 7,047 in the year 1906. There has 
 been variation, but such variance is extremely slight. 
 The death of males to a thousand deaths of females in 
 England, was 7,754, in 1872, and 1,130 in 1907. The 
 percentage of marriageable men and women in Eng- 
 land, who prefer the rites of the Established Church, 
 is slowly decreasing ; but it is with an almost steady 
 uniformity, from year to year. 
 
 When we come to study the mortality from germ 
 diseases, we find, as we should expect, that such 
 mortality is variable from year to year, precisely as 
 the causes inducing the diseases are of unequal potency 
 during a succession of years. In England, for example, 
 the deaths from tuberculosis are slowly decreasing ; 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 35 
 
 but now and then, without any apparent reason, there 
 is, for some particular year, a shght increase for both 
 sexes in the mortality from this scourge, a phenomenon 
 sure to be followed later by a return to the lower death- 
 rate. Now the singular thing about cancer in England 
 is this : that while it seems to be steadily increasing 
 if we survey its ravages in five-year periods, yet, study- 
 ing its death-rate by single years, it exhibits precisely 
 that wavering irregularity which we find in other diseases 
 that are certainly due to germs. Suddenly — without any 
 evident reason — the mortality from cancer rises in a 
 curve-diagram considerably above the rate of any pre- ■ 
 ceding year. Then, for the following year, the scourge 
 seems less destructive, and the death-rate either falls 
 slightly, or exhibits a much less marked advance. For 
 this variability, there is surely a cause ; it is not due to 
 chance. If cancer be due to some invisible germ, then 
 we can comprehend that a lessened exposure of the 
 entire population during some particular year, to the 
 causes which induce the disease, would — some three or 
 four years later — lessen the cancer death-rate ; while an 
 increased exposure of the population to the causes of 
 the disease, might be expected, a short time after, to 
 express itself in a considerably higher mortality from 
 this cause of death. 
 
 But how do these facts concern the present inquiry ? 
 In what way can the cancer-mortality in England and 
 the United States have any relation to the consumption 
 of American meat ? With all the safeguards against 
 diseased meat which Federal inspection is now supposed 
 to have created, is there the slightest possibility that 
 the flesh of an animal, found at the time of slaughter 
 to have been suffering from a malignant or a suspicious 
 
 3—2 
 
36 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 tumour, would be permitted in America to be used for 
 food, or in any form of food-product, to find its way to 
 English shores ? Would not any such carcass be 
 wholly condemned and destroyed ? 
 
 We propose to answer some of these questions. C Let 
 us grant that at the present time, there is no certain 
 knowledge regarding the cause of the most terrible 
 scourge that to-day afflicts the human raceN But no 
 thinking man or woman can be insensible to the sig- 
 niiicance of possibilities, when he learns that cancer 
 affects not only the human race, but animals which are 
 killed for food ; that the disease is most liable to find 
 its seat in some part of the digestive tract ; that it 
 seems to prevail most among the poorer class of the 
 population ; and that, according to the present and past 
 administration of so-called " Pure Food Laws " by the 
 United States Department of Agriculture,/!f/ie carcasses 
 of animals, butchered under Government inspection and 
 found to be affected with malignant tumours, are not in- 
 variably required to be condemned as unfit food for human 
 beings'S The cancerous tumour, the diseased organs 
 must, At is true, be cut out and condemned. The dis- 
 position of the remainder of the carcass is left to the 
 discretion of the inspector. 
 
 /Un June 27, 1904, the Department of Agriculture 
 
 /put forth certain official regulations, intended to govern 
 
 the disposition of meat derived from animals, killed 
 
 under Federal inspection. Among these regulations, 
 
 we find the following important rule : 
 
 " Any organ, or part of carcass which is affected by 
 malignant tumours, abscesses, suppurating sores, tape-worm 
 cysts or liver-flukes, shall be condemned." ^ 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 37 
 
 We need to read this regulation most carefully, and 
 more than once. It is of strange and sinister signifi- 
 cance. 
 
 What is it that the United States Inspector was 
 required by this regulation to condemn as unfit for 
 human food ? The carcasses of animals which he might 
 find affected by cancer or malignant tumours ? 
 
 No. He was directed to condemn the tumour, the 
 part of the carcass which was affected, the organ which 
 was infiltrated by disease. The remainder of the car- 
 cass — what became of that ? Is there anything which 
 prevented it from being turned into the food-supply of 
 the poorer classes ?/' There is sometimes a silence that 
 accords consent. 
 
 In the spring of 1906, an agitation arose both in 
 America and England concerning the conditions which 
 prevailed in certain packing-houses of Chicago. As a 
 result of disclosures then made. Congress passed a new 
 law, by which the United States Government guaran- 
 teed the purity of the meat and meat-products intended 
 for export to foreign lands or for inter-state commerce. 
 In the regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Agri- 
 culture, July 25, 1906, concerning the inspection of the 
 carcasses of animals, found to be affected with malig- 
 nant tumours, a slight, yet significant, change was 
 deemed necessary. The new rule read as follows : 
 
 •7/-^ ' I lot. 
 
 " Any organ or part of a carcass which is badly bruised, 
 or which is affected by malignant tumours, abscesses, sup- 
 purating sores, or liver-flukes, shall be condemned ; but 
 •when the lesions are so extensive as to affect the whole carcass, 
 the whole carcass shall be condemned.'^ 
 
38 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 The meaning of this regulation would seem quite 
 clear. TThere is here no demand that a carcass affected 
 with cancer or malignant tumour shall be utterly de- 
 stroyed ; for in such case, a considerable pecuniary loss 
 would fall upon the packing-house.] When the disease 
 has so far progressed that the whole carcass becomes 
 affected by it, then only, its total condemnation is en- 
 joined. Doubtless such a condition is as rarely found 
 among animals as among human beings. Unless it is 
 found, only the affected organ or the diseased part 
 must be condemned for food. /Suppose the entire liver 
 of a hog to be a mass of cancerous disease ; what was 
 there in these " Regulations " of the Department of 
 Agriculture to prevent the packing-house from trans- 
 muting the muscular tissues and unaffected organs into 
 various food delicacies or food-products, which in due 
 time should find their way to the tables of;rich and 
 poor in England and America ? Not a word ! \ 
 
 Another question interests us. In the regulations 
 pertaining to the inspection and disposition of this 
 kind of diseased flesh, a change was made following 
 the revelations of 1906, and the passage of the " Pure 
 Food Law." The principal difference consists of a 
 single clause. In igo6, after the agitation of the meat 
 question, both in this country and Europe, the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture ruled that in case of diseased 
 animals where the whole carcass was affected by malig- 
 nant tumours, then, in such case, " the whole carcass 
 shall be condemned." Strangely enough, this require- 
 ment, so far as one can discover, does not appear in 
 any of the regulations previously promulgated ; cer- 
 tainly not in those put forth two years before. Why 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 39 
 
 was it added ? ) Does it indicate a change in the pro- 
 cedure of Government Inspectors ? Before the enact- 
 ment of the Legislation, was it possible that a contrary 
 custom obtained in the packing-houses, and that a 
 carcass infiltrated with malignant disease could be 
 turned into various forms of edible meat - products 
 without objection on the part of Government officials ? 
 We shall be told, of course, that this never occurred. 
 Why, then, was this clause added ? (Either the clause was 
 unnecessary and superfluous, or else it was inserted in 
 the Regulations of 1906, to check an abuse due to the 
 conscienceless rapacity of producers of meat.j Now, 
 which conclusion must the public adopt ? If lincalled- 
 for during the past quarter of a century, why was it in- 
 serted in the Regulations of 1906, and continued in the 
 Regulations of 1908 ? If needed to correct and prevent 
 an abuse, why was it omitted by the United States 
 Government during all the preceding years ? 
 
 The Regulations now governing meat inspection, 
 were issued April i, 1908, and are, so far as they 
 concern malignant tumours, almost the same as those 
 promulgated two years before.. They read as follows : 
 
 " Section 23. — Any organ or part of a carcass which is badly 
 bruised, or which is affected by tumours — malignant or 
 benign — abscesses, suppurating sores, or liver-flukes, shall 
 be condemned ; but when the lesions are so extensive as 
 to affect the whole carcass, the whole carcass shall be 
 condemned." 
 
 It will be seen that the public health is now to be 
 protected against " benign tumours " as well as those 
 of a malignant character. Otherwise than this, the 
 
40 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 permissions and prohibitions of the former Regulations 
 have not been changed. As before, the organ or part 
 of carcass affected by malignant tumours, must be 
 rigidly condemned. As before, if " the whole carcass " 
 
 -Js affected, it must not be allowed to pass. /Beyond 
 this, what is there, in this regulation, to prevenVlhe flesh- 
 of animals affected by malignant disease, from passing into 
 the food-supply of a credulous and trusting world — after the 
 condemnation of affected parts ?\ ~ 
 
 - A matter of considerable -mterest to the consumers 
 of American meat, would be the number of animals 
 found, upon post-mortem inspection, to be affected with 
 malignant tumours, and of which " parts " were thus 
 condemned. Unfortunately, the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture has not deemed it best to present 
 these facts to the general public. Inquiry, however, 
 has elicited the official statement that the number of 
 " parts " practically represents about the number of 
 carcasses which were thus partly condemned. It is a 
 matter for regret, that where the interest of the public 
 health is so deeply concerned, the most complete 
 information on these subjects is not readily to be 
 obtained. 
 
 Previous to the year 1900, no statistics whatever 
 regarding the condemnations of animals for various 
 forms of disease are to be obtained. During the years 
 1900-1906, the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 presented annually in his report a table, giving the 
 various diseased conditions which led to the condemna- 
 tion of the carcasses for food purposes, either wholly or 
 in part. / During these seven years, we find that the 
 condemi^ations for " tumours," including cancer, were 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 41 
 
 4,115, and for abscesses, 7,330. During the same 
 period^ the number of animals of which "parts " were 
 condemned for " tumours " were 8,007, ^-^d for ab- 
 scesses, 22,93IJ ^ 
 In the Report for 1907, the Chief of the Bureau 
 unfortunately saw fit to adopt a new method of tabu- 
 lation which effectually tends to conceal facts pre- 
 viously disclosed. " Tumours " and " abscesses " are 
 no longer reported separately, but are grouped under 
 a single heading. It is thus made impossible for any 
 curious scientific inquirer to ascertain how many car- 
 casses were condemned for causes connected with 
 malignant disease. That the elimination of the words 
 cancer and malignant disease from official reports meets 
 the approbation of the producers of meat-products, can 
 hardly be questioned ; but if we consider the interests 
 of the public health, every such limitation to inquiry is 
 a backward step. Upon such a subject as this, it is 
 impossible that our knowledge should be too complete. 
 Yet the figures placed at our disposal are significant. 
 /The number of animals totally condemned for these two 
 Worms of disease, in proportion to the number inspected, 
 was less than the number pertaining to years immedi- 
 ately preceding.X The number of animals of which 
 " parts " were condemned was over 90,000 — or nearly 
 three times the total number of " parts condemned " 
 during the entire seven years, 190^1906 ! Compare, 
 for instance, the three years, 1905 to 1908. The total 
 condemnations were rather less, proportionately, in 
 1907 than they were in 1905. The following table 
 shows the number of carcasses which were in part 
 condemned, and the species of animals thus affected : 
 
AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 "Parts" Condemned for ^Tumours and Abscesses." 
 
 
 1905. 
 
 1907. 
 
 1908. 
 
 Cattle 
 
 Hogs 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Calves 
 
 258 
 
 1,556 
 
 81 
 
 12 
 
 57,547 
 32,526 
 
 59 
 31 
 
 4,357 
 
 1,544 
 
 27 
 
 18 
 
 Total 
 
 1,907 
 
 90,163 
 
 5,946 ■ 
 
 How shall we explain these differences in the number 
 of animals thus inspected and " partly " condemned ? 
 The number of carcasses Federally inspected in 1907 
 was only 25 per cent, larger in 1907 than two years 
 before ; it rose from forty to fifty millions. But in the 
 number of " parts " condemned, how vast is the in- 
 crease ! Shall we say that these figures for 1907 indi- 
 cate an increased eificiency of Federal inspection, so 
 that fully 90,000 cattle and hogs were partly con- 
 demned for " tumours and abscesses," when, according 
 to the rate of such condemnations in 1905, this number 
 would have been less than 2,500 ? If this be the ex- 
 planation of the figures of 1907, what a horror they 
 reveal concerning that indifference to the public health 
 manifested by the lax inspection by the United States 
 Department of Agriculture during all preceding years! 
 
 If there was a tendency to reform during 1907, what 
 shall we say of the statistics of 1908 ? Do they show 
 any retrogression toward earlier indifference ? Let us 
 contrast the two years. 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 
 
 43 
 
 
 1907. 
 
 1908. 
 
 Cattle : 
 
 
 
 Total number post-mortem 
 
 
 
 inspections 
 
 7,621,717 
 
 7,116,275 
 
 Number wholly condemned 
 
 
 
 on account of "tumours 
 
 
 
 and abscesses " 
 
 180 
 
 116 
 
 Number of carcasses of which 
 
 
 
 "parts" were condemned 
 
 
 
 for "tumours and ab- 
 
 
 
 scesses" 
 
 57,547 
 
 4,357 
 
 Hogs : 
 
 
 
 Total number post-mortem 
 
 
 
 inspections 
 
 31,815,900 
 
 35,113,077 
 
 Total number wholly con- 
 
 
 
 demned on account of 
 
 
 
 " tumours and abscesses " 
 
 1.483 
 
 1,280 
 
 Number of carcasses of which 
 
 
 
 parts were condemned for 
 
 
 
 "tumours and abscesses " 
 
 32,526 
 
 1,544 
 
 Now the significance of these figures can hardly 
 escape the reader. The total condemnations were 
 very nearly the same in both years, showing that there 
 was no sudden outbreak of disease. Yet when we look 
 at the number of animals of which parts were con- 
 demned for tumours and abscesses, how vast is the 
 falling off from the experience of the preceding year ! 
 We are unable to ascertain what proportion of these 
 ffgures touch only tumours, malignant and otherwise ; 
 these facts, the Department of Agriculture has seen fit 
 to conceal from the public since igoS.A We are obliged, 
 therefore, merely to present the facts,-«.nd indicate their 
 possible significance. 
 
 It is not wholly assuring to find that according to 
 
44 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 methods of inspection in vogue, the decision whether a 
 given carcass is to be destroyed or turned wholly or 
 partly into meat-products is largely determined, not by 
 printed rules and prohibitions, but by the favour of the 
 inspector. It lies to-day within the power of a young 
 official — the lax performance of whose duties in way of 
 condemnation, certainly makes for the pecuniary profit 
 of the packing-house, and possibly for the permanency of 
 his place — to decide beyond appeal whether any carcass 
 whatever, affected by malignant tumours, is sufficiently 
 loathsome to require condemnation, or whether the 
 meat may not be passed as fit for general consumption. 
 Here, for example, is the clause which confers this 
 power, taken from the Regulations which went into 
 effect, April i, igo8. The italics are not in the original. 
 / "Regulation i^.— Section i. ... It is to be under- 
 stood, however, that owing to the fact that it is impracticable 
 to formulate rules governing every case, and to decide at 
 just what stage a process becomes loathsome or a disease 
 noxious, the decision as to the disposal of all carcasses, 
 parts or organs not specifically covered by these regula- 
 tions, shall be left to the veterinary inspector in charge") 
 
 There are here conferred great possibilities of abuse. 
 To what such power led, we may see by comparing the 
 number of animals " partly " condemned in 1905 and 
 1908 with the number thus disposed of in 1907. 
 
 To what conclusions are we led by a careful survey of 
 the facts relating to malignant disease ? 
 
 I. Cancer, or malignant tumour, as a cause of 
 mortality is_ apparently increasing year by year, 
 
MALIGNANT TUMOURS 45 
 
 in all the more civilised portions of the globe. 
 Of the cause of malignant disease, nothing is 
 certainly known. 
 
 Animals used for food purposes — cattle, swine and 
 sheep — are all liable to become affected by 
 malignant tumours. 
 
 While we are far from certainty, it is conceivably 
 possible that this disease among human beings 
 is sometimes induced by the consumption of the 
 flesh of animals which have been the subject of 
 malignant disease. 
 
 As a matter of prudence, therefore, no human being 
 should be forced to eat meat derived from an 
 animal which, at time of its slaughter, was 
 affected by malignant disease. 
 
 The condemnation of the entire carcass of an 
 animal found to be affected by a malignant 
 tumour, necessarily involves the meat-producers 
 in a considerable pecuniary loss. It may seem, 
 therefore, to their financial advantage that such 
 " total condemnations " occur as rarely as 
 possible ; that whenever the inspector can 
 decide that the flesh is not " loathsome," only 
 the parts affected by cancerous tumours shall be 
 discarded for food purposes ; and above all, that 
 the policy of Federal inspection in this respect 
 shall be chiefly favourable to the financial 
 interest of the producers of meat. 
 
 On the other hand, it is obviously contrary to 
 justice and to the interests of the consumers of 
 American meat, whether at home or abroad, 
 that in any case whatever, meat derived from 
 
46 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 animals affected by malignant tumours should 
 be sold as food for human beings, unless the 
 origin of such meat or meat-food product be 
 plainly indicated, or made known to every 
 intending purchaser. In may be impracticable 
 to prevent the consumption of such meat by 
 those who prefer it, or who are willing to assume 
 the risk of disease. But no one who detests it, 
 should be forced to consume it unawares, because 
 its origin is concealed, and its purity is 
 guaranteed by the lax administration of a 
 sanitary law. 
 7. If cancer be due to germs, derived from the flesh 
 of animals, then, so long as the carcasses of 
 animals affected by such tumours are permitted 
 as now, to pass Federal inspection and to be 
 admitted into the world's food-supply, it is 
 evident that the Public Health in England or 
 America is not protected from malignant disease, 
 to the extent that we are entitled to demand. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 TUBERCULOSIS AND AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 For unknown centuries, consumption has been the 
 chief scourge of humanity. It has been said that no 
 other disease affecting our race is productive of so much 
 suffering, or so destructive of human Hfe. Even in our 
 time, consumption and the other diseases which proceed 
 from the same cause, are doubtless responsible for not 
 less than one-tenth of the total mortality of our race. 
 And yet, up to a very recent period, medical science 
 was wholly ignorant of its cause. The intimate relation 
 between consumption and "scrofula" had been sus- 
 pected, but the recognition of their common origin was 
 long delayed. 
 
 It was in the year 1865, that Villemin first discovered 
 that tuberculosis was an infectious disease. Three 
 years later, in 1868, Chauveau induced the disease in 
 animals, and thus gave a hint regarding the probable 
 connection of the disease with what we eat and drink. 
 When, finally, in 1882, the German investigator, Koch, 
 announced his discovery of the almost invisible bacillus 
 of tubercle, the scientific world recognised that it had 
 no longer to deal with conditions and tendencies 
 merely, but with a parasite, capable, in some way, of 
 
 47 
 
48 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 finding entrance into the human system, and there 
 inducing disease. " If ever," says a recent writer, " the 
 human race is to be freed from this, its most terrible 
 foe, we must before all things, cut off the sources of 
 infection," 
 
 It is quite probable that no other disease is more 
 widely distributed throughout the animal kingdom. 
 " Not only does it affect most mammals, such as man, 
 monkeys, horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, 
 rabbits, mice, rats, bears, lions, tigers, foxes, etc., but it 
 affects birds, fish, frogs and snakes." ^ Of the identity 
 of the disease among different animals, there can be 
 little doubt. Again and again, tuberculosis has been 
 transmitted from human beings to the lower forms of 
 animal life. A more important inquiry is the trans- 
 mission of the disease from animals to man ; and upon 
 this question, medical science is still engaged. It is 
 evident that the problem is one of the utmost impor- 
 tance to our race. Science now views with very grave 
 suspicion the milk derived from tuberculous cows. To 
 what extent is the flesh of tuberculous animals, eaten 
 as food, the cause of tuberculosis in human beings ? ■ There 
 are few questions of greater import to mankind. 
 
 In order to determine whether human beings may be 
 directly infected with disease by use of tuberculous 
 flesh, experimentation is impossible except as a crime. 
 But sometimes we may be absolutely certain of facts 
 we cannot prove. Why must we regard with suspicion, 
 the use of meat derived from animals suffering from 
 tuberculous disease ? 
 
 We note, in the first place, that tuberculosis is an 
 1 Salmon " On Tuberculosis of Animals," 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 49 
 
 extremely common disease, particularly among certain 
 animals which enter into our food-supply. Dr. Salmon 
 tells us that there is " a great culture-ground and 
 reservoir for tubercle bacilli outside the human body, 
 and existing principally in the bodies of domestic 
 animals which supply some of the principal articles of 
 human food."^ "Why should we continue to allow 
 tuberculous animals to be slaughtered practically with- 
 out supervision in numerous abattoirs, and the meat 
 sold for human consumption ? . . . The medical 
 profession has never appreciated, and does not now 
 appreciate, the importance of animal tuberculosis as a 
 factor in the production of human tuberculosis."^ The 
 continued prevalence of tuberculosis among cattle. 
 Dr. Salmon asserts, is " damaging the reputation of our 
 meat and dairy products."^ Of course breeders do not 
 advertise the fact that their herds are thus diseased ; 
 " it is, as a rule, only public institutions . . . that can 
 afford to tell all they have suffered from tuberculosis." 
 We are told that of a herd of cattle belonging to the 
 Soldiers' Home in Washington, 84 per cent, were 
 found tuberculous ; that of a herd belonging to the 
 Massachusetts Agricultural College, 78 per cent, were 
 tuberculous ; that at the Wisconsin Agricultural Experi- 
 ment station, 86 per cent, were thus diseased ; that of 
 a herd belonging to the Government Hospital for the 
 Insane at Washington over three-fourths were tuber- 
 culous. We have no means of knowing to what extent 
 the disease is prevalent throughout the entire country ; 
 
 ^ Eighteenth Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 258. 
 
 2 Twentieth Report, Bureau of Animal Ipdustry, p. 84. 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 172, 173. 
 
 4 
 
50 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 it suffices to say that " the integrity of our meat-supply 
 is threatened " by the increase of this disease. That 
 the average prevalence of the disease among dairy 
 herds as revealed by tuberculin tests in different States 
 " falls very little, if any, below 5 per cent, of the whole 
 number tested," is the report of Mr. Dorset of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry.'- 
 
 Even more startling and ominous is the increasing 
 prevalence of tubercular disease among swine. An 
 inspector of meat of many years' experience, stated in 
 a public address that animals apparently in perfect 
 health were often as thoroughly infected with tubercu- 
 losis as the veriest scrubs. " Among 750 hogs which 
 were discovered, after slaughter, to be tuberculous, 
 we were not able to discover, on examination before 
 slaughter, a single hog that we could say positively 
 was tuberculous." " The increasing proportion of 
 tubercular hogs found by the meat-inspection service, 
 is a matter of grave concern," says the Chief of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry in his report for 1905. 
 About 3 per cent, of the hogs coming to some of the 
 largest abattoirs are affected with tuberculosis ; and 
 this fact, we are assured by the same authority, 
 " indicates a rapid increase of the disease among this 
 species of animals." It is not pleasant for consumers 
 of American pork to find that one of the causes for the 
 spread of tuberculosis is the practice of many farmers 
 " of allowing their hogs to consume the carcasses of cattle 
 which have died of disease."'^ 
 
 1 Year-book of the United States Dept. of Agriculture, 1906, 
 
 P- 352. 
 ^ Report of Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry, 1905, p. i. 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 51 
 
 The risks pertaining to the consumption of tuber- 
 culous pork would appear to be greater than the 
 chances of infection through other kinds of food. 
 Recent investigators tell us that there is " increased 
 danger from the consumption of meat from tuberculous 
 swine over that of tuberculous cattle. . . . While the 
 local meat-inspector may be justified in being indulgent 
 in the case of cattle, where the animals are in good 
 condition and the lesions are restricted, ... he should 
 be very strict with the meat of swine affected with this 
 disease." 
 
 The reasonableness of these views is admitted by 
 most scientists to-day. The old theory that disease of 
 the lungs was contracted by the inhalation of the germs 
 of disease, and in no other way, is now admitted to be 
 withoiit foundation. It is possible that in a certain 
 proportion of cases, consumption in human beings is 
 thus induced. But if disease of the lungs is contracted 
 by animals through the ingestion of improper food, why 
 may not the same result follow in man ? " It has been 
 shown that tubercle bacilli may pass through the intes- 
 tinal wall without injuring it, and thus reach the 
 lung. . . . The inhalation of tubercle bacilli is losing 
 much of its importance in the minds of investigators, 
 and the swallowing of tubercle bacilli is gradually 
 supplanting it as the true mode of infection"'^ Says 
 Dr. Melvin, the present Chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry : " The respiratory theory has been shown 
 to be unnecessary to account for the frequency with 
 which tuberculosis is an affection of the lung, and it 
 
 1 Report of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture on " Danger from Tubercle 
 Bacilli," dated May 11, 1907, p. 17. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 has been shown that tubercle bacilli usually reach the 
 lung, irrespective of the manner of their introduction into 
 the body."^ 
 
 The latest views of scientific investigators are in 
 accord with this statement. In the Twenty-fourth 
 Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry, issued in 
 January, 1909, Dr. Schroeder refers to more than a 
 dozen recent writers and investigators favourable to this 
 theory ; adding his personal conviction that no one 
 can read them " without coming to the conclusion 
 that tubercle bacilli easily pass through the intestinal 
 mucosa, from there into the lymph stream, and from 
 it into the circulation, to be filtered out by the lung, where 
 they most commonly cause disease. The most important 
 investigations are probably those of Calmette and his 
 associates, now published in book form. They claim 
 not only that pulmonary tuberculosis by the way of the 
 intestine is possible, but also that this is the common mode 
 of infection." The " greatest tuberculous danger to 
 which public health is exposed " seems to this writer 
 the presence of tubercle bacilli in articles of food. He 
 is especially suspicious regarding impure milk ; but it 
 is evident that the same danger applies to every article 
 of food, in which the infectious material may be found. 
 In a leading article in the Medical Record of June 13, 
 igo8, Dr. Huber admits that perhaps nearly as fre- 
 quently as by inhalation the tubercle bacillus " is taken 
 into the body with impure food, especially with the 
 milk and meat of tuberculous cattle." 
 
 We now come to a question of tremendous impor- 
 tance. We have seen that tuberculosis, in one form or 
 1 Year-book, Dept. of Agriculture, 1906, p. 496. 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 53 
 
 another, is the great destroyer of our race. We have 
 learned that it affects also the animal creation, and 
 that it is especially prevalent among animals used as 
 food by a great part of mankind. We are told, finally, 
 that even consumption — the great white plague of 
 humanity — makes its attack upon its victims by the 
 stomach and intestinal tract, and not the lungs. Now, 
 is it possible that domestic animals, affected by tuber- 
 culosis, are to-day slaughtered under the inspection of 
 United States Government officials, and that, by their 
 permission, parts of such diseased carcasses are sold as 
 sound and wholesome food? It is quite certain that 
 the American people have believed that nothing of the 
 kind was possible, since the revelations of 1905, and 
 the resulting legislation of 1906. Again and again, we 
 have given the world assurance of the absolute purity 
 of American meat-products ; and we have made these 
 declarations by Government publications and Govern- 
 ment officials of the first rank. In 1891, for example, 
 to the Congress of Hygiene and Demography held in 
 London — the assembled sanitarians of the world — we 
 sent as a delegate the Chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry, a subdivision of the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture. In a paper on " The Inspection 
 of Meat " which he read at this Congress, he made the 
 following statements : 
 
 "With us, in the United States, an animal which is sick — no 
 matter what the disease — is considered as unfit for food, and our 
 people would not knowingly tolerate an inspection which allowed 
 the carcasses of such animals to go upon the market. . . . 
 
 " Animals with large abscesses, whether these affect the general 
 condition or not, and those affected with . . . Tuberculosis, whether 
 generalised or not, are all condemned. ... If there is any value in 
 
54 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 inspection, the consumer should hereafter eat American meats 
 with a feeling of great relief and confidence." * 
 
 Ten years later, practically the same assurance may 
 be found in a Government publication — the Twelfth 
 Census of the United States. Therein the following 
 statement appears : 
 
 "The reputation of American meats in the markets of the world, 
 depends upon the care and thoroughness with which the meat is 
 inspected. This inspection is conducted by the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry of the Department of Agriculture. On arrival at the 
 stock-yards, all animals intended for slaughter, are subjected to 
 an ante-mortem examination by a Government inspector. Any 
 animal that is found to be diseased, or not fit for human food, is 
 condemned. ... At the time of slaughter, all animals are again 
 examined, and if found to be diseased, the carcass is . . . removed, 
 and rendered so that no part of it can be placed on sale for food." ^ 
 
 Were these official assurances in accordance with 
 the facts ? Is it true that under the inspection of the 
 United States Department of Agriculture animals 
 " affected with tuberculosis, whether generalised or 
 not," have been all condemned ? Is it true that " no 
 part " of an animal so diseased can be placed on 
 sale for food, with the consent of our Government ? 
 Official assurance to this effect has been given. 
 American meat has been exported throughout the 
 world. In 1904, the United Kingdom took from us 
 over fifty million pounds of canned and salted beef, and 
 more than five hundred million pounds of various pre- 
 parations of pork. It is probable that this result has 
 
 ' Transactions, Seventh Congress of Hygiene and Demography, 
 London, 1891, vol. iii., pp. 174-17J5. 
 ^ Twelfth Census United States, 1900, vol. ix., p. 420. 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 55 
 
 been achieved because foreign nations put faith in the 
 purity and wholesomeness of American meat-products. 
 Were the assurances put forth founded upon fact ? 
 
 Within the brief period of four years, the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture issued three sets of Regulations, 
 governing the inspection of meat. It will be easy to 
 determine, therefore, whether these rules required the 
 rejection of all carcasses found tuberculous, " so that 
 no part can be placed on sale for food." 
 
 The Regulations of 1904 were issued on June 27 of 
 that year by the United States Department of Agri- 
 culture. Certain of the requirements were as follows : 
 
 " All animals found upon post-mortem examination, to be 
 affected with any of the diseases or conditions named below, shall 
 be disposed of according to the following instructions. . . . 
 
 Tuberculosis : 
 
 1. The carcass may be pctssed when the lesions are limited to 
 
 one group of lymphatic glands or one other organ. 
 
 2. The carcass may be passed when the lesions are limited to 
 
 two groups of visceral lymphatic glands in either the 
 thoracic or abdominal cavity. 
 
 3. The carcass may be passed when the lesions are limited to 
 
 two visceral organs (other than lymphatic glands), in the 
 thoracic or the abdominal cavity, provided the lesions are 
 slight, calcified and encapsulated. 
 
 4. The carcass may be passed, when the lesions are limited to 
 
 one group of visceral lymphatic glands and one other 
 organ in the thoracic or abdominal cavity, provided the 
 lesions in the affected organs are slight. 
 
 5. The carcass may be passed when the lesions are confined to 
 
 two groups of visceral lymphatic glands and one other 
 organ in the thoracic or abdominal cavity, provided the 
 lesions are slight, calcified and encapsulated. 
 
 6. The carcass may be passed when the lesions are confined to 
 
 the lungs, the cervical lymphatic glands, and one group 
 
56 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 of the visceral lymphatic glands of the thoracic cavity, 
 provided the affection is slight, and the lesions are calci- 
 fied and encapsulated." * 
 
 It is not supposed that these Government conces- 
 sions to the financial interests of the Meat Trust will 
 be understood by the general reader. Probably it was 
 not intended that they should be quickly comprehen- 
 sible, except by the young officials to whom they were 
 addressed. But concerning one point, these regula- 
 tions are perfectly plain. No one can fail to see that 
 each United States Inspector of newly-slaughtered 
 animals was required by these regulations not to con- 
 demn all carcasses found to be affected with tuber- 
 culosis, but to " pass " certain of them as fit for human 
 food. 
 
