Page images
PDF
EPUB

The use of flourine or cornstarch as an adulterant of wheat flour would be objectionable from a dietetic point of view, and such a mixture would tend to restrict the legitimate use of corn rather than enlarge it.

Suppose wheat flour were allowed to be adulterated with flourine; if such a mixture were used as food, any ordinary or proper use of corn meal in the household would not be feasible. The mixing of wheat flour and corn meal in the household by the consumer, when he knows exactly what each is composed of that is, ordinary flour and meal-is entirely proper and commendable; but to first dilute the flour with cornstarch and then call that flour, and then use that as a basis for mixing with corn meal to make corn bread, or any other wholesome food, would make an inferior and a debased food product.

The use of flourine is inexcusable. The whole trend of scientific agricultural research has been to increase the protein content of human foods. Seed selection, plant breeding, soil improvement, and fertilization of soils have all been studied with a view of securing larger yields of stronger and better wheat crops; that is, richer in gluten or protein. By the admission of cornstarch in wheat flour, as proposed, is to abandon and violate the first principles of agriculture. Wheat flour should be built up on the gluten side, by the production of better wheats, as is now being undertaken, rather than diluted with cornstarch. The bill provides that the products of corn or any other grain can be mixed with wheat flour, etc. This would admit dextrin and dextrose or any one of the one hundred or more products and by-products of corn or any other grain. Since the corn products are distinctly products manufactured by the use of chemical reagents, as Mr. Bedford states, it primarily rests upon the conversion of starch into glucose.

To make cornstarch and to change starch into glucose and to produce other chemical changes known to occur in the manufacture of corn products, the question can well be raised, what chemicals are used, and is the health of the consumer properly safeguarded in admitting such products to be freely and promiscuously mixed with wheat flour?

Wheat flour is distinctly a mechanical industry-no chemicals are usedwhile what is known as the corn products is a chemical industry. Here it is proposed to permit the promiscuous blending of the products of the two distinct kinds of industry.

Years ago, prior to the enactment of the mixed-flour law, very questionable and inferior kinds of products were offered; not only ground soapstone, as shown by the Government reports cited, but poorly made cornstarch, cornstarch and glucoses from which the last traces of sulphuric acid used in the manufacturing processes had not been removed. How do we know that such inferior material will not be offered again? The analysis of the flourine sample made by the Minnesota experiment station showed free sulphuric acid. While this was 18 years ago, have the manufacturing processes been perfected to such an extent that a reoccurrence of free sulphuric acid is impossible? But independent of these very reasonable possibilities, flourine or cornstarch has no moral, economic, logical, or any other right to be mixed with wheat flour. Such a practice is plainly a fraud, as it is designated in Bulletin No. 63, page 10, of the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, and any attempt to view it in any other light is a connivance at fraud.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Sloan asked me, in substance, if there were any other ways in which a mixture of cornstarch and pure wheat flour, rich in protein, could differ in nutritive value from a regular and pure wheat flour lower in protein than in phosphate content. In other words, if a rich flour were mixed with cornstarch and the mixture had the same protein content as a low gluten (protein) flour, would the two differ in any other way than in phosphorus content as far as nutritive qualities are concerned? I desire to submit the following answer: They would not be of the same nutritive value. The cornstarch would lessen the nutritive value and would make the mixture less valuable and wholesome as a food than the wheat flour of the same protein content which contained no cornstarch.

There are at present in foods substances called vitamines. They are closely related to and as far as known they are protein derivates.

To a certain extent the organic phosphorus compounds are quite suggestive as to the vitamine content of a food. It can safely be said that a food which has neither protein nor organic phosphorus compounds contains no vitamines. Such a material is cornstarch. Flour-by that I mean wheat flour, such as an ordinary person would expect to get if he called for flour at a grocery storeis not overstocked with vitamine substances, and can not stand further diminution by the addition of 20 per cent or more of a substance actually devoid of vitamines as cornstarch. The acid-seeped water, the complete removal of the protein and phosphate compounds in making starch, entirely remove and destroy the vitamines. When a ration is deficient in vitamines digestion disorders occur, and the nerve centers are not capable of properly carrying on their functions. Dr. Wiley in his address to the committee on the previous day fully discussed the subject. The reports submitted by him from the Bureau of Public Health of our Government, I assume, also fully discuss this point in its relation to public health.

