and correctly marked or branded with the words "mixed flour as the principal name of the product, or if it fails to bear below the principal name a plain, conspicuous, and correct statement of the names and percentages or relative proportions of all ingredients contained therein. Fourth. If the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which statement, design, or device shall be false or misleading in any particular : Provided, That an article of food which does not contain any added poisonous or deleterious ingredients shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded in the following cases: 66 First. In the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now or from time to time hereafter known as articles of food, under their own distinctive names, and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, if the name be accompanied on the same label or brand with a statement of the place where said article has been manufactured or produced. Second. In the case of articles labeled, branded, or tagged so as to plainly indicate that they are compounds, imitations, or blends, and the words compound," imitation," or "blend," as the case may be, is plainly stated on the package in which it is offered for sale: Provided, That the term blend as used herein shall be construed to mean a mixture of like substances, not excluding harmless coloring or flavoring ingredients used for the purpose of coloring and flavoring only: And provided further, That nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or compelling proprietors or manufacturers of proprietary foods which contain no unwholesome added ingredients to disclose their trade formulas, except in so far as the provisions of this act may require to secure freedom from adulteration or misbranding. Hon. CLAUDE KITCHIN, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, CORN PRODUCTS REFINING Co., House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: During the recent hearing before your honorable committee on H. R. 9409, I was requested to furnish certain information which I could not obtain until I could confer with our auditors. Representative Fordney desired certain information with respect to the production of starch from corn. This information is contained on the inclosed sheet marked "A." Representative Fordney, of Michigan, also desired to know to what extent the item of labor entered into the manufacture of cornstarch. This information is contained on the inclosed sheet marked "B." Representative Helvering desired to know how many hands were employed in the industry of corn products obtained by the wet milling process. This information is contained on the inclosed sheet marked "C." Respectfully, yours, Remarks. Inasmuch as commercial shelled corn contains between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of moisture, and inasmuch as the products made from corn contain variable amounts of moisture ranging from zero to 15 per cent, the only way to present comparative figures is to compute them on a dry basis, eliminating the moisture. The above figures are computed on that basis. B. COST OF LABOR PER 100 POUNDS OF CORNSTARCH PUT UP IN 1-POUND CARTONS (EXCLUSIVE OF ANY PACKAGE-PAPER AND WOODEN). The average cost of labor amounts to from 16 per cent to 20 per cent of the total manufacturing cost, exclusive of the cost of corn. The labor item increases or decreases in direct ratio with the operation of the plant; that is to say, the proportionate charge for labor is relatively low when the plants are operating at full capacity and relatively high when the reversé is the case. C. LABOR EMPLOYED BY MEMBERS OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCTS FROM CORN. The best estimate obtainable without a prolonged inquiry among the members of the association is that the total number of hands employed is about 6,000. This is exclusive of clerical help, brokers, and selling agents. In computing these figures it should be borne in mind that this industry is a large purchaser of various supplies, such as corn, coal, barrels, boxes, cartons, machinery, tools, repair parts, tin plate, etc., and in that way the industry gives indirect employment to a large number of men. The total tonnage of in-and-out freight is approximately 6,000,000 tons per annum. LETTERS, TELEGRAMS, ETC., SUBMITTED BY HON. HENRY T. RAINEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS. Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, House of Representatives. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, January 20, 1916. DEAR MR. RAINEY: In your letter of January 12, 1916, commenting upon a letter of this department of January 8 in the matter of the mixed-flour bill, you ask whether paragraph “5. If it be a product resulting,” etc., in that letter is intended to prohibit the placing on the market of a flour which contains any added pure starch, whether it be derived from potatoes, corn, or other sources. In reply, you are advised that it was not intended to keep off the market a compound consisting of wheat flour and pure starch, but to prevent the designation of such a mixture as a flour. It is a compound of flour and starch, and in the opinion of this department should be labeled as such. The department sees no objection to the use of a product of this kind for any purpose for which it is suited. It is believed, however, that it is highly objectionable to permit the sale of such a product under the designation of "flour," whether qualified by the word "mixed" or compound." 66 You ask further whether the above-mentioned clause in the department's letter of January 8 is designed to keep off the market "a mixed flour composed approximately of 60 per cent wheat flour and 40 per cent corn flour." The department is of the opinion that this clause would not have the effect of keeping such an article off the market if the corn product used was, in fact, corn flour; that is, a product which contains essentially all the ingredients of the corn kernel, except part of the bran and germ, and not merely cornstarch. It is believed, however, that "flour" is not a proper designation for cornstarch that has been ground to the fineness of flour. The department is inclined to the view that if the mixed-flour law were repealed, a product composed of wheat flour and starch would be misbranded under the food and drugs act if labeled "flour" or "mixed flour." It would seem, however, that this should be made plain by Congress in the act repealing the mixed-flour law. While it is true that wheat flour mixed with carbohydrates of any edible type could be used for many purposes for which wheat flour is at present used, the department believes that the food and drugs act does not permit and should not permit the sale of such a product as a "flour." It is a compound of flour and starch and should be so designated. The department is of the opinion, therefore, that the term "flour" should not be defined in your proposed bill so as to extend its meaning to include mixtures of wheat flour and starch, as suggested in the last paragraph of your letter. To do so, in the opinion of the department, would be a most serious inroad upon the food and drugs act. Very truly, yours, D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary. Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, House of Representatives. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEAR MR. RAINEY: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of January 21, 1916, inclosing a copy of H. R. 9409, introduced by you, for the repeal of the so-called mixed-flour law of 1898, and the amendment of sections 2 and 8 of the food and drugs act. It is noted that the bill was introduced prior to the receipt by you of the letter of the department dated January 20, 1916, explaining its position in reference to the labeling of compounds of wheat flour and starch; also that the definition of mixed flour in the proposed bill is at variance with the views expressed by the department in that letter. It is true that the definition you have adopted is the same as that found in the mixed-flour act of 1898. However, although nominally that statute permits compounds of wheat flour and starch, among other things, to be called mixed flour, yet, in operation, its real effect has been substantially to prohibit the manufacture and marketing of such mixtures. This situation was pointed out in a letter of February 18, 1915, to Congressman Hull, of which a copy was sent you January 8, 1916. An examination of the legislative history of the bill which resulted in the statute indicates that possibly the framers of the measure intended that this purpose should be accomplished in practice. But, whatever may be the facts in that respect, the figures of the Treasury Department make it plain, beyond peradventure, that an almost complete prohibition of the mixtures of wheat flour and starch, under the name of mixed flour, has resulted. The act of 1898 being a taxing measure, the definition therein of mixed flour serves merely as a means of classifying, for purposes of taxation, mixtures of wheat flour and other ingredients of vegetable origin; it does not furnish, for the purpose of a labeling statute such as the food and drugs act, an accurate rule for determining whether an article of food of this character is correctly branded. The department suggests, for your consideration, that the effect of the adoption in your bill of the present definition for mixed flour would be to create an exemption in favor of that particular compound from the present labeling provisions of the food and drugs act. While, by reason of the fact that compounds of that kind have been practically off the market since prior to 1906, occasion has not heretofore arisen to apply to them the present provisions of the food and drugs act, yet in the department's opinion, under those provisions in the event of an unqualified repeal of the mixed-flour law, they would be clearly misbranded if labeled "mixed flour." The proposed definition if enacted would therefore, according to the department's view, have the effect of weakening the existing requirements of the food and drugs act as applied to compounds, and would tend to create an argument for further exemptions of compounds other than flour and starch. Such a precedent would be unfortunate and would open the way for other special legislation to render less stringent the labeling provisions of the food and drugs act as applied to particular articles. The department is in accord with your view that the widest use should be made of corn and corn products, and that no discriminatory legislation should be enacted which would interfere with such use. Yet it can not assent to the proposition that the compound resulting from the mixture of wheat flour and corn starch, or wheat flour and starch derived from any source, is entitled to be called mixed flour. Such a definition is not in accord with the facts, as this department understands them, and can not fail to be misleading to the consumer, even though there be a provision of law requiring a statement on labels of the ingredients of such product. Inevitably a label declaring such product to be mixed flour, when accompanied by a statement of the starch or carbohydrate content, would be conflicting; it would, therefore, be misleading and deceptive to purchasers, who would buy the product as and for a mixture of flour of different kinds, as the term "flour" is now generally understood, and as it is defined in the suggested provisions of law contained in the department's letter to you of January 8, 1916. Some of the most deceptive labels now met with by the department, in its enforcement of the food and drugs act, are those which contain conflicting statements as to the character or the ingredients of an article. Labels of this kind render it impossible for consumers to avoid being deceived and defrauded. It is believed that the amendments of the food and drugs act suggested by the department in its letter of Jannary 8, 1916, would effectively secure correct labeling of mixtures of wheat flour with other ingredients, without being prejudicial to corn products or to any other edible ingredient which might be compounded with wheat flour. The fundamental difficulty seems to be this: Your bill is intended to be regulatory; for its purpose, a restrictive definition is essential. The act of 1898 was a taxing, and possibly also was intended to be a prohibitive, measure; for its purpose an extensive definition was needed. The employment in your bill of the definition contained in the act of 1898, therefore, involves an inconsistency and might tend to defeat the object of safeguarding the public against being imposed upon by improper terminology. The department will be glad, upon request of the committee, to arrange for the attendance of its officials at the hearings on your bill whenever it is indiIcated at what time their presence will be required. Very truly, yours, D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary. FEBRUARY 18, 1915. Hon. CORDELL HULL, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. HULL: Reference is made to your letter of January 8, inclosing a communication from