 The Regulations concerning meat inspection issued 
 in July, igo6, were supposed to be in accordance with 
 the legislation which had just been enacted by Congress. 
 As a matter of fact, the new rules, in nearly every 
 respect, were as favourable to the pecuniary interests 
 of the butchers and packers, as those they were sup- 
 posed to supplant. Regarding the carcasses of animals 
 affected by tuberculosis, the new Regulations seem to 
 be intentionally drawn with the design of making the 
 meaning as obscure as possible. There is no specific 
 permission given to " pass " any tubercular meat ; the 
 permission must be made out by the intelligent in- 
 spector for whom the Regulations were made. It would 
 be difficult to devise rules which should be less obvious 
 or clear. Were they drawn with intent to conceal from 
 the public as far as possible the permitted utilisation 
 ' Twenty-first Annual Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 577. 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 57 
 
 of diseased meat ? The italicised words (not thus in 
 the original) will enable the reader to see how the pro- 
 ducers of meat, notwithstanding agitation and legisla- 
 tion, were enabled to continue the abuses of other 
 years. Certain paragraphs are as follows : 
 
 " Tuberculosis. — All carcasses affected with tuberculosis and 
 showing emaciation shall be condemned. All other carcasses 
 affected with tuberculosis shall be condemned, except those in which 
 the lesions are slight, calcified, or encapsulated, and are confined 
 to the tissues indicated in any one of the following five paragraphs, 
 or to a less number of such tissues, and excepting those also which 
 may, under paragraphs below, be rendered into lard or tallow. 
 
 1. The cervical lymphatic glands and two groups of visceral 
 
 lymphatic glands in a single body cavity, such as the 
 cervical, bronchial, and mediastinal glands, or the cervical 
 hepatic, and mesenteric glands. 
 
 2. The cervical lymphatic glands and one group of visceral 
 
 lymphatic glands and one organ in a single body cavity, 
 such as the cervical and bronchial glands and the lungs, 
 or the cervical and hepatic glands and the liver. 
 
 3. Two groups of visceral lymphatic glands and one organ 
 
 in a single body cavity, such as the bronchial and medi- 
 astinal glands and the lungs, or the cervical and hepatic 
 glands and the liver. 
 
 4. The cervical lymphatic glands and one group of visceral 
 
 lymphatic glands in each body cavity, such as the cervical, 
 bronchial, and hepatic glands. 
 
 5. Two groups of visceral lymphatic glands in the thoracic 
 
 cavity and one group in the abdominal cavity ; or one 
 group of visceral lymphatic glands in the thoracic cavity 
 and two groups in the abdominal cavity, such as the 
 bronchial, mediastinal, and hepatic glands, or the bron- 
 chial, hepatic, and mesenteric glands.'' 
 
 The foregoing paragraphs are all that relate to 
 carcasses to be partly utilised as food. Succeeding 
 
58 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 paragraphs refer to still worse conditions, and the 
 utilisation of the carcass in other ways. 
 
 We come, finally, to the Regulations governing meat 
 inspection, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
 April I, igo8, and now in effect. In some respects, 
 the new Regulations make clearer the conditions under 
 which the meat derived from diseased animals may be 
 sold as food. With respect to tuberculosis, we are 
 furnished with arguments in support of the policy 
 which permits its use. The Regulations begin by 
 laying down certain propositions or principles, which 
 are supposed to guide the inspector in his work. We 
 are told, in the first place, that meat should not be 
 approved if there is a reasonable possibility that it 
 contains tubercle bacilli, "or if it has been injuriously 
 affected by tubercular infection " — statements with 
 which we are all in substantial agreement. Then 
 comes the assertion that when tuberculosis in an 
 animal " is limited to a single or several parts or 
 organs of the body, without evidence of recent invasion 
 of numerous bacilli into the systemic circulation," it 
 may be concluded that the disease is localised, and 
 that there is no reason to suspect that the flesh is 
 unwholesome. Having thus cleared the way for an 
 endorsement of tuberculous meat, the United States 
 Department of Agriculture advances yet another step, 
 and, under certain circumstances, requires the inspector's 
 approval of the flesh of tuberculous animals as fit food 
 for human beings : 
 
 " Rule C. — The carcass, if tuberculous lesions are limited to a 
 single or several parts or organs of the body (except as noted in 
 Rule A) without evidence of recent invasion of tubercle bacilli into 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 59 
 
 the syste mic circulation, SHALL be PASSED after the parts contain- 
 ing the localised lesions are removed and condemned." ■" 
 
 A strange and important difference between this 
 regulation and those promulgated at an earlier date, 
 should not be overlooked. The permission to pass 
 tuberculous meat, has now become a command which 
 the inspector is not at liberty to disregard ; the tuber- 
 culous carcass "shall be passed" after the obviously 
 diseased parts are " removed and condemned." We 
 have no reason to be surprised that the rule which 
 permits this to be done has received the approval of 
 certain very distinguished veterinarians and patho- 
 logists. However it may be in England, it is certainly 
 true of the United States, that wherever important 
 financial interests are threatened, their methods can 
 always secure the approval of distinguished advocates. 
 Is it not possible that the approval of tuberculous flesh 
 as wholesome and pure food proceeded less from any 
 considerations of public health, than from a tender 
 regard for other interests ? There are men of high 
 repute, who see no harm in the use of tuberculous 
 meat by the general public ; we have found no one 
 who has expressed a willingness to have it served 
 on his own table. It is a somewhat interesting and 
 perhaps noteworthy fact that the same Federal official 
 who in i8gi, assured Europe that in America, animals 
 affected with " tuberculosis, whether generalised or not, 
 are all condemned,"^ declared only a year or two later, 
 in his official report, that " it is perfectly safe to con- 
 
 ' See Appendix for these regulations in full. 
 2 Trans. Seventh International Cong. Hyg. andDemog., vol. iii., 
 p. 175. 
 
6o AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 sume the carcasses of animals which are only slightly 
 affected, and which are in a satisfactory condition of 
 flesh."! 
 
 How many cattle and other animals, found to be 
 affected with tuberculosis, have been permitted by the 
 Department of Agriculture to be turned into meat ? 
 Upon this point, we are confronted with official reti- 
 cence hardly in accord with the frankness which such 
 a matter demands. No official statistics issued by the 
 Government afford the information desired. The facts, it 
 would seem, must be known at Washington. Is there 
 any reason why during so many years, they should 
 have been concealed from the general public? The 
 Department of Agriculture is able to tell us precisely 
 how many pounds of beef or pork are annually ex- 
 ported, and even to what countries the meat goes. Is 
 there any reason why the Government should not also 
 be able to tell American and foreign consumers of meat 
 how much of it was derived from tuberculous animals ? 
 
 In one way, some light may be obtained regarding 
 the inefficiency of our methods of inspection. Every 
 year, since 1900, the Bureau of Animal Industry has 
 reported the number of carcasses which have passed 
 under the inspector's eye, and the number of "parts " 
 of carcasses, which on account of this disease, have 
 been " condemned." Now, might not the number of 
 " parts " thus condemned, represent also the number 
 of carcasses of diseased animals, which were duly 
 approved for food purposes, after the affected organs 
 and other portions had been eliminated ? Inquiry at 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry proved the correctness 
 of this hypothesis; a reply was duly received, stating 
 ' Report of Bureau of Animal Industry, 1893-1894, p. 16. 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 
 
 6i 
 
 that although the column in question represents the 
 number of parts condemned, and not the number of 
 carcasses from which they were taken, " they would 
 not likely be very different."^ The light thus thrown 
 is not very vivid ; we get, however, some clue to the 
 number of tuberculous animals of which parts have 
 been annually turned into the world's food-supply, for 
 the benefit of the Meat Trust. Assuming, therefore, 
 that the number of " parts " condemned represents 
 approximately the number of tuberculous animals the 
 flesh of which was passed by Federal inspectors as 
 wholesome meat, the following table affords matter of 
 interest : 
 
 Number of Carcasses (approximately) found on Inspec- 
 tion TO be affected with Tuberculosis, of which 
 "Parts" were condemned, and the Remainder 
 PASSED AS Wholesome Food.^ 
 
 Year. 
 
 Cattle. 
 
 Hogs. 
 
 1900 
 1 901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1 90s 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 
 85 
 256 
 
 152 
 250 
 
 703 
 
 647 
 
 1,114 
 
 10,530 
 
 27,467 
 
 1,061 
 
 44 
 4,700 
 52,006 
 118,820 
 142,105 
 113,491 
 364,559 
 628,462 
 
 Total 
 
 41,204 
 
 1,425,248 
 
 1 Letter of A. D. Melvin, Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry 
 dated April 16, 1907. 
 
 ^ Abstracted from the annual reports of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry. 
 
62 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 The significance of these figures should not escape 
 the reader. Here is the proof, based upon official 
 statistics, of the utilisation for food purposes of animals 
 suffering from tuberculous disease. 
 
 But the figures prove far more. They illustrate the 
 terrible indifference to public interests which governed 
 the inspection of meat, especially before the legislation 
 of June, 1906. Note the vast difference which obtains 
 between the number of animals found " partly " 
 diseased in 1907, and the average of preceding years. 
 For instance, the total number of beef carcasses 
 inspected in 1907 showed an increase of precisely 
 10 per cent, above the figures of 1906. Yet the number 
 of cattle, of which the carcasses were in part condemned 
 increased — not 10 per cent. — but over 800 per cent, above 
 the figures of the years before ! Almost as many hogs 
 were condemned in one year (1907) as in part affected 
 by this disease, as during the entire seven years that 
 preceded it. Was there any noteworthy sudden 
 increase in the prevalence of this disease among 
 animals intended for food ? There is no hint of it 
 in the official report. The only conclusion we can 
 reach is that following the agitation and legislation of 
 1906, thousands of hogs and cattle were at least partly con- 
 demned, which in preceding years, without even the 
 condemnation of a " part," passed into the food-supply of the 
 world. 
 
 Nor is this all. Since the year 1900, the Department 
 of Agriculture has told us the number of carcasses 
 which have been examined each year, the number 
 found so diseased as to require their total condemnation, 
 together with the number which were permitted, in 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 
 
 63 
 
 part, to be utilised as meat. During eight years, how 
 many carcasses were inspected, and how many were 
 condemned ? The figures^ deserve study. 
 
 
 Cattle. 
 
 Hogs. 
 
 Number of carcasses inspected 
 during eight years, 1900- 1907 
 
 Number of carcasses wholly 
 condemned for tubercular 
 disease 
 
 Number of carcasses, tubercu- 
 lous, of which "parts" were 
 condemned, and the rest 
 utilised as " wholesome and 
 healthful food" 
 
 Of each ten thousand (10,000) 
 carcasses inspected, how 
 many were tota ly condemned 
 on account of tuberculosis ? ... 
 
 Of each ten thousand (10,000) 
 carcasses inspected, how 
 many were part y condemned, 
 and partly used for food pur- 
 poses.? 
 
 48,926,440 
 81,172 
 
 13.737 
 17 
 
 3 
 
 203,281,214 
 308,844 
 
 796,786 
 15 
 
 39 
 
 There is something inexpressively horrible in the 
 facts which these figures reveal. In his report for 1905 
 the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry asserts that 
 " about 3 per cent, of the hogs coming to some of the 
 largest abattoirs are affected with tuberculosis." Yet 
 even this may be an underestimate. In his report for 
 igo6, the Secretary of Agriculture refers to " the increas- 
 ing and alarming frequency of tuberculosis in hogs," 
 contracted, as the Secretary points out, not by inhalation 
 
 1 Tabulated from statistics given in annual reports of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry. 
 
64 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 of the germs of disease, but because the animals are 
 permitted to feed upon excrementitious matter and the 
 foulest food.^ Yet now we discover that during eight 
 years of Federal inspection, of every 10,000 animals 
 examined after slaughter, only 17 carcasses of cattle 
 and 15 carcasses of hogs were absolutely condemned 
 as totally unfit for human food because of tuberculosis ! 
 That is less than two out of every thousand. If of 
 the total number of carcasses of cattle inspected, during 
 eight years, less than two in every thousand were pro- 
 nounced by Government inspectors as so affected by 
 tuberculosis as to preclude even a partial utilisation in 
 some form of human food ; if of every 10,000 carcasses 
 of hogs that during eight years passed beneath the 
 eye of the Federal inspector, only 15 were condemned 
 because they were so affected by tubercular disease as 
 to be wholly unfit for any kind of meat-food product, 
 then we do not hesitate to say that the system of official 
 inspection of meat, which afforded no better protection 
 from tuberculosis than this, was worse than no pro- 
 tection at all, for in the public mind it induced a mis- 
 taken belief in a security that had no existence in fact.^ 
 We cannot question the utility of our Federal 
 inspection of meat if we regard merely the chief 
 
 ' Page 32. 
 
 ^ In igo8, there was a very considerable increase in the number 
 of food-animals of which parts were condemned for tubercular 
 disease and parts converted into articles of food. Four out of 
 every thousand beef carcasses were in part condemned for evidences 
 of this disease, and nearly 18 per thousand carcasses of pork 
 The total condemnations of both classes of animals for all causes 
 whatsoever were less tlian 38 out of every ten thousand slaughtered 
 for food. 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 65 
 
 purpose for which it was instituted. It has, indeed, 
 inspired a confidence in the quality of American meat 
 which has vastly increased its consumption at home 
 and abroad. It enabled the meat-packers to sell to the 
 people of Great Britain during the year 1904 nearly 
 five hundred million pounds of American meat-products. 
 Three years after, during 1907, there died in England, 
 from some form of tuberculous disease, no less than 
 56,101 men, women and children. Are we sure that 
 tuberculous meat was not responsible for some part of 
 this tragic mortality ? Looking at the question from 
 every point of view, only one conclusion seems evident : 
 that under the inefficient system of Government 
 inspection which now prevails in the United States 
 — an inspection instituted, admittedly, simply to 
 promote trade — millions of carcasses of animals, 
 affected to some extent by tuberculosis, have been 
 officially approved as " sound, wholesome and fit for 
 human food," and in one form or another, sent as food- 
 products to nearly all parts of the civilised world. 
 
 Conclusions. 
 
 1. Tuberculosis, in some one of its forms, is at 
 present the principal cause of death among human 
 beings in all civilised lands. It is widely prevalent 
 among animals that are used for human food. 
 
 2. Since it is yet uncertain how far the use of 
 tuberculous meat may give rise to the disease among 
 human beings, prudence and a decent regard for the 
 public health should outweigh all consideration of 
 whatever money interests are involved. 
 
 5 
 
66 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 3. It is contrary to the public good that under the 
 laws of the United States, and for the pecuniary profit 
 of the purveyors of meat, the flesh of any tuberculous 
 animal should be permitted, as now, to be sold to 
 innocent and ignorant purchasers as " pure, sound, and 
 wholesome food." Whenever the carcass of an animal 
 is found to be affected with tuberculosis — no matter to 
 what degree — the law should require that it be so 
 stamped and removed to a special department, entirely 
 apart from sound and healthful meat. While it may be 
 contrary to expediency to forbid the use of meat, derived 
 from tuberculous animals, when the consumer prefers 
 it and is willing to take the risks, it is absolutely 
 opposed to justice to permit such meat to be forced upon 
 customers who would avoid and discard it, if they were 
 aware of its origin. 
 
 4. So long as it shall be impossible to forbid the 
 utilisation of meat, slightly affected with tuberculosis, 
 the laws of the United States should require that every 
 meat-product, consisting wholly or in part of the flesh 
 of animals thus diseased, whether intended for export 
 or for honie consumption, should bear a special label, 
 distinctive in character, clearly indicating to the buyer 
 the origin of such product and its inferiority to meat- 
 food products derived from healthy animals. 
 
 5. Since man's victory over tuberculosis, the greatest 
 scourge of the human race, must depend largely upon 
 the education of the people, the diffusion of knowledge 
 concerning the prevalence of tubercular diseases among 
 domestic animals slaughtered for human food is a 
 matter of the utmost importance. For this reason 
 the Department of Agriculture of the United States 
 
TUBERCULOSIS AND MEAT 67 
 
 Government should annually issue tabular statements, 
 clearly setting forth all the facts pertaining to the 
 inspection of animals intended for human food, for the 
 information and guidance of the consumers of American 
 meat. Such official reports should give (i) the number 
 of carcasses of each species of animals examined ; 
 (2) the number found affected with tuberculosis and 
 condemned ; (3) the number found slightly affected, 
 and utilised in part ; and (4) the number of parts which 
 were destroyed. 
 
 5—2 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 ACTINOMYCOSIS AND AMERICAN BEEF 
 
 A FEW years since, a visitor, passing through the 
 Chicago stock-yards, was quite certain to note a large 
 open pen filled with cattle suffering from a mysterious 
 and horrible disease. To the observer, its resemblance 
 to some forms of cancer was very marked. In the 
 advanced stages of the ailment, the head of the poor 
 beast was often swollen and distorted — a mass of foetid 
 and feculent purulence. So terrible was the outward 
 appearance of the suffering animal, that every hour of 
 permitted existence and continued pain seemed an 
 unpardonable cruelty. These animals were in the later 
 stages of the disease scientifically known as actino- 
 mycosis, and to the farmer and stock-raiser as " lumpy- 
 jaw." This disease, as a cattle-plague, has long been 
 known. It was very prevalent in Scotland from 1827 
 to 1839, and, among other designations, was called 
 " cancer of the jaw, cancer of the tongue, osteo-sarcoma, 
 or carcinoma" — terms all significant of a malignant 
 nature. Twenty years ago, in Australia, it was said to 
 be very prevalent, and was there known either as 
 cancer or lumpy-jaw, or a form of tubercular disease. 
 While recent scientific investigators have decided that 
 
 68 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 69 
 
 its relationship to cancer is improbable, yet the fact 
 that such a name was so long applied to it is strikingly 
 significant of its external appearance. In its later 
 stages, theire would appear to be no remedy for it, and, 
 as in cancer, death relieves only after prolonged suffering, 
 if the disease be permitted to run its natural course. 
 
 The disorder is not confined solely to the lower 
 animals. Among human beings, about two hundred cases 
 have now been described in medical literature.^ Like 
 cancer, it does not appear to be contagious, nor is it 
 apparently transmissible by contact from the lower 
 animals to man. Of seventy-five cases recorded by 
 one observer, there was but one in which there was any 
 evidence of contact with an animal thus diseased. Yet 
 we know that in some way, yet unknown, the germs of 
 actinomycosis must find their way into the human 
 system in order to give rise to the disease. In man, as 
 in lower animals, it chiefly affects the head. Regarding 
 its origin, a recent authority admits that "there are 
 still wide gaps in our knowledge." 
 
 Is the flesh of animals suifering from this disease fit 
 for the consumption of human beings ? 
 
 The reply to such a question depends, manifestly, on 
 the point of view. If we regard as paramount the 
 pecuniary interests involved, whether they pertain to 
 the stock-raiser or the packing-house, we shall long 
 hesitate before we condemn as uneatable so vast a 
 quantity of animal flesh. "No country is so rich that 
 it can afford to throw good meat into the tank," says 
 the present chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in 
 a recent report. From the point of view taken by the 
 
 ' Trans. Cong. Hygiene and Demography, vol. iii., p. ig6. 
 
70 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 United States Department of Agriculture, " the prices 
 of meat are usually high enough without increasing 
 them by an indiscriminate condemnation of carcasses 
 that are fit for food." 
 
 But, on the other hand, it must be confessed that in 
 certain quarters there has been manifested a strong 
 objection to using such diseased animals as food. Here 
 is an ailment resembling cancer in some of its later 
 manifestations, a disease involving conditions of putrid 
 necrosis and broken-down tissues. Through these 
 diseased parts courses the blood-stream of the entire 
 system, going to every organ and part of the animal's 
 body, bearing — for all we know — to the remotest organs 
 the germs of a mysterious and horrible disease. We 
 are told, it is true, and by eminent authorities, that the 
 disease is purely local in character; and that if the 
 butcher cuts away the affected parts, the remainder of 
 the carcass may be consumed without danger. But 
 assuredly the circulation of the blood is not local, nor 
 would the most liberal of Government inspectors select 
 knowingly, for his own consumption or that of his 
 family, a portion of beef derived from an animal thus 
 diseased. 
 
 When it was rumoured in England, several years 
 ago, that cattle in the United States, suffering from 
 this obscure disease, were killed and turned into meat, 
 the possible injury of such a statement to the meat 
 trade was- at once recognised, and the charge was 
 indignantly and officially denied. It was affirmed that 
 the Board of Live Stock Commissioners of the State of 
 Illinois enforced the destruction of all animals affected 
 with actinomycosis, and prohibited the use of the car- 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 71 
 
 casses of such animals for human consumption.^ The 
 Inter-State Live Stock Sanitary Association assisted in 
 the restoration of public confidence by passing a reso- 
 lution affirming " that animals affected with this disease 
 should be destroyed, and that the carcasses thereof 
 should not be used for human food."^ 
 
 Still more assuring was the action of the United 
 States Government in sending the head of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry to London to speak on the inspection 
 of meat before the International Congress of Hygienists 
 and Pathologists. In a passage already quoted, he 
 declared that in America " an animal which is sick — 
 no matter what the disease — is considered unfit for 
 food ; and our people would not knowingly tolerate an 
 inspection which allowed the carcasses of such animals 
 to go upon the market." Americans, he declared, were 
 accustomed to choose " the best cuts from the best 
 animals "; and after naming a ffew of the conditions 
 which in America render animals unfit for food, he 
 asserted that " those affected with actinomycosis and 
 tuberculosis, whether generalised or not, are all con- 
 demned. In the condemnation of cattle affected with 
 actinomycosis we have probably gone farther than any 
 other country, since beeves in perfect condition have 
 been condemned when they only presented a tumour . . . 
 the size of a walnut."^ The speaker proceeded to 
 indicate some of the perplexities pertaining to the con- 
 demnation of cattle suffering from this disease which 
 apparently trouble the Government inspector of meat. 
 " If a suppurating tumour on the jaw, ten inches in 
 
 1 Trans. Cong. Hygiene and Demography, vol. iii., p. 195. 
 
 2 /dia., p. 196. ^ Ibid., pp. 174, 175. 
 
72 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 diameter, calls for condemnation of the carcass, why 
 should not one which is eight inches or even six inches 
 in diameter ; and if these are condemned, what shall 
 we say of those which are five, four, three, and two 
 inches only ?" What a glimpse into the inferno of 
 meat production is implied by such a question as this ! 
 
 In his address on this occasion the speaker, referring 
 to contagious diseases of animals, informed his British 
 and foreign associates that " the carcasses of animals 
 which have died of such diseases . . . should be rejected, 
 or the customer should be informed of the malady from 
 which the animal had suffered." 
 
 In the course of a discussion which took place a few 
 days later, the delegate from the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture again took occasion to repeat 
 assurances he had before given, and to enunciate senti- 
 ments which certainly should underlie the practice of 
 meat inspection. " The question of condemning the 
 carcasses of all animals affected with this disease was 
 very important, both to the consumers of meat and to. 
 the producers of bovine animals. If there were danger 
 of infection to man, the meat should not be allowed to 
 go upon the market ; and if there were no danger, the 
 consumer was entitled to know that the meat he was buying 
 came from an animal affected with a serious disease."'^ 
 No higher sentiment concerning the subject could have 
 been enunciated. Professor McFadyean, of Edinburgh, 
 pertinently remarked that, although they had been 
 
 1 Trans. Cong. Hygiene and Demog., vol.iii., p. 201. The speaker 
 added that " in the present condition of public opinion in the 
 United States, the utihsation of the carcasses of animals, affected 
 even in the slightest degree, would not be tolerated." 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 73 
 
 assured that " in the United States the sale of the 
 flesh of animals that were affected with actinomycosis 
 was not tolerated, it would be interesting to learn 
 whether the system of meat inspection in that country 
 was adequate to insure that none of the dead meat 
 exported to this country [Great Britain] was derived 
 from animals that were the subject of actinomycosis 
 or tuberculosis." What reply was possible to this 
 most pertinent suggestion ? The representative of the 
 Department of Agriculture maintained a discreet 
 silence. He had given to a large body of scientific 
 men, gathered from all quarters of the world, the 
 impression that no animal in America, suifering from 
 " lumpy-jaw " disease in the slightest degree, would be 
 permitted to be turned into marketable meat under the 
 inspection of the United States. 
 
 But if such were the principles that governed the 
 inspectiqn of meat in i8gi, they gave way very 
 speedily to sentiments more favourable to the financial 
 interests involved. The following year, we find the 
 Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry making a 
 special report upon this disease, and arguing against the 
 destruction of all carcasses of animals thus infected. 
 He declares that the " forcing of infected animals with 
 even slight lesions, to be destroyed for food, is in my 
 opinion ... a great wrong to the cattle producers of 
 this country. There is no doubt that many thousand 
 dollars' worth of property have been unjustly taken 
 from the' cattle owners by such action." Somewhat 
 later the same views are brought forward in a report on 
 actinomycosis by Drs. Salmon and Smith. Should 
 animals thus diseased be used for human food, after 
 
74 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 all the diseased organs and tissues have been removed ? 
 It is a question, the answer to which depends " on a 
 variety of circumstances." Animals seriously affected, 
 and when the general condition is involved, must of 
 course be condemned. At the same time, it is necessary 
 to be discriminating. " Hard and fast lines, it would 
 be impossible to draw in this, as in some other diseases ; 
 and it must be left to the skill of the inspector ... to 
 settle the fitness or unfitness of each case as it comes 
 up."'^ To the decision of young men, working on small 
 salaries, within the influence of the most unscrupulous 
 and remorseless trust the world has ever known, the 
 decision was now to be left — not whether the animal 
 was affected by disease, but whether, if only the festering 
 and putrid parts could be cut away, the remainder of 
 the carcass might not be utilised in some way as human 
 food! 
 
 In accordance with this policy, at different times 
 during the past few years, various Regulations, govern- 
 ing the inspection of animals thus diseased, have been 
 promulgated by the Department of Agriculture. In 
 the Regulations of 1904, we find that in case the 
 disease had not extended beyond the primary area 
 of infection — usually the head — the carcass, if in good 
 condition, might be " passed." There was no limita- 
 tion whatever, as to the extent to which the disease 
 in the head might have progressed before con- 
 demnation was required ; not even the existence of 
 " a suppurating tumour on the jaw, ten inches in 
 diameter," was stipulated as any reason for rejecting 
 
 1 Article on " Infectious Diseases of Cattle," by Drs. D. E. 
 Salmon and Theobald Smith, pp. 416, 417. 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 75 
 
 the carcass. Yet even this was not the worst. If 
 the disease had extended beyond the head, even then 
 the condemnation of the carcass was not required; its 
 disposition was to be " in accordance with the instruc- 
 tions relating to tuberculosis." There, we find no less 
 than six statements of diseased conditions which 
 permitted, nevertheless, the approval of the meat. It 
 would seem, therefore, that according to the Govern- 
 ment Regulations of 1904, if the carcass of an animal 
 affected by this loathsome disease seemed to the 
 inspector to be in good condition from the butcher's 
 point of view, it need not be condemned. No matter 
 whether the disease had invaded the body, no matter to 
 what horrible state of corruption and putridity the 
 disease in the head had advanced, still, the flesh might 
 be passed as "wholesome and healthful food " if only 
 the polluted parts were carefully cut away and solemnly 
 condemned ! 
 
 Following the legislation of June, 1906, new Regula- 
 tions pertaining to meat inspection were issued by the 
 Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. We have 
 seen how easily it was possible to render null and void 
 the stringency of the law forbidding the utilisation of 
 diseased animals as food. The new rules were exactly 
 the same as those issued in 1904, in their require- 
 ments and prohibitions concerning " lumpy-jaw " meat. 
 Whatever was permitted in 1904, was equally permitted 
 by the Regulations of 1906. 
 
 The Regulations at present operative were issued in 
 April, 1908. So far as concerns animals affected with 
 this disease, there is no essential difference between 
 them, and the rules in force before the attempt at 
 
76 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 reform. As in 1904, no matter how far the disease had 
 progressed in the head, there is nothing in the present 
 Regulations that requires condemnation of the carcass, 
 provided the head and tongue are carefully condemned. 
 It is a significant and instructive fact,- that the Regula- 
 tions of 1908, by enlarging the opportunity of utilising 
 this kind of flesh, are even more favourable to the 
 pecuniary interests of the packing-house than were the 
 rules of 1904. Before the agitation of igo6, the per- 
 mission to use meat derived from animals thus diseased 
 depended somewhat upon the number of organs or 
 parts that were involved. According to present regula- 
 tions, all this is changed ; there is now no limitation to 
 the number of organs which may be affected by actino- 
 mycotic lesions, provided they are " uncomplicated." 
 
 The official regulation governing the inspection of 
 cases where the disease has extended even beyond the 
 head of the animal is as follows : 
 
 "Section ii, Paragraph 2. — Carcasses of animals 
 showing uncomplicated localised actinomycotic lesions other 
 than or in addition to, those specified in paragraph one of 
 this section may be passed after the infected organs and 
 parts have been removed and condemned.''' (Italics ours.) 
 
 Do we observe in this regulation any limitation to 
 the number of "organs and parts" that may be in- 
 fected by this disease before condemnation becomes 
 imperative ? 
 
 The consumption of flesh derived from tuberculous or 
 cancerous animals probably involves more risk to the 
 consumer than is incurred by the ingestion of this kind 
 of corrupt and polluted meat. If one could see the 
 creatures from which it is derived, there would be no 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 
 
 n 
 
 difference in abhorrence and loathing. It is probable 
 that in the history of corporate greed, there is no 
 instance of the supremacy attained by selfish interests 
 more horrible than that which thus permits animals 
 suffering from a most disgusting and abominable disease 
 to be sold as wholesome food, under the sanction of the 
 Government of the United States. 
 
 How many animals thus diseased are, by the genius 
 of the meat-packers, transmuted into meat and meat- 
 products and various edible delicacies every year? 
 Up to the year 1900, no information published by the 
 Department of Agriculture gave light upon this 
 question. In the report of the Chief of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry for that and for subsequent years, 
 we find figures showing the disposition, under Govern- 
 ment inspection, of cattle affected with this disease. 
 
 Disposition of Cattle, found under United States 
 Government Inspection to be affected with Actino- 
 mycosis, OR "Lumpy-Jaw." 
 
 Year. 
 
 Carcasses wholly 
 Condemned. 
 
 Number of "Parts" 
 Condemned. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 190S 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 
 1,661 
 
 1,355 
 1,264 
 
 834 
 1,130 
 1,246 
 
 797 
 661 
 667 
 
 766 
 
 629 
 
 652 
 
 837 
 
 2,379 
 
 1,755 
 
 1,985 
 
 22,081 
 
 32,430 
 
 Total 
 
 9,615 
 
 63,514 
 
78 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 The meaning of these figures it is not difficult to 
 discern. We note in the first column the total con- 
 demnation — head, tongue and carcass — of over nine 
 thousand animals which were found affected by " lumpy- 
 jaw " since the beginning of the fiscal year igoo. Then 
 comes a column giving the number of " parts " con- 
 demned during the same period. But the present head 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry has stated that under 
 this designation we have also approximately the number 
 of carcasses of which a portion was condemned, and 
 the rest turned into food. What is the meaning of that 
 strange increase in number of "parts" condemned 
 during the last two years, for which figures are given ? 
 No great outbreak of the disease among cattle has 
 occurred; the total condemnations are even less in 
 1907 and 1908 than in the preceding year 1906. How, 
 then, does it happen that 20,000 more "parts" of 
 carcasses were eliminated from our food-supply in the 
 year following the legislation of igo6, than during the 
 year before ? What interpretation of the facts is 
 possible that is not appalling ? Yet what escape is 
 there from the conclusion that during 1907 and 1908, 
 possibly fifty thousand carcasses of cattle affected to 
 some extent with " lumpy-jaw " were held up by 
 Government inspectors and partly condemned, which, 
 under the inspection of preceding years, were permitted 
 — without removal of diseased organs or affected parts — 
 to be transmuted into food delicacies or "sound and 
 wholesome meat " ? There is at least this occasion for 
 thankfulness, that if we must be compelled to consume 
 such meat, the diseased " parts " are now somewhat 
 more likely to be condemned. 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 79 
 
 How extensively cattle may be affected by this 
 disease, and yet have the meat approved by Govern- 
 ment inspectors as " sound, wholesome, healthful and 
 fit for human food," we are permitted to know through 
 the disclosures made by an official report. 
 
