Page images
PDF
EPUB

the world says that the average calorific value of vegetable protein is higher than the average calorific value of starch. He gives the average of protein at 5.71, and of starch, 4.19. So, in order to get this supposed increase of calorific value you displace an article that is higher in calorific value than the starch itself.

Mr. MOORE. Will you give the name of that authority?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir. It is Abderhalden.

Mr. MOORE. Is he an American or foreign authority?

Mr. BURNS. He is a Holland chemist, I believe.

Mr. WESENER. German.

Mr. BURNS. Or German. On page 333 of his textbook of physiological chemistry he goes on to describe what a calorie is, which I will not take your time to read, but he then gives the calorific value of a number or different articles. The average value for vegetable protein he gives as 5.71 and the average value for starch 4.19, or a lessened calorific value in starch under protein of about 40 per cent, and when you come to talk about calorific values-well, I am not a chemist, you know, and so I can only appreciate what these professional fellows say from a layman's standpoint. It sounds big. But do you know that sawdust has almost or quite as much calorific value as starch, and so has paper pulp, but you would hardly expect to feed your babies on sawdust or paper pulp, and you would hardly want to feed a grown man on that.

Mr. SLOAN. You mean it would not have more calorific value when treated from a digestive standpoint?

Mr. BURNS. I do not know that it could be treated in any other way.

Mr. SLOAN. It could be subjected to chemical action, such as fire, cr something of that kind, and it would have calorific value. Mr. BURNS. Well, calorific value is the heat-producing value. Mr. RAINEY. I suppose coal has still more.

Mr. BURNS. I suppose it has, but I would not want to eat it. Mr. FORDNEY. If you want to raise a wooden-legged baby you would feed him sawdust. [Laughter.]

Mr. BURNS. It was said the other day in this discussion that it would be easy to supply the protein which was lost in this mixture of starch and wheat in other articles. That is very true. It might be easy for some of us. But that was said in connection with the proposition made that the use of cornstarch and flour as a mixture would reduce to the consumer the cost of the bread. Now, if by putting 20 per cent of cornstarch in a barrel of flour the consumer loses 4 pounds of protein, in order to maintain a balanced ration that must be made up elsewhere. It is just a little interesting to see what it would cost to make that up out of the various articles of food to which the consumer would naturally turn to find it. For instance, 25 cents a barrel is saved on her flour, and the consumer loses 4 pounds of protein. She goes down town to buy that 4 pounds of protein, and in beefsteak, at 25 cents a pound, it would cost $5.25; in lamb chops, at 20 cents a pound, $4.50; in pork chops, at 18 cents a pound, $4.30; in eggs (which, I believe, it was stated here yesterday, was the easiest place for her to get it), at 25 cents a dozen, $7.50; in milk, at 8 cents a quart, $3.75; in ham, at 22 cents a pound, $5.25; in fresh fish, at 25 cents a pound, $6.25; and in bacon, at 30 cents a pound, $12.60.

In other words, by the enormous saving of 25 cents in the purchase of a barrel of mixed flour and cornstarch she is compelled to pay all the way from $3.75 to $12.60 to replace the loss of protein in the most common articles of food that she would otherwise buy.

As was well stated by Dr. Wiley here yesterday and I do not believe it could be controverted from any source or any authoritywheat and wheat flour furnishes the lowest-cost protein of any known article of food that is in consumption ordinarily in the family. You can get more protein value, you can get more food value for the money expended out of wheat flour than you can get out of any other cereal or any other known article of food.

Mr. HELVERING. I beg your pardon. I was not here when you gave your name and do not know just what you are. What is your business?

Mr. BURNS. I am a baker at Omaha, Nebr., and I am president of the National Bakers' Association.

Mr. SLOAN. You could not get much higher credentials than that. He is from Omaha, Nebr. [Laughter.]

Mr. BURNS. I hail from the country where corn is king, too. You know my occupation is baking bread, and at speech making I am a little bit out of my line; you will have to pardon me if I am not at my best in this sort of a job.

There has been some talk here about the relative food values. the effect on the human system of these various foods, particularly something said about the disastrous effects to the human system of a ration carrying too high a proportion of carbohydrates. In the Journal of the American Medical Association issued January 29, 1916, there is an article entitled "The carbohydrate factor in the causation and treatment of hyperacidity and ulcer," by Williard J. Stone, M. D., of Toledo, Ohio, in which he treats at length of the remarkable growth of this character of stomach diseases due almost entirely to hyperacidity and its kindred causes. In that article he attributes that very largely to the large consumption of carbohydrates in sugar, showing, for instance, that the increase per capita consumption of sugar in this country has been enormous in a period of 40 years. For instance, in 1871, it was 36 pounds per capita. It has steadily increased until in 1912 it is 82.4 pounds per capita.

