Talk:Pure Food and Drug Act

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

Untitled[edit]

Why is the Jungle mentioned in this article? It was published after the act was approved in congress. I recommend removing it's mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.43.28 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the arguments are here. I've uploaded the original text to wikisource, and will quote it here. - jslats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslats (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the information in this page is not entirely accurate. There seems to be some confusion with the 1906 Meat Inspection Act.(129.186.33.48 (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The article "Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act" redirects to some band, without even stopping at a disambiguation page. This is probably not correct...

We need the original source document (the act) at wikisource. KI 02:47, 23 February 2009

cool!

cool this is a very interesting subject and i look forward to reading/ learning more about it

) This article says that coca cola was attacted for its excessive caffein content, as well as its cocain content, but I've read that they 'replaced' the illegal drugs with caffein (without the attraction of the illegal drugs, coca cola needed a new appeal). Someone want to fact check that? (I think I read that in "Just Curious Jeeves," a random facts book of commonly asked qustions on the search site.)==

Does that mean that people who bought coca-cola back then were also consuming the drug cocaine???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.117.164 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a myth that Coca-Cola once contained cocaine.Yes, they were consuming cocaine in the caffeinated beverage before they changed over to caffeine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.127.131 (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't ref #5, which is both incorrect and rather disturbing, be deleted? I wou ld do so, but am stopped by my concern that no one has done it before, even though someone left a note to the effect that it was irrelevant or incorrect. Actio (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]