 On Friday, March g, 1906, a number of lumpy-jaw 
 cattle which had been rejected on ante-mortem exami- 
 nation were slaughtered at a Chicago abattoir. Eleven 
 of the carcasses, after having been approved for food 
 purposes by an inspector of the U.S. Government, were 
 condemned by inspectors of the Chicago Board of Health. 
 A conflict of opinion so marked, amounted to a chal- 
 lenge of the efficiency of Federal inspection of meat 
 which could not be disregarded ; and accordingly four 
 officials of the U.S. Bureau of Animal Industry made a 
 careful re-inspection of the eleven carcasses in dispute. 
 We are not informed that the City inspectors who 
 condemned the carcasses were present at the re- 
 inspection, and the notes taken represent, probably, 
 the impressions of those who desired to justify the 
 action of the Federal inspectors in passing the meat. 
 Some of these horrible carcasses are thus described^ : 
 
 Carcass No. 3. — Cheesy actinomycotic abscesses were observed 
 located below the left ear and behind the lower jawbone, the size 
 of lemons. The contents were semi-fluid, and circumscribed by 
 dense fibrous tissue. ... No other lesions. 
 
 Carcass No. 4. — At the base of the tongue is quite a large 
 liquid abscess the size of a teacup, circumscribed by a thick capsule. 
 Indications of mixed infection are apparent. One tubercular 
 nodule, the size of a hazel-nut and slightly calcified, was noted in 
 the . . . lung. 
 
 I See Twenty-third Report of Bureau of Animal Industry, pp. 
 420-432. 
 
8o AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Carcass No. 6. — . . . A large, fibrous actinomycotic tumour 
 the size of a cocoa-nut, which contained four or five centres of pus, 
 well encapsulated. . . . 
 
 Carcass No. 7. — The entire post-pharyngeal space was occu- 
 pied by a large, fibrous actinomycotic tumour, the size of a child! s 
 head. The encapsulating fibrous tissue showed numerous haemor- 
 rhagic areas. All the adjoining glands of this region were enlarged 
 and kamorrhagic. 
 
 Carcass No. 9. — Two apple-sized actinomycotic tumours, . . . 
 contained a greenish pus, semi-fluid in consistency. 
 
 Carcass No. 10. — The entire pharyngeal region was occupied 
 by a large caseo-calcareous swelling, tubercular in character, in- 
 volving . . . lymph glands. (Other slight lesions mentioned.) 
 
 In regard to nearly every one of these cases, the 
 information is added that the carcass was in fine 
 condition. One of the carcasses (No. 7) is declared to 
 have been "in extra fine condition for bologna!" 
 
 As a result of this re-examination, it was the opinion 
 of the four experts belonging to the United States 
 Bureau of Animal Industry that "no cause existed for 
 the condemnation of the carcasses " with the exception of 
 No. 10, last mentioned. It was the further opinion of 
 these officials that carcass No. 10 "was on the border 
 line, but that it would be advisable in this case to 
 condemn the meat." Here, then, is a concrete instance 
 of United States Government beef inspection as now 
 conducted. Although the date was before passage of 
 the present law, the same laxity of " regulations " 
 permits to-day precisely the same abuse. When the 
 English working-man buys a tin of American beef, 
 " U.S. Inspected and Passed," is it stuff Uke this that 
 he imagines he is placing on the family table ? Only 
 a few years ago, he was ofiicially assured that carcasses 
 " affected with actinomycosis, whether generalised or 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 8i 
 
 not, are all condemned." What is to be the value of our 
 official word in the future, unless we hasten to make 
 that promise good ? 
 
 The excuses which will be put forth for permitting 
 and authorising the use of such flesh, it is easy to 
 foresee. The public will be assured by distinguished 
 veterinary experts, and perhaps, even by medical 
 authorities, that if the putrid and suppurating parts 
 are removed, in a majority of cases the remainder 
 of the animal is quite suitable for food. It will be 
 asserted that the direct transmission of the disease to 
 human beings by the use of this meat is by no means a 
 proven fact. We shall be told that the objections to 
 using it are purely sentimental; changed into food- 
 delicacies by the skill of the packing-house, nobody 
 would have the slightest objection to it, unless there 
 was forced upon him the knowledge of its origin. To 
 require condemnation of all " lumpy-jaw " cattle would 
 be to inflict a heavy financial loss upon the meat- 
 producing industry in America, and create conditions 
 certain to result in higher prices for a staple article of 
 food. But all such apologies for our present policy fail 
 entirely to touch the chief issue — the right of the 
 packing-houses to put upon the market meat derived 
 from animals thus affected by serious disease, and to 
 keep from the public all information regarding its peculiar 
 origin. Have they such right as this ? Can it possibly 
 be maintained that in permitting this to be done, as it 
 is being done to-day, in conniving at a policy of silence 
 and in failing to make widely known the truth, the 
 United States Government, as represented by the 
 Department of Agriculture, has acted for the general 
 
 6 
 
82 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 good of the nation, rather than the financial profit of 
 the Meat Trust ? Would any civilised man on the face 
 of the globe be content with the hospitality of his host, 
 if, invited to dine, he w^ere secretly served with such 
 abominable viands ? 
 
 There is yet another objection to the Government's 
 approval of this offensive stuff as fit and wholesome 
 food. We shall be told, of course, that no disease can 
 be transmitted by its consumption. Is this certain ? 
 Medical science is yet in its infancy, so far as concerns 
 knowledge of certain diseases and their cause. Only a 
 few years ago, the real nature of some of the most 
 insidious and fatal of ailments was unsuspected by the 
 medical profession. Concerning the causation of the 
 worst foe to humanity, we know little more than was 
 known half a century ago. Now, here is an ailment, 
 chiefly affecting cattle, which for many years, in 
 Scotland, in Australia, and elsewhere, was supposed 
 to be a form of cancer, and called by that name. 
 Under the microscope, differences between it and 
 ordinary cancer have been revealed ; yet to the unaided 
 eye, little or no difference is apparent when the disease 
 is greatly advanced. How do we know but that the 
 science of the future may one day reveal that, closely 
 resembling each other in external characteristics, there 
 are here two diseases ? Why may it not be possible, that 
 coming up to Chicago packing - houses with cattle 
 suffering from actinomycosis are also cattle suffering 
 from unrecognised, undetected cancer, and that the 
 flesh of these cancerous carcasses, stamped as whole- 
 some and fit for human food by United States inspectors, 
 goes into the food-supply of every nation which depends 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 83 
 
 in any way upon American meat ? We need not con- 
 sider this as a demonstrated fact ; it may not even be 
 a probability, but assuredly it is a possibility. Even 
 the Department of Agriculture, in a circular dated 
 July 24, 1906, admits that "there are still wide gaps 
 in our knowledge " regarding the nature and origin of 
 this disease. Greater discoveries than this would be 
 have been made by the science of medicine during the 
 last fifty years. And if ever, in years to come, such 
 hypothesis should become a proven fact, and an ex- 
 planation in no matter how slight a degree, of that 
 ominous increase of cancer which is the tragedy of our 
 time, then we do not envy the future repute of those 
 men, high in influence and scientific authority, who, 
 with power to caution and perhaps to forbid, were 
 willing to endorse, to sanction, and to encourage the 
 sale to the people of America and England of such 
 meat as this. 
 
 If there are many matters in dispute, there are some 
 facts that are beyond question. 
 
 It is certain that for many years past, the Regulations 
 of the U.S. Department of Agriculture governing the 
 inspection of meat have sanctioned the utilisation 
 for food purposes of cattle affected with actinomycosis 
 or " lumpy-jaw." 
 
 It is certain that notwithstanding all the agitation of 
 1906 concerning American meat, and notwithstanding 
 the passage of a " Pure Food Law," the same abuse 
 exists to-day under the direct sanction of a co-ordinate 
 department of the Government of the United States. 
 
 It is certain that this utilisation of the carcasses of 
 such diseased animals has not been made known to the 
 
 6—2 
 
84 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 consumers of American meat, either in England or 
 America, who are aHke ignorant of this abuse as it exists 
 at the present time. 
 
 It is certain that this abuse conduces, not to the 
 advantage of the meat consumer, but rather to the 
 benefit of those financial interests which now govern in 
 great measure the production of American meat. 
 
 It is certain that in 1891, by a representative of the 
 United States Department of Agriculture, the solemn 
 assurance was given to the world that under the Ameri- 
 can system of meat inspection, " animals affected with 
 actinomycosis, whether generalised or not, are all condemned." 
 
 It is certain that this statement has not been true for 
 many years. 
 
 In view of these facts, can we say that America has 
 kept faith with its foreign customers throughout the 
 world ? Has the Department of Agriculture dealt fairly 
 with the people of the United States ? 
 
 Conclusions. 
 
 1. It is possible that actinomycosis or " lumpy-jaw " 
 in its earlier manifestations, and in a majority of cases, 
 is a local disease. 
 
 2. The use of the flesh of animals affected by " lumpy- 
 jaw," and especially after suppuration has begun — even 
 if without any recognised injurious consequences to 
 health — would be utterly abhorrent to every intelligent 
 man or woman in this country or England, if they 
 could have seen alive the diseased creature from which 
 such meat is derived. 
 
 3. It is contrary to justice, for the sake of any 
 
ACTINOMYCOSIS AND BEEF 85 
 
 financial interest whatever, to permit the sale of such 
 meat, under any form or disguise, to customers who. 
 would discard it with disgust if made aware of its 
 origin. 
 
 4. Both State and Federal laws of the United States 
 should therefore require that all meat, or meat-food 
 delicacies, beef-extracts or meat-products of any kind, 
 derived wholly or in part from the flesh or organs of 
 animals which at the time of slaughter were suffering 
 from actinomycosis, should be permitted to be sold, if 
 at all, only under a special label, distinctive in colour, 
 clearly indicating the character of the flesh from which 
 it was derived, and its inferiority to healthy meat. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 TRICHINA AND AMERICAN PORK 
 
 In the year 1835, a young medical student in London, 
 while engaged in dissecting a human body, discovered 
 in the muscular tissue a singular parasite, a minute 
 coiled-up worm almost invisible to the naked eye. 
 Regarded merely as a curiosity, its significance as a 
 cause of disease was entirely overlooked by the medical 
 profession for a quarter of a century. About i860, 
 however, it began to attract the attention of German 
 scientists ; and soon after, the life-history of the 
 Trichina spiralis became definitely known. 
 
 Although the parasite has been found to infest a 
 number of animals, it is believed to find its way into 
 the human body only by the ingestion of infested pork. 
 The older trichinae are lodged in the lean muscular 
 tissue of the hog. If the animal is shortly afterwards 
 sent to the slaughter-house, the pork or pork-products 
 derived from its carcass, when eaten by human beings, 
 may give rise to a new infestatiori. Millions of young 
 trichinae, having birth in the intestinal canal, penetrate 
 its walls, and seek entrance into the muscular tissue of 
 their new host. From 10,000 to 18,000 of these para- 
 sites have been found in a single cubic inch of infected 
 pork. The danger depends upon the number of trichinae 
 
 86 
 
TRICHINA AND PORK 87 
 
 taken as' food : the number may be so few that only 
 vague symptoms will follow ; the number may be so 
 great that millions of the young will penetrate the 
 muscles, and death is inevitable. 
 
 The symptoms which these parasites occasion are 
 often obscure and varied. The patient complains of 
 various gastric and intestinal disturbances, weakness 
 or stiffness of the muscles, and especially of pains, 
 resembling those of gout or rheumatism. Sometimes 
 the pain is felt at the slightest movement, even the 
 action of swallowing food or moving the eyes. If the 
 disease progresses to a fatal termination, the end may 
 come within a few weeks, or only after a considerable 
 period of progressive emaciation. 
 
 The fact that the symptoms arising from the presence 
 of this parasite in the human body have been ascribed 
 very often to other causes is one of peculiar significance. 
 In the bodies of persons supposed to have died of con- 
 sumption, but where the autopsy disclosed no affection 
 of the lungs, this parasite is said to have been found 
 more than once. Virchow states that there are on 
 record a number of instances wherein death having 
 abruptly occurred after eating, and without known 
 cause, the suspicion of poisoning gave rise to judicial 
 investigations, which of course left reputations injured 
 because innocence was not made clear. One instance 
 is particularly curious. In 1863, in the muscular tissue 
 of a patient undergoing a surgical operation, were 
 noted evidences of the characteristic shells or cysts of 
 trichinae, which can be discerned with the naked eye. 
 In reply to subsequent inquiry whether he had ever 
 been very ill, the patient stated that in the year 1815, 
 
88 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 while a member of a commission for the inspection of 
 schools, he, with other members of his party, partook 
 of a meal, which included ham and sausage, at an inn. 
 Shortly afterwards, seven members of the party became 
 sick, and all of them died with the exception of the 
 relator. Naturally a grave suspicion fell upon the inn- 
 keeper, but although subjected to a rigid investigation, 
 no evidence of murderous intention could be adduced. 
 Here was a case in which the survivor might have gone 
 to his death, suspecting that his own illness and the 
 deaths of his associates had been due to foul play, but 
 for the knowledge which had been attained many years 
 after the fatal repast. Another case mentioned by 
 Virchow to a correspondent is that of a woman who 
 had been aifected by mysterious symptoms (now known 
 to be due to the Trichina spiralis), which had finally 
 disappeared, leaving her incapable of using her hands 
 in piano-playing. When, quite ten years later, death 
 occurred from malignant disease, an autopsy revealed 
 the presence in the muscular system of the parasites 
 which caused the symptoms of ten years before. 
 
 The multiplicity of its manifestations suggests the 
 belief that the disease may be more common than has 
 been supposed. One authority states that evidences of 
 past or present infestation with this parasite have been 
 found in between i and 2 per cent, of bodies anatomised 
 in a dissecting-room. Sometimes the disease resembles 
 typhus fever. Dr. Wendte of New York has suggested 
 that many cases of so-called chronic rheumatism may 
 be due to this parasite. Dr. Fagge of London believes 
 that in cases where a very small number of the parasites 
 gain admission to the system, the symptoms are merely 
 
TRICHINA AND PORK 89 
 
 such "as might be attributed to a rheumatic affection." 
 When we remember that, even in our day, medical 
 science is not certain of the causes which give rise to 
 rheumatic symptoms among patients who have been 
 somewhat excessive in their consumption of meat, 
 these references to similarity of symptoms become in 
 the highest degree suggestive. Science does not profess 
 to know everything. A hundred years hence, there may 
 be a new theory put forth for explaining what is now 
 obscure. 
 
 Naturally, after the minute worms have left the 
 digestive tract and have sought a resting-place in the 
 muscular tissue of their human host, there can be no 
 remedy but the old cure for rheumatism — " flannel and 
 six weeks." A German experimenter discovered early 
 in his investigations that benzine would certainly kill 
 the trichina, but he could invent no way of killing the 
 parasites after they were embedded in the muscles of 
 a living man. The only way to avoid the disease with 
 certainty is to avoid eating trichinous flesh. " Cooking, 
 smoking, or toasting trichinous meat — as it is usually 
 done — does not appear to be sufficient to destroy the 
 worms in all parts of the meat." Of course, if the meat 
 is subjected to a high temperature for a sufficiently long 
 time, the parasites must be cooked, and then probably 
 can be eaten with impunity. But ordinary cooking in 
 the average kitchen is quite insufficient. It was in 
 a slice of boiled ham, upon which Dr. Leidy had 
 partly made his dinner, that, in 1847, he discovered 
 the presence of this parasite. 
 
 Now to what extent is American pork affected by 
 this cause of disease? Upon what measures, if any, 
 
go AMERICAN MEAT - 
 
 has the Federal Government placed reliance for detect- 
 ing its presence in American pork, and for the protection 
 of the purchaser of our meats ? 
 
 The poisoning of a whole family in New York City 
 in February, 1864, after eating a portion of a ham, first 
 led to a recognition in this country of the dangers per- 
 taining to this article of food. The following year, a 
 committee of physicians in Chicago examined nearly 
 1,400 hogs from different packing-houses, and reported 
 that about 2 per cent.- — one in fifty — was infested with 
 this dangerous parasite. In 1878, another investigation 
 resulted in the discovery that 8 per cent, of the hogs 
 examined in Chicago were thus diseased. In 1879, a 
 foreign authority declared that from 10 to 20 per cent, 
 of American hams imported into North Germany were 
 so infected with trichina as to render them dangerous 
 for food. 
 
 It is quite possible that the latter estimate was an 
 exaggeration, but it effected its purpose; and in the 
 year 1880, Germany refused to admit American sausage, 
 and three years afterwards prohibited altogether the 
 importation of American pork. Eight years later, this 
 restriction was taken off, but with the understanding 
 that our Government should at once institute a micro- 
 scopic examination of all pork destined for the German 
 Empire. A few other countries — France, Austria, Italy 
 and Denmark, for example — made the importation of 
 American pork conditional upon the same microscopic 
 examination. In the prevention of disease, the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture took an interest, only so far as it 
 affected the sale of American products from ranch and 
 farm. Only so many carcasses were microscopically 
 
TRICHINA AND PORK 91 
 
 examined as would suffice to supply the demands of 
 the few countries who insisted upon it as a condition 
 of admitting American pork. Of the total number of 
 hogs slaughtered under Government inspection during 
 seven years, igoo-igo6, less than one in forty was 
 microscopically examined for this parasite. 
 
 The Departmental Reports enable us to get at the 
 facts regarding the extent and efficiency of this 
 examination. The following extracts are from the 
 reports of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 under whose direction the examinations were officially 
 made. 
 
 Microscopic Examination of Pork. 
 
 (1902.) "The number of carcasses examined was 681,865, classi- 
 fied as follows : Class A (free from all appearance of trichinse), 
 664,288, or 97'42 per cent. ; Class B (containing trichina-like 
 bodies or disintegrating trichinae), 10,085, oi" l'48 per cent. ; 
 Class C (containing living trichinie), 7,492, or I'lo per cent. 
 
 "There were 7,481 trichinous carcasses, weighing 1,585,627 
 pounds, and 68,801 pounds of livers disposed of during the year. 
 About one-half was tanked, and the rest made into cooked meat. 
 
 "The cost of microscopic inspection was $t 23,947-3 1. This is 
 an average of twelve cents for each examination." 
 
 (1903.) "The number of carcasses examined was 489,667, classi- 
 fied as follows : Class A (free from all appearance of trichinae), 
 477,195, or 97"45 per cent.; Class B (containing trichina-like 
 bodies or disintegrating trichinas), 7,394, or 1-51 percent. ; Class C 
 (containing living trichinae), 5,078, or i"04 per cent. 
 
 "There were 5,136 trichinous carcasses disposed of during the 
 year ; these weighed 1,093,376 pounds, and about 41 per cent, were 
 tanked, and the rest made into cooked meat." 
 
 (1:904.) " The number of trichinous carcasses disposed of was 
 2,643; these weighed 612,913 pounds; 38-5 per cent, of this 
 
92 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 amount was tanked, and 6vsper cent, was made into cooked-meat 
 products^'' 
 
 (1905.) " The number of trichinous carcasses disposed of was 
 3,652, weighing 819,922 pounds, 57 per cent, of which was made 
 into cooked-meat products, the remainder being tanked." 
 
 The official reports of the Chief of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry during the years igoo-1906 enable us 
 to obtain the following summary : 
 
 Federal Inspection of Pork, 1900-1906. 
 
 Total number of hogs, slaughtered under 
 
 Government inspection, 1900-1906 171,152,281 
 
 Number of these examined for trichina ... 4,102,330 
 
 Number of carcasses found with trichina-like 
 bodies or disintegrating trichinae 54>S07 
 
 Number of carcasses containing living parasites ^ 54)237. 
 
 Per cent, of carcasses examined found infested 
 by trichina (half of which were alive) ... 2'6j 
 
 It is apparent, therefore, that during the seven 
 years in question, one carcass in 38 of those examined, 
 presented evidence of being infested, or of having been 
 infested with trichinae. 
 
 During eight years, igoo-1907, there were slaughtered, 
 under Government inspection, over 203,000,000 hogs. 
 Since there can be no doubt but that trichina was as 
 common among all animals as among those whose car- 
 casses were examined, it follows that during this period 
 of eight years, over five million carcasses of hogs, or 
 about a thousand million pounds of pork, infested by 
 trichinae — at least half of which at the time of slaughter 
 were potent for mischief — were turned into the meat- 
 supply of an unsuspecting world. 
 
TRICHINA AND PORK 93 
 
 It is quite possible, too, that even these figures do 
 not convey the whole extent of the evil. Dr. Melvin, 
 in his report for 1906, tells us that " out of 6,329 cases 
 of trichinosis in Germany, ... a careful inquiry traced 
 2,042 cases (over 32 per cent.) to meat vs'hich had been 
 microscopically examined and passed as free from 
 trichinae."^ To what extent this statement applied to 
 our American pork we are not told. For a number of 
 years, however, " the German Government has not 
 accepted the American certificate as having any sani- 
 tary value, and has reinspected, at the expense of the 
 shipper, all pork received there from the United States. 
 Nevertheless, it has appeared to be desirable to con- 
 tinue the microscopic inspection in this country, in 
 order to reduce to a minimum the percentage of 
 trichinae found on reinspection in other countries. 
 This is an important measure for maintaining the 
 reputation of our meats, and one this country cannot 
 afford to neglect. "2 If this scepticism on the part of 
 Germany regarding the value of our inspection was well 
 founded, the probability is strong that trichinas in 
 American pork exists to a considerably greater extent 
 than we have been inclined to admit. 
 
 In 1905, we were officially informed that even though 
 Germany scorned our inspection for trichinae, it was 
 important to keep it up. A year later, however, the 
 Department of Agriculture decided to abandon alto- 
 gether the microscopical examination of our pork for 
 the detection of this parasite. Such inspection, of 
 course, was useless, so far as Germany was concerned. 
 
 1 Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 96. 
 
 2 Report, Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry for 1905, p. 47. 
 
94 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 If all American pork, whether for home consumption or 
 foreign export, was subjected to this test, it would cost 
 somebody — the National Treasury or the meat-packers 
 — about $3,700,000 per year. " No microscopic inspec- 
 tion of pork, intended for home consumption, has ever 
 been made, or even contemplated," says Dr. Melvin in his 
 paper on the inspection of meat.^ The Department of 
 Agriculture now takes the view that such inspection 
 " would do more harm than good. It would create in 
 the minds of the consumers a feeling of false security, 
 which might lead them to omit the only sure means of 
 escaping'danger, namely, to refrain from eating uncooked 
 or uncured pork." The American Government now 
 throws the responsibility of contracting this disease 
 solely upon the consumer. Thorough cooking un- 
 doubtedly will destroy the parasite. But who tells the 
 English labourer that his American ham or sausage is 
 dangerous unless long subjected to the process of 
 cooking ? Who tells the American working man or 
 the newly-arrived emigrant that such danger as this 
 lurks in his food, because his Government does not 
 insist upon a thorough inspection of pork ? How many 
 of the well-to-do classes in both countries know that 
 the pork-products, so attractively advertised, may 
 contain these parasites ? Cooked trichinae may be 
 harmless ; but is there anybody who would not prefer 
 his meat free from them ? 
 
 It is quite probable that one reason which strongly 
 influenced the decision of our Government to abandon 
 altogether the microscopic inspection of pork was 
 the absence of any particular demand for it, either in 
 
 ' Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 96. 
 
TRICHINA AND PORK 95 
 
 America or in England. At home, we have been for 
 years entirely indifferent to the question, and quite 
 content to eat food that Germany rejects. Outbreaks 
 of trichinosis occur, even since the passage of the so- 
 called " Pure Food Bill," but they make no impression 
 on the public mind. Never in America, has there been 
 any strong and persistent demand on the part of the 
 people that trichinous pork shall not be sold. We 
 make no protest at the present time against the 
 inclusion, every year, of unknown thousands of such 
 carcasses, in the food-supply of the United States. It 
 may be that this indifference is partly due to ignorance 
 of the facts. Possibly it may arise from the conviction 
 that the cost of inspection would be immense, and that 
 the purveyors of meat would find some way to put the 
 cost upon the National Treasury. 
 
 More singular than American indifference is the 
 attitude of unconcern manifested by Great Britain. Of 
 American pork-products, she buys far more than all the 
 rest of the world purchases ; in 1904, for example, the 
 United Kingdom took more than 80 per cent, of the 
 exports of American bacon and hams, and more than 
 60 per cent, of all exported fresh and salted pork. 
 Suppose that the English Government — following the 
 example of Germany — had made the importation of 
 American pork-products dependent upon this micro- 
 scopic examination for trichinae — is it likely that the 
 United States would have refused it, no matter what 
 the cost ? Is England indifferent to the health of her 
 people ? It is a criminal offence in America to use 
 borax as a preservative for meat ; but the Chief of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry tells us that England makes 
 
96 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 no objection to its use, and that meats to be sent to 
 that country may be preserved with borax, provided 
 they are prepared by the meat-packers in separate 
 rooms, and marked with special labels.^ It would be 
 folly to expect the United States to show greater 
 solicitude for the health of the English working man 
 than his own Government manifests. But no one 
 can doubt that the microscopic examination of every 
 pound of pork-products going to England would have 
 been granted, for the sake of continued trade, if the 
 English Government had seen fit to ask for it. If England 
 had received this privilege, it is not likely that it could 
 have been long withheld from the American people. 
 Perhaps in this way only, we may hope to obtain the 
 microscopic inspection of all American pork. 
 
 Conclusions. 
 
 1. The experience of seven years' microscopic inspec- 
 tion of pork makes it certain that at the present time, 
 in the United States, from eighty to a hundred million 
 pounds of trichina-infested flesh are turned by American 
 meat-producers into the world's food-supply every year. 
 The probability is that the amount is vastly greater than 
 this estimate. 
 
 2. It is the duty of the United States Government 
 to require a microscopic examination of all hogs 
 slaughtered under its supervision — not with the hope of 
 eliminating the danger altogether, but for the purpose 
 of reducing to its lowest terms the chances of infection 
 of human beings. 
 
 ' Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 88. 
 
TRICHINA AND PORK 97 
 
 3. The cost of Government inspection and micro- 
 scopic examination — ^varying from fifteen to twenty 
 cents per carcass — should be borne by the purveyors 
 of meat. 
 
 4, Although we are told by veterinarians that no 
 harm can arise from eating pork infested by trichinae, 
 provided it is well cooked, nevertheless, all meat- 
 products, consisting wholly or in part of such flesh or 
 organs, should be manufactured separately from other 
 articles, and sold under such distinctive label as shall 
 permit the customer to know what he buys. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 SWINE PLAGUES, AND THEIR RELATION TO PORK 
 
 FOODS 
 
 It is now hardly more than a quarter of a century 
 since the visual demonstration of germs, as the cause 
 of certain diseases, gave a new impulse to medical 
 science and renewed hopes for the future prevention of 
 disease. But no matter how close and careful the 
 research, there are yet certain diseases, of which, though 
 the cause is certainly a microbe capable of multiplying 
 in the animal system, no human eye has yet been able 
 to perceive it. As pointed out by Dr. Dorset, although 
 microscopes have been greatly improved, yet the germs 
 of measles, smallpox, rabies and yellow-fever, and 
 certain other diseases more particularly pertaining to 
 animals, still elude the keenest vision and the highest 
 skill. 
 
 The hypothesis to which Science has therefore been 
 led, is that the micro-organisms which constitute the 
 germs of certain fatal diseases are so infinitesimally and 
 inconceivably minute as to make their perception 
 beyond the power of the human eye, even when aided 
 by microscopes of the highest power. One investigator 
 has questioned whether there may not be micro- 
 organisms as much smaller than the ordinary bacteria 
 
 98 
 
SWINE PLAGUES AND PORK 99 
 
 as the ordinary bacteria, invisible to the naked eye, are 
 yet smaller than the largest trees ? Upon the capacity 
 of Nature, in this respect, there is nothing that enables 
 us to place bounds. Beyond a certain limit she hides 
 the secrets of the universe from the feeble vision of 
 mankind. 
 
 There are two diseases affecting swine, so closely 
 resembling each other in their symptoms that it is 
 difficult to distinguish them, known as hog-cholera and 
 swine- plague, the microbe of which, according to some 
 investigators, has thus far eluded discovery by the 
 human eye. Of hog-cholera, we know that it is an 
 acute and highly-infectious disease, and one extremely 
 apt to be fatal, unless the animal is butchered for food. 
 Nearly every organ of the body — the heart, kidneys, 
 lungs, stomach, spleen, and intestines — usually shows 
 evidences, after death, of the results of this disease.^ 
 The ailment is extremely contagious, and one animal 
 diseased may quickly infect a large number. A matter 
 of some interest is the fact that the plague may be 
 transmitted by inoculation with the blood of an animal 
 suffering from the disease. The virus, however, is 
 known only by its effects. " We have failed com- 
 pletely," says Dr. Dorset and his associates, " in all 
 attempts to discover, by microscopic examination or 
 by the usual cultural methods, any visible micro- 
 organism. . . ." That the disease is due to " some 
 
 ' This is not uniformly the case. We are told that " the hog 
 may be desperately sick, and yet when killed the autopsy may 
 reveal only a few reddened lymphatic glands, and possibly a few 
 hepatised areas in the lungs ; or, on the contrary, every organ may 
 show pathological changes" (Twenty-first Report, Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, p. 146). 
 
 7— z 
 
100 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 living agent endowed with the power of reproduction " 
 seems evident to these investigators ; but it passes in 
 minuteness the discerning capacity of the human eye. 
 
 It is not pleasant reading, these details of animal 
 disease. But if we are face to face with a mystery, we 
 confront also a problem of the utmost importance to 
 the consumers of meat. Here is a strange and most 
 singular ailment, extremely fatal in its results, and 
 caused by a living organism in the blood of the animal. 
 We know that through every organ and tissue of the 
 creature's body, flows the vital current, carrying in- 
 numerable millions of the invisible germs which give 
 rise to the plague. Suppose the hog is slaughtered 
 while suffering from the disease ; is its flesh safe to eat ? 
 No matter how incipient is the infection, can we call it 
 " wholesome, sound, healthful, and fit for human food " ? 
 
 The reader may think that but one answer to this 
 question is possible. Nevertheless, it is a fact that for 
 many years, the Department of Agriculture has decided 
 that carcasses of animals thus affected, may be used for 
 food purposes, and stamped with the guarantee of the 
 United States Government as healthful food. It is 
 true that when this is permitted, the disease must 
 not have involved every organ in the body, and the 
 inspector must be able to say that " the lesions in the 
 carcass are slight." Let us see exactly what the 
 inspectors have been permitted to " pass." 
 
 Regulations of 1904. 
 
 1. Carcasses showing widely-distributed lesions of jjog-cholera 
 
 or swine plague shall be condemned. 
 
 2. When the lesions in the carcass are slight, and confined to 
 
 either the skin, kidneys, bones, or lymphatic glands, or to 
 
SWINE PLAGUES AND PORK loi 
 
 any combination of two of the organs mentioned, the 
 carcass may be passed, provided it is cut for packing 
 purposes. 
 
 3. When the lesions are well-marked in more than two of the 
 
 organs mentioned . . . the entire carcass shall be con- 
 demned and tanked for fertiliser. 
 
 4. Carcasses which reveal lesions more pronounced than 
 
 those described for carcasses that may be passed, but not 
 so severe as the lesions described for carcasses that shall 
 be condemned . . . may be rendered into lard. . . . 
 
 5. In inspecting carcasses showing lesions of the skin, bones, 
 
 kidneys, or lymphatic glands, due consideration shall be 
 given to the extent and severity of the lesions found in 
 the viscera." 
 
