building up all the tissues of the body as the whole wheat flour is. It, however, tastes better to most people, is more attractive in appearance, and it is here to stay; and I am here to say a word in favor of the integrity of this product which means so much to the industries of this country, both agricultural and manufacturing, and so much to the reputation of the industries of this country in furnishing a pure article.

As some of you may remember, I did what little I could to call attention to the evils of bleaching flour, which I regard as a very great evil, and, happily, although the law has not been able to put a stop to it, public opinion has to a large extent done so and the bleaching of flour is to-day very much more restricted than it was a few years ago.

In regard to the effect of the addition of cornstarch to flour, it may be interesting to go back to one or two little passages in this pamphlet to which I have alluded, to show that it is not always advocated that those who use this product in the mixing of flour should do so solely for the public welfare, as illustrated by a quotation on page 6 of this pamphlet. [Reading:] "Instructions accompanying a shipment of flourine by the Glucose Sugar Refining Co., of Chicago," which is a producer of corn products.

In using flourine as a substitute, especially in the lower grades, they are brought out in color at least two grades, thereby enabling the miller also to obtain on the particular grade from 15 to 30 cents a barrel more with the mixture than without.

That is one of the reasons which was urged that day before bleaching became general for the admixture of this product with wheat flour.

Now, I want to make my argument to-day upon two points. One is that the mixing of corn products or the products of other grain with wheat flour is under the law an adulteration. That is so to-day, and it always has been regarded before the law was established as an_adulteration, and it is legally to-day an adulteration.

It would be bad enough, Mr. Chariman, to repeal the law and leave wheat flour with other products to come solely under the food and drugs act as it stands to-day. I say that would be bad enough, for this reason. I know personally the limitations of the Bureau of Chemistry, as I presided over it for many years and had six or seven years' experience in the activities of that bureau in the enforcement of the food and drugs act. It would be possible, I suppose, to extend that bureau, if it were advisable, to such an extent that it could examine every product made by every mill in this country. But that would mean an expense of great magnitude and a work of even greater magnitude. Therefore, if flour is placed under the food and drugs act solely, as it would be if this law taxing it were repealed, it would be very difficult for the Bureau of Chemistry to supervise in an effective way the output of those mills that would seek to debase the flour by admixing other substances therewith; and for that reason it is better to go right to the source and license those who wish to make these mixtures under the revenue act, as is the case to-day.

A much more simple, a much more effective way of correcting this evil, in fact I am certain the best way to do it would be by the taxing power.

I believe to-day the food law upon the whole would be more effective if it were a taxing law exclusively and not a supervisory law. I believe we would have pure food, we would get at the source of difficulties, and we would have a better control.

But that is not here or there. This one particular article is under the control of the Revenue Department as oleomargarine is and as renovated butter is.

Now, let me ask your careful attention to this point, which, although it may have been raised here before, has not been raised to-day-and I have not had an opportunity to attend these meetings before to-day. What is true of flour must be equally true, if justice is done, with other food products. If, therefore, you make a special exception in favor of mixed flour, taking it out of the adulterated class, as you propose to do by the bill pending, adding a clause which specifically excepts flour from the operation of the clause which says if you mix an inferior substance it is an adulteration, why may not every other food product claim the same privilege?

Can you deny, gentlemen, a similar concession to every other food product? And then the manufacturers, the people who want to sell material to adulterate honey, and the same people who are promoting this would make an article of this kind, you could pass a law that honey is not adulterated if it is called mixed honey, if it is mixed with glucose and plainly marked "mixed honey," and the amount of the glucose added is stated upon the label. Did you ever think, gentlemen, that merely naming adulteration does not correct the evil? Do you know that the adulteration of food is something which can not be corrected by changing a label? Is not food just as much adulterated that has 20 per cent of corn starch in it after it is named as it is before? Is it not just as inferior to the original product as it was before? Has it not the same lack of nutrititional value as it had before? Does it not threaten the health and life of a child as much as it did before? Certainly it does.

Adulteration is not a fault that can ever be corrected by changing the label.

