Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SLOAN. I notice that wheat, as explained, varies in amount of gluten or protein, and it will carry all the way from 7 to maybe 11, 12, or 13 per cent of those parts. But we will assume that there are classes of wheat that will be charged with 10 per cent of gluten or protein?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SLOAN. We can also assume that there are wheats that would give pure flour that would be charged with only 8 per cent of gluten or protein. Now, then, the discussions about this have run along the line that has caused me to submit this proposition. The first wheat would be charged with 10 per cent gluten, would have, in 100 pounds of wheat, 10 pounds of gluten. The one charged with 8 per cent would have 8 pounds of gluten. Suppose, for instance, then, we would take 80 pounds of the first and more highly charged wheat. There would be in that 80 pounds 8 pounds of gluten, would there not?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SLOAN. Now, then, if to 80 pounds of that superior wheat, having 8 pounds of gluten, we would add 20 pounds of cornstarch, having no gluten, the amount of gluten in each of those 100-pound lots, the mixture on the one hand and the wheat on the other, would be the same 8 pounds of gluten?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SLOAN. Now, I think the committee is largely interested in this concrete statement that may be made by you as a master baker understanding food values. Wherein would that 100 pounds of pure wheat flour containing 8 pounds of gluten be superior to the 100 pounds of flour and cornstarch comingled, having the same amount of gluten? About that point I would like to have, if possible, your discussion as to why one has the more food value than the other?

Mr. BURNS. Well, you are entering into a chemical phase of the question which, as a baker, I would not undertake to answer, but which I would be very glad to have answered.

Mr. SLOAN. As a baker, what is your understanding? I do not suppose a man would be held to a technical

Mr. BURNS (interposing). Well, as a baker, I would say this: Why should we assume that there is any desirability in debasing a high-grade flour to the level of the poorest flours we have in the country? Why should we attempt to bring them all down to the poorest flour?

Mr. SLOAN. I am not discussing the desirability, but just assume that it was done, even though it was not desired, but simply was done as a matter of experiment, and assuming that it would not be wise to do this, but that it is done, which is the more valuable as a food product? Is one more valuable than the other, in your opinion as a master baker?

Mr. BURNS. I would not undertake to express an opinion on that, because that involves a food analysis that I can not give to you, but I would be very glad to have Dr. McDermot answer that question. Dr. McDermot is here and is a chemist, a research chemist, and I would be very glad to ask him to answer that question.

Mr. LIND. If he is not prepared to answer it, Prof. Snyder is prepared to answer that, and he will be called very shortly.

Mr. SLOAN. I would just like to hear a discussion about that, because we had a very long examination here that raised that question. Mr. DIXON. This witness is about through?

Mr. BURNS. I think I am entirely through, if there are no other questions.

Mr. DIXON. Then call another witness.

Mr. LANNEN. I would like to ask the witness a question or two, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DIXON. All right.

Mr. LANNEN. On the question of the calorific value of starch, Mr. Burns, do you know Dr. Graham Rusk, professor of physiology in Cornell University and scientific member of the Russell Sage Institute of Pathology?

Mr. BURNS. I presume I have heard of him.

Mr. LANNEN. Don't you know that he is a recognized authority on nutrition?

Mr. BURNS. To my knowledge, no. I assume that he is.

Mr. LANNEN. I will show you his book and call your attention to page 7 of that book, which says that 1 gram of the ordinary foodstuffs when oxidized in the body yields the following number of calories. Now, I will ask you to examine that table and compare the calories of starch with the calories of protein and tell the committee the difference.

Mr. LIND. I think that is hardly fair.

Mr. BURNS. Well, if you please, Mr. Lannen, and if the committee please, I have not had a chance to look at this book. I do not know what table you are springing on me. Give that to a chemist, if you please.

Mr. LANNEN. I will state to the committee that Mr. Rusk gives the following table:

One gram of the ordinary foodstuffs when oxidized in the body yields the following number of calories:

Exactly the same as starch.

Mr. BURNS. Granting it is the same as starch, it may have the same calorific value but no protein.

Mr. LANNEN. On this German authority that you refer to, the part you read from here, as I understand it, gives an average value of protein as 5.71 for calorific value.

Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Mr. LANNEN. Starch, 4.19. Now, is it not a fact that that was a test in a burning tube, that it was a theoretical test in what is called a bomb, a calorimetric bomb for making artificial tests? Is not that true?

Mr. BURNS. I could not answer that question.

Mr. LANNEN. The caption of those figures reads that way:

Complete oxidation of 1 gram of each of the following articles of food in a calorimetric bomb gave the following values.

Does he not say also further down:

The physiological heat of combustion is not identical for the different proteins. The normal value for animal albumin is estimated as 4.23 calories; 3.99 for vegetable albumin; and 4.1 as an average value for proteins as a class.

Does he not say that?

Mr. BURNS. You read it there.

Mr. LIND. Animal protein? Is that animal protein that you read? Mr. LANNEN. That is vegetable.

Mr. LIND. It was not grain?

Mr. LANNEN. 3.99 for vegetable; 3.99 for vegetable albumin and 4.1 as an average value for proteins as a class. Showing that he agrees exactly with Graham Rusk, who says that the calorific value of starch is 4.1 and the calorific value of protein is 4.1.

Mr. FORDNEY. I submit that the time is flying pretty fast here, and we shall have to sit another week if we go on at this rate.

Mr. HILL. I want to ask you a question on the practical working of the bill on the statement you just made. Could you buy flour and ship it down there to your mill and adulterate it with corn flour at your blending mill and sell it within the State without any restriction?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILL. That now under the present law would be branded "mixed flour" and would you or the Minnesota man, if the flour came from Minnesota, have to pay the tax and keep the books? Mr. BURNS. I would have to do it. Mr. HILL. Suppose the bill passed. under this bill, could you not?