 It is evident that in framing these rules, the financial 
 interests involved were by no means overlooked. The 
 inspector is significantly cautioned to give " due con- 
 sideration " to the extent and severity of the lesions in the 
 viscera, but it is largely left to his own discretion to say 
 where any dividing-line shall be drawn. We note that 
 the carcass in certain cases may be passed, when " cut 
 for packing purposes," or made into " mess-pork " for 
 the working classes. 
 
 In the Regulations promulgated immediately after the 
 passage of the legislation of June, igo5, we should look, 
 naturally, for some improvement in these rules, some 
 further precautions against the use of meat of this 
 character. On the contrary, no change for the better 
 is apparent in the new Regulations. There is indeed no 
 injunction to cut the meat for packing purposes. We 
 cannot see that this omission constitutes any improve- 
 ment. Under the old Regulations, the flesh of hogs 
 thus diseased was passed on condition that it be cut for 
 packing purposes and salted down, or subjected to 
 
102 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 processes which food-products require. To-day, after 
 all the agitation in favour of pure food, there is not a 
 word in the regulations governing the disposal of this 
 stuff which prevents the flesh from being offered for 
 sale on the butcher's stand. 
 
 In April, igo8, appeared the Regulations which are 
 at present in force. So far as concerns animals 
 slaughtered while suffering from this disease, there 
 is no improvement over the Regulations of preceding 
 years. Here, for instance, are the first paragraphs : 
 
 "Section io. Paragraph i. — Carcasses showing well-marked 
 and progressive lesions of hog-cholera or swine plague in more 
 than two of the organs (skin, kidneys, bones, or lymphatic glands), 
 shall be condemned. 
 
 " Paragraph 2. — Provided they are well-nourished, carcasses 
 showing slight and limited lesions of these diseases may be passed" 
 
 Then follow the stipulations which provide for the 
 use of these carcasses for lard, and a suggestion that 
 due consideration be given the evidences of visceral 
 disease. There is, indeed, one particular in which the 
 Regulations governing condemnation of this meat are 
 now less stringent than in 1904. In the earlier rules, 
 as we have seen, if the lesions were slight, and con- 
 fined to two organs of the body — no more — the carcass 
 could be passed. Under the Regulations put forth in 
 igo8, so far as one can see, the carcass may be passed, 
 even though every organ in the body show evidences of the 
 disease, provided the inspector is willing to consider 
 them " slight and limited," and if the animal be fat. 
 
 How many hogs, thus diseased, are permitted every 
 year, to pass into the world's meat-supply ? It is 
 impossible to say. No published statistics, in any 
 Government report from 1900 to 1906, afford any 
 
SWINE PLAGUES AND PORK 103 
 
 information as to the extent to which the meat-packers 
 have availed themselves of the privileges thus accorded 
 them by the Department of Agriculture. During seven 
 years, igoo-1906, one finds in no official report the 
 mention of any " parts " condemned on account of this 
 disease. In the report for the year 1907, for the first 
 time, we learn that some 729 " parts " were officially 
 condemned as unfit for food. It may be that these 
 figures indicate an attempt at reform. Perhaps, to-day, 
 certain diseased portions of carcasses are actually 
 rejected as unfit, even for transmutation into sausage, 
 which in previous years were not thus permitted to 
 be lost. 
 
 Conclusions. 
 
 1. It is not just that the working-class population 
 either in England or America, without their knowledge 
 or consent, should be compelled to consume as food 
 the flesh of animals which at the time of their slaughter 
 were suffering from a highly infectious and mysterious 
 disease. 
 
 2. It is not in accordance with justice, that any 
 regard for the pecuniary profits of the meat-packers 
 should govern the regulations in this respect ; or that 
 the Government of the United States should permit 
 the flesh of swine, suffering from hog-cholera or the 
 swine plague, to be passed for foreign or home consump- 
 tion as sound and wholesome meat. 
 
 3. Such amendment of the United States laws is 
 therefore imperatively required, as shall forbid the 
 utilisation for food purposes of pork derived from animals 
 thus diseased. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 OTHER CONDITIONS OR DISEASES AFFECTING 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 To what extent were the rules and regulations governing 
 the inspection of meat influenced by suggestions and 
 advice proceeding from the Meat Trust ? It is a 
 question to which no answer can be given at present ; 
 and yet it is one which cannot but come into the mind 
 of every reader of these official regulations, who notes 
 the care taken to conserve the financial interests 
 involved. One can find hardly a single provision in 
 these rules to which the purveyors of meat could really 
 object. There are, indeed, certain infectious diseases 
 of a specially dangerous character, regarding which 
 the Government regulations are peremptory. Carcasses 
 of animals showing signs of blood-poisoning, of anthrax, 
 of blackleg or Texas fever, or of certain diseases which 
 may give rise to poisoning, are of course condemned. 
 With regard to a majority of diseases affecting animals 
 slaughtered for food, there are fine distinctions laid 
 down, and a peculiar latitude allowed. One observes 
 too, now and then, a lack of clearness in the formu- 
 lating of regulations, which doubtless gives no trouble 
 to the intelligent inspector, but which nevertheless 
 serves to hide the facts from the public eye. A few 
 
 104 
 
DISEASES AFFECTING MEAT 105 
 
 other instances of governmental permission to utilise 
 meat affected by disease are worthy of notice. 
 
 I. ''^Malignant Epizootic Catarrh. — Carcasses of animals 
 affected with malignant epizootic catarrh, and showing 
 generalised inflammation of the mucous membranes, shall 
 be condemned" (Regulation 13, Section 9, 1908). 
 
 Is this a condemnation of the carcasses of all animals 
 found to be affected by a malignant disease ? At first 
 glance the reader would get that impression. But 
 suppose that animals come before the inspector which, 
 though obviously diseased, do not show " generalised 
 inflammation," what then is his duty ? To cause the 
 meat to be destroyed and the packing-house to lose ? 
 Is this course demanded by the Regulations ? 
 
 Some light may be thrown upon the subject by 
 comparing this regulation,, promulgated in 1908, with 
 a similar injunction in the regulations issued in 1904 : 
 
 " Malignant Epizootic Catarrh. — The carcasses of animals 
 affected with this disease, and showing, generalised inflammation 
 of the mucous membranes with emaciation, shall be condemned. 
 If the lesions are restricted to a single tract, or if the disease shows 
 purely local lesions., the carcass may be passed." 
 
 We see that the phrase in italics, which in 1904 
 made the inspector aware of his privileges, has been 
 carefully omitted from the rules of igo8. But is it 
 not evident that the liberty accorded the inspector is 
 as broad to-day as it was in 1904 ? He is told in so 
 many words what animals he must condemn. We 
 cannot doubt that when the diseased conditions fail in 
 severity to reach the standard laid down by the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture, the intelligent inspector is aware of 
 the course he may pursue. Is anything gained by this 
 
io6 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 partial suppression of rules which may meet the public 
 eye? 
 
 2. Skin Diseases. — Cases of this kind, apparently, 
 are not numerous. The official Regulations of igo8 
 indicate the action to be taken by the Government 
 inspector regarding them : 
 
 " Section i6. — Carcasses of animals affected with mange 
 or scab, in advanced stages, or showing emaciation or extension 
 of the inflammation to" the flesh, shall be condemned. IVAen the 
 disease is slight, the carcass may be passed" 
 
 "Section 21. — Hogs affected with urticaria (diamond skin 
 disease), tinea tonsurans, demodex foUiculorum, or erythema, 
 may be passed, after detaching and condemning the skin, if the 
 carcass is otherwise fit for food." 
 
 In the Regulations of 1904, it is stated concerning 
 carcasses of animals affected with mange, that " when 
 the disease is slight and the carcasses are in good condition, 
 they may be passed." In the Regulations of igo8, the 
 words here underscored have disappeared ; and appar- 
 ently such carcasses may now be passed if not in good 
 condition, provided the disease is slight. It would be 
 of interest to know why this clause of the Regulations 
 of 1904 was eliminated from the present rules ? 
 
 Exactly what would happen to human beings who 
 should feed regularly upon the flesh of hogs which, 
 when slaughtered, were suffering from various skin 
 diseases, is a question to which no scientific reply is 
 available. Distinguished experts may doubtless be 
 found who will insist that the English working man 
 who could raise objections to such meat, when the skin 
 has been most conscientiously condemned, is as un- 
 reasonable as the pupils at Dotheboys Hall, who 
 regarded with repugnance the cow-liver broth furnished 
 
DISEASES AFFECTING MEAT 107 
 
 by Mr. Squeers. One may be fairly certain, however, 
 that both in England and America the consumption of 
 such meat can only be secured by that concealment of 
 the facts which, whenever possible, appears to be the 
 policy of the Meat Trust. 
 
 3. Caseous Lymphadenitis. — Of this disease compara- 
 tively little is known. It seems to have been discovered 
 in 1891, and was designated at first as due to the Bacillus 
 pseudo-tuberculosis. As a rule, it attacks only sheep, and 
 generally it is not discovered until the animal is 
 slaughtered. Guinea-pigs and rabbits fed with the 
 products of the disease die in from five to ten weeks. 
 Cases of the disease have been reported in human 
 beings. 
 
 The regulation of 1908 concerning this disease reads 
 thus: 
 
 "Section 12. — When the lesions of caseous lymphadenitis are 
 limited to the superficial lymphatic glands, or to a few nodules in 
 an organ, involving also the adjacent lymphatic glands, and the 
 carcass is well nourished, the meat may be passed, after the 
 affected parts are removed and condemned. 
 
 " If extensive adhesions, with or without pleuritic adhesions, are 
 found in the lungs, or if several of the visceral organs contain 
 caseous nodules, and the carcass is emaciated, it shall be con- 
 demned." (Italics ours.) 
 
 Nearly word for word, this regulation duplicates the 
 rule of 1904. It has been drawn up with great skill ; 
 not one general reader in a hundred would discern the 
 meaning. The inspector understands it. Even the 
 casual reader will see that meat, thus diseased, is not 
 to be condemned, but " passed " for food " after 
 affected parts " are cut away, provided the animal is not 
 emaciated. Apparently it would seem that, no matter 
 
io8 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 how many adhesions are to be found in the lungs, or 
 how many organs contain the evidence of disease, 
 there is no requirement for condemnation of the carcass 
 unless it is associated with emaciation. 
 
 4. Immaturity. — A writer in the Twentieth Report of 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry has stated the age at 
 which young animals may be killed for meat as follows : 
 
 " A calf should not be used for veal under six weeks of age, and 
 is at its best when about ten weeks old. . . . There is a law in 
 most States against selling veal under six weeks of age. Hogs 
 may be used at any age after six weeks. . . . Sheep may likewise 
 be used when two or three months of age." (Page 340.) 
 
 Now whatever State laws may have been passed 
 concerning the slaughter of immature animals for food, 
 they do not seem greatly to have impressed the 
 compilers of the U.S. Government Regulations. The 
 clause pertaining to the approval of immature meat 
 reads as follows, both before and after the reform 
 legislation of 1906. 
 
 Regulations of 1904. 
 
 " Carcasses of animals too 
 young and immature to produce 
 wholesome meat . . . also car- 
 casses of calves, pigs, and lambs 
 under four weeks of age, shall 
 be condemned." 
 
 Regulations of igo8. 
 
 " Carcasses of animals too 
 immature to produce wholesome 
 meat . . . also carcasses of 
 calves, kids, pigs, and lambs 
 under three weeks of age, shall 
 be condemned." 
 
 Here again we detect no evidence of zeal for reform, 
 but only a wish to increase the profits of the Meat 
 Trust. What influence secured the reduction of the 
 period under which animals were to be considered 
 unfit for food, from four to three weeks, after the 
 passage of a Pure Food Law ? We are told in one of the 
 
DISEASES AFFECTING MEAT 109 
 
 official reports of the Department of Agriculture that a 
 calf should not be used for veal under six weeks of age ; 
 and then the Department of Agriculture permits car- 
 casses to be approved which were only half the age 
 that State laws require ! 
 
 5. Tapeworm Cysts. — On the hypothesis of any deep 
 concern for the public health, it is quite impossible to 
 comprehend the changes which were made in the 
 regulations concerning carcasses of animals found to 
 be thus infested. Of one special parasite, an eminent 
 authority says : 
 
 " Infection through the embryonic form of the Tania echino- 
 coccus as the source of hydatid tumours, is productive of the most 
 disastrous consequences, and has ended in the destruction of many 
 lives. . . . Ordinarily, the hydatid disease is beyond the reach of 
 medical treatment. ... In concluding the chapter on Tcenia 
 echinococcus, Cobbold gives the advice that all entozoa which are 
 not preserved for scientific investigation or experiment should be 
 destroyed by fire, and under no circumstances whatever should , 
 they be thrown aside as harmless." ^ ' 
 
 What disposition of the flesh of animals, found upon 
 slaughter to be thus infested, is required by the United 
 States Government ? 
 
 According to the regulations of the Department of 
 Agriculture in 1904, any organ or part of an animal 
 thus affected, must be condemned. Concerning the 
 remainder of the carcass, the regulations are silent. It 
 is probable that the Government inspector was fully 
 aware of the course he was to pursue in the absence of 
 definite rules. 
 
 In the regulations for meat inspection issued in 1906, 
 
 ' Leidy on " Intestinal Worms," Pepper's " System of Medicine," 
 vol. ii., p. 943- 
 
no AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 there would appear to be an improvement, so far as 
 such flesh is concerned. The regulation says : 
 
 " Carcasses of animals slightly affected with tapeworm cysts 
 may be rendered into lard or tallow, but extensively affected 
 carcasses shall be condemned" (page 15). 
 
 Is there any permission given in this clause to pass 
 as wholesome food any portion of an animal thus 
 infested ? It certainly is not evident. 
 
 We come to the regulations now in force, issued in 
 1908. Here we find a distinction made in the dis- 
 position of the carcasses of animals infested by different 
 kinds of parasites. Animals infested by certain forms 
 of cysts are condemned ; when found infected by two 
 other forms of disease-producing parasites, the carcasses 
 may be passed for food, after a condemnation of the 
 affected organ. Then follows this rule concerning 
 hydatid cysts : 
 
 " Section 17, Paragraph 3. — Carcasses or parts of carcasses 
 found infested with the hydatid cyst (echinococcus) may be passed 
 after condemnation of the infected part or organ" 
 
 This is a most horrible permission. It is evident 
 that in the United States, the influence of the Meat 
 Trust has been strong enough to secure quite another 
 disposition of flesh infested by hydatid cysts than that 
 which was the custom in 1906. The regulations of that 
 year gave no permission to the meat -packers to utilise 
 such flesh in any form of edible food. Why was the 
 rule of 1906 abrogated ? By whose advice or counsel 
 was it done ? What malignant influence in the 
 Department of Agriculture seems ever at work to 
 induce changes that are so often at the expense of the 
 
DISEASES AFFECTING MEAT iii 
 
 public health, and as invariably for the benefit of the 
 producers of meat ? " Until our people are more 
 careful with the raising of pigs," wrote Dr. Leidy 
 twenty years ago, " European Governments will have 
 reason for prohibiting the importation of our pork." 
 We shall not dispute the justice of any such prohibition, 
 but the responsibility rests elsewhere than on the 
 shoulders of the American farmer. 
 
 6. Other Peculiar Regulations. — We have not yet 
 exhausted the list of changes for the worse which 
 mark the regulations at present in operation. In 1906, 
 for example, the rules required that " carcasses showing 
 generalised inflammation of the lungs, pleurae, intes- 
 tines, peritoneum, or the uterus, whether in acute or 
 chronic form, shall be condemned." Someone must 
 have discerned a means for increasing the profits of 
 the meat-packers by lessening the stringency of this 
 requirement ; and in 1908 we find condemnation 
 pronounced upon carcasses "showing signs of acute 
 inflammation of the lungs, pleura, pericardium, peri- 
 toneum, or meninges"; and here again is the oppor- 
 tunity for an inspector to pass meat affected by 
 " chronic inflammation " which two years earlier would 
 have been condemned. Condemnation is passed upon 
 carcasses showing signs of " severe gangrenous enteritis 
 or gastritis " ; but what if the young inspector thinks 
 the gangrene is not " severe " ? He must, indeed, most 
 rigidly condemn carcasses showing signs of 
 
 " any other inflammation, abscess, or suppurating sore, 
 if associated with acute nephritis, fatty and degenerated 
 liver, swollen soft spleen, marked pulmonary hypersemia, 
 general swelling of lymphatic glands," etc. ; 
 
112 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 but what action is the inspector to take if he finds 
 the condition, but not that " association " with acute 
 nephritis, etc., which he must discover if the carcass 
 is to be destroyed for meat purposes ? " Portions of 
 intestines that show evidences of infestation with 
 cesophagostoma or other nodular affections shall be 
 condemned"; the portions that do not seem to be 
 infested, are they to be destroyed ? If not, what 
 edible use are they, to serve ? 
 
 We have no conclusions to present for the considera- 
 tion of the reader that do not suggest themselves. He 
 will note the complexity of changes in verbiage with 
 slight alteration of purpose ; and he will ask himself 
 whether these skilfully designed directions have been 
 drawn for the protection of the public health, or for 
 the promotion of private gain ? He may think it 
 evident that if any genuine reform in American methods 
 of meat inspection is ever to be inaugurated, it must 
 be induced by a regard for principles and purposes 
 altogether different from those which seem to inspire 
 the regulations under which, at present, we are 
 compelled to live. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 AMERICAN PURE LARD AND ITS SOURCES 
 
 Lard is a substance of almost universal use through- 
 out the civilised world. It is extensively employed in 
 various culinary operations, particularly in the cooking 
 of fish, and in one way or another it enters into the 
 composition of a vast number of products intended for 
 human consumption. To everyone not a vegetarian, 
 the sources from which this substance may be derived 
 are matters of interest and concern. 
 
 No other meat-product is so largely exported to all 
 parts of the world. Between 1896 and 1905, we ex- 
 ported an average of more than 600,000,000 pounds 
 every year. Great Britain is our best customer, taking 
 from us an average of more than two hundred million 
 pounds every year for the food of her people. Germany 
 has taken from us an almost equal quantity, but the 
 demand seems more fluctuating than that of England. 
 It is unlikely that such a world-wide demand could 
 have been created, except by the inculcation of faith 
 in the purity of the product and the sources of its 
 supply. In a document issued by the Department of 
 Agriculture the author assures us that "when one 
 purchases a can of lard bearing the words ' Pure 
 Lard ' and the legend ' U.S. Inspected and Passed 
 
 113 8 
 
114 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 under the Act of June 30, 1906,' he may be sure that 
 he is actually receiving pure lard, rendered from clean, 
 sweet fat of healthy animals."'^ 
 
 And yet it is quite certain that all lard is not thus 
 derived. Since, under certain circumstances, carcasses 
 of diseased animals are permitted to constitute a portion 
 of our meat-supply, it would be indeed surprising if 
 they were always excluded in the making of lard. At 
 the same time, we must not hope that any inquiries 
 will enable us to see the whole truth. If we find our- 
 selves unable to discover what is actually done, we can 
 know beyond doubt what is permitted to be done by 
 the manufacturers of this product. 
 
 So far as the process of manufacture is concerned, 
 there is probably little to criticise at the present time. 
 The Regulations of 1908 would seem explicit : 
 
 " The manufacture of all fats into lard, tallow, oils and stearin at 
 official establishments shall be closely supervised by employees of 
 the Department, who shall see that all portions of carcasses 
 rendered into edible products are clean and wholesome." ^ 
 
 Then follow certain injunctions of very great signifi- 
 cance, since they indicate past abuses, the horrible 
 existence of which we could hardly conceive as possible, 
 but for the disclosures of 1905 and 1906. But for our 
 present inquiry these matters do not concern us. That 
 in which we are interested is the question whether, and 
 to what extent, the carcasses of diseased animals are 
 allowed by our Government in the manufacture of lard. 
 
 We propose to show that this abuse is actually per- 
 mitted at the present time. When the condition of 
 
 1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Circular No. loi, p. 9. 
 
 2 Regulations Governing Meat Inspection, 1908, p. 32. 
 
LARD AND ITS SOURCES 115 
 
 animals suffering from certain forms of disease — and 
 some of them of the most dangerous character — is too 
 horrible to permit the flesh to be passed as meat", there 
 is, in some cases, an opportunity offered, whereby the 
 packing-house may escape that pecuniary loss which 
 total condemnation of the carcass would tend to 
 involve. The Regulations issued by the Department 
 of Agriculture for igo8 state the circumstances under 
 which carcasses of diseased animals may be thus trans- 
 muted into an edible product, for consumption by the 
 American people, and for exportation to England and 
 other countries. 
 
 I. " Tuberculosis, — Carcasses which reveal lesions more nume- 
 rous than those described for carcasses to be passed, but not 
 so severe as the lesions described for carcasses to be condemned, 
 may be rendered into lard or tallow if the distribution of the 
 lesions is such that all parts containing tuberculous lesions can be 
 removed. Such carcasses shall be cooked by steam at a tempera- 
 ture not lower than 220 degrees Fahrenheit for not less than four 
 hours." 
 
 We have seen the conditions under which a tuber- 
 culous carcass may be passed for food. How much 
 worse must it be to necessitate rejection as meat, and 
 permit acceptance for lard-making ? The foregoing 
 regulation seems hardly as explicit as one might desire. 
 The line of demarcation may be clear to the intelligent 
 inspector ; but it is not evident to the man in the 
 street. It may be that in earlier regulations we shall 
 find some light thrown upon the rules of to-day. In 
 the Regulations of 1904, we find that " hog carcasses 
 may be rendered into lard," when certain lesions of the 
 disease, which might permit the carcass to be " passed " 
 for food, " are found, to be in an advanced stage of caseation 
 
 8—2 
 
ii6 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 or liquefaction necrosis." There are few men in the 
 medical profession who would care to furnish their 
 families with lard which they knew was derived from 
 animals suffering from " tuberculosis with liquefaction 
 necrosis." 
 
 2. Tapeworm Cysts. — Prohibitive regulations regarding . 
 the flesh of animals thus affected are of recent origin. 
 In the Regulations of 1904, we read that "any organ or 
 part of a carcass which is badly bruised, or affected by 
 malignant tumours, abscesses, or tapeworm cysts, shall 
 be condemned "'' — and we wonder if there was a time 
 when even these were permitted to be utilised. There 
 is no injunction regarding the flesh from which these 
 are cut. In igo6, the regulations say : 
 
 " Carcasses of animals slightly affected with tapeworm cysts 
 may be rendered into lard or tallow, but extremely affected car- 
 casses shall be condemned." 
 
 In 1908, there are three paragraphs devoted to this 
 phase of disease. The first paragraph only concerns 
 us here : 
 
 " Section 17, Paragraph i. — Carcasses of animals affected 
 with tapeworm cysts known as Cysticercus bovis and C. cellulosa, 
 shall be rendered into lard or tallow, unless the infestation is ex- 
 cessive, in which case the carcass shall be condemned." 
 
 It is left to the conscience of the inspector to decide 
 whether the infestation is such as to require total 
 condemnation. 
 
 3. Pregnancy and Parturition. — We need not expect 
 that the regulations governing the inspection of meat 
 shall remain the same from year to year. The least we 
 can hope for is that there shall be no backward steps, 
 
 ' Twenty-first Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 578. 
 
LARD AND ITS SOURCES 
 
 117 
 
 and that every modification of regulations shall be in 
 the direction of improvement and reform. Let us com- 
 pare one of the regulations now in force with the one 
 which governed the disposition of certain carcasses 
 before the passage of " Pure Food Laws ": 
 
 Regulation o/igo^. 
 
 " Carcasses of animals (cows, 
 sows, and ewes) in an advanced 
 state of pregnancy, or which 
 recently gave birth to young 
 (within ten days), sha/l be con- 
 demned, and rendered into 
 grease" 
 
 Regulation of KjoZ. 
 
 " Carcasses of animals in ad- 
 vanced stages of pregnancy 
 (showing signs of parturition), 
 also carcasses of animals which 
 have, within ten days, given 
 birth to young, and in which 
 there is no evidence of septic 
 infection, may be rendered into 
 lard or tallow, if desired by the 
 manager of the establishment." 
 
 Now this regulation of 1904 was entirely proper. 
 " Grease " is the stuff from which much of our soap is 
 made. It is obtained sometimes from most loathsome 
 materials — from dead bodies of horses and dogs picked 
 up in the streets, as well as from animals that died 
 before they could reach the butcher's hands.^ To such 
 an establishment, in 1904, pregnant animals — cows, 
 sows, and ewes — were also to be sent. In 1908, after 
 all the agitation about meat, it was ordered that they 
 could be made into lard ! In whose interest, at whose 
 solicitation, was this change made ? Who was it that 
 induced theframers of the United States Government Regu- 
 lations of 1908 to turn this loathsome stuff from the vats of 
 
 "■ For somewhat startling disclosures concerning the manufacture 
 of soap, see Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry 
 (1906), pp. 418-419. Over 9,000 dead horses came to one estab- 
 lishment in a single year. 
 
ii8 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 the soap-boilers to the tanks of the manufacturers of edible 
 tallow or lard ? 
 
 4. Hog Cholera. — Between the Regulations of 1904 
 and those of 1908, so far as concerns the manufacture 
 of pure lard from animals affected by this disease, 
 there is no essential difference. The rule promulgated 
 in igoS reads as follows : 
 
 "■Hog- Cholera and Swine Plague (Sectidn 10, Paragraph 3). — 
 Carcasses which reveal lesions more numerous or advanced than 
 those for carcasses to be passed, but not so severe as the lesions 
 described for carcasses to be condemned, may be rendered into lard, 
 provided they are cooked by steam for four hours at a temperature 
 not lower than 220 degrees Fahrenheit, or at a pressure of four 
 pounds."^ 
 
 During the agitation of 1906 concerning .American 
 meat, there appeared in a New York magazine an 
 article on the failure of Government inspection. One 
 passage read as follows : 
 
 " On the occasion of a visit I made to the packing-houses, the 
 hogs from the killing-floor . . . were moving toward the doors of 
 the cooling-room. I noticed occasionally that a solitary hog was 
 cut out of the line, and pushed along an overhead track to the 
 middle of the room, where several others hung. There happened 
 to be six of these hanging together when my party arrived. Two 
 of them were as red as if smeared with paint, and scabbed on the 
 legs and snouts. 
 
 " ' These hogs had cholera,' the inspector said, ' and the next 
 three are tubercular. See how skinny they are, and they have 
 these queer spots inside of them.' 
 
 " The remaining carcass had an ugly ulcer in its side. Around 
 a block near by, several men were chopping up these diseased 
 hogs. . . . The chunks of diseased meat were then thrown into a 
 tank in the inspector's presence. 
 
 ^ Regulation 13. 
 
LARD AND ITS SOURCES iig 
 
 " ' What will be the product of this tank ?' I anxiously inquired. 
 " ' Fertiliser and lard^ the inspector replied." ^ 
 
 The Department of Agriculture felt obliged to notice 
 a number of charges similar to this, and a special 
 committee, consisting of high officials in the Depart- 
 ment criticised, was appointed to investigate the various 
 charges, and to make report thereon. In its reference 
 to the above statement concerning our lard-supply, the 
 committee quotes the foregoing paragraph in full, and 
 adds the following significant comment : 
 
 " The Department regulations stipulate that diseased carcasses 
 shall be either condemned for offal, or passed for food, except in 
 those cases of hogs showing mild lesions of hog cholera or tuber- 
 culosis, when they may be rendered into lard, provided they are 
 cooked by steam for four hours at 220 degrees Fahrenheit ; the 
 tubercular lesions having first been removed and condemned. 
 Not the slightest objection can be raised against this procedure 
 from a hygienic standpoint. . . ." ^ 
 
 This paragraph is not only a defence, but also a 
 confession. We have here the formal admission by 
 some of the highest officials in the Department of 
 Agriculture that "diseased carcasses" may be "passed 
 for food." We have also a defence of one phase of the 
 practice, on the ground that lard, derived from such 
 sources, cannot menace the health of those who use it 
 as an article of food. It is quite true that grease, 
 extracted from the most filthy and polluted sources, 
 
 1 Quoted from " The World's Work," in the Twenty-third Report 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 1906, p. 451. 
 
 2 Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 453. This 
 report is signed by John R. Mohler, Chief, Pathological Division, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, and other officials, and approved by 
 A. D. Melvin, Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. 
 
120 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 may be so refined by prolonged heat as to render it 
 free from living germs. But is this all we ask for meat- 
 products ? Is not something due to that sentiment, 
 common to all civilised human beings, which makes 
 polluted origin a matter of some consideration ? Can 
 we doubt that the average consumer of American lard 
 in this country and abroad would long hesitate before 
 buying it where it was known to be manufactured out 
 ■ of the horrible materials from which the Department 
 of A_griculture now permits it to be made ? 
 
 In an American magazine of wide circulation, one 
 of the leading packing-houses of Chicago placed, 
 recently, a full-page advertisement pointing out the 
 excellence of a certain brand of lard. It read, in part, 
 as follows : 
 
 " MADAM, LOOK TWICE ! 
 
 Be sure the label reads ' Leaf Lard,' 
 
 else you'll get common lard ! 
 
 Common lard is made from various hog fats. 
 
 ' Pure Lard ' doesn't mean Leaf Lard. 
 
 A lard can be labelled ' Pure Lard ' even though 
 it is made from various hog fats." 
 
 The advice is good, though there is apparently a 
 desire to communicate more than can be put in words . 
 One should "look twice" — and more than twice — 
 before purchasing the " Pure Lard " of the American 
 packing-house. We have seen of what " various hog 
 fats " it is now officially permitted to be composed. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE FEDERAL INSPECTION OF HORSE-MEAT 
 
 The substitution of horse-flesh in the manufacture of 
 food-products might seem to be more of the nature of a 
 fraud than a crime against the public health. No animal 
 is more cleanly in its choice of food, or less subject, as a 
 rule, to diseases liable to be passed on to the human 
 race. On the Continent of Europe the flesh of horses 
 is largely eaten by the poorer classes, and enters there, 
 no doubt, into the preparation of various products 
 whose composition is not evident to the sight. In 
 America and in England a strong prejudice exists 
 against such meat as an article of food-supply. Con- 
 sidering that only those horses are sent to the shambles 
 which are broken down by age or disease, or otherwise 
 incapacitated for work, we may be sure that the flesh 
 is not usually of a character to make fit nourishment 
 for human beings. 
 
 It would appear that during several years the 
 Government of the United States permitted horses 
 to be slaughtered for food purposes under the inspec- 
 tion extended to other animals.^ During five years — 
 1899-1903 — the number of carcasses of horses inspected 
 
 1 Twentieth Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 29. 
 121 
 
122 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 was 12,876. In his report for 1904, the Chief of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry informs us that " the in- 
 spection of horses for slaughter ceased during 1903, 
 and was not resumed in 1904." The reason for 
 this relinquishment of Government inspection is not 
 known. 
 
 There are, however, a number of points relating to 
 this Federal inspection of horse-carcasses for food, 
 regarding which it seems that a little more light is 
 desirable. We should like to know in what packing- 
 houses this slaughter took place, under whose per- 
 suasion or by whose inducements the practice of 
 Government inspection was granted, and for what 
 reasons it was finally given up. The official reports 
 tell us how many packages of horse-flesh destined for 
 export to foreign lands received certificates of inspec- 
 tion, and the number of pounds of meat, the whole- 
 someness of which was guaranteed by the Federal 
 stamp, annually sent abroad. But this meagre infor- 
 mation only serves to excite curiosity in other direc- 
 tions. What became of the horse-meat which was not 
 sent abroad ? A moment's calculation shows that the 
 Government's reports do not account for it. The 
 average horse weighs more than 1,000 pounds, and its 
 carcass, dressed or cut up, would furnish, according 
 to the estimates of reliable butchers, not less than 
 500 pounds of meat. Suppose, however, that we 
 estimate the meat derived from each animal as 
 amounting only to 400 pounds, and see if we can 
 account for its disposition.. In the following table, the 
 figures giving the number of horses killed and inspected, 
 and the weight of horse-meat sent abroad, are taken 
 
INSPECTION OF HORSE-MEAT 
 
 123 
 
 from the annual reports of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry. 
 