Mr. W. G. Schamberger, Gallatin, Tenn., in which he offers certain suggestions regarding the repeal of the law relating to the milling industry. It is noted that you desire comments on the suggestions of Mr. Schamberger. The law to which he refers is commonly known as the mixed-flour act, passed June 13, 1898 (30 Stat., 467). This was amended by section 13 of the act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat., 949), and further amended by the act of April 12, 1902 (32 Stat., 99). Section 35 of the law 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 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." United States Internal Revenue Regulations 25, revised August, 1907, in relation to mixed flour, on page 7, provide that: "The term 'mixed flour' is held by this office to mean the food product which arises from the milling of wheat as the principal constituent in quantity into flour to which is added in milling other grain or other materal, except such material, and not the product of any grain, as is commonly used for baking purposes, or to which is added after milling the manufactured product of other grain or other material except baking material. The principal constituent part of the food product thus defined is to be wheat; or, when the product contains any wheat flour, and the same is intended for sale or is sold or offered for sale as wheat flour it shall be termed mixed flour. This construction of the term 'mixed flour' does not include the milling product from corn, rye, buckwheat, rice, or other cereals than wheat put upon the market as the flour or meal derived from such cereals, although the product may contain a percentage of wheat flour. "The addition of wheat flour, either in milling or afterwards, of baking powders, yeasts, phosphates, or other material or substances other than wheat flour for purpose of leavening by the manufacturers, packers, repackers, or sellers, does not constitute 'mixed flour' under the provision of the act as amended." Under the mixed-flour act there is imposed a special tax of $12 upon every manufacturer, packer, or repacker before commencing business. There is also imposed a tax of 4 cents a barrel of 196 pounds, with a proportionate tax upon smaller packages. The same tax is imposed upon all imported flours, which are subject also to any import duty that may be levied. For your information it may be stated that the act of 1898 covering mixed flour was passed before the enactment of the food and drugs act, and, furthermore, it was for the purpose of raising war revenue during that period. In view of existing prices and of the high cost of living generally, the question of the amendment of the mixed-flour law by the removal of the tax and of the restrictions and regulations covering the manufacture of mixed flour, is interesting, and the suggestions of Mr. Schamberger may seem to you to be worthy of consideration. Inasmuch as the food and drugs act is now being enforced by the department, it would seem that the only requirement should be that all flours be properly labeled in accordance with the provisions of that act. It has been reported that although the tax now collected under the mixed-flour act is not in itself a burden, the regulations and restrictions in regard to the manufacture of flour are such as to make it a very unprofitable undertaking, with the result that comparatively little mixed flour is manufactured and offered for sale. The use of mixed flour might tend to cheapen the cost of living and might, at the same time, provide other healthful foods fully as nutritious and certainly cheaper than wheat flour. In this connection, I beg to state that the department has had under consideration the question of suggesting to Congress the repeal of the mixed-flour law, and in anticipation of making a definite recommendation in the premises, sought the views of the Treasury Department concerning the repeal of this statute. The Secretary of the Treasury now advises that since the inception the total collections arising from the mixed-flour law have been less than $100,000, that, in fact, it has not been a revenue measure; he further expresses the view that the imposition of an internal-revenue tax upon mixed flour to prevent adulteration is unnecessary since the food and drugs act substantially serves the same purpose with respect to interstate shipment. It is suggested that possibly a valid objection might be urged against the unconditional repeal of the statute on the ground that a proviso in section 2 of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, would permit the exportation of such flour, if it is prepared and packed in accordance with the specifications of the foreign purchaser, without compliance with the other provisions of the food and drugs act in reference to adulteration and misbranding. Advantage might be taken of the above-mentioned exemption to export mixed flours not properly branded to indicate their true character, or perhaps falsely branded. This practice, if permitted, might tend to encourage fraudulent substitution of a mixed flour for pure wheat flour, and thus endanger the high reputation of American wheat flour in foreign markets. Such a situation, however, might be obviated by appropriate provisions in any repealing act requiring the true branding of mixed flour intended or offered for export. In view of the evidence presented, this department has reached the conclusion that an early repeal of the mixed-flour law is highly desirable from an economic standpoint, and would recommend at this session of Congress the enactment of appropriate legislation in the premises. Very truly, yours, D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. RAINEY: In compliance with your request, the department has considered the bill (H. R. 21540) introduced by you at the third session of the Sixty-third Congress for the repeal of the so-called mixed-flour law of June 13, 1898, as amended. The same subject has been heretofore discussed in a letter dated February 18, 1915, to Hon. Cordell Hull, copy of which is inclosed. Since the department wrote Mr. Hull it has given further consideration to the matter and is now of opinion that, if there be a repeal of the mixed-flour law, in order to maintain the high reputation of American wheat flour in foreign markets and to safeguard the domestic purchaser, two provisions should be incorporated in your bill in the form of amendments to the food and drugs act, one requiring that "mixed flour" shipped abroad shall be correctly labeled so as to show its composition and ingredients rather than to be labeled in ac |