Mr. LIND. And, as a consumer, you would rather consume that kind of flour?

Dr. WESENER. If it was good eating, I would consume that kind of flour or bread; and I will consume other kinds of bread that are good eating. I am not trying to analyze how much protein, etc., is in there, because I have always been able to get that, and have always been pretty well nourished.

Now, as to this quality of gluten, the important factor, from a bread-making standpoint, is the mechanical action of that glutenthe framework. You want a tough gluten that is tenacious, that when combined with water and the yeast, and the cells grow and the carbonic acid is generated, will build a good framework; and the higher it gets, within certain limits, the better. Now, the percentage of gluten in a flour is no criterion as to the quality of that gluten. You may have flour that runs 12 per cent in gluten, as against another flour that runs only 8 per cent of gluten, and the 8 per cent gluten flour will make a larger loaf of bread. So that, therefore, in that report we average it up as to the quality of gluten; that is, we say, "Here is a pound of gluten that will raise 50°. Here is another pound of gluten that will raise 60°." Therefore the ratio is as 8 is to 60, so 50 is to 12; that is, pound for pound, it has greater quality; and that is very consistent with that report. I am glad you brought that out. We have quite a bit of difficulty having a new customer or a customer of ours understand that part of our report, and that is a very essential part of the report from a scientific and commercial standpoint. They say, "How can that be true? Here it is 12 per cent gluten and that is 10 per cent, and still that which you call 10 per cent gluten makes a larger loaf of bread, and it ought to be the opposite." But it shows the variability and potential strength or the quality of the gluten; and this year it happens to be strange, but true-the soft winter wheats, a great many of them, are not only highest in gluten but have better quality than heretofore, and they rank some of them better to-day than the hard winter wheats. I speak of those down in Ohio.

Mr. FORDNEY. That is so in Michigan. Our soft Michigan wheat, low in gluten, may nevertheless be better than a wheat with a higher percentage of gluten.

Dr. WESENER. Yes; and then in adding starch to wheat you get something like a Michigan flour. That is all I am contending for. Mr. SLOAN. Speaking of the name as we have it, you find just the same difference in glutens as you would in rubbers?

Dr. WESENER. That is it.

Mr. SLOAN. Or in gums?

Dr. WESENER. Absolutely.

Mr. SLOAN. NOW, Doctor, as long as the question was raised about these tests, and so on, I was rather expecting Dr. Wiley, but he did not say anything about it, in discussing pellagra to say something about an unusual test that was made in the South, in the State of Mississippi, I think, where they had a number of pellagra cases around about there, and the test was made on, I think, 10 of the prisoners in the State of Mississippi, with their liberty promised if they would subject themselves to a test on this matter. Are you familiar with that test in that case? You undoubtedly know about it.

Dr. WESENER. I know about it, but I am not sufficiently familiar with it at this time.

Mr. SLOAN. It did involve the question of food?

Dr. WESENER. Oh, yes.

Mr. SLOAN. And it involved especially the question of the use of maize or wheat? That was involved in it, was it not?

Dr. WESENER. Yes.

Mr. SLOAN. You are not able to tell the committee with definiteness what the basis of the test was or what the result was.

Dr. WESENER. No.

Mr. SLOAN. I mention that because it is one of the few cases in which I know anything about human beings being tested along these lines.

Mr. LIND. The information is in the little pamphlets that were handed to the stenographer and will undoubtedly be incorporated in part in the record, which were from the health department.

Mr. SLOAN. It is an interesting subject, and as long as we talked about it I wanted to be fair, either way, and show that there have been tests made on the human system. There was one similar test in Washington a few years ago, but not on this subject. Ordinarily tests are made on guinea pigs and other of the lower animals.

Dr. WESENER. I should like to say one more word. The argument advanced why starch was not a food, that it will not make bone or make teeth in the child, amounts to nothing. Meat will not do it, either, nor will fat do it. So why condemn starch when you are not intended to eat it alone or can not do it any more than you would eat meat or fat? We have got to have all these things in order to make a balanced ration.

