Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

Granting that the increase from 1909, when this census was taken, to the present day is at approximately the same percentage as between the years 1899 and 1904 (or a five-year period, which shows an approximate increase of 47 per cent), this would make the annual valuation at present of the product of the bakers of the United States $560,000,000.

Mr. FORDNEY. What was that last figure?

Mr. BURNS. According to the census figures of 1909, the Thirteenth Census, the volume of bakery products produced by commercial bakers was figured at $397,000,000. It had increased from 1904 to 1909 from $269,000,000 to $397,000,000. Granting that same increase from 1909 to 1915 would give to-day's approximate estimate at $560,000,000.

I also speak in behalf of 30,000,000 consumers of commercially baked bread, who have no organization to speak for them, and, incidentally, aside from my official capacity, I might have something to say about some 65,000,000 other consumers who perhaps do not eat commercially baked bread.

In the commercial baking business the baker is subjected to rather peculiar and somewhat unique conditions as to competition, in that he occupies only a portion of the field which would be dominated by the consumers of bread. If I were to engage in any other industry or any other mechandising business in this city or others, and sell boots or shoes or hats or clothing, or other commodities, I would have to divide with the other men engaged in that same line of business the entire purchasing capacity of the community served, while in the baking business I only divide a portion of it. If you go back to the elementary basis of trade, A at one time produced all the things that he consumed and B produced the things that he consumed, but A discovered that B could make shoes better than he could, and B discovered that A could make coats better than he could, so A and B began to exchange coats for shoes, and so on down to the present day, until we have come to specialize in all of these various lines of commerce and industry, so that the man who can produce an article to the best advantage to himself and the consumer. produces that particular article.

Apply that to the baking business or to the manufacture and sale of bread. No man in any line, or no set of men in any line have ever been able to displace home production until they reached the point when they could surpass the home producer in some particular, either in a better product or an equivalent product at a lower price, or a superior service. So it is in the production and sale of bread that we will not be able to supply, as commercial bakers, that portion of the consumption of bread that is now in the hands of the housewife until we surpass her in some important particular, either in the particular of giving her a better article or rendering her superior service or relieving her of some of the onerous burdens that are now hers.

Hence we are vitally concerned. I am no philanthropist, and the men interested and associated with me here are not philanthropists. They are engaged in a commercial business. They are vitally interested in the profits of that business. So from no spirit of philanthropy, but absolutely from a commercial desire, they are dead opposed, first, last, and all the time, to any proposition which will

in any way deteriorate the value of the product that they offer to the public.

Our only hope of growth as commercial bakers is not only to maintain but to improve the value of the commercial article which we offer to the consumer.

Now, apply that proposition to the question of mixing cornstarch with wheat flour. And I say cornstarch advisedly. I have been here a little over two days and listened to the arguments presented here, and there has been a great deal said about corn flour. Forget corn flour. It has no place in this argument. Corn flour has large elements of food value, and when they talk to you about corn flour they try to keep you away from the idea of cornstarch, because corn flour has a large protein content which cornstarch has not, and corn flour is not a product that can be mixed with wheat flour to advantage.

When you undertake to mix corn flour with wheat flour it is perfectly practical if it is used immediately, but you can not keep it because it will get rancid. It has the germ and fats in it which must be removed if you are going to have an article that will keep. So when they talk about mixing corn products with wheat flour they mean cornstarch; they do not mean corn flour. They mean cornstarch, and not corn flour. Let us never lose sight of that thing for a minute in this discussion.

In this little pamphlet to which my attention has been called, entitled "Fair Play for Corn," on page 54 are printed the results of some experiments made by the Columbus laboratory. There are three experiments or three analyses. The first is designated A, and in the paragraph following it is explained that A refers to a typical average soft winter wheat patent flour such as is produced in what is known as the soft winter wheat district. Then they say that A contains 8.8 per cent of gluten or protein, as it has been very commonly called here. B is a hard winter wheat patent flour such as is produced in the well-recognized hard winter wheat districts, and is shown to contain 11 per cent of gluten or protein. C is the admixture of 80 per cent of B with 11 per cent protein, and 20 per cent of cornstarch, with no protein, reducing the protein value of the mixture from 11 per cent to 8.8 per cent, or a loss in protein value of 20 per cent. In other words, 11 per cent of protein in a barrel of flour will produce practically 22 pounds of protein or gluten; 8.8 per cent in a barrel of flour of approximately 200 pounds will produce something over 17 pounds of gluten or protein. So that in the mixture of 11 per cent hard winter wheat and cornstarch at the ratio of 80 to 20 we have a reduction in the protein content of the mixed product of approximately 4 pounds, or a loss in food value of 20 per cent. Now, what is the effect of that? Flour on to-day's market is about $6.50 a barrel. Cornstarch at $2.40 a hundred, if applied to this mixture in the ratio of 80 and 20, will reduce the barrel cost of the finished product from $6.50 to about $6.25, if you allow any cost, say 10 cents a barrel for the mixture.

In other words, you have reduced the cost of the mixed flour from $6.50 a barrel to $6.25 a barrel, or about 4 per cent, but you have reduced the food value 20 per cent.

Now, we heard a great deal here the other day about food value, or the calorific value of food. The highest chemical authority in

« PreviousContinue »