And, more than that, the change is made here about adulteration in the adulteration clause of this bill and not in the misbranding clause. This proposed amendment to the food law goes under "adulteration" and not under "misbranded," where it naturally would belong. No; the fault of adulteration is never reached, never has been, and never will be, by changing a label and calling it adulterated. Strychnine is just as poisonous under the name of strychnine as if sold as a salt. The fact that it must be labeled strychnine has nothing to do with its injurious quality. A food product is not improved in any way by requiring that it be properly named. That should be done. Of course it should be done. Every product that goes into commerce should be correctly named. But the name of it has nothing to do with its purity or its adulteration.

Mr. HILL. But, Doctor, you do not mean to say that adulteration, if we concede an adulteration; you do not mean to say that that is wrong, do you? The quality is sometimes improved by adulteration, is it not?

Dr. WILEY. I never knew anything that was improved by adulteration. I am speaking of adulteration in the sense of the law. Mr. HILL. So am I.

Dr. WILEY. If it is mixed, or changed in any way whereby a valuable property is taken out or a less valuable property inserted, it is adulterated. The definition applies to an inferior article, something that is made inferior by adulteration. A thing which improves a body or substance and makes it better than it was before is not defined in this law.

Mr. HILL. That would be defined as a mixture, perhaps. Perhaps the word adulteration" means a deterioration.

66

Dr. WILEY. It does. It is a deterioration.

Mr. HILL. But a mixture might make it better? Dr. WILEY. Oh, yes. You could mix a You could mix a good thing with a bad thing and make the bad thing better; but you can not mix it without making the good thing worse. So I say that if this step is taken you have entered upon a career which means the absolute negation of the whole food law from beginning to end, as far as adulteration is concerned. You make simply a labeling law.

Mr. OLDFIELD. I think the contention here is that they are mixing two good things.

Mr. FORDNEY. Yes.

Dr. WILEY. I could not hear your suggestion.

Mr. FORDNEY. The gentleman says that mixing wheat flour and corn flour, as they contend, is the mixing of two good things. Dr. WILEY. Well, one of them is better than the other.

Mr. FORDNEY. Which of the two is the better?

Dr. WILEY. Wheat flour.

Mr. MOORE. Your position is unchanged to-day from what it was in 1898, when you were Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry? Dr. WILEY. It has changed a little; it is more firm.

Mr. MOORE. As I recall it, you were a single man then.

Dr. WILEY. I am glad that you have found out the cause of the change.

Mr. MOORE. I would like to call your attention to the letter you wrote to Mr. Augustine Gallagher on February 15, 1898. Do you recall such a letter?

Dr. WILEY. Well, I do not remember it; no.

Mr. MOORE. It is in the document to which you referred.

Dr. WILEY. Yes; I judge it is in here.

Mr. MOORE. I want to get this in the record. Do you care to read it, Dr. Wiley?

Dr. WILEY. I will ask you to read it; you read more eloquently than I do.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you.

Mr. MOORE. The letter is as follows:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Mr. AUGUSTINE GALLAGHER,

National Hotel, Washington, D. C.

DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY, Washington, D. C., February 15, 1898.

DEAR SIR: In reply to your inquiry in respect to the effect of an excess of starch on the wholesomeness of bread, permit me to make the following observations:

The wholesome ration is said, in scientific language, to be a well-balanced ration—that is, one in which there is a certain definite proportion existing between the starch or sugar, the protein matter, and the fat. The bread made from wheat flour contains these elements in well-balanced proportions. The effect of added starch to the flour made from wheat would be to increase inordinately the proportion of starchy matter, and thus the bread made from

such a flour would be no longer a well-balanced ration. In order to make it so, the consumer would be required to eat additional quantities of mear containing certain proportions of fat. The excess of starch in such a bread would tend to interfere with the digestion of the protein matters in the stomach, and to this extent might produce indigestion. While starch itself is not an unwholesome food, if it is eaten in too large quantities it produces derangement of the digestive organs, just as any other article of food, such as protein or fat, used in excessive quantities would interfere with the natural processes of digestion. It is evident, therefore, that the mixture of an excess of starch with wheat flour might work serious injury to those persons who make bread their chief article of diet.

Respectfully,

H. W. WILEY, Chief of Division.

Mr. MOORE. The views expressed in that letter in 1898 are held by you to-day?

Dr. WILEY. They are held by me to-day, but I have a great deal more scientific ground for holding them to-day than I had then, because the progress of science has strengthened my views and shown their verity in a way I shall disclose to you in a few moments. But that is a good letter if I did write it myself.

