a better loaf-that is, in the language of common speech, more porous.

Mr. RAINEY. What is the difference between our wheat and the wheat they produce in France?

Dr. WILEY. I think our wheat-our northern wheat, hard wheat, and durum wheat, has more gluten in it than the French wheat. I could not say positively, but I think so.

Mr. RAINEY. It would make better bread, then?

Dr. WILEY. I do not know, because I do not see how a bread could be better than that which they make in France.

Mr. RAINEY. You think it is a better bread?

Dr. WILEY. It is probably due to the baker rather than to the wheat, though.

Mr. RAINEY. That is all.

Mr. ALLEN. As I understand, you say that the excessive use of bread produces constipation?

Dr. WILEY. Bread made with white wheat flour.

Mr. ALLEN. How would you offset that, by using vegetables, or what food?

Dr. WILEY. I will tell you how physicians prescribe and how I prescribe, although I am not a physician. I tell them to eat bread made of whole wheat, with all the bran and everything in it except the dirt, and succulent vegetables and fruit. In that way you can often correct that very desperate condition which so many of us suffer from in this country. I think constipation is the worst threat we have, almost, in this country.

Mr. ALLEN. Does the use of corn bread tend to correct it?
Dr. WILEY. That is better for constipation.

Mr. ALLEN. And the use of vegetables?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; it is coarser grained-that is, real corn bread is. I do not call corn bread that which is made of so-called bolted flour made from Indian corn. I want the whole grain, germ and all, in corn bread.

Mr. OLDFIELD. How about cornstarch; what would be its tendency? Dr. WILEY. It would still more tend to produce constipation, because it has nothing in it that is not digestible.

Mr. ALLEN. No roughage?

Dr. WILEY. No roughage at all.

Mr. HELVERING. Testimony has been given here that a 20 per cent mixture of cornstarch with wheat flour is as nutritious as straight wheat flour.

Dr. WILEY. Well, I can only say as to the person who made that statement that he has not studied the dietetics that I have studied. That is not true.

Mr. HELVERING. Another witness signified that in feeding children in New York City she supplied the lack of gluten in the mixed flourwould advise that we supply the lack of gluten in mixed flour-by supplying the children with eggs and milk. In your opinion, would that make the food of a child cheaper?

Dr. WILEY. I should say that eggs and milk would cost more than good, wholesome wheat. Eggs are certaintly more costly than wheat. If you wanted a cheaper diet for a child, you ought to have whole wheat. That is the cheapest thing you can give a child; but it ought to have some milk with it.

Mr. HELVERING. The proposition of cheapening the food, then, by supplying it with other proteins and other glutens, does not work; it does not cheapen the food product?

Dr. WILEY. The food in milk and the food in eggs costs a great deal more than the food in wheat, and therefore if you take the food out of wheat and put something in that is not food and try to make it up with eggs and milk, you will burden the charities with an extra expense without giving any more nutrition to the child.

Mr. LANNEN. Doctor, do I understand that you say that under the food law a mixture of wheat flour and cornstarch could not be sold at all?

Dr. WILEY. No: I do not say that, because there are lots of adulterated foods sold in this country in violation of law.

Mr. LANNEN. If it is adulterated, and if adulterated foods are prohibited, how could it be sold?

Dr. WILEY. It could not be from one State to another, but it could be sold within the State.

Mr. LANNEN. You say it could not be shipped from one State to another and sold under the national food law, no matter how it was labeled?

Dr. WILEY. No; no matter how it was labeled, if the food law was enforced; but if you say that the official in charge of the food law says that if you label it it removes the stigma or the danger, then he does not take any action.

Mr. LANNEN. Supposing that the courts had passed upon it-two or three United States district courts and two or three United States circuit courts of appeals?

Dr. WILEY. Yes.

Mr. LANNEN. And had said that such things as that were legal under the food law; would you still agree with the courts?