Briefly stated, any lowering of the vitamine content of wheat flour by the addition of cornstarch (devoid of this substance) would lower the food value and wholesomeness of the flour. It is in times of financial distress, when people are out of employment, that they must depend so largely upon bread as a food, and the reduction of the phosphate compounds and vitamine substances at such times can not be condoned by saying that they are supplied by the milk, eggs, fresh fruit, and vegetables, because the cost of such articles is often prohibitive at such times.

Mr. RAINEY. Call the next witness.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM G. CROCKER, REPRESENTING THE MILLERS' CLUB OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

Mr. RAINEY. Whom do you represent?

Mr. CROCKER. The Millers' Club of Minneapolis, the same association that Mr. Snyder represents.

Mr. RAINEY. How much time do you want?

Mr. CROCKER. A very few minutes.

Mr. RAINEY. Will you get through in 15 minutes if we do not ask you any questions?

Mr. CROCKER. If you do not ask me any questions I will be through in 5 minutes.

I shall speak of this matter rather from the ethical standpoint than the scientific standpoint.

I have been in the milling business for 34 years, but I am not a chemist nor a practical miller. What I am is an operating miller. Considerable has been said here about the merits of Michigan wheat and what it has done for various people. I am simply here to represent the northwestern wheat, and I want to take this opportunity to thank our opponents for the high words of praise accorded our flour, and in fact the splendid compliment paid to all flour, namely, that it is too good, and the quality, therefore, from their standpoint, should be lowered.

Why repeal the so-called mixed-flour law? Who is asking for its repeal? Is the consumer asking for it; that is, the family or the

baker? Is the wheat miller asking for it? Most certainly not; and why not? Because he is producing the cheapest and best food for the price and at the smallest possible margin; because it is an industry that is highly competitive and absolutely free from agreements or combinations; because flour always has been considered the staff of life and as dependable as sterling silver. When the buyer asks for flour he wants flour, because he knows that it will give him better results than any mixture or compound. He wants the real thing. There is only one real thing in flour, and that is flour.

It seems to me that the ones most interested in this proposed repeal are those who think they would be benefited by its repeal, namely, the maker or seller of the adulterant. The repeal of the present law would bring about most pernicious results and open the way for the lowering of the standard of breadstuffs. This is no flight of the imagination, but an absolute condition confronting this great industry.

Who wants this repeal? If the corn people wish to increase the human consumption of corn products, let them inaugurate a campaign of education. They can not make people eat corn, because the people want flour; and by that I mean wheat flour. Corn, excepting in a small way, is not human food, but stock food or feed.

Now, when we come to cornstarch, we find a different condition. We have heard that seven refining companies grind upward of 56,000,000 bushels of corn annually. There is one milling company in Minneapolis which grinds annually upward of 56,000,000 bushels of wheat into the staff of life. The repeal of this bill would mean legalized adulteration or deception.

And I framed those words before I heard Dr. Wiley yesterday.

The people greatly interested are the refineries which wish to find a market for this by-product, cornstarch. All this talk about corn flour and corn meal is all poppy-cock; it all simmers down to cornstarch. This little booklet we have here refers very suavely to corn flour, but the whole meat in the nut is cornstarch.

66

The inclusion in flour of this product would reduce the quantity of wheat ground in the same amount. It strikes me that the advocates of corn and corn by-products want the millers of wheat flour to pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Let me assure you, gentlemen, that were this fine corn meal and cornstarch or flourine, or whatever you may call this by-product, secured chemically in the manufacture of glucose, not white in color, this repeal would not be under consideration. Were this stuff pink or gray or blue or yellow, like cottonseed meal, we would not be here to-day. If this stuff is so good, why will the bakers not use it? If these people want to increase their business, why not put up cornstarch in 49-pound sacks or in 24-pound sacks and sell it to the grocers and start a campaign of education? The millers have had to educate the people up to the use of spring wheat against winter wheat. If the public wants cheaper food, why don't they do that? I will tell you why; they won't use it, because they know, and know absolutely, that it will not produce satisfactory results. If the people want cheaper flour, they can get it in the low grades, which are perfectly nutritious but of inferior or darker color.

The man who attempts the exportation of this proposed flour mixed with cornstarch would be a very sorry exporter, because the

foreign markets will take nothing but pure flour. Do we want to kill our export flour business of from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 barrels annually, which means labor for those employed? Do we want to take a step backward? Do we want to make deception easy, for that is what it means? Do we want to lower our standards? I do not believe that we do. I do not believe that the people want it. The bakers oppose this repeal and the millers oppose this repeal, because it is vicious and wrong, and the family consumer doesn't know that his daily bread is in jeopardy.

