Mr. LIND. I do not recall that I raised any question about the tariff.

Mr. WAGNER. I said that there were certain products which were "fit to be used as starch" that came in free, whereas under the provisions of the tariff act there should be a duty of half a cent a pound. That was one question. If you want the proof, I am ready to submit it.

Mr. FORDNEY. The only thing I asked you about would be submitting at any time the cost of production, giving the real cost of raw material and other costs in making up your cost of production.

Mr. WAGNER. If I understood you right, you asked me to what extent the item of labor entered into the cost of cornstarch. That was the question.

Mr. FORDNEY. In the production of cornstarch and other materials from the corn.

Mr. RAINEY. Have you prepared that statement?

Mr. WAGNER. No; I would have to get that from the office. I could not possibly get it here.

Mr. RAINEY. Without objection, Mr. Wagner will be permitted to file that statement.

Mr. LANNEN. Just one word, Mr. Chairman. The record discloses something in regard to what Mr. Helvering said last night that I do not want to go unchallenged. I understood last night that Mr. Helvering wanted stricken off this record a reference to the SpanishAmerican war tax. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to protest against that.

Mr. HELVERING. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that he has no right to dictate to us how we print our hearings.

Mr. RAINEY. But he has a right to address the committee on that subject.

Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard here that in times of war Germany is compelling the people, under penalty of going to the penitentiary, to use mixtures of cornstarch and wheat flour. Mr. LIND. Not true. I challenge that.

Mr. LANNEN. Starch and flour.

Mr. LIND. Yes; potato starch; and you exclude that by your definition.

Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Chairman, when that tax was put on we were at war with Spain. I was one of the boys who went to the front at that time.

Mr. HELVERING. So was I.

Mr. LIND. I was there.

Mr. LANNEN. And I served in a foreign country in that war, and as a Spanish-American War veteran I object to trying to strike from this record the fact that this was a war tax that helped to keep us from getting the food that we needed in time of war.

Mr. FORDNEY. Mr. Chairman, that bill was introduced in Congress on the 22d of March, 1898. The war was not declared until April 28, 1898. It was not a war measure and never was intended to be anything of the kind, and when the gentleman says so he knows better, if he has studied this. The date of the introduction of the bill will show that. It did not pass until after the war was declared, but it was introduced before war was declared-a matter of

a month before-and I know it, and so does everybody know it that wants to know anything about it.

Mr. RAINEY. The bill will show when it was introduced.

Is there anything else? If not, the committee stands adjourned. (At 5.45 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned.)

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE BISCUIT AND CRACKER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION, TO THE PROPOSED BILL.

It is not the purpose of this brief to discuss at length the relative advantages and disadvantages of the present law and the proposed amendment. But it will be confined to the presentation of a number of points which it is desired to submit to the committee for its consideration.

Speaking generally, it may be said that it is feared that the effect of the amendment will be to restore certain unsatisfactory conditions which existed prior to the passage of the act of 1898, and perhaps to flood the market with inferior goods. It does not seem to us that the pure-food act alone gives the protection to the public against either mixed or adulterated flour, which is to-day afforded by that act in combination with the act of 1898.

I.

GOVERNMENT INSPECTION IS THE REAL PROTECTION AGAINST MIXED FLOUR.

Under the present law every maker and packer knows that his mill or plant is subject to Government inspection, and that the insertion of mineral substances in his goods is likely to be discovered. Moreover, mixed flour can be kept off the market more effectively in this manner than if the protection to the consumer given thereby is removed. This is shown by the marked decrease in the number of mills paying revenue under the act of 1898 (with the exception of last year, in which case the increase is probably due to the higher price of flour resulting from the war). The evident purport of the act was to protect the public from mixed flour, and to assure a pure-wheat flour to purchasers. It was a step toward maintaining a high standard for bread and other bakery products, and, doubtless, for that reason, was allowed to remain when other portions of the Spanish War tax act were repealed.

The statistics show that it has been successful and that the volume of sales of mixed flour has been negligible. If, however, the protection afforded by Government inspection is removed, it seems certain that a large increase in the volume of mixed flour and of so-called "corn flour" will doubtless occur, in addition to the increased danger of the marketing of mixtures containing mineral substances. We presume that the committee will have before it evidence with respect to the value of gluten in whole flour and that it is unnecessary for us to call attention to the differences between wheat and so-called corn flour" in this respect.

66

II.

THE NEW BILL DOES NOT STRENGTHEN THE PURE-FOOD ACT.

On the contrary, the effectiveness of the pure-food act is materially weakened. The additional branding required-that is to say, the stating of the percentages-is not the equal as an aid to public protection of Government inspection and sworn statements. Moreover, the markings may readily be overlooked. The housewife is not a chemist, and not knowing how to counteract the ingredients of a mixed flour would be unable to make the right kind of bread.

III.

TWO SAFEGUARDS ARE BETTER THAN ONE.

