Apothecary’s Cabinet No. 9, Fall 2005 News and Notes from the American Institute of the History of Pharmacy 100 YEARS OF THE 1906 FOOD AND DRUGS ACT The Formation and Early Work of the Drug Laboratory, USDA Bureau of Chemistry* by John Swann** T institution charged with en- ment was unmindful of adulteration medication swindled people with HE forcement of the 1906 Food and and other problems associated with their egregious therapeutic claims, Drugs Act, the Bureau of Chemis- drugs. The 1848 drug import act harmed patients with such hidden try, is probably best known for its charged the Treasury Department ingredients as opiates, cocaine, and efforts in regulating the food supply with barring adulterated drugs from alcohol, and ensured their name- of the country, both when it was un- entering this country. Also, from recognition by blackmailing newspa- der the leadership of Harvey Wiley time to time beginning in the 1880s, pers into refusing to run articles crit- and immediately afterwards. Wiley’s Congress had authorized funds with- ical of the nostrums. Quacks hawked “overwhelming preoccupation” with in the Department of Agriculture for worthless cures for cancer, drug ad- foods derived from his belief that the investigation of drugs adulter- diction, tuberculosis; the few nos- foods rather than drugs were a great- ated in domestic commerce. Unfor- trums that probably did work were er harm to the public at the time.1 tunately, the legislative branch failed opiate-laden soothing syrups to quiet This is not to say that the govern- to appropriate adequate funds.2 infants. Muckraking periodicals ex- The nation’s drug supply was posed the extent of the abuses by the *Originally presented as “Science and Regulation: far from safe at the turn of the cen- patent medicine manufacturers.3 The Establishment of the Drug Laboratory of the tury. The hundreds of brands of Even the so-called ethical USDA Bureau of Chemistry,” part of the sympo- worthless patent medicines for self- pharmaceuticals used in regular sium, “Pharmaceutical Science and Technology,” to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, annual meetings of the History of Science Society The American Institute of the History of Pharmacy is a unique and the Society for the History of Technology, organization dedicated to the preservation of pharmacy’s heri- Madison, Wisconsin, 3 November 1991. Presented as part of the symposium, “The Retort and the tage. The Apothecary’s Cabinet is a publication from AIHP that Mortar: Chemistry’s Impact on Pharmacy and takes a popular look at the history of pharmacy in its many fac- Drug Development,” annual meeting, History of Chemistry Division, American Chemical Society, ets. We welcome your comments and submissions. Boston, Massachusetts, 20 August 2002. No. 9 1 William Salant (second from the left), Chief of the Pharmacological Laboratory, poses with J. H. Phelps, W. H. Childress, and J. B. Rieger in 1910. medical practice, consisting principally of drugs in their Wiley promised to devote attention to the assay and naturally-occurring form, active ingredients extracted composition of drugs.5 It should have been no surprise from such crude forms, and a few synthetic remedies, that he turned to the APhA for assistance in planning were frequently adulterated and of questionable po- the scope of the drug effort in the Bureau of Chemis- tency. Investigations by the American Pharmaceutical try. The APhA had long supported increased drug con- Association (APhA) revealed, for example, that oil of trol in this country. Moreover, in the same year as the wintergreen was adulterated with synthetic oils from ten Division’s elevation to Bureau status, the association percent upwards, seventy-five percent of the samples established a Committee on Drug Adulterations, with of belladonna leaf assayed below the standard amount which Wiley hoped the Bureau could cooperate. The of atropine recommended in the USP, and samples of Committee’s chief function was to survey the quality lithia citrate were actually fifteen percent of the labeled and composition of the materia medica.6 potency.4 Wiley appeared at the 1902 annual meeting of the When Congressional appropriations enabled the APhA to announce the formation of a Drug Laboratory Division of Chemistry to become a Bureau in 1901, within the Bureau of Chemistry, which the APhA Com- Apothecary’s Cabinet • No.9, Fall 2005 ISSN 1534-4509 Editor: Gregory J. Higby Assistant Editor: Elaine Condouris Stroud Publisher: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, located at the University of Wisconsin School of Pharmacy, 777 Highland Ave., Madison, Wisconsin 53705-2222 Phone (608) 262-5378, email [email protected]; www.aihp.org. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF THE HISTORY OF PHARMACY is incorporated under Wisconsin statute 180 as a non-profit orga- nization devoted to advancing knowledge and understanding of the place of pharmacy in history. It publishes Pharmacy in History, Apothecary’s Cabinet, occasional monographs, and pamphlets; it fosters humanistic teaching in pharmaceutical education; confers awards for outstanding achievement in its field; sponsors historical meetings and exhibits; collects and preserves source materials; and serves as a center for research and information. PUBLICATION PRICES: Apothecary’s Cabinet is distributed free of charge to schools of pharmacy upon request. This and other pub- lications of the AIHP may be obtained through membership ($50 per year for individuals, $100 for institutions); individual copies of Apothecary’s Cabinet are $2.00. 