Mr. MOORE. It was well read, too, was it not, Doctor? [Laughter.] Dr. WILEY. Excellently read.

And so I want to emphasize that point, gentlemen, because I do not know that it has been brought to your attention just in this way, that this is taking a step in the wrong direction; this is taking a step in which you propose to legalize an adulteration which deteriorates the quality of one of the most important food products we have. As I was about to go on to say, if you do that with flour, the man who wants to make adulterated honey will ask the same privilege, the man who wants to make adulterated butter will say, You can call it mixed butter if we state the amount of oleomargarin which it contains." And so on with the whole range of human food. There will not be one left; you can not deny one food product what you give to another and be consistent.

Mr. LONGWORTH. In other words, Doctor, you think that it would be less of an encouragement to adulteration to merely repeal the present law than to succeed it with this proposed bill?

Dr. WILEY. Oh, yes. If you repeal this present law, do not go any further than just that. I think it would be a mistake to do that, because it has worked very well, and I am opposed to its repeal; but it would be infinitely better to repeal it and let it go by the way, and trust to the pure-food law, than it would be at the time of repeal to legalize an adulteration.

Mr. HILL. The pure-food law would not require putting on the brand the percentage of each product, would it?

Dr. WILEY. No; but it would require that they be named.

Mr. HILL. But this does

Dr. WILEY. But not in quantity.

Mr. HILL. Why, then, do you say that we would do better to repeal it entirely and trust solely to the pure-food law-and amend it so that the percentages would be named?

Dr. WILEY. I do not object to that at all.

Mr. HILL. Then you would qualify your former statement?

Dr. WILEY. I object to it because it legalizes adulteration; it says that flour is taken out of that clause and put in a separate clause, and it says it is not an adulteration, the mixing of other things with flour is not adulteration.

Mr. HILL. But it tells exactly what it is.

Dr. WILEY. I know; but the point I make is that that does not excuse nor remove the adulteration in the flour; there is just the same lack of nutrition.

Mr. MOORE. Do you think it legalizes the adulteration?

Dr. WILEY. It legalizes the adulteration. It not only permits it, but it permits the things we were doing in 1897, when there was no law; if this should become a law, it would be legalizing those things by the Congress of the United States, it would be saying that it is no offense to do this thing.

Mr. RAINEY. Would you prefer to proceed without interruption until you get through your statement?

Dr. WILEY. If I can hear you I would just as leave have questions now. Just as you like. You may ask me now or wait until

I get through.

Mr. RAINEY. I was referring particularly to questions asked you by other members.

Mr. CONRY. I suggest that the rule we adopted this morning would be the best rule to follow, that the doctor be allowed to proceed without interruption until he finishes his statement.

Mr. RAINEY. Very well. That is the best rule to follow.

Dr. WILEY. I will only occupy a few more minutes of your time, because what I have to say is right in my mind and I do not have to grope around for it at all.

Now, the next point is the dietetic point. That is the thing I want to urge most of all. You are familiar with certain dietetic diseases which ravage humanity. In fact, there are more diseases due to fault of diet than you have any idea of. There are more diseases which attack humanity by reason of fault of diet than those known as diet diseases. For instance, we do not think of tuberculosis as a diet disease, and yet it is. We do not think of pneumonia as a disease of diet, and yet to a certain extent it is. We do not know what the cause of cancer is, but I have no doubt when we do find out we will find that it is intimately related in some way with our diet.

Then there are certain diet diseases, such as scurvy, beri-beri, which is a diet disease of the Orient where polished rice is eaten, and pellagra, which is a diet disease, so proved by the investigations of the Public Health Service.

Now, it so happens that pellagra obtains in that very part of our country where most of the mixed flour will go, as we have already heard. That is, pellagra is more prevalent in the South than it is in the North, and it has long been suspected that it was a diet disease. It has been laid to Indian corn itself, as you know. A great many dietitians and physicians take the position that it was Indian corn largely which caused this trouble.

But the Public Health Service has taken this matter up experimentally, not theoretically, but experimentally, and has gone down to where pellagra obtains so largely, and has studied the dietaries of the people who have it, and they have not only done that, but they have undertaken the cure of it by changing the dietary. Not only have they done that, but they have undertaken the production of pellagra purposely by a dietary similar to that which is eaten by those who are suffering from this disease, and they have caused pellagra in seven months by a diet of that kind.