Dr. WILEY. I would not agree with the courts. I would accept their dicta and appeal to Congress to repeal the law or amend it. That was what was done in the cancer-cure case, because the courts held that the false drug claims did not come under the law. We came right to Congress and had that put under the law. But if the courts say that you can adulterate wheat flour and accept it as adulterated, then I would go to Congress and ask that the law be amended so that it could be enforced in the spirit in which it was first passed. Mr. LANNEN. Sugar is a pure carbohydrate?

Dr. WILEY. Yes.

Mr. LANNEN. If you add pure cane sugar to honey and mark it "honey and cane sugar" that would be adulterated also, would it not?

Dr. WILEY. If it was sold as honey it would be.

Mr. LANNEN. Suppose it was sold as "honey and cane sugar," the same as this flour and cornstarch would be sold as flour and cornstarch?

Mr. LIND. But it would not. That is not your proposition. You propose to call it "flour."

Mr. LANNEN. I am now asking this question. The doctor's proposition is that because you add a carbohydrate to flour it is adulterated flour per se.

Mr. FORDNEY. Suppose you called it "mixed honey "?

Dr. WILEY. If it was labeled "mixed honey" it would be in the same category as mixed flour, except this, that there is no threat to health.

Mr. FORDNEY. But you have adulterated the honey?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; you have taken nothing out of the honey. You have only increased the amount or increased the weight.

Mr. LANNEN. Yes; you have increased the amount.

Dr. WILEY. The mixed honey would be just as wholesome as the unmixed.

Mr. LANNEN. You have only increased the amount of the carbohydrate?

Dr. WILEY. It is all carbohydrate-honey is. You have only made more. You have not increased it.

Mr. LANNEN. Then you have not adulterated it?

Dr. WILEY. I think that is adulterated honey; but it is not adulterated in the sense of being mixed with an inferior article.

Mr. LANNEN. When you add starch to flour you are only adding carbohydrate to the carbohydrates in the flour; is not that true?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; but you are displacing a valuable food product, and that is making the flour less valuable than it was before as a food product. You are injuring the consumer.

Mr. LANNEN. Suppose you take some cracked wheat and make a breakfast food and add to it some cracked rice, is that an adulteraated product?

Dr. WILEY. No; it is not an adulterated product at all, because a breakfast food does not mean any particular cereal.

Mr. LANNEN. But you have diluted the cracked wheat.

Dr. WILEY. Yes. A breakfast food is quite a different thing from flour. It has no standard at all.

Mr. LANNEN. From the standpoint of health, is it any different from flour?

Dr. WILEY. It is a perfectly wholesome food.

Mr. LANNEN. Yes; and it is high in carbohydrates, is it not?

Dr. WILEY. It is a little higher than wheat.

Mr. LANNEN. When you mix it with wheat, you are adulterating the wheat?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; if it is wheat you are selling.

Mr. LANNEN. Suppose you are selling it as rice?

Dr. WILEY. But there is no deception of anybody.

Mr. LONGWORTH. It seems to me the question is just about as apropos as if you were to mix steak and chops together.

Mr. LANNEN. If the starch will not retain water, a loaf of bread will dry out. Bread made from flour containing starch would not be a soggy loaf of bread?

Dr. WILEY. I did not understand your question.

Mr. LANNEN. I say, if starch is mixed with flour and bread is made from that mixed flour, there would not be a tendency for the loaf to be soggy.

Dr. WILEY. Yes; I think there would be a great tendency to be soggy; that is, the leavening power would be decreased in propor

tion to the starch.

Mr. LANNEN. The starch would not be responsible?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; solely responsible-the added starch.

Mr. LANNEN. If there was enough gluten to cause the bread to properly aerate?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; if you had a high-grade gluten, it would not make any difference.

Mr. LANNEN. It would not make any difference?

Dr. WILEY. That loaf would not be as good. That loaf would be adulterated, even though it was as good as another loaf that was not adulterated.

Mr. LANNEN. Do you say that self-rising flour is an adulterated product?

Dr. WILEY. I do. I am dead against it. If I use baking powder, I want to use the kind that I choose myself or I will not use any. Mr. RAINEY. Is this a good definition for mixed flour:

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 quality 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.