2 Apothecary’s Cabinet mittee on Adulterations described the University of Michigan, he moved a different variety when they began rather hyperbolically as “one of the to the Philadelphia firm of Smith marketing biological drugs such as most important events that have Kline and French, where he became diphtheria antitoxin in the 1890s.12 transpired in the history of American chief chemist in 1892. He published Although he received his ap- Pharmacy.”7 Perhaps the committee over sixty papers during his Phila- pointment to head the new Drug was looking for an ally in its onerous delphia years, most of them devoted Laboratory in November 1902, Ke- task of surveying the quality of the to drug assay and adulteration. At bler’s responsibilities at Smith Kline materia medica! Wiley envisioned a Smith Kline and French, Kebler’s du- and French prevented him from as- drug laboratory that would help uni- ties included inspection of drugs that suming his position in the Bureau of fy analytical methods to identify and the firm was considering for pur- Chemistry until the following March. standardize pharmaceuticals, and chase. This experience familiarized Prior to the Federal Food and Drugs thereby instill uniformity on analyti- Kebler with drug adulteration, and Act, the Drug Laboratory worked on cal results.8 by the time of the formation of the a variety of topics—not all directly He was echoing words spo- Drug Laboratory he was a recognized relevant to drugs. One of the first ken earlier at the same meeting. expert in the field.11 projects that Kebler initiated was a The chair of the scientific section of Science in major American study of the Bureau’s own stock of the APhA had detailed some of the pharmaceutical firms like Smith reagents, primarily because this was shortcomings in the methodology Kline and French at the turn of the a long-standing problem that was of drug assay of the time. He com- century was quite different than the obviously relevant to any laboratory plained that the variety of assay case twenty or thirty years later. New that relied on analytical procedures. techniques for individual drugs had drug development or delivery, the The Drug Laboratory exam- Lyman Kebler (r.) and W. O. Emery are shown working in the government labo- ratory .This image was used to illustrate Kebler’s series, “The Mail-Order Medical Game,” published by The Druggists Circular, 1928-29. a deleterious impact on consistent hallmark of scientific research in the ined over 700 chemicals within two analyses. The field needed organiza- modern drug industry, in general years. This effort—and the problems tion, he argued, someone or some was a phenomenon pertinent to the Kebler discovered in his survey—led institution to promote consistent industry only after World War One. the Association of Official Agricultur- methodologies for drug assays and Key supporting sciences such as al Chemists (AOAC) to formalize standardization.9 Keep in mind that, pharmacology and medicinal chem- its own concern about the quality even though some states recognized istry were still at a nascent stage in of chemical reagents as an issue of the USP as the standard compendi- American universities at the time, national concern. The AOAC cre- um of drug identity, this was still pri- much less in American companies. ated the Committee on the Testing or to federal recognition of the USP Some firms manifested a commit- of Chemical Reagents, with Kebler as an official compendium of drug ment to science in the form of drug as head, to investigate the quality of standards. Only two months ear- standardization, a part of quality these chemicals.13 A common prob- lier John Uri Lloyd—at Wiley’s invi- control. Parke-Davis hired chemist lem Kebler observed was the labeling tation—had nominated this section Albert Lyons in 1880 to standard- of a reagent as chemically pure when chairman, Lyman Frederic Kebler, ize drugs, and within three years it was of medicinal quality, or worse. to head the Drug Laboratory of the the company had introduced twenty Eventually, reports of this commit- Bureau of Chemistry, the institution chemically assayed fluidextracts. tee became de facto reports of the that would play an important role Other firms, including Eli Lilly and quality of reagents at the Bureau of in unifying these crucial elements of Company, G. D. Searle, and H. K. Chemistry, since few if any chemists pharmaceutical science.10 Mulford, also utilized science in this outside of the Bureau were willing to Kebler was a likely candidate way. It is also worth mentioning that assist the Committee in its work.14 In for the job. After receiving his educa- a few companies, led by Mulford and any case, the Drug Laboratory early tion in pharmacy and chemistry from Parke-Davis, made use of science of on assumed a central role in organiz- No. 9 3 ing efforts to improve pharmaceutical The idea of suggesting a referee in connection with several different methods, ei- analysis—in keeping with Wiley’s with the American Association of Official ther pharmacopoeial assays, modi- Agricultural Chemists is, that we take up original vision for the laboratory. Ke- fications thereof, or independent the work on the same lines along which they bler remained in charge of chemical techniques. They compared similar- have been working for a number of years, and reagent testing for the AOAC until thereby bring about uniformity of methods ity of results for each method, and the 1920s. and results. The object is, to have the co-op- concluded that the most recent USP Another cooperative venture eration of a number of men throughout the assay provided the most consistent between the Drug Laboratory and country, . . . to bring the analytical methods results.16 that are being used by the port chemists be- the AOAC was more directly related fore the public, so that we will know exactly In 1905, the joint work of the to drugs. In its 1903 report, the APhA what they are doing and thus obtain an exact Drug Laboratory and AOAC began Committee on Drug Adulterations guide to ascertain whether they are the best, to include other crude drugs. They or whether they can be improved upon.15 questioned its ability to promote uni- compared different assays of cin- formity in drug standards without chona, ipecac, and nux vomica for greater involvement by chemists. The Kebler wanted to involve the principal alkaloids of each. The available assay techniques resulted in workers from many different types following