Congress is asked to repeal a law upon the ground that it is not necessary to have both the pure-food act and the act of 1898 in operation. The argument is fallacious in that the safeguards provided by the two acts are different, and the two together give more protection and better regulation than the pure-food act alone.

IV.

IF THE PROPOSED BILL WERE LAW, GREAT DIFFICULTY WOULD BE ENCOUNTERED IN ITS ENFORCEMENT.

In many instances a skillful chemist would be required to analyze the product for the purpose of ascertaining the relative quantities of wheat and other grain or elements, and it is highly probable that in many instances correct analyses would, as a practical matter, be impossible to obtain.

V.

THE PROPOSED BILL WOULD INCREASE THE USE OF CORNSTARCH IN WHEAT PRODUCTS.

The persons who appeared before the committee have discussed the various aspects of the use of cornstarch and the probability of its use in making a mixed flour under the proposed amendment. It therefore seems unnecessary for us to reiterate the difficulties other than to say that it seems highly probable that the consuming public would be given in increasing quantities bread and bread products, crackers, biscuits, and other similar foodstuffs not made of whole wheat flour, but of a mixed flour composed largely of cornstarch or of corn husks, To-day, owing to the provisions of the act of 1898, the retailer can not purchase mixed flour. It is not on the market; that is to say, in any substantial quantities. If the restrictions are removed, it will, we fear, become possible for retailers, millers, bakers, and others to obtain it in large quantities, and the temptation may, in some cases, be irresistible to use it instead of a whole wheat flour to produce the ultimate product.

VI.

AS TO CHEAPER BREAD.

It should be borne in mind that the demand in this country is for quality and not quantity as regards bread. The people do not want a cheap article if in attaining cheapness quality is sacrificed. Americans desire their bread to be of the best wheat, and they are entitled to have it so.

VII.

AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS.

It will be noted that the act of 1898 applies to all the trade throughout the country, whereas the pure food act applies only in interstate commerce. The act of 1898 affords, therefore, protection to the entire American public, whereas the pure food act gives only a relative protection restricted to limited channels of trade. While these channels are large, they are by no means complete. This is particularly so in the bread trade. We venture to say that a great majority of the people of the United States eat bread which is baked, put on the market, sold, purchased, and consumed in the same State. It is obvious that evasions of the proposed bill would be easy. Wheat raised in Illinois and corn raised in Nebraska can each be readily shipped separately to a packer in St. Louis. If the mixing is done in St. Louis, for sale and consumption in the State of Missouri, it is hard to see how either the proposed bill or the pure food act would have any application.

We therefore respectfully submit that the present law should not be repealed or amended, as proposed, and that the proposed bill should not be enacted into law.

Respectfully submitted, this 8th day of February, 1916.

BISCUIT & CRACKER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, By W. M. BROWNELL, Secretary.

C. W. WICKERSHAM,

25718-16- --30

40 Wall Street, New York City,
Of Counsel.

BRIEF SUBMITTED BY H. C. FULLER, OF THE INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, D. C., TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH H. R. 9409.

I am a graduate in chemistry of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass., and have been practicing the profession of chemistry for 15 years. My work has included principally investigations of problems of food and drug chemistry. Shortly after the food-and-drugs act went into effect, I joined the staff at the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and for five years was engaged in active work having to do with the administration of the law. Subsequent to my connection with the Bureau of Chemistry, I have been with the Institute of Industrial Research, Washington, D. C., as assistant chief of the division of food and drugs products and as chief of that division, which position I now hold. The Institute of Industrial Research is a private institute engaged in handling chemical and engineerng problems, and has done a large amount of work in the investigation of foods. While I was engaged in work at the Department of Agriculture I was a member of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, a body of scientists composed of men who are doing chemical work in the Department of Agriculture, in the State experiment stations, and in municipal laboratories. This association is engaged in testing out and reporting on methods of analysis of foods and drugs, and practically all of the methods now used in the examination of foods were evolved by this association. I dwell on this association at this point, and wish to refer to it subsequentiy.

The purpose of the Rainey bill, H. R. 9409, in so far as it seeks to amend the food and drugs act of 1906, is to allow the use of cornstarch in a mixture with wheat flour and to provide a definite standard for such admixture by law and to designate how the same shall be labeled. This purpose is apparent from a reading of the bill and from the remarks made at the hearing during the past week, and the statement by Mr. Lannen at the hearing last year, when he said: "A mixture of the milled product of wheat (wheat flour predominating) and the milled product of corn (cornstarch) was extensively used for bread and general baking purposes prior to the existence of this act" (referring to the mixedflour law of 1898).

A careful study of the second section shows that it is the desire of the promoters of this bill to prevent the use of carbohydrate mixtures of any other product than grain, and therefore the bill discriminates against the use of potato flour or potato starch, banana flour or banana starch, cassava flour or cassava starch, arrowroot starch and starch mixtures prepared from various nuts, such as chestnuts. Potato starch, cassava starch, and arrowroot starch are all commercial products, and as far as any difference in their composition is concerned they should not be discriminated against in favor of cornstarch.