 Disposition of Horses slaughtered for Food under 
 Federal Inspection. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number 
 
 OF 
 
 Horses 
 Killed. 
 
 Estimated net 
 
 Weight of 
 
 Carcasses 
 
 (Pounds). 
 
 Weight of 
 
 Horse-meat 
 
 Exported 
 
 (Pounds). 
 
 Weight of 
 Horse-meat 
 Unaccounted 
 FOR (Pounds). 
 
 1899 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 
 3,332 
 
 5,559 
 
 1,992 
 
 1,649 
 
 344 
 
 1,332,800 
 
 2,223,600 
 
 796,800 
 
 659,600 
 
 137,600 
 
 347,048 
 188,800 
 249,900 
 170,968 
 28,000 
 
 985,752 
 2,034,800 
 546,900 
 488,632 
 109,600 
 
 Total,.. 
 
 12,876 
 
 5,150,400 
 
 984,716 
 
 4,165,684 
 
 We have estimated the net weight of each carcass 
 of horse-meat at only 400 pounds. Undoubtedly, that"' 
 is far too low. Yet, even at this estimate, we find that 
 over four million pounds of horse-meat are unaccounted 
 for. Certainly it was not submitted to Government 
 inspection simply to be turned into fertiliser. How 
 much of this flesh was used in the preparation of 
 canned goods, such as " minced steak" or "veal loaf"? 
 How much of it went to the manufacture of " meat- 
 juice" or "extract of beef"? It is alleged that many 
 thousands of old, worn-out, and decrepit horses are 
 sent every year from England to Belgium and Holland, 
 to be turned into meat- food products. It will doubt- 
 less be a revelation to the "majority of the American 
 people to know that in the United States, during 
 
124 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 several years of the present century, horses have been 
 slaughtered for food, under Government inspection. 
 
 An illustration of the value of official disclaimers we 
 may find in an official report made to the Secretary 
 of Agriculture by a committee of employees connected 
 with the Department. It appears that a writer for the 
 London Lancet, commenting upon stock-yard abuses, 
 had referred incidentally to the existence on the pre- 
 mises of " a very large horse-market," a fact of which 
 every visitor is aware. For some reason, the committee 
 discovered in this simple statement a sinister signifi- 
 cance. In their report they quote the words of the 
 Lancet, and then add the following comments : 
 
 " The inference that horses are slaughtered for meat in Chicago 
 is erroneous, and without foundation in fact, so far as this com- 
 mittee is aware." ' 
 
 The special report in which this disclaimer appears 
 was signed by some of the leading officials having to 
 do with the inspection of meat, and approved by 
 the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Strictly 
 speaking, the statement made was quite true. In April, 
 1906, when it was made, the inspection of horse-meat 
 had been discontinued. But in the foregoing statement 
 is there not a suppression of fact that tends to convey 
 a false conclusion ? Would not the average reader 
 understand that the Government inspection of horse- 
 flesh for food was a practice quite unknown to the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry and to the Secretary of 
 Agriculture ? We know that any such conclusion 
 would be entirely wrong. In the same volume con- 
 
 1 Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 443. 
 
INSPECTION OF HORSE-MEAT 125 
 
 taining this disclaimer — the Twenty-third Annual 
 Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry — we find 
 another report, also bearing the signature of the head 
 of that bureau, giving the number of cattle, hogs, sheep, 
 and horses inspected at the time of their slaughter during 
 iive years, 1899 to 1903.^ The fact of such past inspec- 
 tion surely was known to every official. Was it not a 
 little disingenuous thus to intimate entire ignorance of 
 a practice which, though then discontinued, had been 
 so recently in vogue for several years ? 
 
 It seems to us that there is a somewhat serious 
 aspect to this matter. In America it is supposed 
 that the Department of Agriculture was instituted for 
 the benefit of the American people, not to promote 
 a Trust. Without questioning, most people have 
 implicitly believed that it was faithful to the best in- 
 terests of the nation. Is there here any reason for a 
 contrary suspicion ? We see that several million pounds 
 of flesh, regarded with detestation and abhorrence by 
 both English and American consumers, passed the in- 
 spection of officials of the United States Government, 
 and then mysteriously disappeared. And although we 
 should like to know where it all went, yet there are 
 certain other questions of far more importance. Who 
 was it that first authorised the Federal inspection of 
 this kind of meat ? What packing-houses requested the 
 Department of Agriculture to institute upon their pre- 
 mises, and for their use, the inspection of horse-meat? 
 What steps were ever taken by the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry to prevent the utilisation of horse-meat in 
 meat-food products intended for consumption in Eng- 
 
 ^ See page 17 of this Report. 
 
126 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 land or America ? Under what law of the United 
 States was authority found for placing horse-meat 
 under Government inspection and on an equality with 
 the inspection of beef or mutton ? It is not likely that 
 to these questions we shall ever have any satisfactory 
 answer until some inquiry, instituted by Congress, may 
 finally enable the British and American consumer to 
 know the whole truth. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 MEAT INSPECTION IN CITIES AND STATES 
 
 Fifty years hence, when the civilised world shall have 
 begun to comprehend the relation between premature 
 mortality and unwholesome food, few facts will seem 
 more significant to the historian of our time than the 
 singular indifference to the question which so generally 
 has prevailed. Except where foreign trade or inter- 
 state commerce is concerned, every American state 
 regulates its concerns after its own ideals ; and where- 
 ever great financial interests are concerned, it is always 
 difficult to induce action on the part of the legislators, 
 which shall appear in any way to conflict with existing 
 privileges. Even where no such interests are con- 
 cerned, it is often impossible to induce a state to act. 
 Take, for instance, the registration of births and deaths. 
 Not only is the United States more backward than any 
 civilised country in the world, but certain individual 
 states are principally responsible for our national 
 inferiority. In New York State, for example, an 
 attempt is made to record, annually, the deaths from 
 certain causes ; the State of Ohio, which adjoins it, is 
 in this respect almost on an equality with the heart of 
 Africa, and a century behind the present civilisation of 
 
 127 
 
128 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Japan. " We have no means of knowing how many 
 people died in Ohio last year, nor of what diseases they 
 died," is the humiliating confession of a state official.^ 
 Bills again and again have been introduced into the 
 Legislature to remedy this defect, but for some incon- 
 ceivable reason fail to pass. Since this is the case 
 where no financial interests are to be affected, we 
 cannot be surprised to find that in this state the 
 inspection of animals killed for food is very imperfectly 
 conducted, and especially so in great cities. It would 
 seem probable that in no state of the Union does any 
 law require a rigid inspection of all animals slaughtered 
 for food, by state officials, and the condemnation of 
 all carcasses found affected with disease. 
 
 In the State of New York, no such inspection is 
 required by existing laws, and no reports of animals 
 condemned at time of slaughter appear to exist. In 
 Massachusetts, a recent enactment forbids sale of the 
 carcass of an animal for food which is not " in a healthy 
 condition," and requires the destruction of meat and 
 meat-products if, in the opinion of an inspector, " any 
 such meat is diseased, corrupted, unwholesome or unfit 
 for food" ; but we have no means afforded of knowing 
 how each inspector defines the word "diseased" ; and 
 the report of the State Board of Health gives no 
 information regarding the condemnation of animals 
 slaughtered for the Massachusetts meat-supply. In 
 Illinois, a Board of Live Stock Commissioners " may, 
 at their discretion, make or cause to be made ... an 
 examination of any animal intended for human food." 
 The regulations which govern such inspection are 
 
 1 Twenty-second Report, Ohio State Board of Health, p. 13. 
 
INSPECTION IN CITIES 129 
 
 apparently those adopted by the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture; but no statistics are pubhshed 
 which enable us to judge regarding the efficiency of this 
 inspection except where it concerns cattle, or how 
 many animals of all kinds are found unfit for food. In 
 Pennsylvania a similar board — " a Live Stock Sanitary 
 Board " — have issued a series of regulations copied from 
 those of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and containing 
 all their defects — leaving it to the inspector to decide 
 when " a condition becomes loathsome," and in case of 
 animals affected by malignant tumours, requiring — not 
 the destruction of the carcass — but of "the part or 
 organ affected." Other great states, such as Wisconsin 
 and Nebraska, Michigan and New Jersey — are appar- 
 ently without any regulations governing the detection 
 and the condemnation at the time of slaughter of 
 diseased animals intended for human food. 
 
 In certain quarters, there would appear to exist a 
 decided scepticism regarding the benefit of Federal 
 inspection, no matter how conducted. A contributor 
 to the latest report of the Iowa State Board of Health 
 complains that the Federal law tends to injure the 
 states which supply the cattle, because the best are 
 sent to market, and the diseased animals are left at 
 home. "The people of Iowa, who by rights, are 
 entitled to the best and choicest of meats, are compelled 
 to live upon the carcasses of worn-out cows, unthrifty 
 calves, and cattle and hogs in advanced stages of tuber- 
 culosis."^ The writer, a physician, declares that " more 
 disastrous results are produced through consumption of 
 
 1 Iowa, Fourteenth Report, State Board of Health, p. 166. 
 
 9 
 
130 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 diseased or contaminated animal commodities than 
 from cliemical adulterations." 
 
 A similar complaint finds expression in the State of 
 Minnesota, where also there are no enforced regula- 
 tions controlling the inspection of meat. In a private 
 letter, one of the officials of the State Board of Health 
 says : 
 
 " We are endangered rather than aided by Federal inspection of 
 meat. To call Federal inspection a sanitary movement for the 
 benefit of our citizens is simply absurd. It was a commercial 
 movement to maintain the sale of our meats abroad. The Federal 
 inspection laws, instead of benefitting the people at large, simply 
 force upon a state where there is no meat inspection the slaughter 
 oi z.mm.zX^ that will not pass Federal inspection. . . ." 
 
 We do not find ourselves deeply sympathetic with 
 these complaints. If the Federal system of meat 
 inspection tends to keep diseased animals in the states 
 where they were raised, such a result is certainly for 
 the benefit of the public health. Assuredly, there is no 
 necessity for the people of the great stock-raising states 
 to consume such meat longer than they wish. The 
 remedy of legislation is in their own hands. 
 
 To what extent are the inhabitants of large cities in 
 the United States protected from liability of consuming 
 diseased flesh ? It will be of interest to examine the 
 results of meat inspection in some of the larger cities, 
 so far a& it may be determined from reports of the local 
 Department of Health. 
 
 New York. — A considerable portion of the meat 
 consumed in this city is slaughtered within its limits. 
 It appears that during the year 1907, animals were 
 slaughtered as follows ; 
 
INSPECTION IN CITIES 131 
 
 Cattle 488,846 
 
 Calves 283,075 
 
 Sheep and lambs 1,495,340 
 
 Hogs 867,916 
 
 Total 3,135,777 
 
 How carefully were these animals inspected at time 
 of slaughter for any conditions of disease which may 
 have been present ? On this subject, we have no 
 information. The Annual Report of the Department of 
 Health for the year 1907 tells us simply that "the 
 inspection of meat has been conducted as in former 
 years. Inspectors in the slaughter-houses have super- 
 vised the slaughter of animals for food purposes as set 
 forth in the following table ;" and then follow the 
 figures just given, but naming — as if it were matter of 
 the slightest consequence — the number slaughtered on 
 either side of the city, and during each month of the 
 year. In another part of the Report, we are told, 
 indeed, that at stock-yards and slaughter-houses there 
 were some 2,415 " condemnations," but these figures 
 include the meat condemned as tainted or spoiled. We 
 have no means of knowing what animals were con- 
 demned at time of slaughter, nor the reasons for which 
 any such condemnations were made. So far as con- 
 cerns the utilisation of diseased meat as food, the 
 largest city in America appears to be at the mercy of 
 inspectors, who give no reasons for condemnation, and 
 who make no adequate report.^ 
 
 1 Referring to the ominous increase of cancer and other malig- 
 nant diseases in New York, the Report says that " there is hardly 
 any doubt but that some potent factor or factors are at work in 
 causing this ever-increasing mortality" (p. 487). 
 
 9—2 
 
132 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 St. Louis. — Concerning animals slaughtered for 
 food, the Health Commissioner states that the city of 
 St. Louis has no inspection except in relation to the 
 sanitary condition of the abattoirs. The slaughtering 
 of animals is left entirely to the inspectors of the 
 United States Department of Agriculture. It would 
 seem that, in one respect, the inspection of meat 
 designed for the poor in public institutions is conducted 
 with an efficiency which might well be imitated in 
 other cities. It appears that during the fiscal year 
 1907-1908, of all the meat "condemned" in St. Louis, 
 24 per cent., or nearly one-fourth, had been furnished 
 to certain city institutions. As these facts do not 
 appear to be furnished in the report of any other 
 city of the United States, they are here given. They 
 doubtless afford an indication of the institutions to 
 which diseased or tainted meat finds its way in other 
 localities. 
 
 Public Institutions of St. Louis, to which Tainted, 
 Unwholesome, or Diseased Meat was Furnished. 
 
 Institution. 
 
 Number of 
 
 Pounds 
 Condemned. 
 
 City Hospital 
 
 Insane Asylum 
 
 The Poor-house 
 
 Workhouse 
 
 Female Hospital and Emergency Hospital 
 
 Industrial School 
 
 Jail 
 
 6,515 
 3.419 
 ■3,075 
 2,682 
 
 1,317 
 927 
 440 
 
 Total condemned 
 
 i8,37S 
 
INSPECTION IN CITIES 133 
 
 Of the total amount thus condemned as unfit food 
 for the inmates of charitable and penal institutions, 
 about half was beef. The reasons assigned for con- 
 demnation are various. Some of the meat was stale, 
 some tainted, and some evidently diseased. On one 
 occasion, about six hundred pounds of a mixture called 
 " mutton stew," sent to the Poor-house, was seized and 
 destroyed. At another time, several hundred pounds 
 of ham, destined for public institutions, were seized 
 and condemned by the city inspectors, notwithstanding 
 the fact that they bore the stamp of the Federal 
 Government, guaranteeing that they were " sound, 
 wholesome, and fit for human food " ! Such a conflict 
 of opinion could not be permitted to pass unchallenged, 
 and three inspectors of the United States Government 
 came from Washington to investigate, and, if possible, 
 to persuade. " They desired to know," writes Inspector 
 Mulhall, "if we would accept meats for public institu- 
 tions if they bore the inspection stamp of the United 
 States Government as to quality, etc. They were 
 informed that only wholesome meats were accepted at 
 the city institutions, and that no inspection stamps were 
 given consideration, in face of the fact that meats might be 
 tainted, diseased, and generally unwholesome."^ It was 
 a reply worthy of remembrance. But the spectacle of 
 United States Government officials coming thus to the 
 defence of the purveyors of unwholesome meat for the 
 unfortunate beings in asylums and hospitals — is it one 
 which can inspire any American with enthusiasm or 
 pride ? 
 
 Philadelphia. — In 1907, after several efforts^ the 
 
 ' Annual Report, 1908, p. 36. 
 
134 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Board of Health of the city of Philadelphia secured 
 passage of a law affecting the slaughter of animals for 
 food. Among regulations adopted as a result of such 
 legislation was one prescribing that " Meats showing 
 evidence of disease, likely to be communicable or other- 
 wise injurious to the customer, shall be seized and 
 destroyed." The chief Meat and Cattle Inspector 
 reports, therefore, that during the year ending Decem- 
 ber 31, 1907, there were 6,701 animals "inspected at 
 killing," of which the carcasses of 132 were condemned 
 — a proportion of about 2 per cent. As there are in 
 the city 170 slaughter-houses, it would show that the 
 sanitary inspection of meat in Philadelphia resulted in 
 the condemnation of an average of less than one carcass 
 per year in each establishment. 
 
 The absurdity of such inspection would appear to be 
 recognised even by those who conduct it. " It is 
 obviously impossible for our six men to be on hand 
 and inspect the slaughtering " which is carried on, 
 sometimes by day, sometimes by night, in widely 
 separated establishments. We are told that there are 
 certain receiving stations in the city to which are 
 shipped " immature calves, emaciated sheep, fevered 
 and otherwise diseased hogs"; and that these animals 
 are not subjected to inspection. To some slaughter- 
 houses are shipped what the report designates as 
 "suspicious-looking animals," and these are killed for 
 the local trade. Certain establishments, we are in- 
 formed, " are owned and operated largely for a class of 
 men who are not likely to be over-scrupulous in the matter 
 of dressing diseased, injured, and immature animals."^ 
 
 ^ See Report, Bureau of Health, 1907, pp. 73, 189, 195. 
 
INSPECTION IN CITIES 
 
 135 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that in the city of Phila- 
 delphia at the present time, for the general population, 
 there is little, if any, protection from the risks of 
 consuming diseased flesh as food. 
 
 Boston. — The Inspector of Animals reports annually 
 the number of animals slaughtered for food, and the 
 number condemned. For the year 1907, these figures 
 were as follows : 
 
 
 Killed. 
 
 Condemned. 
 
 Cattle 
 
 Calves 
 
 Sheep 
 
 Swine 
 
 40,664 
 
 10,742 
 
 1,186 
 
 32,967 
 
 267 
 
 I 
 
 19 
 
 Total 
 
 85,559 
 
 287 
 
 These figures show better than words how inade- 
 quately Boston is protected from the utilisation of 
 diseased meat. Of each thousand cattle killed, no 
 less than 994 are passed, and only six condemned. 
 Regarding swine, the meat inspection for Boston is 
 even more indulgent, passing as sound and good some- 
 what over 999 out of every thousand killed ! The 
 report frankly admits that diseased animals were 
 passed as proper food — the diseased parts, of course, 
 being carefully condemned. Of 706 cases of tuber- 
 culosis in animals slaughtered, " only 269 were con- 
 demned," the remainder being " not condemnable 
 under the Act passed by the Legislature of 1898." Some 
 1,864 livers and " parts " of 185 swine were thus con- 
 
136 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 demned, figures which probably represent so many 
 diseased animals. Thirty-one cattle were found affected 
 with actinomycosis or " lumpy-jaw " ; and the car- 
 casses of these animals, which but a few years ago 
 would have been wholly condemned, were turned into 
 the food-supply of Boston, the head and tongue, the 
 sole evidences of loathsome disease, being first re- 
 moved. Can we say that by the degree of inspection 
 now in vogue the population of Boston is sufficiently 
 protected from the unconsenting use of the flesh of 
 diseased animals ? 
 
 The experience of smaller cities of the United States 
 is not different from that of larger communities. In 
 the city of Detroit, Michigan, the official known as 
 the " honorary meat inspector " reports that of hogs 
 slaughtered, about two carcasses per thousand were 
 condemned, and that of 5,701 " parts " found diseased, 
 about 60 per cent, were for tuberculosis. For the 
 excellence of its vital statistics it is probable that 
 San Francisco stands at the head of all cities of the 
 United States ; and yet even here we find a system 
 of meat inspection so lax that of each thousand hogs 
 slaughtered during a* recent year, less than two car- 
 casses were wholly condemned ; and no report is made 
 of the causes of condemnation or of the number of 
 " parts " permitted to pass. In the city of Newark, 
 New Jersey, during the year 1907, some 91,643 animals 
 were slaughtered for food purposes. These were in- 
 spected by a single official, " whose duty it is to look 
 after slaughter-houses and wholesale meat-markets " ; 
 and the protection against the consumption of diseased 
 meat, thus afforded a city of over 300,000 population. 
 
INSPECTION IN CITIES 137 
 
 we may estimate by the fact that, with the exception 
 of thirty-eight calves (which were probably condemned 
 as immature), there were condemned during the year only 
 nine cattle, and not a single hog or a single sheep. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that in every large com- 
 munity there is every year officially condemned a large 
 quantity of meat or meat-products found upon inspec- 
 tion to be tainted or spoiled, or otherwise unfit for 
 human consumption. As a rule, however, this is due 
 to carelessness or neglect of proper precautions ; and, 
 however effective may be the inspection of hucksters' 
 carts or butchers' stands for such meat, it has no rela- 
 tion, as a rule, to the far greater problem — the elimina- 
 tion of diseased animals from the food-supply. This is 
 a point of the utmost importance. There is no doubt 
 whatever but that in palliation or defence of abuses 
 pertaining to the utilisation of diseased flesh, attention 
 will again and again be vociferously directed to this 
 large condemnation of tainted or spoiled food, with 
 which the present inquiry has absolutely nothing to do. 
 
 It would seem certain, therefore, that from the evils 
 outlined, the consumers of meat have no protection by 
 reason of any efficient system of state or municipal 
 inspection of animals killed for food purposes. For 
 some reason, the most reasonable and rudimental 
 ordinances fail to become laws ; some malign influence 
 inevitably blocks the way. What is the nature of this 
 strong opposition? Is it the ignorance of the average 
 man or woman ? Is it the comfortable assurance of 
 the Meat Trust and its supporters that everything is 
 all right ? Is it popular indifference to the ever-present 
 tragedy of premature death and incurable disease ? Is 
 
138 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 it criminal hostility of vast financial interests to every 
 reform that might possibly affect pecuniary gain ? We 
 may indeed suspect ; but we cannot be sure. Certain, 
 however, we may be, that until there is inaugurated a 
 thoroughly efficient system of state and municipal 
 inspection of animals when they are slaughtered for 
 food — a system far superior to that carried on by the 
 United States Government for the promotion of its 
 foreign trade — the American consumer of meat enjoys 
 little or no protection from the dangers of which we 
 complain. 
 
 It would seem that for each state of the Union — 
 and particularly for the states which are engaged in 
 raising stock — it would be the part of wisdom to in- 
 stitute a system of state inspection so much better 
 than that of the Federal Government that it would 
 tend, by the superiority of its standards, to keep within 
 its own borders the best and healthiest animals for 
 home consumption. Nor is such policy as selfish as 
 it might seem. Against such system of more rigid 
 inspection by stock-growing states we should un- 
 doubtedly see thrown the strongest possible influence 
 of the great packing-houses ; for the establishment of 
 a superior system of state inspection would surely force 
 the Federal Government to make its standards equal 
 to those of any of the states, or to lose domestic trade. 
 A rivalry between the state and the Federal Govern- 
 ments for the most rigid exclusion of diseased animals 
 from the food-supply, and for the most careful examina- 
 tion of every slaughtered beast, would undoubtedly 
 tend more than anything else to the attainment of 
 everything that is at present practicable in the way 
 
INSPECTION IN CITIES 139 
 
 of reform. The question ought not to be a matter of 
 politics. Whether a man is a Republican, a Democrat, 
 or a Socialist, he is alike interested in securing for 
 himself and his family only food that is sound and 
 wholesome and free from disease. If we can only agree 
 that commercial interests must always be subordinate 
 to the public welfare ; that the medical profession, by 
 training and interest, is better fitted to decide with 
 impartiality upon matters pertaining to the public 
 health than the stock-raiser or the pork-packer; and, 
 above all, that the label on the meat or the meat-product 
 must tell the essential facts which any customer can 
 desire to know, it should not be impossible to agree 
 upon some measure providing for the inspection of 
 meat that shall everywhere be uniform, and every- 
 where, in its rules and regulations, protective of the 
 public health. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE DEFENCE OF A WRONG 
 
 The great crimes of History seldom fail to find an 
 apologist or defender. There are no limits to the 
 advocacy which vast financial interests are able to 
 command. We may rest assured in advance, that 
 every charge here made against the Trust will be 
 palliated, excused, or denied with all the skill which 
 intellectual ingenuity can devise. 
 
 It will be of interest to endeavour to anticipate this 
 defence. Along what lines, upon what points, and in 
 what manner may we expect the purveyors of meat to 
 attempt to justify their conduct to the world ? 
 
 I. We may be very certain, at the outset, that no 
 serious attempt will be made to deny the facts which 
 in these pages have been revealed. If they rested 
 solely upon the testimony of eye-witnesses, even though 
 men of the highest skill and repute, the charges would 
 undoubtedly be denied and met by the counter-charge 
 of ignorance, exaggeration and prejudice. When the 
 special correspondent of the Lancet — a leading medical 
 journal of England — referred to abuses existing in 
 certain packing-houses in Chicago, a special committee, 
 made up of officials "belonging to the Department of 
 Agriculture, hastened to assure the world that a similar 
 
 140 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 141 
 
 occurrence (the dragging of diseased and condemned 
 carcasses through the packing-house) had never been 
 seen by themselves on occasion of their visits, and for 
 such a puerile reason, imagined they had made a con- 
 tradiction of testimony ! But the charges herein placed 
 before the reader are independent of personal attesta- 
 tion, and rest entirely upon public documents easily 
 accessible to every American citizen. When it is said 
 that carcasses of tuberculous animals are allowed to be 
 turned into edible food, and that the degree of loath- 
 someness is determinable only by the inspector in 
 charge, it is not the word of an eye-witness, but the 
 Regulations of the Government which supply the proof. 
 When it is alleged that the carcasses of swine, affected 
 by most disgusting and horrible complaints, are per- 
 mitted to be transmuted into lard with the consent and 
 approval of the Department of Agriculture, how is it 
 possible to deny the fact, when every reader of the 
 official Regulations can see the evidence for himself? 
 When it is charged that horses have been butchered 
 under Government inspection, the most ardent apologist 
 of the Meat Trust is not likely to deny facts confessed 
 in a Government report. The facts will not be denied. 
 We must look elsewhere for that defence which is sure 
 to be made. 
 
 2. Undoubtedly the meat-packers will strongly insist 
 that they have strictly adhered to every provision of 
 the laws, as interpreted by higher powers. Have 
 carcasses of animals suffering from various diseases 
 been turned into food-products ? The fact is admitted. 
 But there has been no illegality about it. " If there be 
 blame," the meat-packers may say, "place it where it 
 
142 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 belongs. Our hands are as clean as our shambles. 
 We have simply lived up to the law as interpreted for 
 us by the United States Government." 
 
 Is not this excuse a valid one ? We can certainly 
 conceive the possibility that, in whatever they have 
 done, the butchers and packers have only taken 
 advantage of privileges granted by the Department of 
 Agriculture. If it be true that the Regulations govern- 
 ing the inspection of meat, now in force, were formulated 
 by the Government without the slightest suggestion, 
 persuasion, or demand on the part of the Meat Trust, 
 or of any one of the purveyors of meat, then, of course, 
 there is a single responsibility. If, on the other hand, 
 each one of these ingeniously devised regulations was 
 first phrased by some clever expert in pay of the Trust, 
 who knew what avarice demanded, no matter at what 
 risk to the public health ; if not a rule was laid down, 
 not an exemption formulated, not an amendment con- 
 ceded, not a privilege granted, that did not originate in 
 the packing-house, or was not suggested by some agent 
 of that great combination which to-day controls the 
 output of this article of food, then assuredly we can 
 see no reason for relieving the Trust from any respon- 
 sibility that belongs to it. Let the reader turn for a 
 moment to the Appendix, and read these " Regulations." 
 Is he impressed by the zeal of their authors for the 
 public good? Is he convinced that these carefully 
 formulated exemptions were contrived by one chiefly 
 concerned for protection of the public health and 
 indifferent to other considerations ? Has the rapacity 
 of a great Trust betrayed itself in a single line ? The 
 reader must judge. The facts are before him. 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 143 
 
 Ought we to approve the principles which have 
 governed the action of the Agricultural Department in 
 its relation to the inspection of meat ? That demand 
 will be made. For those who concede it, the question 
 is settled. We shall be told that if the agitation of 
 1906 resulted in no reform of meat inspection, it is 
 because no reform was necessary. The Regulations 
 of igo8 are based upon those of 1904. When Congress 
 in 1906 passed a law, making it an offence to put upon 
 the market a food, " if it be the product of a diseased 
 animal," can we say that there was not also implied a 
 permission to the Department of Agriculture to define 
 the word " disease " in such a way as would allow vast 
 numbers of animal carcasses, otherwise shut out by the 
 law, to be admitted to our food-supply ? We may be 
 certain that this defence will be put forth. It was 
 O'Connell who once declared that there never was 
 an Act of Parliament through which he could not 
 drive a coach-and-four. But equity and the public 
 welfare are of greater importance than legality, as 
 construed by the attorney of a Trust. It is yet a 
 question for the people of the United States to decide 
 whether, by these rules and regulations, the popular 
 mandate for reform was carried out as they expected 
 and wished, or whether their interests have been 
 sacrificed to private gain. We impute no dishonour- 
 able motives; but we do suggest the possibility of 
 erroneous judgment and mistaken zeal. 
 
 3. No claim has been more persistently pressed than 
 the assurance that any abuses must be impossible, 
 because of the absence of secrecy in the preparation of 
 meat and meat-products. In a recent report, the Chief 
 
144 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry dwells at length upon 
 this point. He says : 
 
 " Practically all the operations of slaughtering and preparing 
 meats are open to the world, and are, indeed, in the large centres, 
 one of the sights to which visitors flock. It is well known that 
 accredited representatives of foreign Governments, expert and 
 otherwise, see all the processes of inspection, and more than one 
 has satisfied himself and his Government, sometimes to the sur- 
 prise of both— that inspection is all that it is claimed to be." ^ 
 
 But even this official admits that there were past 
 abuses. " The preparation of sausage has in the past 
 year undergone a wonderful change for the better." The 
 statement is enlightening. And yet, but a year or two 
 ago, there was apparently as frank a publicity in the 
 great packing-houses as there is manifested to-day. 
 For the fact remains that, no matter how close the 
 scrutiny of the visitor, nor how keen-eyed the inspector 
 or the representative of a foreign Government, they 
 will not and they cannot discover the greatest of all 
 abuses — the utilisation of detestable stuff. Nothing in 
 the way of outside inspection or observation can prevent the 
 use of diseased meat in the tinned can or in the sausage, so 
 long as its use for food purposes is permitted by the Regula- 
 tions of the United States Government. 
 
 4. It is quite probable that, in defence of what has been 
 done, some appreciation of the pecuniary advantages 
 secured thereby will be suggested by the advocates of 
 the Meat Trust. Some of these it will be impossible 
 to deny. By permitting the utilisation of diseased 
 meat, instead of condemning it to the soap-makers, an 
 important trade in tinned goods has been built up in 
 
 1 Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 92. 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 145 
 
 Great Britain and in other parts of the world — a trade 
 with which some of our rivals find themselves unable 
 to compete. In America, we complain much of the 
 high prices of meat. Yet is it not obvious that, but 
 for the liberal interpretation of the law, which permits 
 diseased carcasses to be passed as food, the cost of 
 beef and pork might be materially higher ? We shall 
 be told to look at the matter without " sentimentality " 
 or rigid notions of right or wrong, but in a plain, 
 straightforward, business way. The Department of 
 Agriculture, we shall be told, was not instituted as a 
 Health Board. It was organised to promote, as far as 
 possible, the interests of the farmer, the dairyman, the 
 stock-raiser, and the fruit-grower. If the microscopic 
 inspection of pork for trichinae will extend trade, then 
 the Department will order it to be made. Where no 
 such inspection is demanded, there is never a thought 
 of instituting it. We shall be told that whoever, for 
 any reason, creates suspicions regarding the purity and 
 wholesomeness of our meat-products, incurs thereby a 
 weighty responsibility. The world seems well content 
 with American meat ; is there a single foreign nation 
 that to-day is pressing for a more rigid examination of 
 slaughtered animals ? 
 
 Take England, for example. Her poorer classes 
 largely depend for the cheaper qualities of meat upon 
 importations from the United States. The pauper in 
 the workhouse, the soldier in the barracks, the defenders 
 of British interests on every sea — are supplied with 
 American meat. If it is of questionable quality, why 
 should we enlighten them, when completer knowledge 
 can only result to our detriment ? Is the American 
 
 10 
 
146 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 manufacturer to display greater solicitude for the health 
 of the English working man than is shown by the 
 English Parliament ? Arguments like these may find 
 listeners. But we need not dwell on them. We can 
 have no controversy with any man who finds in financial 
 success and pecuniary gain and extension of commerce 
 the slightest excuse or palliation for the betrayal of 
 those who had faith in our honour, and placed confidence 
 in our integrity. 
 