year they extended the significant discrepancies even when of institutions—pharmacy schools, comparative analyses to include ac- experienced chemists analyzed the universities, manufacturers, boards onite, belladonna, and coca. While same drug. of health, and boards of pharmacy. USP assays yielded more uniform re- So, the Committee looked to Indeed, he was able to recruit as- sults with some drugs, other methods the Drug Laboratory for help in sistance from an array of institu- had more consistent results for other developing analytical methods to tions for the early work of this drugs. For example, a group of ana- identify drugs with results consistent AOAC committee. For the first two lysts using the aconite analysis rec- among a group of chemists. At the to three years, Kebler and his col- ommended by the USP experienced same time, the Committee urged the leagues worked exclusively on assays a fifty-one percent variation from the AOAC to appoint a referee on medic- of opium for morphine, largely be- average for similar samples, whereas inal plants and chemicals. Later that cause of the therapeutic importance the use of another established meth- year, the AOAC appointed Kebler as of this drug and inconsistencies with od produced only a ten percent varia- the referee on this subject. Kebler ex- some of the analytical methods. Ke- tion.17 plained why the involvement of the bler and ten other chemists analyzed These were detailed, extremely AOAC at this point would be helpful: similar samples of powdered opium laborious, and necessary procedures. Researchers inside the Synthetic Products Laboratory of the Bureau of Chemistry. 4 Apothecary’s Cabinet The Bureau of Chemistry laboratory building (left) and the drug inspection laboratory inside (below). From a therapeutic standpoint, a a procedure that produced erratic concerns with chemical reagents. practitioner had to know how much results hold up in a court? Official However, the early work of the Drug active ingredient was in a crude drug. procedures had to produce results Laboratory was not entirely devoted If a manufacturer were unknowingly as uniform as possible. Toward this to such rigorous and technical work. using an unreliable assay method, end, the Drug Laboratory tried to Kebler publicized problems with the how predictable could dosage be in determine where analytical proce- drug supply in a popular vein, much such a case? From a legal standpoint, dures were flawed. Perhaps there in the same spirit that characterized the 1906 act gave official status at was a problem in the length of the his supervisor. the federal level to USP and National maceration (steeping) period called The head of the Drug Laborato- Formulary standards of identity. The for in a particular method for ana- ry drew on his experience as an ana- Bureau of Chemistry thus had a tool lyzing cinchona for quinine, or may- lyst for Smith Kline and French when for bringing actions against products be the amount of morphine to be he wrote of tricks in the trade to sup- whose strength, quality, or purity extracted from opium depended on ply spurious oils for rheumatism, varied from the official standards the degree of agitation required for phthisis, or other diseases. As long for that drug. A loophole in the law, shaking out morphine during that as demands existed for bat oil, mer- known as the variation clause, had analysis.19 maid’s oil, rabbit oil, porcupine oil, some bearing here, since it permit- The above efforts mirrored and other such concoctions, a suppli- ted manufacturers to market substan- Wiley’s desire that the laboratory er would give the patient something, dard drugs as long as the variations organize analysts around the coun- whether or not it was the genuine ar- were plainly stated on the label.18 try to improve specific problems of ticle. Such oils were of dubious com- Nevertheless, how well could pharmaceutical analysis and address position as well as dubious value.20 No. 9 5 Early in his tenure as head of the the packaging or accompanying liter- A chemist and I went up to North Carolina Drug Laboratory, Kebler also began ature, and to a lesser extent, adultera- and arranged with one of these distillers to exposing proprietary medicines such tion.23 make several pounds of Oil of Sweet Birch. . . . I recall the chemist was kind of nervous about as hair restorers, consumption cures, The Synthetic Products Labo- the mountain people. He had heard stories cures for lost manhood, and obesity ratory was under the direction of W. about them so he brought an old pistol with cures.21 We will learn later that the O. Emery, who had investigated food him and put it under his pillow. In the morn- Bureau was accused of not paying and drug adulteration in Germany ing, we were awakened by a pistol shot. One of the distillers had come in, seen the handle of nearly enough attention to the pat- for several years before coming to the pistol, pulled it out from the guy’s pillow, ent medicine industry. the Bureau of Chemistry. This labo- and shot it off to wake us up.25 The character of the Drug Lab- ratory was responsible for examin- oratory’s work did not change im- ing chemical drugs and active ingre- William Salant, a founding mediately after passage of the 1906 dients from crude materia medica, member of the American Society of act. The laboratory continued to in- and it focused on headache remedies Pharmacology and Experimental vestigate drug adulteration, perfect and other preparations with habit- Therapeutics, was in charge of the analytical methods, examine chemi- forming ingredients. Many of these Pharmacological Laboratory. This cal reagents, and analyze patent remedies actually were mixtures of laboratory investigated the physio- medicines. Of course, after 1906 the several drugs with rather different logical effects of drugs and drug mix- Bureau could actually do something therapeutic actions, such as phenac- tures on animals. For example, this about adulterated or misbranded etin, caffeine, heroin, acetanilid, an- group performed