Dr. WILEY. I think not. It ought to be called a compound. Where it has been the custom-as, say, with compound lard-you would not say "mixed lard," because that would give the idea of one kind of lard mixed with another. The words "mixed flour," I think, would carry the idea of mixing two different kinds of flour together. The proper term for this is "compound," and that is provided for in the law. The words are "imitation, compound, or blend," and the word "compound" is the one which is uniformly applied when mixing unlike things together, and not" mixed." Mixing simply means a mechanical action, and it does not carry any other necessary information to the consumer.

Mr. RAINEY. I read the definition, though, that you recognized when you were at the head of the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture.

Dr. WILEY. I recognized a lot of things that I am sorry I did. Mr. RAINEY. This is the definition that is now in the law.

Dr. WILEY. In the law?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes; it has been the definition of mixed flour for 18 years.

Dr. WILEY. Yes; I know it has been a good long while.

Mr. RAINEY. And it is the definition of mixed flour that is carried into this proposed bill.

Dr. WILEY. I do not deny that, and I tell you what I think about it; I do not think it is a right name-the right word.

Mr. DIXON. You think it ought to be "compound"?

Dr. WILEY. Yes.

Mr. LANNEN. I should like to know whether, when Dr. Wiley was in charge of the Bureau of Chemistry, in charge of the enforcement of the pure-food law, he ever tried to stop the shipment of these adulterated flours?

Dr. WILEY. We never found any except that which was properly marked under the law.

Mr. LANNEN. If they are properly marked they are not adulterated?

Dr. WILEY. It was under another law. We could not attack one law with another.

Mr. LANNEN. You say that the pure-food law has no jurisdiction over mixed flour?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; if it was not properly marked.

Mr. LANNEN. But if it was adulterated, you could not touch it? Dr. WILEY. It is under a law of Congress which permits it.

Mr. LANNEN. Suppose the mixed flour contains a poison that is injurious, you could not touch it?

Dr. WILEY. I failed to stop a lot of things that had poisons in them.

Mr. LANNEN. But under the pure-food law do you not think you could stop it?

Dr. WILEY. If it had a poison in it?

Mr. LANNEN. You tried it with respect to bleached straight flour under the pure-food law and lost out.

Dr. WILEY. That case is not decided yet. It is remanded for another trial.

Mr. LANNEN. Yes; it is just back where it started from?

Dr. WILEY. Yes; I did try to stop that kind of adulterated flour. Mr. LANNEN. And you won in the lower court?

Dr. WILEY. Yes.

Mr. LANNEN. You did stop it so far as the case stands at the present time?

Mr. SLOAN. So far as winning is concerned, there is no winning if the case has been sent back for trial de novo.

Mr. LANNEN. I understand that, Congressman, and I also understand that the State of Nebraska had to legislate on bleached flour against Dr. Wiley in order to protect the wheat of that State, as other States did.

Mr. FORDNEY. Mr. Chairman, there is a Mr. Stott here from Detroit, and as we must adjourn until 2 o'clock to-morrow when we adjourn to-day, because of other matters in the forenoon to-morrow, I should be glad if you would hear Mr. Scott, as he desires to go home.

SATEMENT OF MR. DAVID STOTT, DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. RAINEY. Will you state your name and your business; how you are employed?

Mr. STOTT. I am president of the Stott Flour Mills, of Detroit, Mich. I am here representing the Michigan Millers' Association in opposition to the repeal of the law as we now have it.

Mr. RAINEY. Proceed.

Mr. STOTT. I have been in the milling business since 1879, and we make spring and winter wheat flour, and we also grind some corn. Up to 1896 we had quite a large trade in North and South Carolina and Georgia. At that time we found that the mixed flour, or flour mixed with corn flour, was selling at a very much less rate than we were able to supply our pure-wheat flour for, from Michigan, and it interfered with our business very largely. We have established our brands of flour made from wheat and we have never mixed any corn flour in all this time, not because we would not do it if we were permitted to do it, or could do it profitably, but we prefer to have the law remain as it is, as it seems to have stopped effectually the mixing of corn flour with wheat flour. I think it would be a very great in