 5. Whenever any suggestion of inefficiency of Federal 
 inspection is made, the attention of the public is at 
 once called to the very large quantity of meat which is 
 condemned during the course of every year as unfit for 
 food. An excellent illustration of this method of defence 
 is afforded by the report of a committee appointed to 
 investigate certain charges seriously affecting the meat- 
 inspection service. 
 
 It appears that on June 8, 1909, one of the meat 
 inspectors in a Western packing-house addressed an 
 open letter to the Secretary of Agriculture impugning 
 the integrity of the meat-inspection service throughout 
 the United States, and asking for a fair and impartial 
 investigation of his charges. From such a source, the 
 accusation was too serious to be passed unnoticed ; 
 and — ^with a: view perhaps of demonstrating their con- 
 ception of fairness and impartiality — some of the 
 leading officials of the Bureau inculpated were appointed 
 a committee to conduct the investigation ! In a final 
 report to the Secretary of Agriculture, referring to the 
 charge of inefficiency in meat inspection, this committee 
 says: 
 
 " The complete answef to this charge is found in the 
 records of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which show that 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 147 
 
 between July i, 1906, when the meat-inspection law went 
 into operation, and December 31, 1908, inspectors of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry absolutely destroyed for food 
 purposes 383,187 carcasses of food animals in their entirety." 
 
 After stating that over seventy-three milHon pounds 
 of meat and meat-food products were also condemned, 
 chiefly because they were found to be " tainted, rancid, 
 putrid, or unclean " — facts that have nothing to do 
 with the inspection of animals at time of slaughter — 
 the committee adds : 
 
 " This enormous destruction of food shows conclusively 
 that there is no collusion between those in charge of the 
 enforcement of the law and the packers, and that the meat- 
 inspection law is being enforced to the limit." 
 
 Now we can by no means share in this comfortable 
 conclusion. The mere fact that 383,187 slaughtered 
 animals were wholly condemned as unfit for food, 
 during two and a half years following the passage of 
 the present inspection law, is not of the slightest sig- 
 nificance as proof of zeal, tmless, at the same time, we are 
 enabled to compare the total rejections with the total number 
 which were inspected after slaughter. The facts thus 
 omitted are given below. It is probable that they will 
 suggest a very different conclusion from that of the 
 committee, as quoted above. 
 
 For the period of two and a half years, from July i, 
 1906, when the present law governing meat inspection 
 took effect, to the end of December, 1908, the following 
 table gives us the facts desired. Concerning each 
 species of animals, we have, first, the total number 
 inspected during that period; second, the number 
 which the zeal of inspection totally condemned, in all, 
 
 10 — 2 
 
148 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 383,187 carcasses ; and finally — what is of chief interest 
 and importance — the proportion which the number thus 
 condemned bears to the number inspected. 
 
 Species. 
 
 Total Number 
 Inspected. 
 
 Total Number 
 Condemned. 
 
 Of each 10,000 
 
 Inspected, how 
 
 many were 
 
 Condemned ? 
 
 Cattle 
 Calves 
 Sheep 
 Swine 
 Goats 
 
 18,848,198 
 
 4,762,562 
 
 25,178,415 
 
 85,123,993 
 
 119,813 
 
 77,780 
 
 13,820 
 
 23,298 
 
 268,175 
 
 114 
 
 41 
 29 
 9 
 31 
 10 
 
 Total ... 
 
 134,032,981 
 
 383,187 
 
 29 
 
 With the missing facts before us, the matter appears 
 in quite a different light. There were, it is true, 383,187 
 carcasses of animals found upon inspection to be unfit 
 for human food during the long period of two and a 
 half years. But how insignificant is the number of 
 these condemnations, when contrasted with the total 
 number of animals inspected ! Of a thousand cattle 
 examined, the carcasses oifour were wholly condemned; 
 of a thousand pork carcasses, three only were thus put 
 aside ; the average of condemnations in these two and 
 a half years was less than three in a thousand ; and we 
 are soberly invited by the officials of the Department of 
 Agriculture to consider "this enormous destruction of 
 food " as conclusive proof that " there is no collusion 
 between those in charge of the enforcement of the 
 law and the packers, and that the meat-inspection 
 law is being enforced to the limit." So far from being 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 149 
 
 "enforced to the limit," the fact remains that the 
 rate of total condemnations during the two years 
 immediately following the passage of the Pure Food 
 Law was actually less than during the two years 
 immediately preceding the legislation of June, 1906. 
 During this earlier period, per ten thousand animals 
 inspected after slaughter, 33 were totally condemned 
 as unfit for human food. During the two and a half 
 years of a "Pure Food Law," as seen in the preceding 
 table, the rate of total condemnations was but 29 to 
 each ten thousand slaughtered. 
 
 6. As an indication of the efficiency of meat inspection, 
 attention will probably be directed to the large quantity 
 of food-products which have been condemned upon 
 reinspection. During the fiscal year 1908 — the first 
 complete year for which the facts are given, some- 
 what • over forty-three million pounds of meat and 
 meat-food products were condemned upon reinspec- 
 tion, chiefly because they were found to be tainted, 
 putrid, unclean, or otherwise unfit for food. But what 
 proportion does this amount bear to the total amount 
 of " processed " meat foods ? It wag probably less 
 than a half of one per cent, of the total amount put up. 
 What the pubhc would be interested to know is the 
 total amount of each kind of meat-food product manu- 
 factured, and the amount found upon reinspection to 
 be unsuitable for food. To tell us that forty-three 
 million pounds of food were condemned, or that so 
 many thousand carcasses were tanked, conveys no real 
 information until we are enabled to compare such 
 figures with the amount that passed inspection to 
 enter the food-supply of the world. Even these facts 
 
150 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 have no pertinence to the permitted use of diseased 
 animals as proper food for human beings. The dili- 
 gence of an employee is seldom accepted as an excuse 
 for betrayal of trust. 
 
 7. We come, finally, to that ingenious defence, upon 
 which the officials of the Department of Agriculture 
 undoubtedly place their chief reliance. Anticipating 
 criticism of the regulations — which, as we have seen, 
 permit the Meat Trust to utilise the flesh of diseased 
 animals for human food — it was thought best to obtain 
 for such policy the endorsement and approval of certain 
 veterinarians and pathologists. The committee thus 
 appointed to advise concerning the " Regulations of 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry" for the inspection 
 of meat, were undoubtedly selected with great care. 
 Two of the men thus asked to serve had been officially 
 connected with the Department of Agriculture some 
 years before; and were now invited to express their 
 opinions concerning the rules, with which they were 
 doubtless familiar. The city of Chicago contributed 
 two members, one of them being the head of the 
 Veterinary College in that meat-packing metropolis. 
 The chairman was an Eastern man, the professor of 
 pathology in a well-known medical school. They were 
 asked " to consider and advise relative to those portions 
 of the Department's Meat Inspection Regulations 
 relating to the disposition of carcasses affected with 
 various diseases and abnormal conditions." 
 
 The need for such a commission it is not easy to 
 perceive. Before these Government officials was the law 
 of the United States, prohibiting the manufacture of any 
 article of food " if it is the product of a diseased animal." 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 151 
 
 But laws are sometimes considered as counsels of 
 perfection, for the disregard of which it is the province 
 of ingenuity to find a way. The gentlemen honoured 
 by the appointment of the Secretary of Agriculture 
 met at the city of Washington, February 4, 1907. 
 Their deliberations — if their meetings deserve such 
 designation — lasted during a period of two and a half 
 days. An application was received from the represen- 
 tative of the meat-packing interests to be present at 
 their meetings, and the request was granted. No 
 public announcement of any desire of this commission 
 for other interests to appear before them seems to have 
 been made ; we are told, however, that in granting to 
 the packing interests the opportunity of representation, 
 it was "distinctly understood that should other interests 
 desire hearings, their applications would also be con- 
 sidered." No such application seems to have been 
 made ; and none could have been seriously expected. 
 The health interests of eighty million people in America, 
 of thirty-five million of the people of England, were 
 without any such representation as might tend to 
 disturb the harmony of the occasion. The committee 
 was convened for a particular purpose ; and that pur- 
 pose was speedily fulfilled. 
 
 In due time, a formal "report" was made by the 
 committee to the Secretary of Agriculture.^ Therein, 
 
 ^ The detailed report of this committee may be found in the 
 Twenty-fourth Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 361. 
 In the same volume, p. 11, we are told that the committee held 
 sessions " during February." This gives a mistaken idea of their 
 devotion to the work. As a matter of fact, the committee held 
 meetings on February 4 and 5, and on February 6, for half 
 a day. 
 
152 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 he is informed that " from the standpoint of meat 
 inspection, the term ' diseased ' must be used in a sense 
 not entirely in harmony with the popular conception of 
 this word " — a fact of which this official must have been 
 long aware. The committee tells him that no animal 
 can be said to be absolutely free from any infection or 
 lesion, forgetting also to remind him that no human 
 being is in a similar state of absolute perfection. They 
 intimate that it would be well for the general public 
 " to have confidence in the ability of veterinary in- 
 spectors to pass judgment upon the purely technical 
 side of the questions involved," as if a Government 
 inspector could make the flesh of a cancerous animal 
 fit to eat ! They approve the rule permitting carcasses 
 of animals showing lesions of actinomycosis elsewhere 
 than in the head " to be passed, after the affected organs 
 and parts have been removed and condemned." The 
 opportunity for the meat -producers to pass animals 
 affected by the swine plague is made a little broader 
 than it was in the rules of 1906. They ratify the 
 utilisation of the fjesh of animals affected by mange 
 "when the disease is slight." They present for con- 
 sideration a new regulation permitting the utilisation 
 of the flesh of cattle and swine " found infected with 
 not more than ten tapeworm cysts " after removal of 
 the parasites, the pork to be thoroughly cooked, while 
 the beef may be " canned " or passed after keeping in 
 cold storage for twenty-one days. They inform the 
 secretary that " unless some movement is initiated, 
 looking to a prevention of hydatid disease, this malady 
 may cause serious loss of life among both men and live- 
 stock " ; and then, as an evidence of their concern for 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 153 
 
 the public health, they propose {for the first time in the 
 history of American meat inspection) that "carcasses or 
 parts of carcasses found infected with the hydatid cyst 
 [echinococcus) may be passed after condemnation of the 
 infected part or organ." They solemnly advise that 
 " any organ or part of a carcass which is the seat of a 
 tumour, malignant or benign, shall be condemned " ; 
 but they have not a word of advice concerning the dis- 
 position of the remainder of such polluted meat. They 
 suggest that " a strictly localised tuberculosis, consisting, 
 for instance, of an isolated tuberculous nodule in the 
 lungs, in the liver, or some other portion of the body," 
 would not justify the condemnation of the carcass ; 
 and then they submit regulations which, far more 
 extensively than this, permit the utilisation of tuber- 
 culous meat. They tell the Secretary that the inspectors 
 of meat, in judging whether or not a carcass is diseased, 
 should not act upon any " exaggerated or sentimental 
 idea "; that at slaughterhouses, tuberculous meat should 
 be judged on other grounds than " sentimental ideas "; 
 and that persons interested in safeguarding the public 
 health from tuberculosis should " consider the subject 
 from a rational point of view, rather than a sentimental 
 one." May we not be quite certain that, aided in 
 their deliberations by the accredited representative 
 of the packing interests, no " sentimental " consider- 
 ations were permitted to govern action, or to shape 
 advice ? 
 
 Admitting the service which this committee rendered 
 to the pecuniary interests involved, are there any reasons 
 why the millions of consumers of American meat and 
 meat-products, in England and the United States, 
 
154 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 should distrust their advice ? We think such reasons 
 exist. 
 
 In the first place, one cannot but suspect that the 
 principle governing the composition of this advisory 
 committee may not have been based upon disinterested 
 regard for the public health. How did it happen that 
 these particular individuals were chosen to advise the 
 Department of Agriculture ? Were not the views of 
 each one of them, regarding the utilisation of diseased 
 meat, known before their appointment ?. Were they 
 not all of one mind regarding this vitally important 
 question ? No hint of any disagreement appears in 
 their report. And yet opposing views have elsewhere 
 found utterance. A member of the medical profession, 
 Dr. W. K. Jaques, was formerly at the head of meat 
 inspection in Chicago stock-yards, and he tells us 
 frankly that disagreement even then existed concern- 
 ing the condemnation of diseased meat. " One authority 
 declared that when any part of the animal was diseased, 
 it should all go into the fertiliser tank. Another said 
 that only the diseased part need be cut away. Still 
 another would pass all meat if well cooked. ... I 
 venture the assertion that although the Commissioner 
 of Health will allow the flesh from an animal that has 
 localised lumpy-jaw to pass into the public food-supply, he 
 would not permit his family to eat an ounce of it if he knew 
 it. ... If the finest restaurant in America should 
 publish on its bill of fare that its choice roast beef was 
 cut from an animal which had a small, localised tuber- 
 cular area, no physician would dine there, or permit his 
 patients to do so. Yet if this issue were brought to 
 court, probably a hundred physicians would be will- 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 155 
 
 ing to testify that such meat, if well cooked, would be 
 harmless!"^ 
 
 There is not the slightest evidence in their report 
 that any such divergence of views found expression 
 during the deliberations of the committee. It is quite 
 probable that not a single voice was raised favourable 
 to any such system of slaughter and meat inspection as 
 would enable the purchaser to distinguish between 
 meat-food products derived from healthy animals and 
 those manufactured from animals that were diseased. 
 May it not be more than likely that this advisory 
 committee was made up of men of learning and 
 respectability, no doubt, but men known by the 
 department, from their previous affiliations or from 
 their writings, to favour the utilisation of diseased 
 meat as food for the poorer classes in England and 
 America, provided the diseased parts were cut away ? 
 
 Let us concede the existence of more than one view 
 on this subject. But should not both opinions have had 
 representation and a hearing ? In England, when a 
 great question like this comes into the arena of public 
 opinion, a Royal Commission is appointed ; as members 
 of such Commission, men of opposite views find a place ; 
 all evidence is welcomed which tends to elucidate facts ; 
 the sessions maly extend over months ; and no matter 
 to what conclusion the majority of such Commission 
 may arrive, there is a mass of evidence made public 
 which is of permanent value. In America, a packed 
 committee, probably made up of men who are in 
 
 1 The Worlds Work, May, 1906 : "A Picture of Meat Inspec- 
 tion," by Dr. W. K. Jaques, formerly head of the meat inspection 
 at Chicago stock-yards. 
 
156 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 practical agreement, holds private sessions for two and 
 a half days ; hears no evidence ; is assisted by the 
 presence of the Meat Trust's representative ; endorses 
 all the practices in vogue ; and we are invited to regard 
 their judgment as a determination of the questions in- 
 volved ! Is this the part of wisdom ? In America, men 
 have come to view with some suspicion the opinions of 
 experts selected to testify upon matters involving 
 vast financial interests, or questions of life and death. 
 We all know that if a miUionaire kills his rival in a fit 
 of jealous rage, his legal advisers will not have the 
 slightest difficulty in securing the testimony of scientific 
 experts of the highest character, who will swear that 
 the murder was an insane act, for which the prisoner 
 should not be held to legal accountability. Now here 
 was a case in which vast financial interests were 
 involved. For many years the United States Govern- 
 ment had approved of the utilisation by the meat- 
 packers of diseased animals as food. The justice 
 of the regulations which permitted it was certain 
 eventually to be called in question. There was need 
 for some endorsement of the Department's policy. 
 That endorsement has been secured. The character 
 of the individual experts who thus represented one 
 phase of the question is not in dispute. Even conced- 
 ing to them the highest motives, we nevertheless 
 challenge the value of their services to the cause of 
 preventive medicine and the public health. The 
 addition of their views to those of the Department's 
 officials is very different from the public discussion 
 of a great problem by disinterested and unbiassed men. 
 Another reason for questioning the value of this 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 157 
 
 committee's conclusions is the comparative absence of 
 any suggestion or recommendation for reform. What 
 abuses, if any, did this committee point out ? Not one. 
 In the report of this Commission to the Secretary 
 of Agriculture, the reader will search in vain for the 
 slightest evidence indicative of a desire for any reform 
 of the methods of inspection in vogue. The nev^^ 
 regulations, based, we are told, upon the recommenda- 
 tions of this committee, became effective in May, igo8. 
 In phraseology and arrangement, they are an improve- 
 ment upon preceding rules ; but in substance, and often 
 in language, they are practically the same as those 
 which were put forth even before the agitation in favour 
 of " pure food." 
 
 It will be seen that they prohibit for the first time 
 the utilisation of parts or organs affected by " benign 
 tumours " and the flesh of vaccine animals. Otherwise 
 than this, the most careful comparison, sentence by 
 sentence and word by word, will fail to disclose in the 
 Regulations now in force a single prohibition more favour- 
 able to the purchaser of American meat than existed in the 
 Regulations of 1904 or 1906. 
 
 Nor is such omission the most amazing feature of 
 these new Regulations, based upon the advice of the 
 committee of scientific men. In many respects the 
 new rules are distinctly worse than those which they sup- 
 planted. It would seem that whenever there was any 
 possibility of modifying the old Regulations so as to 
 favour the Meat Trust at the expense of the consumer, 
 or to widen the utilisation of diseased meat, it was 
 done. There can be no question on this point in the 
 mind of any reader who will simply take the trouble to 
 
158 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 compare the two sets of rules governing meat inspec- 
 tion. We have seen that, according to the Regulations 
 of 1904, diseases such as inflammation of the lungs, of 
 the intestines or of other organs, " whether in acute or 
 chronic form," were held to be sufficient to justify the 
 condemnation of carcasses thus affected; in 1908, as 
 we have seen, such diseased carcasses were only con- 
 demned when the inflammation could be called "acute" ; 
 and an unknown number of animal carcasses that four 
 years earlier would have been condemned are now per- 
 mitted to be turned into meat. In 1904 the Regula- 
 tions wisely required, that " the viscera of all tuberculous 
 animals shall be condemned" ; in 1908 no such require- 
 ment is made ; and, for all we can see, the utilisation 
 of such material is not forbidden. In 1904 it was 
 required that the carcasses of recently pregnant 
 animals " should be condemned and rendered into 
 grease" ; in 1908 the same carcasses, if without evi- 
 dences of blood-poisoning, " may be rendered into lard 
 or tallow, if desired by the manager of the establish- 
 ment " ; and so what once went to make soap now 
 goes to make " pure lard." In 1904 the packers were 
 strictly prohibited from utilising for food purposes the 
 flesh of immature animals " under /owy weeks of age " ; 
 in 1908, for the benefit of the Trust, a week is taken 
 off ; and the purveyors of various meat-delicacies may 
 utilise carcasses that are just over three weeks old. 
 Some of these changes were made in 1906, but they 
 passed beneath the eyes of the Commission in igo8. 
 Could anyone imagine that such changes as these 
 would one day be claimed as inspired by a regard 
 for the health of the consumer, rather than the profits 
 
DEFENCE OF A WRONG 159 
 
 of the Meat Trust ? Practically, the Commission 
 makes precisely this claim ; for they assert in their 
 report to the Secretary of Agriculture that " if there 
 be any general error in the regulation " (pertaining to 
 diseased meat), " this is in favour of the public, rather 
 than in favour of the butchers and packers." We do 
 not believe that posterity will endorse this claim. We 
 are unable to see that by approving every existing 
 abuse, without making more than one or two slight 
 changes in the direction of reform ; by confirming and 
 sanctioning the utilisation of the flesh of animals suffer- 
 ing from tuberculosis, from hydatids, from actinomy- 
 cosis and from other diseases; and, above all, by 
 enlarging permission to use flesh that was formerly 
 condemned, and expressing the view that even existing 
 restrictions might be " made less stringent," this Com- 
 mission, no matter with what intentions, has acted 
 otherwise than for the promotion of ignoble interests, 
 and against the welfare of the millions of consumers of 
 American meat throughout the world. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 THE HELP OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE 
 
 Regarding the hostile forces which will strenuously 
 oppose all attempts to institute reform of these abuses, 
 one should entertain no delusions. Based upon many 
 millions of invested capital, involving innumerable 
 sordid interests, defended by advocates of ability in 
 the Press, in Congress, and in a great Department of 
 the Government, the Meat Trust has the American 
 people so completely in its grasp that it is not easy 
 to discern any avenue of present escape. With im- 
 measurable resources at command, it may not be 
 difficult for the Trust to quiet, in America, all agitation 
 for reform, and probably for a long time to prevent the 
 passage by Congress of any laws looking to change of 
 present privileges and profitable abuses. 
 
 To foreign lands, and chiefly to England, we must 
 look for the development of a public sentiment con- 
 cerning meat inspection in the United States, which 
 we may hope will conduce to reform. In the first 
 place, the English people have been vast consumers 
 of American meat and meat-products. The following 
 table gives some of the facts. We have thus an 
 official estimate of the number of pounds of certain 
 
 1 60 
 
HELP OF THE ENGLISH 
 
 i6i 
 
 meat-food products which have been exported to the 
 United Kingdom during two years of recent date. 
 
 Meat and Meat-Food Products Exported to the United 
 Kingdom during Two Years, 1902 and 1906 (Pounds). 
 
 Kinds of Mbat. 
 
 1902. 
 
 1906. 
 
 Pork, salted or pickled . 
 Pork, fresh 
 
 Hams 
 
 Bacon 
 
 Lard 
 
 Beef, fresh 
 
 Beef, canned 
 
 Beef, salted or pickled . 
 
 
 54,487,290 
 
 44,017,247 
 
 202,390,263 
 
 310,380,793 
 
 199,442,907 
 
 297,844,537 
 
 51,282,929 
 
 16,155,785 
 
 73,526,635 
 12,580,875 
 173,926,165 
 280,280,628 
 241,903,704 
 265,444,500 
 
 44,335,871 
 18,681,138 
 
 Total number of pounds . . . 
 
 1,176,001,751 
 
 1,110,679,516 
 
 Even this table does not include everything that goes 
 to Great Britain from American packing-houses. It 
 shows, however, the immensity of the traffic. If all the 
 above had gone to England alone, the quantity con- 
 sumed in igo2 would have been at the rate of 58 pounds 
 for every man, woman and child over the age of fifteen 
 years. 
 
 Now a notable decrease in the exports of meat and 
 meat-products to Great Britain is invariably viewed 
 with apprehension by the purveyors of American meat. 
 This fear of loss, due to possible diversion of trade, finds 
 an expression in official reports. In 1905, attention 
 was thus called to the fact that the dead meat sent 
 from the United States to England had decreased each 
 year since igoi. The trade in fresh beef between igoi 
 and 1904 had decreased a fraction over 16 per cent., 
 
 II 
 
i62 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 while the trade of England with Argentina had 
 increased more than 300 per cent. In the foregoing 
 table, we see that American trade with the United 
 Kingdom in certain meat-products named fell off 
 in four years more than sixty-five million pounds. 
 Between 1900 and 1904, England's imports of American 
 bacon fell off over 29 per cent, (or more than a million 
 hundredweight), while imports of the same article from 
 Canada, from Sweden and from Russia increased from 
 56 per cent, for Canada to over 600 per cent, for Russia. 
 The Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry does 
 not conceal his apprehensions regarding this loss of 
 American trade. He says : 
 
 " Our natural conditions are such that we should be able to pro- 
 duce this article at a cost which would permit it to compete suc- 
 cessfully for many years with any other part of the world. If we 
 are producing a bacon which does not fully meet the requirements 
 of the trade, it would not be a difificult matter to change our type of 
 hog. . . . There appears to be a more promising field for effort in 
 Great Britain than in the markets of other countries."' 
 
 We shall not question the need for modification of 
 present practices, if we are to regain our trade. It is 
 not the "type of hog" that needs to be changed so 
 much as the type of American officials, whose approval 
 of diseased animals as wholesome food has cast 
 suspicion upon every product of the packing-house, and 
 degraded the standard of American meat. 
 
 The chief incentive to immediate reform of the more 
 glaring abuses must, therefore, be supplied by the 
 foreign consumers of American meat and meat-products. 
 If the day ever comes when the English consumers of 
 American meat and meat-products shall be dissatisfied 
 
 1 Report of Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry, 1905, p. 50. 
 
HELP OF THE ENGLISH 163 
 
 with that Government inspection which is now vouch- 
 safed (to defects of which his attention has now been 
 called), they need only to refuse their custom, and 
 whatever reform is required will speedily be accorded. 
 If the working man in England should decline buying 
 meat -products which in part are derived from the flesh 
 of diseased animals ; if he indicates a preference for 
 meat which has undergone an inspection, before and 
 after slaughter, far more rigid than that which now 
 pertains to the American packing-house, we may be 
 sure that national legislation securing the ends desired 
 will soon find place on the statute-books of the United 
 States, if only for the sake of retaining the trade of so 
 profitable a customer. But, on the other hand, should 
 the English working class continue indifferent to the 
 quality of American meat ; if from the Army and Navy 
 comes no protest concerning rations thus derived ; if no 
 whisper of discontent is heard in the great public 
 institutions of England, or from those who supply them 
 with meat-food products imported from America, then, 
 in all probability, the Great Trust will continue serenely 
 indifferent to other criticism, and the day of emancipa- 
 tion from present slavery may be long deferred. But 
 postponement of the problem cannot be permanent. 
 However long delayed, we cannot question the eventual 
 awakening of the English and American people to 
 dangers so vitally affecting the physical welfare of the 
 race. 
 
 II- 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 THE PROBLEM OF REFORM 
 
 A DISCLOSURE of a great abuse is generally useless 
 unless we see possibility of reform. In the preceding 
 pages, it has been demonstrated that, unknown to the 
 great majority of the people of this country and Europe, 
 the practice of using the flesh of diseased animals for 
 meat-food products has been the custom of the American 
 packing-house for many years. We have seen that 
 some of the diseases with which such animals were 
 affected are of a disgusting or dangerous character, and 
 that some have an intimate relation with human 
 ailments. We have noted that the practice is one of 
 long standing ; that it is based upon desire for greater 
 profit to the Trust; that of recent years it has been 
 sanctioned by a Department of the United States 
 Government ; and that for its defence there has been no 
 difficulty in securing the opinions of men who sustain 
 and approve it, precisely as every great crime against 
 Humanity in the past has found someone to justify and 
 defend. 
 
 We may take it for granted that no adequate reform 
 of this evil is possible while the present ignorance and 
 indifference can be maintained. So long as the public 
 are content to eat without question the products which 
 
 164 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 165 
 
 are made up of questionable flesh, the abuse will 
 continue. We may be certain, however, that whenever 
 the people of this country and of Great Britain shall 
 demand that the abuses cease, some means will be 
 found very speedily for the initiation of reform. Along 
 what lines is any reform practicable ? Through what 
 measures may it be carried into effect ? 
 
 It seems evident, in the first place, that we can hope 
 for nothing in the way of reform from that vast aggre- 
 gation of interests and influences which, for want of 
 any better name, we have called the Meat Trust. It 
 has fattened, so to speak, upon the blood and through 
 the agony of millions of animals, slaughtered with the 
 utmost attainable speed, and with complete indifference 
 to the cruelty which haste has occasioned. For any- 
 thing but profit, what concern has it ever manifested ? 
 What has it cared that half a million of hogs go every 
 year into the markets of the world affected by trichinae ? 
 So long as they could be concealed, what interest did 
 it manifest in any reform of the abominations per- 
 taining to the packing-houses which were revealed to 
 the world during the agitation of 1906 ? Why is it 
 necessary even to-day for the Department of Agricul- 
 ture to issue orders that, in the preparation of sausage, 
 the only outer coverings or casings that can be used as 
 containers shall be " those from cattle, hogs, sheep, or 
 goats "^ — unless it had once been the custom to use for 
 this purpose the intestines of other animals? Why 
 should it be required to lay down the rule that " extract 
 of beef" must be actually made from beef;^ or that 
 
 ^ See Regulations of 1908, Reg. 23, Sect. 5, par. 25. 
 
 2 Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 380. 
 
i66 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 when hogs' feet are used in making lard, they must be 
 clean, and the hair and hoofs removed ; ^ or that only 
 clean water should be used in the preparation of food- 
 products ; or that diagrams of all underground pipes 
 used to carry edible or inedible substances and products 
 must be filed with the Department of Agriculture?^ 
 Why was the Department of Agriculture obliged, by 
 written order, to prohibit certain practices in the pre- 
 paration of meat-food products so abominably loath- 
 some and horrible they cannot here even be described ?* 
 We are not referring to the uncleanliness of an ignorant 
 workman. It is because of the turpitude and untrust- 
 worthy character of men higher up that such rules are 
 needed. From any such combination, how is it possible 
 to expect anything but unwearied and relentless opposi- 
 tion to every suggestion of reform ? Soulless, remorse- 
 less, conscienceless, indifferent to everything but that 
 which makes for gain, blind to every consideration for 
 the public health, the Meat Trust, in its relations to 
 human life and welfare, is incomparably the worst of 
 all the combinations which have aimed at the complete 
 control' of any branch of American production and 
 industry. 
 
 Nor can we see any probability of reform through 
 the co-operation of the United States Department of 
 Agriculture. Organised to protect and advance the 
 interests of the stock-raiser, the meat-packer, the farmer 
 
 * Regulations of 1908, p. 32. 
 
 ^ Regulations of IQ08, Reg. 23, Sect. 4, par. 5. See also Regu- 
 lations of 1906, Reg. 41. 
 
 ^ Instructions, etc., issued by U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
 December 10, igo6, p. 6; see final prohibition. 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 167 
 
 and fruit-grower, it has undoubtedly been assiduous in 
 the promotion of its aims. No greater absurdity was 
 ever enacted into law, than the measure which placed 
 the public health, in any way, under the supervision or 
 control of a bureau which was instituted in order to 
 further the gains of the herdsman and the butcher. 
 More than once in this inquiry it has seemed right to 
 criticise the zeal shown by this department of the 
 Government for packing-house profits, where of para- 
 mount import would have seemed the promotion of the 
 public health. Congress passed a Pure Food Law 
 which made it a crime to manufacture an article of 
 food from flesh which was " the product of a diseased 
 animal "; and the Department of Agriculture hastened 
 to issue regulations governing meat inspection, which 
 in a number of instances apparently nullified the law. 
 The favouritism of the Department is evinced, even 
 when it would seem that the slightest consideration 
 for the general welfare would have suggested another 
 course. Sometimes a new meaning is given to words, 
 and then follows gain for the meat-packers. For 
 example, one would suppose that a meat-food product 
 was any article which was to be eaten by human beings 
 as food. Take, for instance, the outer covering of 
 sausage made from the intestines of animals. Of this 
 product of the packing-house, over two million dollars' 
 worth are exported every year. One would think it 
 rather important that the foreign consumer should 
 know that they were from animals which, upon 
 slaughter, were free from cancer, or tuberculosis, or 
 other diseases. But any regulation to that effect would 
 lessen the output ; and so by a ruling issued October 29, 
 
i68 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 1906, it was ordered that "unfilled casings shall be 
 regarded as containers, and not as meat-food products" ;^ 
 and the reader will not question the ingenuity which 
 could devise such an interpretation of the law — what- 
 ever may be his judgment upon the abstract equity of 
 the act. What was the object of that ruling of the 
 Department of Agriculture which specifically exempts 
 from inspection " ship stores " — making it possible to 
 furnish to English and American sailors meat derived 
 from diseased animals ? ^ We need to remember that 
 every interpretation seems in accordance with the ideal, 
 that the primary object of that department of the 
 American Government is the advancement of special 
 interests. " It will probably be generally admitted," 
 said Dr. Salmon, while acting as Chief of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry, " that the Department of Agriculture 
 exists for the benefit of the agricultural industry."^ We 
 do not agree with this statement. We do not under- 
 stand that the purpose of any department of adminis- 
 trative work in the Government of the United States is 
 other than for the benefit of the nation as a whole. 
 But candour compels us to admit that in every case the 
 Department of Agriculture has acted in perfect accord 
 with the ideal advanced officially. If the framer of the 
 regulations governing meat inspection had actually been 
 
 ' Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 389. See 
 also the ruling issued March 12, 1909, permitting benzoate of soda 
 to be added to meat or meat-food products, without any restric- 
 tion as to amount of the drug which may be used. The amount 
 used must, indeed, be stated on the label, but the Department of 
 Agriculture does not determine the dose. 
 