exhaustive phar- drugs. One significant change in the tipyrine, and other compounds. macological examinations of caffeine Drug Laboratory before and after the This laboratory’s major re- and alcohol—both common ingre- act concerned its organization. In search project early on was the devel- dients in proprietary medicines.26 1908 it became one of two divisions opment of techniques for quantita- In addition to drugs, Salant and his within the Bureau, with four labora- tive determination of each of the colleagues studied the physiologi- tories to handle different functions ingredients involved. From 1907 to cal action of bleached, unbleached, more efficiently. Notable as well af- 1910, the laboratory was able to ap- and over-bleached flour, a matter of ter the Food and Drugs Act was the ply its procedures to about half of the considerable concern in food regula- laboratory’s concerted effort to work estimated 800 brands of headache, tion.27 with several government agencies cold, and grippe cures. Later on, Em- The Pharmacological Labora- and outside organizations. ery and his coworkers worked with tory also engaged in some work on Each of the Drug Division’s other analysts through the AOAC, drug standardization. Chemical as- four laboratories had its own head. who confirmed that these methods says were the most common means Kebler remained in charge of the Di- produced uniform results for the of standardizing drugs at this time, vision, and in fact had risen to the amount of each ingredient in the mix- but they were not the only way, and number three position in the Bu- tures.24 in fact were useless for certain prod- reau of Chemistry by this time.22 The The Essential Oils Laboratory ucts. Pharmacologists had been using Drug Inspection Laboratory, under focused on this group of compounds biological assays in a systematic way George Hoover, was the laboratory that were used therapeutically or in to standardize ergot and other drugs most concerned with enforcement the manufacture of other therapeu- since the 1890s. The USP requested within the Division. This laboratory tic agents. Like Kebler, E. K. Nel- assistance from the Bureau of Chem- examined drugs seized as adulter- son, who headed this laboratory, had istry in providing to manufacturers ated or misbranded under the 1906 worked in industry prior to coming reference standards for biologically- act. Investigations of drug establish- to the Bureau. The quality of certain assayed drugs, and Wiley fully sup- ments were much more abbreviated essential oils was especially problem- ported this idea. But the Secretary of in this early period, due to the lim- atical, so this laboratory developed Agriculture in 1910 refused to permit its of the law. Inspectors tried to ob- analyses to detect adulterations in the Bureau to take on this respon- tain information about the product’s such products. Analyses required sibility; he argued that it was beyond formula, how it was manufactured, good, authentic samples of oils. the scope of the Bureau’s functions how it was labeled, and its distribu- For example, the synthetic product under the law.28 However, by the tion. From 1909 to 1910 alone, this methyl salicylate often was used as early 1920s the Bureau had reached laboratory examined over 900 drug an adulterant of oil of wintergreen an agreement with the Committee of samples from interstate commerce, and oil of sweet birch, because it was Revision of the USP to supply com- over 1200 from imports, and recom- a fraction of the cost of these essen- panies with specimens of drugs as- mended 115 samples for prosecution; tial oils. Inspector John McManus sayed biologically according to USP comparatively few of these actually described an interesting visit to the guidelines.29 went to court. The sort of violations mountains of North Carolina around Harvey Wiley strongly believed seen in imports was similar to that 1912 to collect some authentic oil of in the importance of collaborative found with articles of domestic com- sweet birch for reference analytical work, with other federal agencies and merce, i. e., false representations on use back in Washington: with outside institutions and organi- 6 Apothecary’s Cabinet zations.30 By 1911 the federal gov- described the event when Wiley as- 1905 to evaluate patent and ethical ernment employed fewer than 300 signed him the task of analyzing dif- drugs from a variety of standpoints, chemists, seventy percent of whom ferent samples of glue for the latter including composition, therapeutic worked in the Department of Agri- Bureau: claims, and advertising. Council ap- culture.31 It is not surprising then proval or disapproval of a product de- that other agencies would turn to [I] told [“the Big Chief”] that [I] had never termined whether or not manufactur- this department—and to the Bureau tested glue and did not know anything about ers could advertise them in much of in particular—for assistance with tahse m suubchje catb. oInu tr etepslyti nthge g Bluoess a ssa aidn,y “oYnoeu iknn tohwe the professional medical literature.39 chemical analyses. The Drug Divi- Bureau.” I further protested that glue was Kebler’s group investigated dozens of sion, with experienced analysts such not a drug. He retorted, “Glue is certainly a drugs for the council, especially with as Kebler, Emery, Nelson, and oth- drug around here and it is your job.” He had respect to false, misleading, and ex- ers, carried out much work in asso- shopped, without success, around the Bureau aggerated therapeutic claims.40 The for someone to do the work, and the Drug ciation with outsiders. For example, Chief was a newcomer and the logical victim. American Pharmaceutical Association the importance of ties between the . . . Some of my fellow chemists considered was involved with the Drug Division 35 AOAC and the division with respect it a good joke. since Wiley’s announcement at the to analytical work has already been 1902 APhA meeting. Kebler and his mentioned. The Drug Division cooper- colleagues assisted the APhA’s Com- The