That is all I have to say, and that is the whole meat in the nutshell.

Mr. RAINEY. I thank you very much. That is one of the best statements that has been made, both on account of its intrinsic merit and its brevity.

Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Fowler has made no statement, and if it is agreeable to the committee, to save time, I would like permission to file a statement by him. It will be very short.

Mr. RAINEY. How many pages?

Mr. ROGERS. Not to exceed three.

Mr. RAINEY. That will be all right. The committee will permit you to file that.

Mr. LANNEN. I have some matters I would like to put in the record before the hearing closes, if I may. I would like to file and have printed in the record, which I will not stop to read, first, a letter from Mr. R. K. Bliss, director of the Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, favoring the repeal of the tax.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. R. G. GOULD,

Secretary Mixed Flour Committee,

AMES, IOWA, January 28, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. GOULD: There certainly seems to be no reason why mixed corn and wheat flour should be taxed, especially since the pure-food law provides that the contents of the sack shall be printed upon the outside. I therefore trust that the repeal of this law, sponsored by Senator Cummins, will be favorably acted upon by Congress. I think you will find our people all O. K. from this State. Very truly, yours,

R. K. BLISS, Director.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Oliver Wilson, master of the National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, Peoria, Ill., favoring the Rainey bill.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. R. G. GOULD,

NATIONAL GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY,

Peoria, Ill., January 27, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have your letter stating that the Rainey bill will be before the Ways and Means Committee on Monday next. I have notified Mr. McSparran, of Pennsylvania, and Black, of Maryland, members of our legislative committee, to be present to represent the National Grange. I gave them your address; told them to inquire for you on their arrival, at the New Willard Hotel. Mr. Freeman has been sick for several weeks, not even been able to attend to office work. So, of course, will not be present.

As you know, the National Grange went on record in favor of the repeal of the tax on mixed flour.

I am, very truly, yours,

OLIVER WILSON. Master of National Grange.

Mr. RAINEY. I understand you have several letters there from organizations and persons interested in the bill?

Mr. LANNEN. I just want to refer to them briefly. It will not take me but a minute to run right through them.

A letter from the Horton-Holden Hotel Co., a large consumer of flour, Waterloo, Iowa.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

R. G. GOULD,

Mixed Flour Committee,

WATERLOO, Iowa, January 28, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th inclosing me copy of the editorial from the Farmers' Review, of Chicago, and also sending the facts concerning mixed flour used by your people.

Representing our firm, who, as you know, are large users of flour in our different hotels, you can rest assured that we appreciate the work that your committee, as well as your firm, are doing for the public when they take a stand in favor of corn. We are very much in sympathy with the Rainey bill to remove the discrimination against corn. We shall be very glad to write our Congressman, or if we can help you in any other way, please advise.

Yours, truly,

HORTON-HOLDEN HOTEL CO., By O. G. HARDEN.

Mr. FORDNEY. Are you going to put in your statement and the letters, too? You objected a while ago, Mr. Chairman, to referring to matters twice.

Mr. LANNEN. I am just referring to them.

Mr. RAINEY. He is just identifying them.

Mr. LANNEN. Letter from John Dill Robertson.

I am going to part with them, Mr. Congressman, and I simply want to have a record of them.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

December 6, 1915.

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCTS FROM CORN,

1236 First National Bank Building, Chicago.

DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of December 1, inquiring whether a bread made from a mixture of wheat flour and cornstarch or corn flour in the proportion, approximately, of 80 parts of the former and 20 parts of the latter would have any injurious effect upon the health of the consumer, I beg to reply that in my opinion such a mixture is fully as digestible and nutritious as the elements entering therein when considered separately.

Mixtures of wheat and corn flour in the proper proportions can not be criticized on the grounds of wholesomeness. The objections to such mixtures are due to the possibility of fraud, resulting from misrepresentation, all of which can be obviated by requiring the same to be properly labeled.

Respectfully,

JOHN DILL ROBERTSON,
Commissioner of Health.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Charles Downing, secretary of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, or, rather, a resolution by the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, favoring the repeal of the tax, and signed by Charles Downing, secretary.

(The resolution referred to is as follows:)

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

At a meeting of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture held on the 25th day of January, 1916. in the Statehouse in the city of Indianapolis, the following resolution was adopted:

« PreviousContinue »