United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co.

1. The Alsop Process is a process by which gray flour –what would today be recognized as unbleached flour—is turned white. The process involves introducing nitrogen peroxide gas, generated by electricity, and atmospheric air into contact with the flour. The process was developed by the Cape County Milling Company and by the 1940s was used in every in every wheat producing country in the world. Alsop died in 1936, but not before suing his former employer, claiming he had not received adequate compensation for developing the process. 2. Burden of Proof and Juries. Note both the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the burden off proof and the role of the jury in this case. Interpreting Statutes at the turn of the (20th) Century. We have already discussed (and will continue to discuss) the issue of statutory interpretation with respect to food laws. Justice Day seems quite convinced that the adulteration provisions of the Food and Drug Act prohibit only adulteration that may result in a physical health risk. Is that really so clear from the statutory text? If not, what is the underlying idea for Justice Day. Suppose the Alsop Process involved adding dirt to the flour and then turning it white. Adding a difference substance to “cut” another is essentially a process by which less flour can be sold as more flour. Would Justice Day conclude flower cut in this manner adulterated or not?   3. May result. The Court did not hold that the Government must show that the addition of a substance did result in a health risk in order to seize and destroy the food. Rather, the Court held that the addition must be of the sort that may result in a health risk. How does this standard differ and why does it matter? What is the relationship between this holding and the burden of proof discussion earlier in the opinion?