The Price of Mislabeling Butter
A Seattle grocer learns the hard way that missing a labeling requirement for 'process' butter is a punishable offense under state law.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
William Allen of the Cow Butter store in Seattle placed on sale a chunk of 'process' butter. Because he neglected to place a sign indicating that it was 'renovated butter,' he had to pay $25 in Justice Cann's court. Food Commissioner McDonald walked into the store, noted the absence of the sign, and bought a pound of the butter to serve as evidence. Mr. Allen admitted to the sale but argued he had the proper signage on display elsewhere in the store, claiming he simply neglected to move the sign when he moved the butter to a different table. Despite the court's sympathy, the state attorney cited the rigid requirements of the law, and the judge was forced to issue the fine.
“I'll have to fine you, Mr. Allen, because the law says so. I'll knock off the costs, though I wish I could cut this fine in half for you, but it seems I can't.”
This case highlights the early twentieth-century era of 'pure food' regulation, which prioritized transparency in commercial food production—a direct ancestor to today's FDA labeling requirements. While the $25 fine seems small now, it represented a significant penalty for a minor administrative oversight in 1903.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.