Lawrence; J. T. Willard, D. Sc., director of the agricultural college laboratory, Manhattan,

KENTUCKY (LEXINGTON).

Agricultural experiment station, food and drug division: R. M. Allen, head; J. O. La Bach, chief chemist; W. R. Pinnell, bacteriologist.

LOUISIANA (NEW ORLEANS).

State board of health: Dr. Oscar Dowling, ex officio food commissioner; Geo. B. Taylor, State analyst.

MAINE (AUGUSTA).

Department of agriculture: John A. Roberts, commissioner, Norway; A. M. Soule, chief deputy, Augusta; James M. Bartlett, chemist, Orono.

MARYLAND (BALTIMORE).

State board of health: Dr. Chas. Caspari, jr., State food and drug commissioner; Dr. Wm. Royal Stokes, State bacteriologist; Dr. W. B. D. Penniman, chief chemist.

MASSACHUSETTS (BOSTON).

State department of health: Allan J. McLaughlin, M. D., commissioner of health; Herman C. Lythgoe, analyst, department of food and drug inspection; Alvord H. Rose, D. V. S., director, department of dairy inspection.

MICHIGAN (LANSING).

Dairy and food department: James W. Helme, commissioner, Adrian; Burr B. Lincoln, deputy commissioner, Harbor Beach; F. L. Shannon, analytical chemist, Lansing.

MINNESOTA (ST. PAUL).

Dairy and food department: J. J. Farrell, commissioner; John McCabe, assistant commissioner; Julius Hortvet, chemist; H. D. Meyer, secretary.

MISSISSIPPI (AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE).

Agricultural and mechanical college, department of chemistry: W. F. Hand, State chemist.

MISSOURI (ST. LOUIS).

Food and drug department: F. H. Fricke, commissioner, St. Louis; G. B. Cook, deputy commissioner, Fredericktown, Mo.; H. E. Wiedemann, chemist, St. Louis.

MONTANA (HELENA).

Department of public health: W. F. Cogswell, M. D., secretary, Helena; W. M. Cobleigh, chemist, Bozeman.

NEBRASKA (LINCOLN).

Food, drug, dairy, and oil commission: Clarence E. Harman, deputy commissioner.

NEVADA (RENO).

Agricultural experiment station, food and drug control department: Sanford C. Dinsmore, commissioner; Miles B. Kennedy, chemist.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (CONCORD).

State board of health: Irving A. Watson, M. D., secretary; Chas. D. Howard, B. S., chemist.

NEW JERSEY (TRENTON).

State board of health: Dr. J. C. Price, secretary, Branchville; R. B. FitzRandolph, chief, bureau of food, drugs, water, and sewage, Trenton. W. G. Tice, chief chemist, Trenton.

NEW YORK (ALBANY).

Department of agriculture: Calvin J. Huson, commissioner; Geo. L. Flanders,

counsel.

NORTH CAROLINA (RALEIGH).

Department of agriculture: W. A. Graham, commissioner; W. M. Allen, State food and oil chemist.

NORTH DAKOTA (AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE).

Agricultural experiment station: E. F. Ladd, commissioner and chemist; R. E. Remington, chemist; Robert Hulburt, bacteriologist.

OHIO (COLUMBUS).

Agricultural commission of Ohio, dairy and food division: T. L. Calvert, Ichief in charge.

OKLAHOMA (OKLAHOMA CITY).

Department of public health: J. W. Duke, commissioner of health; U. S. Russell, assistant food and drug commissioner; Edwin De Barr, State chemist.

OREGON (PORTLAND).

Dairy and food commission: J. D. Mickle, commissioner; A. S. Wells, chemist.

PENNSYLVANIA (HARRISBURG).

State dairy and food commission: James Foust, commissioner; Wm. Frear, chemist, State College, Center County; Jas. A. Evans, chemist, Erie, Erie County; F. T. Aschman, chemist, Pittsburgh; C. B. Cochran, chemist, West Chester; Chas. H. Lawall, chemist, Philadelphia.

RHODE ISLAND (PROVIDENCE).

Food and drug commission: Frank A. Jackson, chairman; John E. Groff, Rhode Island Hospital; Franklin N. Strickland, executive secretary and chemist.

SOUTH CAROLINA (COLUMBIA).

Department of agriculture, commerce, and industries: E. J. Watson, commissioner; A. C. Summers, chief chemist.

SOUTH DAKOTA (VERMILION).

State food and drug department: Guy G. Frary, M. S., commissioner; C. I. Vaughn, deputy commissioner; Harry F. Hadley, Ph. D., assistant chemist.

TENNESSEE (NASHVILLE).

Department of food and drugs: Harry L. Eskew, commissioner; Dr. D. L. Weatherhead, first assistant chemist.

TEXAS (AUSTIN).

Food and drug department: R. H. Hoffman, jr., commissioner; E. H. Golaz, chemist; P. S. Tilson, collaborating chemist.