I think it would be generally accepted by food experts that the thing we are most commonly exposed to, in our selections of foods is an excess of carbohydrates. The thing we are most troubled about is to get a sufficient percentage of protein. You know we are going a whole lot further in taking care of our stock and animals than in taking care of human beings. Our Agricultural Department provides for the American farmer raising stock elaborate instructions with reference to balanced rations for animals, but the poor devil who is unfortunate enough to be a human being is left out entirely. I want to say that there is no class of men in the United States engaged in manufacture or commerce who are more uniformly jealous of their opportunity to improve and better the product that they are making than the bakers. That is not from any philanthropic standpoint either. They know and feel that the only opportunity for them to enlarge their business (which can only be done by persuading the housewife not to bake but instead to buy commercially baked bread), is to give to the housewife a better and

improved product; and I know of no food article on the American continent to-day that has as little adulteration in it as wheat bread. To return to this article of Dr. Stone's. I will not undertake to read it. It is long and is couched, a great deal of it, in technical terms. But the article can be read by any of you gentlemen, and I have given you the citation. His entire problem there is the problem of treating diseases produced by an excess of carbohydrate diet.

In this connection, there were some other things that I desire to call your attention to from a commercial baker's standpoint. There are some other things in this proposition that are a little peculiar. For instance, at the hearing before the subcommittee on mixed flour of the Ways and Means Committee in 1915, February 18, there was submitted by Mr. Thomas E. Lannen a statement by Mr. William Jago, of England. Prof. Jago is, I believe, conceded to be the highest authority on baking technology in the world. He evidently conducted a set of experiments. These experiments were conducted with three classes of flour. The first he describes, his No. 1, as Canadian patent flour of good strength, containing 16.1 per cent gluten; the second, as a London milled household of fair strength, containing 11.85 per cent gluten; the third, a cheap, low grade of flour of fair strength, containing 12.2 per cent of gluten. He evidently has just treated his experiment from the point of view of the effect on the admixture of corn flour on the mechanical art of making bread, and has given results in this experiment as to volume only.

The first experiment was made with No. 1, which is Canadian patent wheat alone. The second mixes 5 per cent of cornstarch, the the third 10 per cent, the fourth 15 per cent, and the fifth 20 per cent. He goes on to tell about the characteristics of the dough as he increased the cornstarch, and says as he increased the cornstarch it becomes more difficult to handle, the primary characteristic being that it is sticky, but when he comes to an analysis of the bread baked from C he shows that with 15 per cent cornstarch mixed, the volume of the loaf has shrunk 11 per cent; with 20 per cent cornstarch mixed, the volume of the loaf has shrunk 17 per cent. The best that you could do if you have added 20 per cent of cornstarch is to get a reduction in cost of 4 per cent. If we were to mix 20 per cent of cornstarch we would get a reduction in loaf volume of 17 per cent.

Assuming that 60 per cent of the dough that went into that loaf was flour, we would have to use, to maintain the same loaf volume, 9 per cent more mixed flour than we would of the unmixed. We would save, as a commercial proposition, 4 per cent of the cost by using mixed flour, but we would have to use 9 per cent more of it to get the same size loaf of bread.

Mr. GREEN. The baker would hardly use it, then?

Mr. BURNS. He certainly would not. And I make bold to say that there is not a baker on the American Continent, of any size or magnitude, that uses a pound of cornstarch, or would use or could be prevailed upon to use a pound if they sold it to him at $2 a barrel less, because he knows what it will do. The only fellow that will buy it is the poor devil that doesn't know what it will do.

Prof. Jago goes on to say, as to the character and quality of the bread, judged by ordinary standards, "Starch up to 10 per cent makes very little difference "-speaking of the volume now" 15 per

cent being about the limit that could be added. But even up to 20 or even 25 per cent the bread is still eatable, judged by emergency standards." He goes on to make some further experiments, in which he uses the other grades of flour spoken of, and he makes this very significant comment. This is on page 29. These quotations and citations are all on pages 28 and 29 of the hearing on February 18, 1915:

Cheap-grade series. This flour was of a very cheap grade of low color. Again, the 20 per cent mixture took the most water

Do not forget that, please

and showed no very serious loss in volume and general character over the 10 per cent. The 20 per cent showed a definite improvement in color and probably would be as acceptable to the public as a cheap-grade flour, as would the pure flour only.