division analyzed the com- ated with several components of the mittee on Drug Adulterations and the position and any therapeutic effect Department of Agriculture. For ex- Committee on the Drug Market in of many quack pharmaceuticals for ample, at the request of the Bureau the evaluation of essential oils, crude the Post Office Department: alleged of Plant Industry, they analyzed drugs, and the general nature of drug cures for tuberculosis, cancer, drug samples of hops for arsenic con- adulteration in America.41 addiction, epilepsy, syphilis, and tamination, and they determined if Notwithstanding the Hygienic other nostrums. One such cure that the levels of barium in animal feed Laboratory of the U. S. Public Health the division investigated was Radol, could account for a disease known Service, which the law charged with an aqueous solution supposedly irra- as “loco” found in cattle. Converse- overseeing biological medicines mar- diated with radium so it would cure ly, the division sent analytical work keted in the U. S., the Drug Labora- cancer. Division analysts revealed to Plant Industry that drew upon tory of the Bureau of Chemistry was that it was neither radioactive nor the expertise of chemists in that Bu- responsible for controlling the vast effective against cancer. In this case reau.36 majority of the nation’s supply of the Post Office Department issued The Drug Division worked drugs for self-medication and pre- a fraud order against the business, with the Bureau of Entomology on scription use. The laboratory failed to leading to its termination. Also, the beeswax, analyzing physicochemi- keep pace with problems in the drug Bureau brought a successful crimi- cal properties of this substance as a supply,42 for many reasons, including: nal action against the firm under the function of the kind of bees involved shortcomings in the 1906 act (which 1906 act.32 and the location of the production. became only more pronounced with Early in 1910 George McCabe, Dealers often maintained, quite in- the Sherley Amendment of 1912), Solicitor of the Department of Agri- correctly according to the Drug Di- Wiley’s preferential attention to food culture with whom Wiley occasional- vision, that these factors made a problems, insufficient staff in the ly had clashed,33 accused Wiley and difference in the quality of the prod- Drug Laboratory and Drug Division, Kebler of failing to devote enough uct. In the process, the division im- and the need of Kebler and his group effort to prosecuting patent medi- proved upon pharmacopoeial tests to revise pharmaceutical analyses cine manufacturers. McCabe men- for beeswax.37 The division’s work for many of the products before they tioned forty-one recently purchased for the food commissioner of the could be regulated. But during this nostrums, all with likely fraudulent State of Texas, on cocaine-contain- first decade of its existence, Kebler claims on their labels. But Wiley was ing soft drinks, eventually revealed and his colleagues appeared to orga- able to show that the Bureau had that many of the brands on the mar- nize the Drug Laboratory and mar- under investigation, or had recom- ket were entirely free of cocaine, yet shal outside assistance in as effective mended prosecution of, all but ten of this was present in many other sam- a manner as possible under the scien- the examples cited by McCabe.34 ples, ranging from a trace to five- tific, legal, economic, and personal The Drug Division investigat- hundredths of a grain per ounce of constraints of the day. beverage. The division consequently ed cod liver oils for the Bureau of recommended thirteen cases for **Historian, Food and Drug Administration History Fisheries, part of the Department of prosecution under the 1906 act.38 Office, HFC-24, Room 12-69, 5600 Fishers Lane, Commerce and Labor. From time to Rockville, Maryland 20857. Both Wiley and Kebler were time in this early period of the divi- charter members of the Council sion, chemists also handled requests on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the Notes and References for analyses from the Interior Depart- American Medical Association. The ment, Congress, and the Bureau 1. James Harvey Young, “Drugs and the 1906 AMA established this council in of Printing and Engraving. Kebler Law,” in Safeguarding the Public: Historical No. 9 7 Aspects of Medicinal Drug Control, ed. John of Chemistry, 1892-1905,” box 199, Harvey Papers. B. Blake (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, Wiley Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library 23. Lyman F. Kebler, “Division of Drugs,” 13-page 1970), 147 (quotation). of Congress, Washington, D. C. (hereafter partially paginated typescript, attached to 2. Lyman F. Kebler, “Establishment of the Drug Wiley Papers), 85-86; L. F. Kebler, “Report Harvey Wiley to L. F. Kebler, 8 April 1909, Laboratory in the Bureau of Chemistry, United of the Committee on the Testing of Chemical General Correspondence, box 344, Papers States Department of Agriculture,” Journal of Reagents,” Proceedings of the 21st Annual of the Division and Bureau of Chemistry, the American Pharmaceutical Association 29 Convention of the Association of Official Ag- Records of the Bureau of Agricultural and In- (1940): 380. ricultural Chemists, St. Louis, Missouri, 26-28 dustrial Chemistry, RG 97, National Archives, 3. James Harvey Young, The Toadstool Million- September 1904, Bulletin No. 90, Bureau of Suitland, Maryland (hereafter Bur. Chem. aires: A Social History of Patent Medicines Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture Records), 1, 4; untitled, 54-page unpaginated in America before Federal Regulation (Princ- (Washington: G. P. O., 1905), 157-170; idem, typescript, c. 1910, General Correspondence, eton: Princeton University Press, 1961). “Report of the Committee on the Testing of box 344, Bur. Chem. Records, [23]-[27] 4. Minutes of the Section on Scientific Pa- Chemical Reagents,” Proceedings of the 22d (“Drug Inspection Laboratory in Charge of pers, 50th annual meeting of the American Annual Convention of the Association of Offi- George W. Hoover”); and John T. Cain, “Drug Pharmaceutical Association, Philadelphia, cial Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D. C., Control Inspection,” unpublished paper Pennsylvania, September 1902, Proceedings 16-18 November 1905, Bulletin No. 99, Bureau presented to the American Association of of the American Pharmaceutical Association of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture Food and Drug Officials, Buffalo, New York, 50 (1902): 271-275; see also Lyman F. Kebler, (Washington: G. P. O., 1906), 183-196; idem, 7 June 1945, “Cain, John T.,” box 47, Acc. “The Adulteration of Drugs,” American Jour- “Report on Reagents,” Bull. No. 105 (n. 13), No. 54A477, Food and Drug Administration nal of Pharmacy 74 (1902): 12-25. 