UTAH (SALT LAKE CITY).

State dairy and food department: Heber C. Smith, commissioner; Herman Harms, State chemist.

VERMONT (BURLINGTON).

State board of health: Dr. Chas. S. Caverly, president, Rutland; Dr. Henry D. Holton, Brattleboro; Dr. B. H. Stone, director of laboratory, Burlington.

VIRGINIA (RICHMOND).

State dairy and food commission: Benj. L. Purcell, commissioner; Peyton Rowe, deputy commissioner; Dr. E. W. Magruder, chemist.

WASHINGTON (SEATTLE).

State dairy and food commission: J. J. Higgins, commissioner; W. H. Adams, deputy commissioner, Spokane; L. W. Hanson, deputy instructor.

WEST VIRGINIA (WHEELING).

State department of health.

WISCONSIN (MADISON).

State dairy and food commission: Geo. J. Weigle, commissioner; H. Kleuter, chemist.

WYOMING (CHEYENNE).

Dairy, food, and oil department: Maurice Groshen, commissioner; G. W. Brower, deputy commissioner; R. B. Moudy, M. S., State chemist.

BRIEF SUBMITTED BY JOHN LIND, EDWARD S. ROGERS, AND FRANCIS M. PHELPS ON BEHALF OF MILLERS AND BAKERS.

SUGGESTIONS WHY THE PURE-FOOD LAW SHOULD NOT BE AMENDED SO AS TO LEGALIZE THE ADULTERATION OF FLOUR, AND WHY THE ACT TAXING MIXED FLOUR SHOULD NOT BE REPEALED, AS PROPOSED BY THE RAINEY BILL (H. R. 9409).

The measure which is under consideration is a means by which the seven producers of all the cornstarch in the United States1 expect to dilute the flour supply of the country.

Among the advocates of the bill is the Corn Products Refining Co., now being prosecuted by the Government as a monopoly under the antitrust laws. There are many reasons, ethical and economic, why this bill should not pass. The main objection to it is that it legalizes fraud.

THE PURPOSE OF THE RAINEY BILL.

It is proposed by this measure to repeal the mixed-flour law and to amend the food and drugs act by relaxing certain of its provisions with respect to the adulteration and misbranding of flour and specifically excepting flour when adulterated with cornstarch from its operation.

THE PRESENT LAW.

The act sought to be repealed provides:

"That for the purposes of this act the words '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

1 Hearings before the committee of the Sixty-third Congress, page 3 (the only other cornstarch manufacturer is the American Maize Co., which is owned by the Royal Baking Powder Co.)

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: Provided, That when the product resulting from the grinding or mixing together of wheat or wheat flour with any other grain, or the product of any other grain, of which wheat or wheat flour is not the principal constituent as specified in the foregoing definition, is intended for sale, or is sold or offered for sale as wheat flour, such product shall be held to be mixed flour within the meaning of this act."

Makers and packers of mixed flour are required to pay a special tax of $12 a year and a stamp tax of 4 cents is levied on each barrel. All packages are required to be plainly marked and the manufacture, mixing, and sale are directly and completely under Government control.

Being a revenue act, the whole industry is in charge of the Department of Internal Revenue, and is conducted under the supervision of that department.

THE ABUSES AT WHICH THE MIXED-FLOUR LAW WAS AIMED.

It was stated in the report of the Committee on Ways and Means of the Fifty-fifth Congress, reporting the bill which became the mixed-flour law, that

"The evils growing out of the business of mixing with wheat flour the refuse starch of the glucose factories, or ground clay or rock, are so enormous, so far reaching, so dangerous to the public health, and so injurious to legitimate trade, commerce, and industry, that Congress should promptly apply an appropriate and effective remedy, a remedy that will not alone require those engaged in the business of adulterating flour to brand their product and sell it for what it is, thereby protecting the consumer, but a remedy that will also require these parties to contribute to the support of the Government by the payment of a tax upon the sale of their product, thereby insuring the enforcement of the law by the agents of the Government charged with the duty of collecting its revenue. This is all that the accompanying bill proposes. It requires the producers of mixed flour to brand their product, specifying the ingredients used in its manufacture, and at the same time the bill seeks to raise revenue for the Government-at a time, too, when more revenue is needed-thus affording to all classes protection against this fraud and possible disease. It proposes to suppress false pretenses and to promote fair dealing in the manufacture and sale of an article of food universally consumed. It will compel the sale of mixed flour for what it really is by preventing its sale for what it is not."

The complete report is attached hereto as Appendix I, together with Document 309, being the report of February 11, 1898, of the then Secretary of Agriculture on the adulteration of wheat flour.

THE PRESENT LAW EFFECTUALLY PREVENTS ADULTERATION.

This act has been on the statute books for nearly 18 years, and has effectually prevented the adulteration of flour. This is conceded by everyone.