Mr. HELVERING. I wish you would supplement the report on page 54 of this pamphlet, "The Facts Concerning Mixed Flour," with a statement now or later, if you can give it, of the per cent of starch in A, B, and C.

Dr. WESENER. Of course, I have not the amount of moisture in A, B, and C, but if the amount of moisture in A, B, and C is the same, then the starch will be the same in A as it is in C. That is, the variation will be so slight that it will be less than, say, one-half of 1 per cent, for this reason, that the great principle is starch, and especially so in flour. Therefore, if you have figured out the moisture, and we will say that the moisture is the same in any number of samples of flour and the gluten varies, the starch will vary inversely with the percentage of gluten.

(At 5.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, Feb. 5, 1916, at 2 o'clock p. m.)

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 5, 1916.

The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., Hon. Henry T. Rainey (acting chairman) presiding.

Present: The chairman and Messrs. Dixon, Dickinson, Conry, McGillicuddy, Crisp, Helvering, Fordney, Green, Sloan, Hill, and Longworth.

Mr. LIND. Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be well to state to the committee whom we represent at this time. I am not so sure that it has gone into the record.

Mr. RAINEY. You stated that yesterday.

Mr. LIND. My associate in this matter, Mr. Rogers, represents the Millers' National Association.

Mr. RAINEY. I think you said once that you represented them.

Mr. LIND. I do also, but primarily the millers of our State.

Mr. RAINEY. I think the committee understands that.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the other day there were

Mr. RAINEY. Just state your name and address.

Mr. ROGERS. I just wanted to ask a question. Edward S. Rogers, Chicago. Ill., representing the Millers' National Federation.

I simply want to ask a question.

Mr. RAINEY. I thought you intended to make a statement.

Mr. ROGERS. The other day references were made to a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture to Senator Kenyon. I think Mr. Fordney referred to it. I do not recall that it has been put into

the record.

Mr. RAINEY. It has not gone in. To whom was it addressed? Mr. ROGERS. To Senator Kenyon. It has not gone in. I have a copy of the letter, and I would like to have it in the record. Mr. RAINEY. Just hand it to the stenographer.

Mr. ROGERS. It is dated February 27, 1915.

Mr. LANNEN. I would like to inquire if that is the only letter that came from the Department of Agriculture at that time?

Mr. ROGERS. That is the only one I know of. There may be others. Mr. RAINEY. If there are any others any letters from the Department of Agriculture on this subject that have not gone in the record-the committee, I presume, wants them all.

Mr. ROGERS. That copy, Mr. Chairman, was delivered by the Assistant Secretary to me personally.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. W. S. KENYON,

United States Senate.

FEBRUARY 27, 1915.

DEAR SENATOR KENYON: 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 mixed-flour act, the following data are 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 much 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. No. 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; and (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 the 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 height," the information 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 intra-state shipments as well as interstate shipments of misbranded flours; under the mixed-flour 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 foodand-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 by any means automatically translate itself into an equal decrease in the price paid by the consumer for his bread, and that a decrease in the price received by the farmer for his beef, hogs, and sheep does not by any means necessarily result in an equal decrease in the price paid by the consumer for his beef, pork, and mutton.

As to the third contention of the advocates of this measure, that bread made from mixed flour would be fully as nutritious as pure wheat-flour bread, the opponents of the repeal recognize it to be perfectly true that mixtures containing corn meal, oat meal, barley meal, kafir meal, soy-bean meal, or other similar mixtures in which there is added to wheat flour similar substances containing considerable amounts of protein, mineral matter, fats, and other nutritive constituents would yield bread of much the same composition as wheat bread. It is not felt, however, that this would be true with regard to potato starch or other starches, since fine wheat flour, in the minds of many experts, is already deficient in protein, mineral matter, vitamins, etc., rather than the reverse, and any increase in the percentage of starch in fine wheat flour would be merely making this condition worse.