181-188; idem, “Report of Committee on the Records, RG 88, Federal Records Center, 5. Kebler, “Establishment of the Drug Laboratory Testing of Chemical Reagents,” Proceedings of Suitland, Maryland, 3-4. (n. 2),” 380. the 24th Annual Convention of the Association 24. Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” 4; un- 6. Section on Scientific Papers, APhA, 1902 (n. of Official Agricultural Chemists, Norfolk, titled 54-page typescript, c. 1909 (n. 23), 4), 270-275. Virginia, 9-11 October 1907, Bulletin No. 116, [8]-[10]; W. O. Emery, “Report on Headache 7. Ibid., 270. Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Mixtures,” Proceedings of the 27th Annual 8. Ibid., 276-277. Agriculture (Washington: G. P. O., 1908), 100; Convention of the Association of Official 9. Ibid., 257-266, and minutes of the Section on and idem, Adulterated Drugs and Chemicals, Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D. C., Scientific Papers, 49th annual meeting of the Bulletin No. 80, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. 10-12 November 1910, Bulletin 137, 20 July American Pharmaceutical Association, St. Department of Agriculture (Washington: G. 1911, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Depart- Louis, Missouri, September 1901, Proc. APhA P. O., 1906), 14-16. ment of Agriculture (Washington: G. P. O., 49 (1901): 228, 300. 15. “Report of Committee on Drug Adulterations,” 1911), 183-186; idem, “Report on Headache 10. H. W. Wiley to John Uri Lloyd, 16 June 1902, Minutes of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Mixtures,” Proceedings of the 28th Annual and John Uri Lloyd to H. W. Wiley, 16 July American Pharmaceutical Association, Macki- Convention of the Association of Official 1902, reproduced in Kebler, “Establishment nac Island, Michigan, August 1903, Proc. APhA Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D. C., of the Drug Laboratory (n. 1),” 380; cf. John 51 (1903): 155-157, 158 (quotation), and Ly- 20-22 November 1911 (Washington: G. P. Uri Lloyd to Lyman F. Kebler, 11 January 1904, man Kebler, “Cooperative Work on Opium O., 1912), 236-237; and American Men of Records of the Bureau of Agricultural and Assaying,” Proc. APhA 52 (1904): 369 and Science, 6th ed., s. v. “Emery, W(illiam) Industrial Chemistry, Papers of the Division 371, where Kebler quotes Wiley’s approval of O(rrin).” and Bureau of Chemistry, Letters Received, having his head of the Drug Laboratory serve 25. John J. McManus and Clarence D. Schiff- 1886-1907, Lin to Mac, box 56, RG 90 (here- in referee work: “I would not have a chemist man, interview by James Harvey Young and after Bureau Chem. Records). in my bureau who would not take part in this Wallace Janssen, 10 May 1968, transcript, 11. “Lyman Frederic Kebler,” in American Chem- referee work. I not only require it, but give pp. 29-30, History of Medicine Division, ists and Chemical Engineers, ed. Wyndham D. every opportunity for doing it.” National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Miles (Washington, D. C.: American Chemical 16. Kebler, “Opium Assaying (n. 15),” 369-375; Maryland, quoted in James Harvey Young, Society, 1976), 266-267, and “Kebler, Lyman L. F. Kebler, “Report of Medicinal Plants and “From Oysters to After-Dinner Mints: The Frederic,” in Who Was Who in American Drugs,” Proc. AOAC, 1904 (n. 14), 141-150; and Role of the Early Food and Drug Inspector,” History—Science and Technology (Kingsport, L. F. Kebler, “Report on Medicinal Plants and Journal of the History of Medicine and Al- Tenn.: Kingsport Press, 1976), 321. Drugs,” Proc. AOAC, 1905 (n. 14), 161-170. lied Sciences 42 (1987): 51. See also Kebler, 12. Jonathan Liebenau, “Scientific Ambitions: 17. L. F. Kebler, “Report on Medicinal Plants and “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” 3-4; untitled The Pharmaceutical Industry, 1900-1920,” Drugs,” Proc. AOAC, 1906, 127-142, and idem, 54-page typescript, c. 1910 (n. 23), [15]-[18]; Pharmacy in History 27 (1985): 3-11; John “Report on Medicinal Plants and Drugs,” Proc. and American Men of Science, 6th ed., s. v. Parascandola, “Industrial Research Comes of AOAC, 1907, 81-87. “Nelson, E(lnathan) K(emper).” Age: The American Pharmaceutical Industry, 18. Glenn Sonnedecker, “Drug Standards Be- 26. Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” 4-[5]; 1920-1940,” Pharm. Hist. 27 (1985): 12-21; come Official,” in The Early Years of Federal untitled 54-page typescript, c. 1910 (n. 23), and John P. Swann, Academic Scientists and Food and Drug Control (Madison: American [43]-[46]; A. J. Lehman, “Some Functions the Pharmaceutical Industry: Cooperative Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1982), of the Division of Pharmacology of the Food Research in Twentieth-Century America 19. 34-35. and Drug Administration,” Food Drug Cos- (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Kebler, “Medicinal Plants and Drugs,” 1906 metic Law Journal 8 (1953): 408; and John 1988), 20-23. (n. 17), 135, and idem, “Medicinal Plants and Parascandola and Elizabeth Keeney, Sources 13. Problems such as the occurrence of chloride Drugs,” 1905 (n. 16), 169. in the History of American Pharmacology impurities in reagents; see L. F. Kebler, 20. Lyman F. Kebler and George R. Pancoast, (Madison: American Institute of the History “Report of the Committee on the Testing of “Some Curious Oils,” Pharmaceutical Journal of Pharmacy, 1983), 51-52. Chemical Reagents,” Proceedings of the 23d 17, 4th ser. (1903): 304-307. See also Kebler, 27. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law: Annual Convention of the Association of Adulterated Drugs and Chemicals (n. 14), 7- Administrative Reports, 1907-1949 (Chi- Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, 22. cago: Commerce Clearing House, 1951), 44, D. C., 14-16 November 1906, Bulletin No. 21. L. F. Kebler, “Nostrums and Fraudulent Meth- 51, and Harvey W. Wiley, The History of a 105, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department ods of Exploitation,” Journal of the American Crime Against the Food Law (Washington, of Agriculture (Washington: G. P. O., 1907), Medical Association 47 (1906): 1546-1550, D. C.: Harvey W. Wiley, 1929), 382-391. 182-183. 1623-1630. 28. George P. McCabe to Harvey Wiley, 8 Decem- 14. “Report of the Bureau of Chemistry for the Pe- 22. Harvey Wiley, memorandum for Division of ber 1910, “Pharmacopoeia,” box 207, Wiley riod Beginning July 1, 1897, and Ending June Publications, 29 September 1908, “Bureau Papers, and Harvey Wiley to Secretary of 30, 1905,” n. d., 136-page typescript, “Bureau of Chemistry, 1905-1912,” box 200, Wiley Agriculture, 20 June 1911, ibid. 8 Apothecary’s Cabinet 29. L. F. Kebler et al., “Report of Committee to Notice of Judgement No. 184, 4 March 1910. [35]-[36]; “Bureau of Chemistry: Division Cooperate with Revision Committee of the 33. Harvey W. Wiley, An Autobiography (India- of Drugs (n. 32),” 6-7; and H. C. Fuller, “The United States Pharmacopoeia,” Proceedings napolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1930), passim. Separation and Identification of Small Quanti- of the 39th Annual Convention of Association 34. Untitled, 29-page typescript collection of ties of Cocain,” in Technical Drug Studies (n. of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, separate Exhibits, labeled A through E, c. 37), 41-43. D. C., 19-21 November 1923, Journal of the As- 1911, “Bureau of Chemistry, 1905-1912,” 39 Morris Fishbein, A History of the American sociation of Official Agricultural Chemists 7 box 200, Wiley Papers (Exhibit A: “Daggett Medical Association, 1847-1947 (Philadel- (1924): 285-289; L. F. Kebler et al., “Report Case;” Exhibit B: “Solicitor’s Drug Samples;” phia: W. B. Saunders, 1947), 865-886, and of Committee to Cooperate in Revision of the Exhibit C: George P. McCabe to H. W. Wiley, James G. Burrow, AMA: Voice of American U. S. Pharmacopoeia,” Proceedings of the 29 January 1910; Exhibit D: F. L. Dunlap to Medicine (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 40th Annual Convention of the Association of H. W. Wiley, 14 April 1910; and Exhibit E: H. 1963), 74-75, 109-114, 117-118, and 126-128. Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, W. Wiley to Secretary of Board of Food and 40. Kebler, “Establishment of the Drug Laboratory D. C., 20-22 October 1924, J. AOAC 8 (1925): Drug Inspection, 28 April 1910). (n. 2),” 383; Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 280-281; and Lehman, “Functions of the Divi- 35. Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” 3-4, 10; 23),” 2-3; untitled 54-page typescript, c. 1910, sion of Pharmacology (n. 26),” 408. “Bureau of Chemistry: Division of Drugs (n. [52]; “Report of the Bureau of Chemistry, 30. Kebler, “Establishment of the Drug Laboratory 32), 13-14; and Kebler, “Establishment of 1897-1905” (n. 14), 91; and L. F. Kebler, The (n. 2),” 383. the Drug Laboratory (n. 2),” 382-383 (quota- Harmful Effects of Acetanilid, Antipyrine, 31. Arnold Thackray et al., Chemistry in America, tion). and Phenacetin, Bulletin 126, Bureau of 1876-1976 (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing, 36. Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” 3-4, [9]; Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture 1985), 361. “Bureau of Chemistry: Division of Drugs (n. (Washington: G. P. O., 1909). 32. Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” 3; untitled 32),” 13; and L. F. Kebler, “The Drug Importa- 41. Edgar L. Patch et al., “Report of Committee on 54-page typescript, c. 1910 (n. 23), 19-22; tion Act of 1848 and the Food and Drugs Act Drug Adulteration (n. 15),” 155-157; Kebler, “Bureau of Chemistry: Division of Drugs,” 11- of June 30, 1906,” Am. J. Pharm. 81 (1909): “Opium Assaying (n. 15),” 369-375; Lyman F. page typescript, c. 1909, Bureau of Chemistry, 20. Kebler, “Inferior Drugs and Insidious Methods General Correspondence, 1909, Bur. Chem. 37. Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” 3-4, [9]; of Deception,” Proc. APhA 51 (1903): 332-343 Papers; Kebler, “Establishment of the Drug untitled 54-page typescript, c. 1910 (n. 23), 34; (cf. idem, Adulterated Drugs and Chemicals Laboratory” (n. 2), 383; Lyman F. Kebler, and L. F. Kebler and F. M. Boyles, “Character (n. 14), 7-22); and untitled 54-page typescript, “Public Health Conserved through the En- of Samples of Beeswax Submitted with Bids,” c. 1910 (n. 23), [51]. forcement of Postal Fraud Laws,” American in Technical Drug Studies by the Division of 42. On problems with official drugs, see Journal of Public Health 12 (1922): 678-683; Drugs, Bulletin 150, 22 April 1912, Bureau of Sonnedecker, “Drug Standards Become Of- Arthur J. Cramp, Nostrums and Quackery, 3 Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture ficial (n. 18),” 37: For 9000 samples of six vols. (Chicago: American Medical Association, (Washington: G. P. O., 1912), 49-51. USP drugs collected in 1911, about forty-five 1911-1936), I (2d ed.): 68-75; and Office of the 38. Kebler, “Division of Drugs (n. 23),” [9], [13]; percent were not in compliance with official Secretary, U. S. Department of Agriculture, untitled 54-page typescript, c. 1910 (n. 23), standards. In the 1950s when your radio or television was not working, the