Then he finishes his comment here with this very significant thing. In this third experiment he uses some well-known flour improvers for instance, gelatinized corn flour-in very limited quantities, which he says is used to prevent the dry, chippy character of the loaf after it is cold. He uses a small amount of persulphide. I can not tell you much about that, but I imagine that is some mineral salt that is used for the purpose of increasing the tenacity of the gluten. If I am not correct about that I would be glad to be corrected; but after making a number of experiments with flour improvers he finishes his comment thus:

[ocr errors]

The foregoing experiments tend to show that by various additions flour may be materially helped to carry added starch with much less sacrifice of good handling in the dough and desirable qualities in the baked bread.

In other words, he closes his entire experiment with an apology for the adding of cornstarch to the flour.

The bakers of the country, so far as we have been able to ascertain, and certainly so far as the organization is concerned, which, as I said before, represent 50 to 60 per cent of the entire output of commercially-baked bread, are a unit in opposition to the repeal of this law or any modification of it which, in our judgment, would weaken its provisions.

I have here, which I am glad to submit, resolutions passed by the National Association of Master Bakers at its convention in Columbus last fall, by the Illionis Association of Master Bakers, by the Iowa Master Bakers' Association, by the Missouri Master Bakers' Association, by the Virginia Master Bakers' Association, the State of Washington, the Texas Association of Master Bakers, and the Oklahoma Association of Master Bakers.

I will not take the time to read those, although I would like to read one. Illinois:

Resolved by the Illinois Master Bakers' Association in convention at Chicago, May 12, 1915, That the so-called mixed-flour revenue act of 1898 has successfully served the desirable purpose of a guaranty of the market purity of wheat flour without working any hardship upon either the consumer or the miller, packer, or distributor of honest products, and that it is in fact, as it was in name at the time of its introduction, a "pure-flour" law; that all mixed flours should be labeled both as to their ingredients and the person or firm responsible for their mixing, as provided in the act; that the consumer, whether housewife or commercial baker, is entirely capable of mixing for herself or himself

any flour or meal which is sold upon the market, and that the act should continue to stand as a safeguard to the consumer.

Resolved, That a copy of the above resolution shall be forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture to support him in the attitude it is confidently expected he will assume in the premises.

The resolutions are all of the same tenor.

Also a resolution submitted by the Southeastern Bakers' Association, of which A. Geilfuss, of Spartanburg, S. C., is president. Resolution from the Chamber of Commerce of Georgia.

A resolution of the Pennsylvania Association of Master Bakers. They all tend to the same thing: That the bakers are unalterably opposed, for the reasons that they have stated, to the repeal of the existing law.

Mr. DIXON. Are those resolutions all in the same language?
Mr. BURNS. Not all in the same language; no, sir.

Mr. DIXON. In substance, are they?

Mr. BURNS. In substance the same.

I shall not take the time of the committee to read them all. Mr. DIXON. How would it do to print one and the names of the others, for the purpose of curtailing, so far as possible, the record?

Mr. BURNS. I think that would be satisfactory. The language might vary, but so far as the tenor of them is concerned, they are all alike.

(The resolutions referred to were filed with the committee.)

Mr. BURNS. We are opposed to any proposition which in any way permits a cheapening of the product which is the primary raw material which we use in our business.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Were you in business before the present act was passed?

Mr. BURNS. Not in the baking business; no, sir.

Mr. LONGWORTH. So you could not describe conditions as they existed then?

Mr. BURNS. I could not. I know nothing about that except today. I was at that time in the feeding business, however, operating hotels and railroad eating houses, but very fortunately operating in that section of the United States that was not much troubled in this You know where we raise real wheat and produce real flour they don't have any trouble with this, and that is right in the country, too, where corn is king.

They don't use corn flour out there for that purpose. We know too much about it. The fact of the matter is that the entire American people know a lot about corn, and they don't use much of it in that way. You know, years ago I was taught that it was awfully good Democratic doctrine to oppose any proposition which meant taxing of the many for the benefit of the few. Whether that was Democratic doctrine or Republican doctrine, it is good doctrine, and I wonder who it is that is interested in this question of cheapening to the consumer the cost of his bread by adding cornstarch to the flour.

Mr. RAINEY. The consumer might be.

Mr. BURNS. If the consumer is interested in it, how could he be interested in a reduction of 4 per cent in the cost or price at the expense of a 20 per cent reduction in food value of the article purchased?

« PreviousContinue »