 ^ See Appendix, Regulation 25, section 5. 
 
 3 Eighteenth Report, B.A.I., p. 9. 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 169 
 
 dn the pay-rolls of the packing-houses, he could not have 
 d&vised rules which would more certainly have increased 
 their gains than those which require the approval of 
 diseased meat. It cannot be the part of wisdom or 
 prudence to place the health of the nation, any longer 
 than possible, under control of a Department which 
 fancies that it " exists for the benefit of the Agricultural 
 industry." 
 
 It is not an easy task to indicate remedies for abuses 
 so long established and so powerfully defended. At 
 the same time, we know that remedies must exist. It 
 is certain that we shall not be obliged to submit to the 
 dictation of the Meat Trust any longer than popular 
 indifference shall permit. All that is requisite is 
 adequate recognition of the evil and a desire to reform 
 it altogether. We may be sure that wholesome meat 
 and meat-food products, derived from healthy animals, 
 may one day be purchased with a surety that does not 
 exist to-day. It may be impossible to expect reform in 
 the immediate future ; let us see what can be done 
 when the sleepers awake. 
 
 I. A Rigid Inquiry must precede Legislation. 
 
 Before any real measure of reform can be carried 
 into effect, there must be a most searching official 
 investigation of the whole subject. To any such in- 
 vestigation on the part of Congress there will, of 
 course, be raised the strongest opposition. The success 
 of any such antagonism may seem doubtful ; yet we 
 should not underrate the power which so nearly 
 prevented any reform legislation in 1906, and managed 
 to throw the cost of meat inspection, amounting to 
 
170 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 three million dollars annually, upon the people of the 
 United States. Until official testimony, gathered from 
 unwilling witnesses, brings out the facts that are now 
 concealed, it is perhaps only natural that some incre- 
 dulity should exist. Before a Congressional committee 
 must be brought the men who know the facts per- 
 taining to meat inspection. Who was the author 
 of the Regulations governing inspection which were 
 issued in 1904 ? In the compilation of these rules, 
 what suggestions, if any, were made by parties in any 
 way connected with the butchers and packers ? How 
 does it happen that after the legislation of 1906 the 
 rules permitting this utilisation of diseased meat were 
 practically what they were before, in everything but 
 phraseology and arrangement ? How did it come 
 about that the stringency of the law was so frequently 
 relaxed, and that all rulings and interpretations of the 
 law were seldom, if ever, for the benefit of the con- 
 sumer, and so generally in favour of the pecuniary 
 interests involved ? 
 
 Much valuable information may be obtained from 
 the Government inspectors when it is made certain to 
 them that their evidence in regard to past practices 
 will have no adverse influence upon retention of their 
 posts. In approving certain forms of diseased meat, 
 their decisions have been partly in accordance with 
 written rules, supplemented by personal judgment. 
 The official Regulations since 1904, and perhaps 
 earlier, have distinctly permitted the inspector to 
 decide whether a condition is or is not too " loath- 
 some " to pass as wholesome flesh. " The Department 
 gives us rules," said a Government inspector on one 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 171 
 
 occasion ; " but in the end we have to use our own 
 judgment. When I think that a hog is too bad to be 
 used for lard, I order it into the grease-tank." Would 
 such an official be secure of his place if he should order 
 to the grease-tank all meat so bad that he would not 
 himself partake of it ? It is unnecessary to indicate 
 the direction of particular lines of inquiry ; a proper 
 investigation will leave no abuse hidden and no wrong 
 concealed. 
 
 II. The Control of Meat Inspection must be 
 Transferred. 
 
 No conclusion would seem more evident than the 
 incapacity of the Department of Agriculture to give 
 due attention to the public health, and at the same 
 time to promote the ends for which it was established 
 — the advancement of the financial interests of the 
 farmers, the stock-growers, and the purveyors of 
 meat. We need not dwell upon the absurdity of 
 placing medical matters under the control of a Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture ; any reflecting mind can see that 
 there were sure to be divided responsibilities. The 
 reform of present abuses would seem absolutely im- 
 possible while the public health remains iander present 
 control. We may count with assurance upon the 
 course which will be taken by the meat-purveying 
 industry ; through the public press, or by its repre- 
 sentatives in Congress, it will urge the retention of 
 present jurisdiction and the continuance of all existing 
 possibilities of gain. Of real reform there is there- 
 fore not the faintest hope, so long as the decision of 
 questions vitally concerning the health of a nation of 
 
172 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 eighty million people rests with the Department of 
 Agriculture. 
 
 It is possible, however, that some day there will be 
 created at Washington, as of equal importance with 
 departments of Agriculture or Commerce, a Department 
 of Public Health. In co-operation with State Govern- 
 ments, such branch of the national administration may 
 some day enable the people of the United States to 
 know — what they cannot even guess to-day — the num- 
 ber of deaths at each period of life which annually 
 occur from preventable diseases in every state and 
 territory of the Union. Such a department will 
 assuredly forbid that horrible haste in butchery which 
 is alike responsible for atrocious cruelty to animals, 
 and for a resulting spirit of indifference to the interests 
 of human beings. It will ask for such state and 
 national legislation as shall make it a crime to trans- 
 port on cars animals intended for conversion into meat, 
 without stopping to give them food, water, and rest 
 at least once in every twenty-four hours ; a crime to 
 transmute into a food-product the carcass of an animal 
 affected with abscesses or with hog-cholera, with tuber- 
 culosis or malignant disease, and to sell such product to 
 an unsuspecting public ; a crime for any official what- 
 ever to weaken by administrative regulations or orders 
 any provision of a statute intended for the prevention 
 of disease or for safeguarding the public welfare. 
 We do not assert that abuses may be thus made im- 
 possible. In every profession there are men who are 
 purchasable. It is conceivable that even at the head 
 of a Department of Public Health one might be placed 
 who would, if he dared, approve of tuberculous and 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 173 
 
 cancerous flesh as fit and wholesome food. That he 
 could publicly maintain such position in the face of the 
 medical profession of the United States we do not for a 
 moment believe. When to such a department of the 
 Government shall be confided the execution of a Pure 
 Food Law and the inspection of meat, the profits of 
 the purveyors of this article will doubtless be lessened ; 
 but the wholesomeness of American meat and meat- 
 products will be far better assured than it is to-day. 
 
 III. Any Adequate Reform of Existing Abuses 
 should prevent the Unconsenting Purchase and 
 Use of Diseased Meat for Food. 
 
 This is the most vital condition of any genuine 
 reform. The great wrong of which the packing-house 
 has been guilty was possible only through the secrecy 
 of its acts. Upon unconscious and ignorant purchasers 
 throughout the world, meat and meat-products have 
 been forced, which they would not have touched had 
 they known the facts. We shall have scientific experts 
 presently declaring that tuberculous pork or beef will do 
 harm to the consumer ; but what purchaser would care 
 to have such food placed on his table without his 
 knowledge or consent ? 
 
 We must probably take it for granted that at the 
 present stage of civilisation we cannot completely 
 prevent, by legislation, the consumption of meat de- 
 rived from unhealthy animals. To large numbers of 
 poor people cheapness is a higher consideration than 
 healthfulness. There are savage races, living under 
 the American flag, who see no objection to the flesh of 
 dogs. Beyond a certain point we cannot govern such 
 
174 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 tastes. The one thing upon which we should all agree 
 is that the purchaser of meat inspected by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States must be able to know exactly 
 what he is buying, and that the label shall invariably tell 
 the truth. More than this, perhaps, we may not hope. 
 Less than this will be wholly inadequate and ineffectual. 
 
 Any legislation which shall make for reform must 
 provide that meat intended for foreign or domestic 
 use, especially in the form of meat-products, shall be 
 stamped with labels that not only state facts, but permit 
 opportunity of discrimination and choice. This rule 
 must apply not only to fresh meat, designed for con- 
 sumption at home, but also to every variety of meat- 
 products sent abroad — to bacon and hams, to sausage 
 and canned beef, to beef-extracts and lard. 
 
 Let us see what might be done in the way of affixing 
 labels to meat-products which should tell the truth. 
 Take "canned beef," for example; it is one of the 
 leading products derived from beef. In 1904, we 
 exported to all parts of the world over fifty-two million 
 pounds, of which over thirty-six million pounds went 
 to Great Britain. We know now, through the revela- 
 tions of igo6, that, to an unknown extent, this meat 
 must have been of very questionable character, so far 
 as origin is concerned, and that revolting conditions 
 prevailed where it was prepared. Now suppose that at 
 some future day every tin containing this meat-food 
 product should be officially labelled, so as to make 
 known to every consumer the facts regarding it. A 
 part of it might bear some such label as this : 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 175 
 
 AMERICAN CANNED BEEF. 
 First Quality. 
 
 This Beef is from Cattle, not over Five Years 
 of Age, inspected before and after Slaughter, 
 and found to be entirely free from any sign of 
 Disease or Injury. 
 
 Inspected by the 
 
 U.S. Department of Public Health. 
 
 Quality Guaranteed. 
 
 Suppose, however, that meat of an inferior quality is 
 also in demand. What objection should there be to a 
 label like this ? 
 
 AMERICAN CANNED BEEF. 
 Inferior Quality. 
 
 This Beef, in part, is derived from Cattle 
 found, upon Post-mortem Inspection, to have 
 been somewhat affected by Tuberculosis, Acti- 
 nomycosis, or other Diseases, or by Injuries. 
 
 It has been prepared by processes believed capable 
 of destroying all germs of disease. 
 
 Inspected by the 
 
 U.S. Department of Public Health. 
 
176 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Or take lard. Let us imagine the facts pertaining to 
 origin were truthfully stated on each package in some 
 such way as these labels imply : 
 
 PURE LARD. 
 
 First Quality. 
 
 This Lard is derived only from the.fat of Hogs, 
 which were inspected before and after Slaughter, 
 and found to be free from Disease or Injury. 
 
 Manufactured under the Inspection of the 
 
 U.S. Department of Public Health 
 
 Now let us suppose another article to bear the 
 following label : 
 
 AMERICAN LARD. 
 Inferior Quality. 
 
 This Lard has been made from Carcasses 
 of Hogs which, upon Official Inspection, were 
 found to have been affected with Tuberculosis, 
 Hog-Cholera, Swine-Plague, Tapeworm Cysts, 
 or other Abnormal Conditions. 
 
 It has been rendered by subjection to a temperature 
 not lower than 220 degrees Fahr.for a period not less 
 than five hours, and is believed to be free from the 
 germs of any transmissible disease. 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 177 
 
 One need not imagine further illustrations of truthful 
 labels. We by no means suggest them as ideal ; but, 
 at all events, they would tell the truth. To-day the truth 
 is concealed in the interest of trade. In an official 
 circular, issued by the Bureau of Animal Industry, the 
 statement is made that, 
 
 " when one purchases a can of lard, bearing the words ' Pure 
 Lard' and the legend ' U.S. Inspected and Passed, under the 
 Act of June 30, 1906,' he may be sure that he is actually receiving 
 pure lard, rendered from the clean, sweet _/&/ of healthy animals." * 
 
 Is there not some inaccuracy in this official state- 
 ment ? May we indeed be sure that a can of lard, 
 thus labelled and thus guaranteed, is only " from 
 healthy animals " ? What, then, is the meaning of the 
 Government Regulations, which again and again, as 
 we have shown, permit the utilisation of diseased 
 carcasses in this way ? What is the meaning of that 
 defence of the practice of rendering lard from diseased 
 animals, quoted in this volume (at p. 119) from the 
 Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry ? Errors and 
 contradictions like these tend to make us doubtful of 
 every statement which has for its object the benefit of 
 the meat-producers. 
 
 Of course we shall be told that any such labels are 
 absurdly impracticable. Undoubtedly the best qualities 
 of meat- food products would find a ready market ; but 
 who would purchase a food where the inferiority of its 
 derivation was so plainly made known ? But this 
 objection is a confession that to promote the foreign 
 or home trade in American meat and meat-food products 
 
 ' Circular loi, issued January 4, 1907, p. 9. 
 
 12 
 
178 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 it is necessary to conceal the truth. Let us make the 
 experiment. If meat and meat-food products derived 
 from, diseased animals cannot be sold as food, the loss 
 will not be absolute. The meat, thus rejected, can be 
 turned into fertiliser ; the lard may find its way to the 
 soap-boilers. Which is the better from every point of 
 view, a label which tells the whole truth, or one which 
 hides facts which every consumer is entitled to know ? 
 
 IV. Future Regulations governing Meat Inspection, 
 should be drawn wholly in the Interest of the 
 Public Health and Welfare, and without Regard 
 to Private Gain. 
 
 It would seem difficult to dispute such a proposition 
 as this. Yet one cannot study the present Government 
 Regulations, with their various rulings and decisions, 
 without feeling that every sentence is more favourable 
 to the producers than to the consumers of meat. This 
 attitude should be completely reversed. If ever a 
 Government Commission be appointed to elaborate new 
 regulations for the inspection of meat solely from the 
 standpoint of the public health, we are confident that the 
 result of their labours will be far different from the rules 
 now in force. It is possible that we are not yet in a 
 position where the law may forbid the utiUsation of all 
 unsound animals, where the customer is fully aware of 
 the quality and origin of his meat. Few, indeed, are the 
 reforms that can be completely carried out, until public 
 opinion is vastly in their favour. But if we can take the 
 inspection of meat from the control of those who are 
 interested only in its sale, and place it under the super- 
 vision of those whose only interest is to safeguard the 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM 179 
 
 public health ; if at the same time we can see that the 
 label always tells the truth, and that the buyer knows 
 the facts, we may be satisfied that some progress has 
 been made on the road to reform. 
 
 Of course, there are many reforms which are within 
 the power of the Secretary of Agriculture to institute at 
 any time. The " grossly inhuman " methods of butchery 
 which were so denounced by the special sanitary com- 
 missioner of the London Lancet are all due to the greed 
 for increased gain, which esteems cruelty of small 
 account when it conduces to profit. In the great 
 packing -houses there is hardly a single procedure 
 relating to the butchery of animals for food that might 
 not be changed to advantage if more time could be 
 given to the men who do the work. 
 
 Equally important, and entirely within the power of 
 a Secretary of Agriculture to have reformed, are the 
 duties and responsibilities of the inspectors of meat. 
 The power of the inspector should be limited to the 
 discovery of unhealthful conditions ; it ought not to be 
 left — as it is to-day — to his judgment to decide whether 
 the diseased carcass is sufficiently "loathsome" to require 
 condemnation, or whether it may not be safely passed 
 for food. "The Federal inspector," says Dr. Jaques, 
 " comes to his task at the request of the owner whose 
 animals he is to inspect, and with whom he comes in 
 daily contact. The packer is a good fellow ; a bright, 
 sharp, generous business man. He may be a million- 
 aire many times over. Around him, at his command, 
 are a thousand conditions which may influence the 
 inspector. To say that he would not be influenced by 
 these conditions, is to say that be is not human. ... A 
 
 12 — 2 
 
i8o AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 man's judgment is the result of his education. With 
 the Government rules permitting the passing of tuber- 
 culous meat, and authorities differing so widely regarding 
 what is fit to eat, the inspector can justify himself for 
 various standards. So he is between two interests ; on 
 the one hand, the ever-present dominating interest of 
 the packer. To tank a man's sides of beef is like burn- 
 ing his fifty-dollar bills. On the other hand is the 
 absent public — fickle and ignorant. Is it strange that 
 meat which the inspector would not eat himself goes to 
 the public by theton?"'^ This is the view of an expert. 
 Yet the only reply which the officials of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry have been able to make is that 
 the Government inspectors are secured after a Civil 
 Service examination, that they are men of good reputa- 
 tion, and hold degrees conferred by a veterinary college.* 
 We do not regard this as a sufficient reply. There can 
 be no doubt but that vast quantities of meat are now 
 permitted to be transmuted into food-products, which 
 under a better system would at once be sent to the 
 manufacturers of soap or fertilisers. The limitation of 
 the powers of an inspector to approve meat manifestly 
 diseased, will be opposed ; but it will meet opposition 
 only from those whose pecuniary interests are con- 
 cerned, or whose gains may be lessened by any and 
 every reform. 
 
 We have by no means considered the entire 
 field of possible reform. It should be possible in some 
 way to lessen the temptation to make a profit by 
 
 ' " A Picture of Meat Inspection,'' by Dr. W. K. Jaques, 
 formerly head of Meat Inspection at the Chicago stock-yards. 
 2 See Twenty-third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 449. 
 
PROBLEM OF REFORM i8i 
 
 the sale and slaughter of diseased animals. Prob- 
 ably, this can only be accomplished by making 
 regulations the infraction of which would be exceed- 
 ingly unprofitable for any offender. The inter-state 
 traffic in animals manifestly diseased should be 
 forbidden by law. It may be that some compensa- 
 tion should be given to farmers for animals found 
 upon examination to be unfit for human food. Of 
 course, such compensation would appear to be based 
 upon generosity rather than justice. We shall be told 
 that no one suggests that a farmer should receive 
 a compensation for loss of his wheat-crop, or for 
 failure of his corn to ripen. But such losses as 
 these do not affect the general health. We are con- 
 fronted by peculiar conditions ; and it may be that 
 losses pertaining to meat might better be shared by 
 the State than permitted to fall upon the individual 
 •producer. In the campaign against tuberculosis, 
 this principle has been recognised ; and it may be 
 advisable to extend its application to all other diseases. 
 An opportunity would be afforded the State to 
 prescribe the conditions under which healthy animals 
 could be bred with certainty ; and to make refusal 
 of compensation for loss, depend upon the environ- 
 ment which possibly contributed as a cause of the 
 disease, rather than that conducive to maintenance of 
 health. The horrible privations to which cattle are 
 subjected during winter on the Western plains — without 
 shelter, and without adequate nourishment, probably 
 have considerable influence upon subsequent health. 
 Perhaps in no other way could owners so readily be 
 induced to prevent these abuses as by making their 
 
i82 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 continuance a bar to compensation received by other 
 and more humane cattle-owners. 
 
 The inexpediency of creating suspicion concerning 
 an article of food of such general use, will undoubtedly 
 be urged by the defenders of the Trust. We cannot 
 deny the inconveniences which will be experienced by 
 those who shall lose faith in everything that proceeds 
 from American packing-houses. There may be some 
 who would have preferred to remain in contented 
 ignorance ; it is probable, however, that the great 
 majority of us prefer to know the facts. Are we not 
 thus more certain, in the end, to attain reform of 
 existing abuses than by a confidence that rests on 
 untruth ? Is it possible that in the matter of food, 
 anyone prefers to be deceived ? 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 In the preceding pages, we have assumed that the use 
 of animal flesh as food for human beings is a practice 
 so interwoven with our present civihsation that, in all 
 probability, it must continue for some ages to come. 
 If this be true, the chief problem of Society, in this 
 matter, is to make sure the sanitary condition of the 
 creatures which man sacrifices for his food. Some of 
 the dangers inherent in present methods have been 
 indicated, and the lines of reform, most urgently 
 necessary through legislative action, have been in part 
 pointed out. The question of individual co-operation 
 still remains. 
 
 For large numbers of men and women in all conditions 
 of life, the only test of food is its appetising quality. 
 When it satisfies the taste, it will continue to be eaten, 
 no matter from what disgusting sources it may have been 
 derived, if only these are half hidden, or unrecognised by 
 sight. There are others, however, to whom the ques- 
 tion of health is of far greater importance than the gratifi- 
 cation of appetite. Granting the existence of the dangers, 
 how may they be avoided by individual action ? What 
 course is open to everyone, by which, to the lowest 
 
 183 
 
i84 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 point, he may reduce for his family and for himself the 
 chance of injury ? May one wisely make distinctions 
 in this matter of food ? If certain articles of animal 
 food should be avoided, are there others which may 
 be eaten with comparative impunity ? Upon these 
 questions there will be, very naturally, differences of 
 opinion. The conclusions which the writer has reached 
 are as follows : 
 
 1. It seems probable that fresh beef and mutton, sold 
 at the highest price, and served in restaurants and 
 hotels of the first class, is — as a rule — derived from 
 sound and healthy animals. 
 
 In this matter, as in others, price tends to denote 
 quality. At one of the principal meat-producing 
 establishments of Chicago, the writer was informed 
 that all beef was graded, and that the best meat goes 
 to dealers willing to pay the highest price. 
 
 2. On the other hand, the cheapest kinds of meat, 
 such as is served in eating-houses of the lowest rank, 
 or which is purchased at a cost far below that which 
 obtains in butcher-shops of the better sort — meat such 
 as is consumed by the very poor among the dwellers of 
 our great cities — is, at least, likely to be derived from 
 animals whose diseased condition, in the opinion of the 
 Government inspector, did not require the total con- 
 demnation of the affected carcass. 
 
 3. Between these extremes, is the meat furnished 
 to the great majority of consumers in England and 
 America. That a considerable proportion is as 
 wholesome as any flesh of animals can be, is probably 
 true. But some portion is doubtless derived from 
 questionable sources. Unfortunately, for the average 
 
CONCLUSIONS 185 
 
 consumer at hotels or restaurants, it is not possible to 
 determine where to draw the line. With the selection 
 of the viands placed before him, he had nothing to do ; 
 and, if he eats meat, he is forced to take his chances. 
 What these possibilities are, it has been the purpose of 
 these pages to disclose. 
 
 4. The kinds of meat which are most likely to be 
 derived from sound and healthy animals, are un- 
 doubtedly lamb, veal and mutton. 
 
 5. Pork, more than any other form of meat, is derived 
 from animals which at the time of slaughter, were 
 probably suffering from some form of disease, capable 
 of being transmitted to human beings. It may be 
 questioned whether ancient prejudices were not founded 
 upon wisdom, and whether from an animal so tainted, 
 any part of the food of human beings should be 
 derived. 
 
 6. Concerning the various food-products, composed 
 wholly or in part of meat, packed in tins and so sent 
 throughout the world, what is the judgment of the 
 investigator ? Ought they to be regarded with suspicion 
 or confidence ? Are they likely to be derived from the 
 best kinds of meat, such as command the highest price, 
 or from that class of animals, which, more or less 
 diseased, the Government Regulations permit to be 
 " passed " for purposes of food, provided the diseased 
 parts are condemned ? To the writer, there seems no 
 escape from absolute distrust. However attractively 
 put up, however delicately spiced and flavoured, however 
 extensively advertised, every " mixture," whether in 
 form of sausage or packed in tin, in the composition of 
 which the Federal Government permits the utilisation of 
 
i86 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 diseased meat, may have been manufactured in accordance 
 with such permission. They are composed, at least, of 
 questionable materials. The tinned beef of the Chicago 
 packing-house may cheaply feed a workhouse popula- 
 tion of paupers, or an army in the field ; but that does 
 not demonstrate the excellence of the " canner cow." 
 There are few intelligent mothers who would give 
 their children pastry made from " pure lard," if they 
 knew from what sources the present regulations permit 
 it to be derived. For its use to-day, there is not 
 the slightest necessity ; a perfect substitute is now 
 available.^ From what kinds of meat it is permitted to 
 manufacture American sausage, we have seen. Some 
 of it may be good : we cannot tell. Under the spur of 
 public indignation and criticism, within the past three 
 years, the great slaughtering establishments of the 
 United States have cleaned their floors, painted their 
 ceilings, arrayed in white aprons and gowns many of 
 their workmen and work-women, and carried out certain 
 sanitary improvements ; but nothing they have done 
 can change the quality of the manufactured product, 
 so long as the Government regulations remain as they 
 stand to-day. How is it possible for anyone, partaking 
 of packing-house delicacies, to escape the danger of 
 eating loathsome stuff, so long as the present official 
 rules and regulations are in force ? 
 
 It would appear to have been the aim of the 
 Trust, in every way possible, to discredit meat and 
 
 ' Within recent years a vegetable cooking-oil has been placed 
 upon the market which is wholly free from any admixture with 
 animal fats. Extended experiment has demonstrated its suitability 
 for every purpose where lard is now used. 
 
CONCLUSIONS 187 
 
 meat-products which have not passed Government 
 inspection. Regarding the products of the non- 
 inspected packing-houses in large cities, the justice 
 of such criticism cannot be questioned. We doubt 
 if it can apply to the majority of country butchers. 
 Take the man who supplies meat in a small town, 
 and who carries on his trade as his father and grand- 
 father carried it on, fifty years ago — the man who kills 
 his own meat, and sells it from his own stand. Such 
 men are not graduates of veterinary colleges ; but they 
 know the evidences of disease. However tempted by 
 desire for gain, the country butcher cannot afford to 
 buy and kill " lumpy-jaw " cattle, and sell the meat to 
 his neighbours ; his trade would be destroyed in a day, 
 if it became known that he had butchered and sold 
 to customers, without their knowledge or consent, 
 animals such as the ten "lumpy-jaw" cattle which twice 
 passed the inspectors of the United States Government 
 at Chicago in March, 1906, as " sound, wholesome and 
 fit for human food."^ 
 
 " When I go into the country to get a calf or some 
 lambs for my market," said a village butcher to the 
 writer, " I am especially careful to avoid everything 
 that shall cause an animal to become excited or over- 
 heated. Whenever possible, I get permission to kill 
 on the farm ; the creature is feeding one minute ; in 
 two or three minutes it is dead. Between the flesh 
 of such an animal, and one killed in the slaughter- 
 house, one can see a distinct difference when it is 
 cut into meat." Wg hardly need the t estimony of 
 
 an ex pert to assure us that ani mals thus slaughtered 
 ' Twenty -third Report, Bureau of Animal Industry, pp. 420-421. 
 
i88 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 a re, if free from disease, in a far better condition 
 than those_killed in the ~great packing-houses, after~ 
 long iojarnevs^^jthour rest, or food, or water. The 
 Government Regulations provide that if any disease 
 is suspected in which the question of temperature is 
 important, the exact temperature must be taken at 
 the ante-mortem inspection ; yet the official is warned 
 that he must give " due consideration " to the fact 
 " that extremely high temperature may be found in 
 otherwise normal hogs when subjected to exercise or 
 excitement, and a similar condition may obtain to a 
 less degree among other classes of animals." ^ It may 
 be that one way of escape from the tyranny of the 
 Meat Trust will be a return to the simpler methods 
 of meat production and distribution which in this 
 country formerly prevailed. Even if we were suddenly 
 forced to relinquish dependence upon the monster 
 packing-houses, probably only temporary inconvenience 
 would be experienced, ^t was by the farmers th at 
 
 the nnnntry was gnpplipH with its.-jne at hpfg rtf. thp. 
 aijvpnt "f ^hp. Trijfit-^ Even to-day, in many cities and 
 towns, the small farms of the country supply a con- 
 siderable proportion of certa in kinds of nieaE The 
 sauiage^r lard which was made by the farmer's wife 
 fifty years ago, was by no means so attractively packed, 
 or so widely advertised as are products of the great 
 packing- houses to-day ; bat__t_he farmer was more 
 honest than the Trust, and the purity of his ^oods was 
 better assured. Of course there should be inspection. 
 It might be well if each town or village had its abattoir, 
 to which all animals were taken. And when properly 
 ' Regulations Governing Meat Inspection, 1908, p. 14. 
 
CONCLUSIONS 189 
 
 inspected, solely in the interest of the public health, 
 and wholly without regard to any pecuniary con- 
 siderations involved, we believe that the meat products 
 of the farm, as a whole, will be of far better quality 
 than those ever supplied by the great packing-houses 
 of the Western States. 
 
 There is yet one more aspect to this perplexing 
 question. We have seen that the utilisation of 
 diseased animals for food purposes is a practice 
 permitted by the United States Government, and 
 made possible only by the apathy or the ignorance 
 of the consumers of American meat. We have noted 
 some of the dangers which necessarily pertain to 
 this custom, in the deprivation of the health, and in 
 the increase of fatal ailments. We have shown that it 
 is quite within the power of any Government, awakening 
 to a realisation of existing horrors, to eliminate from 
 the meat-supply of the nation all flesh of animals 
 destined for human food which is found upon inspec- 
 tion to be otherwise than sound and good. We have 
 seen, too, that meantime it lies within the power of 
 every man so to govern his choice of meat foods, or 
 his abstinence from certain meat-food products, as very 
 greatly to lessen the risks of injury in this regard. 
 
 But there is one absolute solution of all diificulties 
 and perplexities pertaining to this question. Every 
 reform, as we know too well, must be an experiment at 
 the outset. Here, for instance, are great abuses, 
 strongly entrenched behind corporate greed — abuses 
 which have lasted for many years, and which may 
 possibly endure for many years to come. We may 
 
igo AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 hope and believe that by such revolution of public 
 sentiment in England and America as shall compel 
 certain changes, the evils here exposed may be elimi- 
 nated. Yet after all, this conviction is rather a matter 
 of faith than of certainty. Granting that the utmost is 
 done by legislative interference in the direction of 
 reform, can we be assured, even then, that a vast 
 aggregation of pecuniary interests shall not find a way, 
 under new masters, to continue every gainful abuse ? 
 Suppose we increase surveillance, can we neutralise the 
 power of the purse ? 
 
 There are those who believe, therefore, that no 
 matter how watched or with what ingenuity it is seem- 
 ingly controlled by law, the Meat Trust, like the Slave 
 Power, will only cease to be dangerous to Society 
 when it ceases to exist. No imagination can even 
 faintly conceive the sum of torment which pertains to 
 the sacrifice of animals for food, in America alone, 
 not only at the shambles, but by starvation on the 
 Western plains or in the journeyings from pasture to 
 slaughter-house. With all its evils, butchery exists 
 to-day solely because we demand its victims. We 
 have inherited the custom from barbarism ; there can 
 be no doubt but that it will be discarded altogether by 
 the higher civilisation of the future race. There is no 
 thoughtful man but would welcome the end of what 
 may seem to him a necessary evil. We are apt to 
 assume the present impossibility of our ideals. Are we 
 right ? Is each of us so dependent upon bloodshed for 
 existence, that it must always continue for him ? 
 
 We do not believe it. Science and experience testify 
 that abstinence from flesh as an article of food is com- 
 
CONCLUSIONS 191 
 
 patible with the highest degree of intellectual vigour 
 and physical endurance. Sometime, surely, the day will 
 dawn when a more enlightened Humanity will cease to 
 require the sacrifice of blood. It may be at an epoch 
 far beyond our own, when human life and health shall 
 have a value unrecognised to-day, and when the con- 
 quest of disease and premature death shall have been 
 attained, not so much by the discovery of " cures," as 
 by the discovery of causes, and the avoidance of every 
 condition that tends to deprave. Meantime, do any 
 of us wish now to escape from enslavement to the 
 slaughter-house ? Nothing but our own will prevents 
 complete emancipation. We have but to renounce 
 what it tenders. The shambles cannot hold us in 
 subjection a day longer than we consent. Before each 
 one of us is the open door. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Extracts from the "Regulations governing the 
 Meat Inspection of the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture," issued April, 1908. 
 
 The official regulations governing the inspection of 
 meat make up a pamphlet of more than forty pages. 
 Regarding the sections which pertain to cleanliness in 
 processes of manufacture, or the rules, which, in certain 
 cases, require the destruction of diseased meat, no 
 criticism is suggested, and there is no need to quote 
 them here. Any reader interested can probably obtain 
 a copy of the complete Regulations by application to 
 the Secretary of Agriculture, at Washington, D.C. 
 
 In the preceding pages, attention has been called to 
 certain paragraphs of the official Regulations, particu- 
 larly those which permit the use of diseased meat as 
 food, or those which appear to favour rather the 
 interests of the meat-packers than the public health. 
 These are here reprinted for reference. Certain other 
 paragraphs here given convey information concerning 
 which criticism is not necessarily suggested. Unless 
 otherwise noted, the italics are not in the original 
 Regulations. They are here employed to direct the 
 special attention of the reader to words or phrases, 
 some of which may be of peculiar or sinister significance. 
 
 192 
 
APPENDIX 193 
 
 BEatTLATION 3. 
 
 Section 3. "Inspected and Passed."— This phrase, or any 
 authorised abbreviation thereof, shall mean that the carcasses, 
 parts of carcasses, meat, and meat-food products so marked have 
 been inspected and passed for food under these regulations. 
 