do-it-yourself handyman could take out all the tubes and carry them down to the corner drugstore. Here, usually near the front entrance, you could place the tubes in an apparatus similar to the “U-Test-M Tube Tester” shown here, to try and identify the problem. If the tube registered in the “?” or “weak” area on the strength dial, you might have to call over the pharmacist to ask what you should do. Probably buy a new tube! Until the advent of the transistor the ubiquitous tube tester held an important place in the pharmacy and generated revenue from the tube pur- chases—even though most radios or TVs would function quite well on a tube with only 50-60% capacity. (Photo courtesy AIHP Drug Topics Collection.) No. 9 9 COLLECTOR’S CORNER WANTED: Philatelic items (U.S. and THE SNAKE-OIL SYNDROME, by A. GOOD HEALTH TO ALL FROM REX- worldwide) related to pharmacy, drugs Walker Bingham; 196 pages oversized, ALL! I collect anything made for the Rex- or medicinal plants. Interested in a wide more than 500 illustrations, 60 pages in all Store. Especially want early consumer range of philatelic items including post- full color. An in-depth reference work on products and pharmacy items manufactured age stamps, advertising stamps, envelopes, patent medicine advertising in the context by the United Drug Company (1903-46, postmarks/cancellations, philatelic litera- of efficacy and the selling images used. Boston). Also Rexall AD-VANTAGES ture relating to pharmacy. Contact Jack Cross-indexed by subject and product magazines, calendars, almanacs, photos, Chen, 7854 Calmcrest Drive, Downey, names, with notes, bibliography, and list and other franchise and advertising materi- CA 90240; (909) 469-5602 or via email of public collections. Hardcover, $44.00 als. United Drug brands: Puretest, Firstaid, [email protected]. postpaid from the Christopher Publishing Elkay, Kantleek, Jonteel, Liggett’s, Fenway, House, 24 Roackland Street, Hanover, MA Harmony (cosmetics), Electrex (applianc- WANTED: Surgical related items from 12339. es), Old Colony (inks), Klenzo, etc. What the 18th and 19th century. Instruments, FOR SALE: CD on Dr. Hatchett’s Drug have you? Frank Sternad, P.O. Box 560, books, etchings, photos and anything Store Museum (small town drugstore, Fulton, CA 95439; (707) 546-3106, e-mail of interest. Contact Dr. Alan Koslow at southwest Georgia). Consisting of almost [email protected] [email protected] or (515) 267-1821. 200 pages it describes many off-the-coun- ter medicines and patent medicines as well ANTIQUE TOY MUSEUM: Located in FOR SALE: Extensive antique collection: as other mainly early- and mid-twentieth- Baltimore, North of the Inner Harbor. Mu- Queen Anne balance with City of New century products. Includes product compo- seum contains apothecary shop with hun- York seals, pill roller, assorted pill bottles, sition, period advertising, prices, manufac- dreds of pharmaceutical antiques. Anne stone mortar believed to be 15th or 16th turers, history, dosage, etc. Includes index Smith, Director. Open Thurs., Fri. and Sat., century. A bronze mortar, as pictured in the by product and manufacturer. Available 11:00-4:00. Call for special appointments. Pill Rollers (p. 65), and 20 additional brass through Stewart County Historical Com- mortars of various ages. Pictures available (410) 230-0580, 222 West Read Street, Bal- mission, P.O. Box 818, Lumpkin, Georgia or may be viewed in person at Boynton timore, MD. 31815 for $12 a CD. Questions may be sent Beach, FL. Contact Herb Leonard (561) to Allen Vegotsky (a.vegotsky@worldnet. 364-8967. FOR SALE: Apothecary Antiques includ- att.net). ing drug jars, apothecary bottles, manufac- FOR SALE: One-hundred-year-old histor- turing tools, medical instruments including WANTED: Rennebohm prescription bot- ical pharmacy documents containing his- leech jar and various dental items; books tles or any Rennebohm products. Contact torical signatures. A Doctor In Pharmacy dealing with the above subjects available, Beth Fisher to donate, [email protected], or certificate issued to Ephraim Shaw Tyler in catalogues issued. Always buying similar 608-262-5378. 1902 and signed by Joseph P. Remington items or collections. John S. Gimesh, MD., and Henry Kraemer and others and issued 202 Stedman St., Fayetteville, NC 28305; WANTED TO BUY: Eye baths or eye- to Ephraim Shaw Tyler by the Alumni As- (910) 484-2219. wash cups with advertising (usually on the sociation of the Philadelphia College of bottom) from American drugstores. Please WANTED: Show globes, fancy apoth- Pharmacy in 1902. Both are well framed. describe embossing, color, shape, price. ecary bottles, porcelain jars, trade cata- Contact Charles R. Weiss at (330) 633- I am a pharmacist, collector, and AIHP logs, window pieces, patent medicines, 4342 or [email protected]. member. Contact Ronald “Tracy” Gerken, and advertising. Contact Mart James, 487 1131 Kings Cross, Brunswick, GA 31525; Oakridge Rd., Dyersburg, TN 38024; (731) FOR SALE: Own a piece of the financial 912-269-2074; [email protected]. 286-2025; e-mail: [email protected] history of drug, chemical, pharmaceuti- cal, and health care companies. Stock/ * * * * * WANTED: Books & journals on Pharma- Bond certificates (cancelled) are both his- The AIHP brings together those who cy (pre-1920), Pharmacognosy, Herbal/ tory and an artform. Most priced under wish to buy, sell, or trade artifacts or Botanic Medicine, Eclectic & Thomsonian $7.00 each. Send SASE for list. Interested books related to the history of pharmacy. Medicine, Phytochemistry, and Ethno- in buying similar items. Wayne Segal, Free classified advertising is available botany. I will purchase one title or entire Box 181, Runnemede, NJ 08078. e-mail to members ($5.00 a line to non-mem- libraries. David Winston, Herbalist & Al- [email protected] bers). Send copy to Apothecary’s Cabi- chemist Books, P.O. Box 553, Broadway, net, AIHP, 777 Highland Ave, Madison, NJ 08808, (908) 835-0822, fax: (908) WI 53705, or [email protected]. 835-0824, e-mail: [email protected] 10 Apothecary’s Cabinet