You could do the same thing

Mr. BURNS. Yes; without keeping any books.

Mr. HILL. Without keeping any books?

Mr. BURNS. Yes.

Mr. HILL. But under this bill would you have to put a brand on that thing showing just the proportion of the ingredients that you are paying a tax on?

Mr. BURNS. Not if it is sold within the State where it is blended; no, sir.

Mr. HILL. Why not?

Mr. BURNS. Because the pure food and drugs act does not control anything except interstate business.

Mr. HILL. Anything that goes into interstate commerce it controls?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILL. But not intrastate?

Mr. BURNS. No, sir.

Mr. HILL. Does Nebraska have a food law?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir; but I do not believe that it has a law that will cover this sort of thing.

Mr. HILL. Then what you want is to have the United States Government protect you against yourself?

Mr. BURNS. No, I am not asking for protection out in Nebraska. Mr. HILL. No, but you are asking that the United States Government protect the people of Nebraska against your own dereliction. Mr. BURNS. Yes, but the United States Government annually spends millions of dollars protecting those people in other trades.

Mr. HILL. Your principal objection is that this pure food law would not protect you in the State of Nebraska?

Mr. BURNS. That is only an incidental objection to it. My objection to it is any modification of this billl which will allow in any way the creeping into the flour of this country of corn starch.

Mr. HILL. The point about the case is that in neither case, under the old law nor under the proposed law, the package would not have to contain the mark of the percentages of the ingredients if it was entirely included within intrastate commerce.

Mr. BURNS. No, I believe that is true.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Lannen a question about the bill.

Mr. DIXON. Proceed.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Lannen, with this bill as it is drawn, would this provision for branding mixed flour affect any mixed flour except that designed for export?

Mr. LANNEN. It would affect both the mixed flour designed for export and the flour sold in this country.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, now, how do you explain that, because it seems to me your first provision affects only that flour which is intended for export.

Mr. LANNEN. I will explain that to the Congressman when I get the law here. You see section 2 of the present pure-food law covers interstate commerce, defines the jurisdiction of the Government over a shipment of an article of food. It also deals with export trade and prohibits the shipment of adulterated or misbranded articles of food in interstate commerce, the adulteration and misbranding being defined in following sections of the law. Congress evidently ran into a proposition of this kind: That the foreign countries might have laws that would be in conflict with the laws of the United States, and that an article of food legally labeled in the United States according to the provisions of this law might not be legally labeled in a foreign country to which an American exporter wanted to ship it. So, in order to cover that point, they put in this proviso in section 2 of the national food law:

Provided, That no article shall be deemed misbranded or adulterated within the provisions of this act when intended for export to any foreign country and prepared or packed according to the specifications or directions of the foriegn purchaser when no substance is used in the preparation or packing thereof in conflict with the laws of the foreign country to which said article is intended to be shipped; but if said article shall be, in fact, sold or offered for sale for domestic use or consumption, then this proviso shall not exempt said article from the operation of any of the other provisions of this act.

Our opponents on the other side last year came forth with the proposition that the export trade was a very material thing to consider, and that if the law was repealed all that it would be necessary to do if you wanted to ship adulterated wheat flour to England or Germany or some other country would be to have your purchaser over there specify how it should be labeled, and then under this food law, under that proviso, the labeling would be legal unless you put some substance in there that was prohibited by the laws of the foreign country, so in order to cover that, in drawing this bill Mr. Rainey put that first part of the law in, added it right onto the end of section 2.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes; but it does not relate back at all to anything in the other section. It simply provides what construction shall be placed on the term "mixed flour," and then goes on to say:

And when the same is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country the same shall in all respects comply with subdivision 3 (a) of section 8 of this act in the case of food.

All that subdivision 3 (a) will do is to simply provide as to what the brand shall contain, and it seems to me that you have not made it at all sure that this misbranding will be applied to any article except that which goes into export.

Mr. LANNEN. You see this law here, Mr. Congressman, deals with food generally. The definition of food in this act is this:

66

The term food," as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound.

Therefore when you bring this flour under this law all of the provisions of the law apply to it right straight through; all the definitions of misbranding, all the definitions of adulteration, and all the provisions of section 2 also apply.

Mr. LONGWORTH. But you take pains to say in your bill " and when the same is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country, the same shall in all respects comply with subdivision 3 (a) of section 8 of this act in the case of food," whereas nothing else in this article does conform with subdivision 3 (a). You have drawn this so as to make it only applicable to subdivision 3 (a).

Mr. LANNEN. Yes; but all the other definitions of adulteration and misbranding apply to it also.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, but you go further and make use of subdivision 3 (a), and simply provide how this particular product shall be branded.

Mr. LANNEN. That is for the purpose of putting branding on there that is not covered by the law as it is.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Why did you put in lines 16, 17, and 18 at all? Mr. LANNEN. Let me see that bill. How do those lines read? Mr. LONGWORTH. Those are the ones that confine your definition "mixed flour" to export.

Mr. LANNEN. As I explained before, Mr. Congressman, I would like to make that clear. Supposing we passed this bill. Suppose that the Congress passes this law simply repealing the taxing provision, simply wiping out the old law, what would happen? Then mixed flour would be labeled just the same as any other article of food, and so far as export is concerned there would be no regulation over it.

You could go over to England and get an order from the consumer over there, from a man who bought it from you, and have him specify that you label it "wheat flour." Suppose he sends you an order and says, "You give me so many pounds of flour, and I want you to put in there 20 per cent of cornstarch and 80 per cent of wheat flour," and he specifies, " and I want you to label that 'pure wheat flour."" Under the food law as it stands to-day you could label that "pure wheat flour" and ship it to England without saying a word on the label about cornstarch being in it.