I believe it is generally conceded that people who have a sufficiently large variety of foods from day to day are perfectly safe in eating any kind of wheat bread they prefer, since any deficiency in fine wheat flour would be made up by materials supplied by the other foods; but experts believe, further, that people who do not include in their dietary a sufficient variety of vegetables, fruits, milk, meat, eggs, etc., containing protein, mineral matters, etc., are better off when eating bread made from wheat flours which retain the greater proportion of the outer layers of the wheat kernel, or other flours or meals which have the proportion of these constituents relatively high as compared with starch. This is particularly true in the case of children, who need in their dietary protein, mineral matter, vitamins, etc., for growth as well as maintenance.

It is further argued by the opponents of this measure that the repeal of the tax on mixed flour would jeopardize our export business. Section 2 of the foodand-drugs act of June 30, 1906, permits the exportation of mixed flour without supervision and regulation by the Government with regard to branding and labeling. Thus it would be quite possible, in case this tax were repealed, for certain foreign countries to import these mixed flours under the name of pure wheat flours until the discovery of the fraud. Such a practice would inevitably react against our export trade and do the milling industry in this country an irreparable injury.

Another strong argument registered against the repeal of this tax is the fact that it would throw an element of uncertainty into the situation and cause a confusion of mind that would be highly deplorable. Now, our people are getting a pure wheat flour. They know what they are getting, and they know what they are paying for. But in case of the removal of this tax, it is urged that it would be practically impossible for the Agricultural Department, with any machinery now under our control, to give the people any assurance as to just what kind of flour they are getting. The inspectors of the Bureau of Chemistry are already overloaded with work and responsibility. To throw upon this corps of men the new labors and duties that would necessarily fall to their lot in case this tax should be removed would simply mean swamping them with more work than they could possibly take care of efficiently.

A very convincing argument urged against the repeal of this law is the fact that practically all the good that it is even claimed would be accomplished by the removal of this tax could be accomplished without the removal of the tax. In other words, there is at present no law or regulation to prevent the housewives and bakers of the country from buying cornstarch, cornflour, corn meal, oat meal, barley meal, etc., and mixing them, in the process of breadmaking, with higher-priced wheat flours. The department got out a statement for release on February 14, in which this matter was gone into in some detail. It is urged that when the housewives and the bakers mix cheaper and more nourishing materials with wheat flour they know exactly what they are getting. It is contended that if the millers are allowed to mix cornstarch with wheat flour the consumer will in all probability be required to pay the same price for the new mixed flour that he has paid for the unadulterated wheat flour, but that if the housewife and the baker do their own mixing, they will only pay the actual cost of the various ingredients of the mixed flour.

Moreover, it is urged that when the housewives and bakers do their own mixing they will know just what percentage of the flour is corn meal or cornstarch, whereas if the millers are allowed to mix the flour, nobody but the millers will ever know just what percentage of the flour is wheat and what percentage is of cheaper substances.

Perhaps the strongest argument that can be urged against the removal of the tax on mixed flour is that there are few evils that could be greater than for anything to happen that would create a serious doubt in the minds of our people as to the purity and nourishing qualities of the bread of the countryof the Nation's staff of life. The purity and nutritive value of this fundamental and all-important constituent of our national dietary should not only be assured, but should be so thoroughly established as to be absolutely above suspicion. Very sincerely, yours,

CARL VROOMAN,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, there are some bakers present who would like to be heard. I would like you to hear Mr. Burns.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAY BURNS, OMAHA, NEBR

Mr. ROGERS. State your name and occupation, Mr. Burns. Mr. BURNS. My name is Jay Burns. I am engaged in the baking business at Omaha, where I am president of a company bearing that name, the Jay Burns Baking Co. I also have the honor to be president of the National Association of Master Bakers, the only association of bakers in the United States of a national character, and I represent in addition a number of State associations.

I speak in behalf of the organized bakers of the country, representing 30 per cent, approximately, of the entire bread output of the United States, and representing within its membership from 50 to 60 per cent of all the commercially baked bread produced in this country.

The baking business, according to the last census, represents an investment of about $215,000,000, gives direct employment to 144,000 people, produces a product whose annual value is $397,000,000.