In the letter of August 3, 1914, from Hon. B. R. Newton, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, to Hon. Henry T. Rainey (Hearing on mixed-flour bills, Feb. 18, 1915, Appendix B), he said:

"The Commissioner of Internal Revenue informs me that the original law defining mixed flour and imposing the tax upon the product and special taxes upon manufacturers, packers, and repackers was embodied in the war-revenue act of June 13, 1898, and, while passed as a revenue measure, it was evidently intended to prevent the adulteration of wheat flour, as commonly known to the trade and public, which object seems to have been fully attained.

* * * ""

It is now proposed to repeal this concededly effective statute, to amend the food and drugs act to except adulterated flour from its operation, and to legalize its sale under certain unenforcible and specious conditions. This measure should be defeated if for no other reason than this-it is an attempt to substitute for demonstrated efficiency an untried experiment.

That the mixing of cornstarch with flour constitutes adulteration can not be doubted. It is, in the language of section 7 of the food and drugs act, the mixing and packing with flour a substance which reduces, lowers, or injuriously affects its quality or strength.1

1 The dilution of flour with corn products is a well-recognized form of adulteration. See Hutchinson's Food and Dietetics (William Wood & Co., New York, 1914); The Chemistry of Bread Making, by James Grant, London (Edward Arnold, 1912, p. 117); Foods and Their Adulteration, by Harvey W. Wiley (second edition, Philadelphia, P. Blakiston's Sons & Co., 1911); Allen's Commercial Organic Analysis (vol. 1, p. 447).

The form of adulteration practiced by the admixture of corn flour or cornstarch to wheat flour is peculiarly dangerous on account of the difficulty of detection. The Government regulations under the present mixed-flour law state: "For the exact detection of pure wheat flour from that mixed with corn flour or other material microscopical examination is necessary,' and it further appears from these regulations that it requires an objective of greater magnifying power to detect the adulteration than that used on the ordinary internalrevenue microscope.

THE OBJECTIONS TO THE RAINEY BILL.

The objections to the proposal to repeal the mixed-flour law and amend the pure-food act are stated in a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture to Senator Kenyon, better perhaps than we can express them. Mr. Vrooman says:

"In answer to your letter of February 13, inclosing a letter and copy of telegram dated February 9, from J. C. Hubinger Bros. Co., Keokuk, Iowa, asking for full information as to the workings of the bill for the repeal of the mixedflour act, the following data is submitted:

"The original mixed-flour law was passed in 1898 (30 Stat., 467) and amended by section 13, act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat., 949), and further amended by act of April 12, 1902 (32 Stat., 99). Considerable study of the pros and cons of this question has been made, and the following is submitted for your consideration.

"The act of 1898, imposing a tax on mixed flour, was passed before there was a food and drugs act. While a revenue act, as I understand it, it was not passed primarily as a revenue measure, but as a regulatory measure. It never has produced much revenue and never was intended to produce such revenue. It was passed at the solicitation of pure-food advocates and of many members of millers' associations, who saw in mixed flour a grave danger to the high reputation of American flours and American millers. (See H. Doc. 309, 55th Cong., 2d sess.)

"Those who favor the repeal of the law state: (1) That in view of the fact that there is now a food and drugs act, the arguments which were used against mixed flours in 1897-98 do not apply with the same force; (2) that the manufacture of mixed flour would tend to lower the cost of bread, and hence lower the cost of living; (3) that the bread made from mixed flour would be fully as nutritious as the present pure wheat flour.

“The opponents of the repeal of the law admit that the first contention is correct. The food and drugs act has a certain validity and regulatory efficacy, but at same time its regulatory powers are very limited, particularly in dealing with such products as flour, the label on the original packages of which the average consumer of bread never sees, and hence is in no position to pass any intelligent judgment upon. Moreover, it is urged that the mixed-flour act has the following advantages over the food and drugs act with regard to labeling: Under the mixed-flour act the name of the manufacturer and the place of manufacture must appear upon the label of the package; the label must be printed in "plain black letters not less than 2 inches in length"; the in formation required upon the label on the outside of the package must also appear upon a card placed inside of the package; the minimum fine for the first offense is $250, whereas under the food and drugs act it may be any amount not to exceed $200; the mixed flour act prevents intrastate shipments as well as interstate shipments of misbranded flours; under the mixedflour act mixed flours exported to foreign countries must be labeled precisely as they are in this country, regardless of the laws of the countries to which they go. This appears to afford an important protection to our export trade. For these reasons it is urged that the prevention of fraud and deception in the labeling of mixed flours, should the regulation of the manufacture of this product come under the food and drugs act, would be more difficult than it is under the mixed-flour act.

As to the second contention of the advocates of the repeal, the opponents of the repeal say that while it seems clear that the manufacture of mixed flours would decrease the cost of flour to the producers, that it would reduce the cost of flour to the consumers to any considerable extent seems very problematical. The Department of Agriculture is confronted with this economic problem in various guises practically every day, and it has been made very clear during the past few years that a decrease in the price of the farmer's wheat does not