 Section 4. Rendered into lard or tallow. — This phrase shall 
 mean that the carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, and meat-food 
 products so designated are allowed to be made into edible lard or 
 edible tallow. 
 
 Section 5. "U.S. Inspected and Condemned."— This phrase 
 shall mean that the carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, and meat- 
 food products so marked are unfit for food and shall be destroyed 
 for food purposes. 
 
 Section 6. Carcass. — This word shall apply to the carcass of 
 an animal that has been killed under these regulations, and shall 
 include all parts which are to be used for food. 
 
 Section 8. Meat-food products.— /"ara^ra/.^ i. A meat-food 
 product, within the meaning of the Meat Inspection Act and of these 
 regulations, is considered to be any article of food intended for 
 human use which is derived or prepared in whole or in Tpa.rt from 
 any edible •portion of the carcass of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, 
 if the said edible portion so used is a considerable tnU definite 
 portion of the finished food. 
 
 Paragraph 2. Mixture.— A mixture of which meat is an in- 
 gredient will not be considered a ineat-food product unless the meat 
 contained therein is a definite and considerable portion of the 
 said mixture. But where such mixture is prepared in a part of an 
 official establishment, the sanitation of that part of the establish- 
 ment will be supervised by the Department, and the meat or meat- 
 food product will be inspected before it enters the said mixture. 
 The mixture shall not bear the meat-inspection legend or any 
 simulation thereof. If any reference is made to Federal inspection 
 it shall be in the following form : " The meat contained herein has 
 been inspected and passed at an establishment where Federal 
 inspection is maintained." Mixtures such as mince-meat, soups, 
 etc., which come under this description and which are not officially 
 labelled, are allowed in inter-state and foreign commerce without 
 
 13 
 
194 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 further inspection, and without certificates, subject to the pro- 
 visions and requirements of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 
 1906, and the regulations made thereunder. 
 
 Section 9. Medical meat-products. — Products such as meat 
 juice, meat extract, etc., which are intended only for medicinal 
 purposes and are advertised only to the medical profession, are not 
 considered meat-food products within the meaning of this order. 
 
 REGULATION 13. DISPOSAL OF DISEASED CARCASSES 
 AND ORGANS. 
 
 Section i. — The carcasses or parts of carcasses of all animals 
 slaughtered at an official establishment, and found at time of 
 slaughter or at any subsequent inspection to be affected with any 
 of the diseases or conditions named below, shall be disposed of 
 according to the section of this regulation pertaining to the disease 
 or condition. It is to be understood, however, that owing to the 
 fact that it is impracticable to formulate rules covering every case, 
 and to designate at just what stage a process becomes loathsome or 
 a disease noxious, the decision as to the disposal of all carcasses, 
 parts, or organs not specifically covered by these regulations shall 
 be left to the veterinary inspector in charge. 
 
 Section 9. — Carcasses of animals affected with malignant 
 epizootic catarrh and showing generalised inflammation of the 
 mucous membranes shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 10. Paragraph i. — Carcasses showing well-marked 
 and progressive lesions of hog cholera or swine plague in more 
 than two of the organs (skin, kidneys, bones, or lymphatic glands) 
 shall be condemned. 
 
 Paragraph 2. — Provided they are well nourished, carcasses 
 showing slight and limited lesions of these diseases may be passed. 
 
 Paragraph 3. — Carcasses which reveal lesions more numerous 
 or advanced than those for carcasses to be passed, but not so 
 severe as the lesions described for carcasses to be condemned, 
 may be rendered into lard, provided they are cooked by steam for 
 four hours at a temperature not lower than 220 degrees Fahren- 
 heit, or at a pressure of four pounds. 
 
 Paragraph 4. — In inspecting carcasses showing lesions of hog 
 
APPENDIX 195 
 
 cholera or swine plague in the skin, bones, kidneys, or lymphatic 
 glands, due consideration shall be given to the extent and severity 
 of the lesions found in the viscera. 
 
 Section ii. Paragraph i. — If a carcass affected with actino- 
 mycosis or lumpy-jaw is in a well-nourished condition, and there 
 is no evidence upon post-mortem examination that the disease has 
 extended from a primary area of infection in the head, the carcass 
 may be passed, but the head, including the tongue, shall be con- 
 demned. 
 
 Paragraph 2. — Carcasses of animals showing uncomplicated 
 localised actinomycotic lesions other than, or in addition to, those 
 specified in paragraph I of this section may be passed after the 
 infected organs and parts have been removed and condemned. 
 
 Paragraph 3. — Carcasses of animals showing a generalised 
 actinomycosis shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 12. — When the lesions of caseous lymphadenitis are 
 limited to the superficial lymphatic glands or to a few nodules 
 in an organ, involving also the adjacent lymphatic glands, and the 
 carcass is well nourished, the meat may be passed after the affected 
 parts are removed and condemned. If extensive lesions, with or 
 without pleuritic adhesions, are found in the lungs, or if several of 
 the visceral organs contain caseous nodules and the carcass is 
 emaciated, it shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 13. Paragraph i. — The following principles are 
 declared for guidance in passing on carcasses affected with 
 tuberculosis : 
 
 Principle A. — The fundamental thought is that meat should not 
 be used for food if it contains tubercle bacilli, if there is a reason- 
 able possibility that it may contain tubercle bacilli, or if it is im- 
 pregnated with toxic substances of tuberculosis or associated septic 
 infections. 
 
 Principle B. — On the other hand, if the lesions are localised and 
 not numerous, if there is no evidence of distribution of tubercle 
 bacilli through the blood, or by other means, to the muscles or to 
 parts that may be eaten with the muscles, and if the animal is well 
 nourished and in good condition, there is no proof, or even reason 
 to suspect, that the flesh is unwholesome. 
 
 Principle 0. — Evidences of generalised tuberculosis are to be 
 
 13— a 
 
196 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 sought in such distribution and number of tuberculous lesions as 
 can be explained only upon the supposition of the entrance of 
 tubercle bacilli in considerable number into the systemic circulation. 
 Significant of such generalisation are the presence of numerous 
 uniformly distributed tubercles throughout both lungs, also tubercles 
 in the spleen, kidneys, bones, joints, and sexual glands, and in the 
 lymphatic glands connected with these organs and parts, or in the 
 splenic, renal, prescapular, popliteal, and inguinal glands, when 
 several of these organs and parts are coincidentally affected. 
 
 Principle D. —By localised tuberculosis is understood tubercu- 
 losis limited to a single or several parts or organs of the body 
 without evidence of recent invasion of numerous bacilli into the 
 systemic circulation. 
 
 Paragraph 2. — The following rules shall govern the disposal of 
 tuberculous meat : 
 
 Bale A. — The entire carcass shall be condemned — 
 
 {a) When it was observed before the animal was killed that it 
 was suffering with fever. 
 
 ib) When there is a tuberculous or other cachexia, as shown by 
 anaemia and emaciation. 
 
 {c) When the lesions of tuberculosis are generalised, as shown by 
 their presence not only at the usual seats of primary infection, but 
 also in parts of the carcass or the organs that may be reached by 
 the bacilli of tuberculosis only when they are carried in the systemic 
 circulation. Tuberculous lesions in any two of the following- 
 mentioned organs are to be accepted as evidence of generalisation 
 when they occur in addition to local tuberculous lesions in the 
 digestive or respiratory tracts, including the lymphatic glands con- 
 nected therewith : Spleen, kidney, uterus, udder, ovary, testicle, 
 adrenal gland, brain, or spinal cord or their membranes. Numerous 
 uniformly distributed tubercles throughout both lungs also afford 
 evidence of generalisation. 
 
 {d) When the lesions of tuberculosis are found in the muscles or 
 intermuscular tissue or bones or joints, or in the body lymphatic 
 glands as a result of draining the muscles, bones, or joints. 
 
 (e) When the lesions are extensive in one or both body cavities. 
 
 (/) When the lesions are multiple, acute, and actively pro- 
 gressive. (Evidence of active progress consists in signs of acute 
 
APPENDIX 197 
 
 inflammation about the lesions, or liquefaction necrosis, or the 
 presence of young tubercles.) 
 
 Bule B. — An organ or a part of a carcass shall be condemned — 
 
 {a) When it contains lesions of tuberculosis. 
 
 {b) When the lesion is immediately adjacent to the flesh, as in 
 the case of tuberculosis of the parietal pleura or peritoneum, not 
 only the membrane or part affected, but also the adjacent thoracic 
 or abdominal wall is to be condemned. 
 
 (c) When it has been contaminated by tuberculous material, 
 through contact with the floor, a soiled knife, or otherwise. 
 
 {dj All heads showing lesions of tuberculosis shall be condemned. 
 
 (e) An organ shall be condemned when the corresponding 
 lymphatic gland is tuberculous. 
 
 Bule C. — The carcass, if the tuberculous lesions are limited to a 
 single or several parts or organs of the body (except as noted in 
 Rule A), without evidence of recent invasion of tubercle bacilli into 
 the systemic circulation, SHALL BE PASSED after the parts containing 
 the localised lesions are removed and condemned in accordance 
 with Rule B. 
 
 Bule D. — Carcasses which reveal lesions more numerous than 
 those described for carcasses to be passed (Rule C), but not so 
 severe as the lesions described for carcasses to be condemned 
 (Rule A.), may be rendered into lard or tallow if the distribution of 
 the lesions is such that all parts containing tuberculous lesions can 
 be removed. Such carcasses shall be cooked by steam at a tem- 
 perature not lower than 220 degrees Fahrenheit for not less than 
 four hours. 
 
 Section 14. — Carcasses showing lesions to warrant the diag- 
 nosis of Texas fever shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 16. — Carcasses of animals affected with mange, or 
 scab, in advanced stages, or showing emaciation or extension of the 
 inflammation to the flesh, shall be condemned. When the disease 
 is slight the carcass may be passed. 
 
 Section 17. Paragraph i. — Carcasses of animals affected with 
 tapeworm cysts, known as Cysticercus bovis and C. celluloses, shall 
 be rendered into lard ox tallow, unless the infestation is excessive, 
 in which case the carcass shall be condemned. 
 
 Paragraph 2. — Carcasses of animals found infested with gid 
 
igS AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 bladderworms {Ccenurus cerebralis, Multiceps socialis) may be 
 passed after condemnation of the infected organ (brain, i spinal 
 cord). 
 
 Paragraph 3. — Carcasses or parts of carcasses found infested 
 with the hydatid cyst (echinococcus) may be passed after condemna- 
 tion of the infected part or organ. 
 
 Section 18. — All carcasses of animals so infected that con- 
 sumption of the meat or meat-food products thereof may give rise 
 to meat poisoning shall be condemned. This section covers all 
 carcasses showing signs of — 
 
 (a) Acute inflammation of the lungs, pleura, pericardium, peri- 
 toneum, or meninges. 
 
 ip) Septicemia or pyemia, whether puerperal, traumatic, or 
 without any evident cause. 
 
 (c) Severe hsemorrhagic or gangrenous enteritis or gastritis. 
 
 ^d) Acute diffuse metritis or mammitis. 
 
 («) Polyarthritis. 
 
 (/) Phlebitis of the umbilical veins. 
 
 {g^ Traumatic pericarditis. 
 
 (h) Any other inflammation, abscess, or suppurating sore if 
 associated with acute nephritis, fatty and degenerated liver, swollen 
 soft spleen, marked pulmonary hypersemia, general swelling of 
 lymphatic glands, and diffuse redness of the skin, either singly or 
 in combination. 
 
 Section 19. — Carcasses affected with icterus and showing an 
 intense yellow or greenish-yellow discoloration after proper cooling 
 shall be condemned. Carcasses which exhibit a yellowish tinge 
 directly after slaughter, but lose this discoloration on chilling, may 
 be passed for food. 
 
 Section 21. — Hogs affected with urticaria (diamondskin disease), 
 Tinea tonsurans, Demodex folliculorum, or erythema, may be passed 
 after detaching and condemning the skin, if the carcass is otherwise 
 fit for food. 
 
 Section 22. — Carcasses of animals showing any disease, such 
 as generalised melanosis, pseudo-leukemia, etc., which affects the 
 system of the animal, shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 23. — Any organ or part of a carcass which is badly 
 bruised or which is affected by tumours, malignant or benign 
 
APPENDIX 199 
 
 abscesses, sfcppurating sores, or liver-flukes, shall be condemned ; 
 but when the lesions are so extensive as to affect the whole carcass, 
 the whole carcass shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 26. — Carcasses of animals in advanced stages of preg- 
 nancy (showing signs of parturition), also carcasses of animals 
 which have within ten days given birth to young, and in which 
 there is no evidence of septic infection, may be rendered into lard 
 or tallow if desired by the manager of the establishment ; other- 
 wise they shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 27. — Carcasses of animals too immature to produce 
 wholesome meat, all unborn and stillborn animals, also carcasses 
 of calves, pigs, kids, and lambs under three weeks of age, shall be 
 condemned. 
 
 Section 28. — In all cases where carcasses showing localised 
 lesions of disease are passed or rendered into lard or tallow, the 
 diseased parts must be removed before the "U.S. Retained" tag 
 is taken from the carcass, and such parts shall be condemned. 
 
 Section 29. — Hogs which have been allowed to pass into the 
 scalding vat alive, or have been suffocated in other ways, shall be 
 condemned. 
 
 Section 30. — All animals that die in abattoir pens, and those 
 in a dying condition before slaughter, shall be condemned and 
 tagged as provided in Regulation 17, Section 2. In conveying to 
 the tank animals which have died in the pens of the establishment, 
 they shall not be allowed to pass through compartments in which 
 food-products are prepared. No dead animals shall be brought 
 into an establishment for rendering from outside the premises of 
 said establishment unless permission is first obtained from the 
 Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. 
 
 Section 32. — Portions of intestines that show evidences of 
 infestation with esophagostoma or other nodular affections shall 
 be condemned. 
 
 BEGULATION 16. 
 
 Section i. — All tanks and equipment used for rendering and 
 preparing edible product shall be in compartments separate from 
 those used for rendering inedible product, and there shall be no 
 connection by means of pipes or otherwise between the tanks or 
 
200 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 departments containing inedible product and those containing 
 edible -product. This provision must be complied with on or before 
 October i, 1908. 
 
 REGTTLATION 20. 
 
 Section i. — Carcasses of animals which have had no ante- 
 mortem inspection by inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 will not, except as hereinafter provided, be admitted into an official 
 establishment. The exception to this rule applies only to carcasses 
 to which the head and all viscera, except the stomach, bladder, and 
 intestines are held by the natural attachments. Such carcasses, if 
 offered for admission into official establishments, shall be inspected, 
 and if found to be free from disease and otherwise sound, healthful, 
 wholesome, and fit for human foqd, they shall be ^narked " Inspected 
 and Passed" and admitted. If found to be diseased, unsound, 
 unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, they 
 shall be marked "U.S. Inspected and Condemned," and the 
 proprietor of the establishment shall be required to destroy them 
 for food purposes, as provided in Regulation 16, Section 2. 
 
 REGTXLATION 23. 
 
 Section 4, Paragraph 5. — Blue-prints or other accurate dia- 
 grams showing all underground pipe lines or other conveyers used 
 to conduct edible and inedible products at official establishments, 
 and also those extending from official establishments to other 
 establishments, either official or unofficial, with a description 
 giving the exact location, terminals, and dimensions of such pipes, 
 or other conveyers, and of all gates, valves, or other controlling 
 apparatus, shall be filed with the Department. 
 
 Section 5. — The only animal casings that may be used as 
 containers in the manufacture of sausage under these regulations 
 are those from cattle, hogs, sheep, or goats. 
 
 KEaULATION 25. 
 
 Section 5. — No master of any steam or sailing vessel shall 
 receive for transportation or transport from the United States to 
 Great Britain or Ireland, or any of the countries of Continental 
 
APPENDIX 201 
 
 Europe, or to Argentina or Mexico, any carcass, part of carcass, 
 or meat-food product of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, except ship 
 stores, unless and until a certificate of inspection covering the same 
 has been issued and delivered as provided in this regulation. The 
 requirement of export certificates is waived for meat and meat-food 
 products to foreign countries other than those hereinbefore named. 
 
 Extracts from Report of Committee of the American 
 Humane Association on the Humane Slaughter- 
 ing of Animals, presented at the Annual Conven- 
 tion, New Orleans, November 17-19, 1908. 
 
 " In no other country has so much attention been given towards 
 improving slaughtering methods as in Germany, and where such 
 gratifying progress has been made in the discovery and adoption 
 of new devices as well as an improved system and the consequent 
 .elimination of.suffenng. On the other hand, it is with a sense of 
 deep humiliation that your committee are forced to the conclusion 
 that in nojotherjivilisedcountr^Jsthe^ life for 
 
 food purposes atiendedwith^tmre cnielty than in the United States, 
 Absolutely no progress whatsoever has been effected on the 
 humane side of the question, for methods still prevail here which 
 were discarded in Europe over a quarter of a century ago as brutal 
 and inhuman. Whatever changes have taken place in our 
 abattoirs in slinging and hoisting the animals have only greatly 
 added to their sufferings, the one governing object being to reduce 
 them to the various marketable products with the greatest possible 
 saving of time and expense. 
 
 " It is not the purpose of your committee to enter into the ques- 
 tion of religious belief as affecting humane slaughtering ; but, 
 without in any wise doing so, we must condemn as extremely cruel 
 the practice of suspending animals in the air by reeving chains 
 fastened around the hind ankles until the knife is applied and life 
 gradually becomes extinct. ... It will be said that the European 
 system of applying slings and casting the animal is too slow. The 
 answer to that argument is — let the packing-houses employ a 
 
202 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 sufficient number of men in the killing rooms to utilise such methods 
 as do not involve great and needless suflfering, and such as are 
 adopted in other civilised communities. Cruelty is so carefully 
 guarded against in the abattoirs of Southern Germany that the 
 animals are placed in a suspended girth, the feet secured, and then 
 lowered by a windlass to the floor, before being bled." 
 
 The committee quote part of a letter received from 
 Mr. Hugo Heiss, director of the abattoir of Straubing, 
 President of the South German Municipal and Abat- 
 toir Veterinarians, and author of a work on humane 
 slaughtering. Mr. Heiss says : 
 
 " ' We have to-day throughout Germany about seven hundred 
 modern slaughter-houses in which the slaughtering with the 
 shooting apparatus has been introduced and successfully practised 
 for many years. 
 
 " ' In our abattoir all large cattle have been killed by means of 
 the shooting apparatus for the past nine years. Since dheir intro- 
 duction in 1904, the bolt-shooting weapons have been used ex- 
 clusively, and have given perfect satisfaction. The bleeding-out 
 occurs faultlessly, and the preservalEion" of the meat is at least as 
 good as with former methods. All assertions to the contrary are 
 untrue, and uttered without experience. The wildest cattle can be 
 killed perfectly with.^ie Behr sy stem of shooting apparatus. There 
 is no death-struggle, and the animal drops tojthe ground without 
 uttering abound.' ' 
 
 " In most of the European states, calves, sheep, and pigs are 
 generally stunned with a hammer having a spherical metal head 
 before being bled. In many of the abattoirs the bolt-pistol and 
 the striking-bolt apparatus are employed for such small animals 
 with much success. Pigs especially are so easily stunned that the 
 present inethod of kjlling with^ the knife thrust in the body, which 
 is so universal in America, appears TRJe^ vandalism. . . . 'They 
 use everything about the hog except the squeal ' is, apparently, 
 typical of the principle which has engrossed the attention of our 
 large packing-houses, and caused them to retain those primitive 
 
APPENDIX 203 
 
 methods for killing which have been discarded in Europe for 
 nearly half a century. 
 
 " Let us contrast this policy with that which is exemplified in 
 the inscription over the entrance to a German abattoir : 
 
 " Thine is a task of blood ; discharge that task 
 With mercy ; let thy victim know 
 No pain, but let the sudden blow 
 Bring death, such death as thou wouldst ask.' 
 
 Some of the conclusions of the committee were : 
 
 " I . That all animals should be stunned before being subjected to 
 the bleeding operation. 
 
 " 2. That the ' shooting-bolt ' weapon should be used for the 
 stunning of cattle, horses, and, as far as practicable, the smaller 
 animals. 
 
 " 3. That if, for economical reasons, the shooting-bolt apparatus 
 be not employed for small animals, calves, pigs, and sheep should 
 be stunned before bleeding by a blow from a special form of club 
 having an iron knob at the end. . . ." 
 
 (Signed) Henry Bergh, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 Concerning the Mortality from Malignant Disease in 
 England and Wales. (Hitherto Unpublished.) 
 
 1. During a period of twenty-seven years (1881-1907), a vast 
 multitude numbering over six hundred thousand men, women and 
 children perished in England from malignant disease. 
 
 2. The majority of these deaths occurred at the prime of life for 
 both men and women. The number dying at each of four age- 
 periods is given herewith : 
 
204 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Age-Period. 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Under 25 years 
 
 From 25 to 44, inclusive 
 
 From 45 to 64 „ 
 
 At 65 and above 
 
 5,634 
 
 22,921 
 
 112,989 
 
 89,675 
 
 4,759 
 
 55,435 
 
 185,192 
 
 125,257 
 
 Total 
 
 231,219 
 
 370,643 
 
 3. The death-rate from malignant disease, in 1881, was, per 
 million of the male population of England, 365. In 1907 the rate 
 had advanced to 781. 
 
 The corresponding death-rate for the female population was 
 670 in 1881. ' In 1907 it had advanced to 1,026. 
 
 4. During the first seven years of the present century there 
 perished in England, from malignant disease, 207,764 persons. 
 
 Among males, the seat of the disease, in over one-half of all 
 cases, was some pari of the digestive system. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abscess and tumour, 39 
 Abuses, how excused, 143 
 Actinomycosis and American beef, 
 68 
 assurances concerning, 71 
 called cancer in Australia, 68 
 carcasses partly condemned 
 
 for, 77 
 carcasses wholly condemned 
 
 for, 77 
 cases among human beings, 
 
 69 
 inspection for, in Chicago, 79 
 regulations concerning, 76 
 views of Bureau of Animal 
 Industry concerning, 73 
 Acute nephritis in animals, iii 
 Animals found dead, disposition 
 of, 17 
 slaughtered on farms, 16 
 Ante-mortem inspection partly 
 
 nullified, 13 
 Approval of diseased meat, man- 
 datory, in some cases, 59 
 
 Beef-extract, regulations concern- 
 ing, 22 
 
 Benzoate of soda, use sanctioned, 
 168 
 
 Boiling alive, disposition of car- 
 casses after, 6 
 
 Borax, permitted as preservative 
 in England, 95 
 
 Boston, inspection of meat in, 135 
 
 British imports of American meat 
 and meat-products, 161 
 
 British indifference to trichina, 
 
 93 
 Butchery, cruelty pertaining to, 4 
 of animals on farms, 187 
 
 Cancer, absence of early symp- 
 toms, 2j 
 among female population, 
 
 England, 27 
 apparent increase of, among 
 
 poor, 33 
 compared with phthisis, 27 
 difference in racial proclivity 
 
 to, 32 
 in America, 30 
 in England, 204 
 in various countries, 28 
 meat affected by, how dis- 
 posed of, 39 
 universality of, 28 
 Canned meat - products, labels 
 suggested, 175 
 questionable excellence 
 of, 185 
 Caseous lymphadenitis, 107 
 Casings for sausage, not a food- 
 product, 167 
 Census, 1900, report concerning 
 
 meat inspection, 54 
 Chicago, condition of packing- 
 houses at, I 
 inspection at, for "lumpy- 
 jaw," 79 
 Chronic inflammation and meat, 
 
 III 
 Cleanliness in slaughter-houses, 2 
 
 205 
 
206 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Commission on regulations, 150 
 conclusions concerning, 159 
 Compensation for farmers, 181 
 " Complete answer" to criticism, 
 
 146 
 Conclusions concerning actino- 
 mycosis, 84 
 malignant tumours, 44 
 trichina, 96 
 tuberculous meat, 65 
 Condemnations and inspections 
 
 compared (table), 148 
 Congress of Hygiene and Demo- 
 graphy, statements made at, 72 
 Control of meat inspection, future, 
 
 171 
 Country butchers and meat-pro- 
 ducts, 187 
 Cruelty in slaughter-houses, 3 
 
 Decline of meat exports to Eng- 
 land, 161 
 Defence of a wrong, 140 
 Definition of " disease," 152 
 "meat-products," 18 
 Department of Agriculture, its 
 alleged objects, 168 
 of Public Health, 172 
 Detroit, meat inspection in, 136 
 Diseased meat sent to hospitals, 
 
 etc., 132 
 Dorset on invisible germs, 99 
 
 English contentment with present 
 conditions, 95 
 influence, potency of, for 
 
 reform, 163 
 working class, cheap meat 
 for, 145 
 Epizootic catarrh, malignant, 105 
 Example of Federal inspection, 79 
 Exports of meat to the United 
 Kingdom, 161 
 of horse-meat, 123 
 Extracts of beef, degree of inspec- 
 tion required, 22 
 
 Farmer, to be cared for in making 
 
 regulations, 16 
 Farm products, former superiority 
 
 of, 188 
 
 Federal inspection of pork (table), 
 
 92 
 Food and Drug Act, 13 
 
 tuberculous infection by, 52 
 
 Gangrenous enteritis, iii 
 Germany, prohibition of Ameri- 
 can pork by, 93 
 
 Hog cholera, conclusions concern- 
 ing, 103 
 germs of, 98 
 
 Government regulations 
 concerning, 102 
 Hogs, cruelty in slaughter of, 5 
 disposition of, when scalded 
 
 alive, 6 
 inspection of, 7 
 Home-made lard and pork-pro- 
 ducts, 188 
 Horse-meat, disposition of (table), 
 123 
 Government inspection of , J2i 
 Hospitals, diseased meat furnished 
 
 to, 132 
 Huber on tuberculous meat, 52 
 Hydatid cysts, suggested disposi- 
 tion of, 109 
 Government regulations 
 concerning, no 
 
 Immature animals, contrasted 
 regulations concerning, 
 108 
 present regulations con- 
 cerning, 108 
 Improvements in packing-houses, 
 
 2 
 Independence of meat inspectors, 
 
 180 
 Indifference regarding trichina 
 
 inspection, 95 
 Inflammation, acute and chronic, 
 
 III 
 Insane asylums, diseased meat 
 
 furnished to, 132 
 Inspection of hogs, 63 
 of horse-meat, 123 
 regulations concerning, 193 
 Inspectors and loathsome meat, 44 
 Invisible germs of disease, 98 
 
INDEX 
 
 207 
 
 Iowa, complaints regarding in- 
 spection in, 129 
 
 Jaques, Dr., on diseased meat in 
 Chicago, 154 
 on methods of inspection, 
 179, 180 
 
 Labels, suggestions for accurate, 
 
 175 
 Lard, American, 113 
 
 animals infected by hog 
 cholera, used for, 
 118 
 tapeworm cysts, used 
 
 for, 116 
 tuberculosis, used 
 for, 115 
 available substitute for, 186 
 changes of regulations con- 
 cerning, 117 
 exports of, to England, 113 
 made from carcasses of preg- 
 nant animals, 117 
 Laws of United States concerning 
 
 diseased meat, 23 
 Leidy,Dr., discovery of trichina in 
 ham by, 89 
 on European prohibition 
 
 of pork, III 
 on hydatid cysts, 109 
 ' ' Loathsome Meat, ' ' regulation 
 
 concerning, 44 
 London Lancet, investigations by, 
 
 124 
 " Lumpy-jaw " beef. See Actino- 
 mycosis, 
 numberof carcasses partly 
 
 condemned (table), 77 
 regulations concerning, 
 76 
 
 Malignant disease, deaths in Eng- 
 land from, 26 
 epizootic catarrh, regulation 
 
 concerning, 105 
 tumours, animals a£fected by, 
 28 
 conclusions concerning, 
 
 44 
 meat affected by, how 
 far condemned, 37 
 
 Malignant tumours, mortality 
 according to race, 
 from, 32 
 number of " parts " con- 
 demned (table), 43 
 regulations concerning, 
 1904, 36 
 1908, 39 
 Mange, carcasses affected by, 
 
 disposition of, 106 
 Massachusetts, inspection of meat 
 
 in, 128 
 McCabe, George P., quotation 
 
 from address by, 16 
 McFadyean, Professor, inquiry 
 by, regarding diseased meat, 72 
 Meat-food products, changes of 
 regulations concerning, 
 18 
 official definition of, 22 
 questionable character of, 
 
 185 
 exports to England (table), 161 
 inspection amendment, 13 
 
 in cities and states, 127 
 packers and the law, 141 
 Trust, relation of, toward re- 
 form, 165 
 Medical meat-products, 22 
 Microscopic examination of pork 
 abandoned, 93 
 cost of, 94 
 Mince-meats, when not .inspected, 
 
 20 
 Minnesota, inspection of meat in, 
 
 130 
 Mixture, o£Scial definition of a, 
 
 20 
 Mortality from cancer, in England, 
 1 880- 1907 (table), 
 204 
 affected by race 
 
 (table), 32 
 increase of, 26 
 
 Need of Congressional inquiry, 169 
 New York City, meat inspection 
 
 in, 131 
 State, absence of meat 
 
 inspection in, 128 
 Nullification, apparent, 15 
 
208 
 
 AMERICAN MEAT 
 
 Objections to diseased meat, 
 alleged "sentimentality" of, 153 
 O'Connell on evasion of law, 143 
 Ohio, absence of vital statistics 
 in, 128 
 
 Packing-house, to-day, i 
 
 Pecuniary considerations pertain- 
 ing to inspection, 145 
 
 Pennsylvania, meat inspection in, 
 129 
 
 Philadelphia, meat inspection in, 
 
 134 
 Pork and trichina, 86 
 
 inspection of, abandoned, 93 
 liability of, to disease, 50 
 Public institutions, diseased meat 
 sent to, 132 
 welfare, the sole considera- 
 tion in inspection, 178 
 Purity of meat -food products, 
 questionable, 186 
 
 Regulations governing inspection, 
 
 193 
 of 1908, wherein worse than 
 others, 157 
 Rejection of American pork by 
 
 Germany, reasons for, 90 
 Rheumatism, symptoms of, and 
 trichina, 89 
 
 Salmon, Dr., on meat affected by 
 
 actinomycosis, 71 
 Sausage, methods of making, 3 
 how far of questionable stuff, 
 
 185 
 
 Scalded alive, disposition of hogs 
 when, 6 
 
 Schroeder, Dr., on tuberculosis 
 infection, 52 
 
 Sentimental objections to diseased 
 meat, alleged, 153 
 
 Ship stores not subject to certifi- 
 cates of inspection, 168 
 
 Skin disease, meat affected by, 
 106 
 
 St. Louis, meat inspection in, 132 
 State inspection of meat, desira- 
 bility of, 138 
 Swine plagues, germs of, invisible, 
 98 
 regulations concerning, 
 
 102 
 
 Taenia echinococcus, Cobbold on, 
 109 
 meat affected by, disposi- 
 tion of, no 
 Tapeworm cysts, meat affected by, 
 109 
 regulations concerning, 
 no 
 Trichina, abandonment of inspec- 
 tion for, 93 
 conclusions concerning, 96 
 discovery of the parasite of, 
 
 85 
 meat affected by, disposition 
 
 of, 91 
 prevalence of, in American 
 
 pork, 92 
 symptoms of, in man, 87 
 Tuberculosis among swine, 50 
 an infectious disease, 47 
 carcasses affected by, number 
 partly condemned (table), 
 .63 
 conclusions concerning meat 
 
 affected by, 65 
 deaths from, in England, 65 
 method of infection by, 51 
 prevalence of, among cattle, 
 
 49 
 Tuberculous carcasses, alleged 
 
 total condemnation of, 53 
 Tumours, malignant, regulations 
 concerning, 39 
 and abscesses (table), 42 
 
 Uniformity of natural laws, 34 
 
 Working classes, cheap meat and, 
 145 
 
 BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD