- Email: [email protected]
Lye legislation in New York State
LYE LEGISLATION IN NEW YORK STATE B. R. RICKARDS,
S.B.
Director, Division of Public Health Education, State of New York Department of Health ALBANY,
Jackson of PhiIadeIphia was the speaker at one of the meetings of the Eastern New York Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Association heId in 1932. In conversation afterwards he suggested to me the need for Iye IegisIation in New York State that wouId at Ieast require the word “Poison” in Iarge letters on a11 cans of househoId Iye soId within the State. Since, through the courtesy of Dr. Jackson some years before, I had had the priviIege of seeing a number of cases of stricture of the esophagus in chiIdren caused by the ingestion of Iye Ieft careIessIy within the reach of tiny hands, no second invitation to take action was needed. Soon after the 1933 IegisIature convened I was abIe to secure the introduction of biI1.s in both the Senate and AssembIy which were identica1 with that outIined by the Bureau of LegaI Medicine of the American MedicaI Association. The Senate BiII passed on March 23rd and was sent to the AssembIy where it was referred first to the Committee on HeaIth and subsequentIy transferred to the Committee on Public Education. Letters endorsing the biI1 were sent to the Committee by the Eastern New York Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Association and to the Committee on MedicaI Legislation of the MedicaI Society of the State of New York. WhiIe the State Department of HeaIth did not specificaIIy endorse the biI1, it was favorabIe to its passage. One of the members of this Education Committee was a pharmacist. He contended that the proposed IegisIation was unnecessary as it was covered fuIIy by the pharmacy Iaw. This particuIar set of Iaws, as a matter of fact, aIIow the Board of Phaimacy to make reguIations regarding the
D
R. ChevaIier
N. Y.
saIe of toxic materia1 but are not specific as to what the toxic materia1 may be. The Secretary of that Board assured me that whiIe his Board couId make reguIations under the present Iaws regarding the sale of Iye, it wouId not do so unIess spec&aIIy directed by the LegisIature. His Board, so he stated, had taken no action either for or against the proposed biI1, but if the biI1 passed and they were given the enforcement of the Act, they wouId carry out the Iaw. VaIuabIe time had, however, been Iost and the biIIdied in Committee aIthough every effort was made to have it reported. In 1934, an identica1 biI1 was introduced in each branch of the IegisIature at an earIy date and the same endorsements secured. Again it passed the Senate without question. In the AssembIy it was again referred to the Committee of PubIic Education which in turn requested the Board of Pharmacy for an opinion regarding it. The Secretary of this Board replied: That enforcement of the BiII wouId require the expenditure of about $10,000 for additiona inspection service and that furthermore, the biII as drawn did not appIy to any substance soId at whoIesaIe or retai1 to be used by a retaiI druggist, a chemist, or for any industria1 or professional use or for use in any of the arts or sciences. In answer to the above opinions, the attention of the Committee was caIIed to the fact that the main object of the biI1 was to inform purchasers that Iye is a caustic poison, and that druggists and chemists were famiIiar enough with caustics to know how to protect themseIves. SecondIy, that the enforcement of the provisions of the biI1 couId be best handIed through requiring manufacturers of Iye to meet its provi-
NEW SERIES Var..XXX, No. I
Rickards-Lye
sions rather than by seizing sampIes and punishing purveyors. This expIanation seemed to satisfy the Committee, but again time had been Iost, for a11biIIs in committee were transferred to the Rules committee where they remained when the LegisIature adjourned. In 1935, after conferring with an oficial of the New York State Department of AgricuIture and Markets, the biI1 was introduced in the LegisIature with one important change, nameIy that the enforcement of the provisions was pIaced in the care of the Department of AgricuIture which now has the enforcement of a11 pure food and drug Iaws. This resuIted in the biII being referred to the Committee on AgricuIture bv both Houses. Both Senate and AssembIy biIIs were eventuaIIy reported out favorabIy and aImost simuItaneousIy and here arose an entireIy unforeseen but serious peri1. The Senate biI1 passed first and was sent to the AssembIy where it was referred to the Committee on RuIes, equivaIent to the
REFERENCES I.
BENEVIENI. Quoted by C. W. Flynn. 91: 505, 1930.
OF Am.
DRS. Surg.,
2. ROKITANSKY.Quoted by C. W. Flynn. Quoted by Porter.7 3. WEICHSELBAUM. M. L., and HERZOG, M. Ann. Surg., 26: 4. HARRIS, 66, 1897. MOYNIHAN, B. G. A. Ann. Surg., 26: I, 1897. 5. 6. SPAETH, F. Miincben. med. Wcbnscbr., 45: ro83, I 898. 7. PORTER,M. F. Ann. Surg., 43: 380, 1906.
* Continued
LegisIation
AmericanJournalof Surgery
‘55
death of the biI1. However, by quick action as soon as the AssembIy biI1 passed and was sent to the Senate, the sponsor of the Senate BiII, Senator Byrne, moved the Assembly biI1 be substituted for the Senate biI1. This was done and the AssembIy biI1 safeIy passed by both houses was sent to the Governor and became law by his signature on ApriI I, 1935. The Iye act became effective on September I. AIready the Department of Agriculture has sent out notices to lye manufacturers regarding the provisions of the act. The present force of food inspectors wiI1 inspect Iye cans on saIe throughout the State and proceed under the provisions of the Act if vioIations are noted. However, as manufacturers of Iye have shown a disposition to meet the terms of the Act, IittIe or no troubIe in enforcing the Act is anticipated. It is the opinion of Department of AgricuIture offIciaIs that directIy the enforcement of the act wiI1 not cause additional expense.
HERRMAN
AND
SOLOFF*
8. TAKANO. Zieglers Beitr. z. Patb. Anat., 53: 105, 1912. g. ROYSTER,H. A. J. A. M. A., 42: 534, ,911. IO. WESTMAN,A. Acta. Cbir. Scandinava., 59: 37, 1925. II. SCHMIDT,W. Zntralbl. f. Gyniik., 53: 719, 1929. 12. CRANE, W. Aw J. SURG., n.s. g: 441, 1930. 13. RANKIN and MAJOR. Surg. Gyna. Obst., 54: 809, ‘932. 14. DEDOFF, D., and NASRITSKY. Vesmic. Kbir., 21: 199. ‘930. 15. NISHIZAKI,S. Jap. J. Obst. ~Gynec., 12: 31X, rgzg. from p ~20.
S.B.
Director, Division of Public Health Education, State of New York Department of Health ALBANY,
Jackson of PhiIadeIphia was the speaker at one of the meetings of the Eastern New York Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Association heId in 1932. In conversation afterwards he suggested to me the need for Iye IegisIation in New York State that wouId at Ieast require the word “Poison” in Iarge letters on a11 cans of househoId Iye soId within the State. Since, through the courtesy of Dr. Jackson some years before, I had had the priviIege of seeing a number of cases of stricture of the esophagus in chiIdren caused by the ingestion of Iye Ieft careIessIy within the reach of tiny hands, no second invitation to take action was needed. Soon after the 1933 IegisIature convened I was abIe to secure the introduction of biI1.s in both the Senate and AssembIy which were identica1 with that outIined by the Bureau of LegaI Medicine of the American MedicaI Association. The Senate BiII passed on March 23rd and was sent to the AssembIy where it was referred first to the Committee on HeaIth and subsequentIy transferred to the Committee on Public Education. Letters endorsing the biI1 were sent to the Committee by the Eastern New York Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Association and to the Committee on MedicaI Legislation of the MedicaI Society of the State of New York. WhiIe the State Department of HeaIth did not specificaIIy endorse the biI1, it was favorabIe to its passage. One of the members of this Education Committee was a pharmacist. He contended that the proposed IegisIation was unnecessary as it was covered fuIIy by the pharmacy Iaw. This particuIar set of Iaws, as a matter of fact, aIIow the Board of Phaimacy to make reguIations regarding the
D
R. ChevaIier
N. Y.
saIe of toxic materia1 but are not specific as to what the toxic materia1 may be. The Secretary of that Board assured me that whiIe his Board couId make reguIations under the present Iaws regarding the sale of Iye, it wouId not do so unIess spec&aIIy directed by the LegisIature. His Board, so he stated, had taken no action either for or against the proposed biI1, but if the biI1 passed and they were given the enforcement of the Act, they wouId carry out the Iaw. VaIuabIe time had, however, been Iost and the biIIdied in Committee aIthough every effort was made to have it reported. In 1934, an identica1 biI1 was introduced in each branch of the IegisIature at an earIy date and the same endorsements secured. Again it passed the Senate without question. In the AssembIy it was again referred to the Committee of PubIic Education which in turn requested the Board of Pharmacy for an opinion regarding it. The Secretary of this Board replied: That enforcement of the BiII wouId require the expenditure of about $10,000 for additiona inspection service and that furthermore, the biII as drawn did not appIy to any substance soId at whoIesaIe or retai1 to be used by a retaiI druggist, a chemist, or for any industria1 or professional use or for use in any of the arts or sciences. In answer to the above opinions, the attention of the Committee was caIIed to the fact that the main object of the biI1 was to inform purchasers that Iye is a caustic poison, and that druggists and chemists were famiIiar enough with caustics to know how to protect themseIves. SecondIy, that the enforcement of the provisions of the biI1 couId be best handIed through requiring manufacturers of Iye to meet its provi-
NEW SERIES Var..XXX, No. I
Rickards-Lye
sions rather than by seizing sampIes and punishing purveyors. This expIanation seemed to satisfy the Committee, but again time had been Iost, for a11biIIs in committee were transferred to the Rules committee where they remained when the LegisIature adjourned. In 1935, after conferring with an oficial of the New York State Department of AgricuIture and Markets, the biI1 was introduced in the LegisIature with one important change, nameIy that the enforcement of the provisions was pIaced in the care of the Department of AgricuIture which now has the enforcement of a11 pure food and drug Iaws. This resuIted in the biII being referred to the Committee on AgricuIture bv both Houses. Both Senate and AssembIy biIIs were eventuaIIy reported out favorabIy and aImost simuItaneousIy and here arose an entireIy unforeseen but serious peri1. The Senate biI1 passed first and was sent to the AssembIy where it was referred to the Committee on RuIes, equivaIent to the
REFERENCES I.
BENEVIENI. Quoted by C. W. Flynn. 91: 505, 1930.
OF Am.
DRS. Surg.,
2. ROKITANSKY.Quoted by C. W. Flynn. Quoted by Porter.7 3. WEICHSELBAUM. M. L., and HERZOG, M. Ann. Surg., 26: 4. HARRIS, 66, 1897. MOYNIHAN, B. G. A. Ann. Surg., 26: I, 1897. 5. 6. SPAETH, F. Miincben. med. Wcbnscbr., 45: ro83, I 898. 7. PORTER,M. F. Ann. Surg., 43: 380, 1906.
* Continued
LegisIation
AmericanJournalof Surgery
‘55
death of the biI1. However, by quick action as soon as the AssembIy biI1 passed and was sent to the Senate, the sponsor of the Senate BiII, Senator Byrne, moved the Assembly biI1 be substituted for the Senate biI1. This was done and the AssembIy biI1 safeIy passed by both houses was sent to the Governor and became law by his signature on ApriI I, 1935. The Iye act became effective on September I. AIready the Department of Agriculture has sent out notices to lye manufacturers regarding the provisions of the act. The present force of food inspectors wiI1 inspect Iye cans on saIe throughout the State and proceed under the provisions of the Act if vioIations are noted. However, as manufacturers of Iye have shown a disposition to meet the terms of the Act, IittIe or no troubIe in enforcing the Act is anticipated. It is the opinion of Department of AgricuIture offIciaIs that directIy the enforcement of the act wiI1 not cause additional expense.
HERRMAN
AND
SOLOFF*
8. TAKANO. Zieglers Beitr. z. Patb. Anat., 53: 105, 1912. g. ROYSTER,H. A. J. A. M. A., 42: 534, ,911. IO. WESTMAN,A. Acta. Cbir. Scandinava., 59: 37, 1925. II. SCHMIDT,W. Zntralbl. f. Gyniik., 53: 719, 1929. 12. CRANE, W. Aw J. SURG., n.s. g: 441, 1930. 13. RANKIN and MAJOR. Surg. Gyna. Obst., 54: 809, ‘932. 14. DEDOFF, D., and NASRITSKY. Vesmic. Kbir., 21: 199. ‘930. 15. NISHIZAKI,S. Jap. J. Obst. ~Gynec., 12: 31X, rgzg. from p ~20.