If the present bill is embodied into a law, it will seriously affect the administration of the food and drugs act as a whole. The provision contained in the present bill seeks to provide a food standard and this would be the only food standard made by legislation. At the present time a committee of representative scientists is formulating a set of standards for foods, and their conclusions as to any one product are arrived at only after long deliberation. The standard for mixed flour, as given in the Rainey bill, does not describe a mixed flour at all, according to the understanding of those who are familiar with food economics and the administration of food laws; neither does it comply with the present rulings of the Department of Agriculture concerning mixtures or compounds. Before going further it might be well to define what is meant by flour. The standard for flour, as provided in Circular 19 of the office of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, under "Vegetable products," page 7, says:

"Flour is the fine, clean, sound product made by bolting wheat meal and contains not more than 133 per cent of moisture, not less than 1.25 per cent of nitrogen, not more than 1 per cent of ash, and not more than 0.50 per cent of fiber."

Under the same section, the standards for other flours are given, in each case the vegetable source being stated. It is evident that unless otherwise qualified by statement of the vegetable article, the term flour means wheat flour and wheat flour only. In this connection I desire to call your attention to a definition of flour as given by Dr. John A. Wesener and George L. Teller, both of whom were proponent's witnesses at this hearing.

In an article entitled, "Contributions of the chemist to the flour industry," published by the above gentlemen in the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, volume 7, No. 4, April, 1915, page 283, these gentlemen state:

"Flour may be defined as the fine white meal of the interior of the wheat grain, either by itself or mixed with a small proportion of finely ground wheat bran or wheat germ. Its quality depends upon the kind of wheat from which it is made and upon its freedom from bran and germ, which for the most part in the ordinary process of milling find their way into coarse by-products ordinarily sold as feed for domestic animals.”

The article referred to is being filed with this report as it contains many matters of vital interest to the present hearing.

A flour is the ground and milled product of a vegetable substance minus a large proportion of the skin or husk, and usually the germ of the vegetable product from which it is obtained. It is composed of from 70 to 80 per cent of starch, C.H10O5, from 0.4 to 1 per cent or more of ash or mineral matter consisting of bone-building material, from 9 to 15 per cent of protein consisting of a mixture of nitrogenous substances having nutritive value, from 8 to 13 per cent of moisture and a very small quantity of fat. Starch is only one of the components of flour and it is the component which does not possess building-up properties. It produces heat and energy and to a certain extent fat, but a perfect flour must have this energy-producing value set off by a quantity of building-up material such as is given by the protein and the ash. Mixed flour properly defined would not be a mixture of wheat flour and cornstarch, wheat flour and potato starch or wheat flour and arrowroot starch; in other words, it would not be a mixture of wheat flour with the product of another grain, unless this product of some other grain represented a true flour from that grain, and then only when an appropriate adjective indicative of the grain is used. A product obtained by mixing wheat flour with cornstarch could only be labeled a compound of wheat flour and cornstarch. To attempt to legislate another name for such a mixture would practically disrupt the ruling of the administrators of the food and drugs act and it would be an opening which would be taken advantage of by the dealers in other commodities. For instance, if this bill were made into a law, it would be perfectly proper for milk dealers to come forward and ask that a standard be made for mixed milk and provide for its admixture with water or skim milk, and similar propositions might be cited without limit.

The definition for mixed flour as given in the Rainey bill differs from that in the present mixed-flour law. The present law defines a mixed flour as follows: Mixed flour shall be taken and construed to mean the food product resulting from the grinding or mixing together of wheat or wheat flour as the principal constituent in quantity with any other grain, or the product of any other grain or other material, except such material, and not the product of any grain, as is commonly used for baking purposes."

The Rainey bill defines a mixed flour as follows:

"Mixed flour shall be taken and construed to mean a food product resulting from the grinding or mixing together of wheat, or wheat flour, with another grain or with the product of another grain, whether the same contains a leavening agent or not."

You will note that the present definition does not provide that wheat flour shall constitute the larger proportion, and you will further note that the phrase, "or other material," is omitted in the Rainey bill. On inquiry it has been determined that the phrase, "or other material," is construed as referring to flours from other vegetable sources, such as potatoes, cassava, etc., and therefore the present law is not discriminatory.

An examination of four samples of cornstarch shows that the moisture runs from 8.3 to 9.6 per cent, the ash from 0.11 to 0.14 per cent, and the protein from 0.2 to 0.6 per cent. If a flour was mixed with 20 per cent of an ingredient having the above composition it would simply result in adding a filler, reducing the nutritive properties of the wheat and adding nothing of any value. The remarks relative to the proper understanding of what constitutes a mixed flour have been emphasized in order that the committee may understand the position of the food authorities and chemists in this particular. They ap preciate, however, that as long as the present mixed-flour law is in force, the definition of mixed flour, as given therein, applies and a label of a product which complies with the law in this and other particulars is a proper label, even though the product may not be strictly representative of a mixed flour, as the term is now understood.