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:

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 matter. 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?

Mr. RAINEY. If that is true, that would not hurt you?

Mr. BURNS. No; that is true. It would not hurt me any, but the fact that it was in competition with my trade would hurt me.

Mr. FORDNEY. Is there any petition of the consumer of bread here that shows any interest in the manufacture of flour or in the sale of the same or in the baking of the bread?

Mr. BURNS. I have not seen anything of that kind. That sort of petition very rarely gets into a hearing of this kind. Unfortunately that class of people do not have any advocate, as a rule.

Mr. RAINEY. They think they are represented here by their Members of Congress.

Mr. BURNS. They undoubtedly do. Apparently they are interested in that.

Who might be helped by this? We have heard a great deal, and here is a very readable book, entitled "Fair Play for Corn." Do you know, I believe I am perfectly safe in saying that there are not 5 per cent of the corn raisers in the United States who know that there is a mixed-flour law. I live out in Omaha, and have lived there for 25 years, and I have been active in public affairs, and I have not heard of any growers or any association of growers or any community of growers out there that get to the heart of the growers, asking for anything of this sort.

Mr. RAINEY. I think you are right about that. They were all very much surprised that this was going on. They have been sending resolutions in here those farmers organizations-demanding the repeal of this act.

Mr. BURNS. Yes; but I have not heard of that, if the Chairman please, and I live right out in the country where they live, although no doubt they are coming in.

Mr. RAINEY. They are just finding it out.

Mr. BURNS. All right. Who are those fellows that are just finding it out? If we go to the Census Bureau we can find out just exactly how many people in the United States are interested in the production of corn. In 1909 there were less than 100,000,000 acres of all the tillable or tilled soil in the United States given over to the production of corn. I shall not attempt to be absolutely accurate in my figures on this, but approximately I am so. There are not over a million five hundred thousand farmers out of a total of some six million farmers in these United States materially interested in the production of corn. Granting there are five to a family, that would make 7,500,000 people primarily interested in the advance in the price of corn.

Mr. RAINEY. Is there any other industry in which so many people are interested?

Mr. BURNS. I think not; but there is left 92,500,000 people that have to buy it and eat it and who have no representative here to plead their cause.

Mr. LONGWORTH. You are making a statement there that would indicate that you have not listened to the questions by some of the members of this committee.

Mr. BURNS. Yes; I will take that back. I mean nobody who is officially representing them. They have no official representative here, and I do not assume to speak officially for them.

Mr. RAINEY. There are 435 of them that are supposed to be elected for that purpose in the Lower House.

Mr. BURNS. I mean is presenting this case to this committee. I assume that those 435 men are very much interested in the 92,000,000 of people.

Mr. RAINEY. They are here to represent them all.

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir; and I have no thought in my remarks of any reference to them. I was simply referring to those who might appear before this committee in defense of them. I might add, however, that if all of these 435 representatives were interested chiefly in the 92,000,000 consumers, there would be little occasion for this hearing.

But from the standpoint of a food product, this proposition of mixing cornstarch with flour is a fraud upon its face, absolutely a fraud from every point of view, and any other proposition that tends to lower or lessen the food value of any product that is offered to the consumer is a fraud upon its face.

Mr. FORDNEY. Let me ask you a question right there. Does, in your opinion, the mixing of cornstarch with wheat flour adulterate the wheat flour; and if so, why do you think it does?

Mr. BURNS. Under the definition in the food and drugs act which was given yesterday by Dr. Wiley, it is an adulteration. I understand that there are some decisions which claim that does not hold, and I will not undertake to go into that

Mr. LIND (interposing). I do not think there is any such decision. Mr. BURNS. Well, there was a decision cited here yesterday that said something about it.

Mr. LIND. I know of no decision that says that the addition of starch or corn flour is not an adulterant, if sold for such—that is, for wheat flour. If counsel has such a decision, I would be very glad to see it.

Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Chairman, the proposition that the courts have passed upon is this. that when a product is sold as two products, as cornstarch and wheat flour, the question of adulteration is whether or not the cornstarch and wheat flour has some other substance added to it. You must treat the cornstarch and wheat flour as a unit. Mr. LIND. You mean as two units.

Mr. LANNEN. The courts have said that you must treat them as one unit. If you sell a product as cornstarch and wheat flour and you put sawdust into that and do not declare that on your label, then the sawdust is an adulteration of the cornstarch and wheat flour.

Mr. LIND. Just one question. If you sell, under the existing lawI am not referring to the revenue act, but the pure-food law-wheat flour and cornstarch mixed, compounded, and call it mixed flour, is that or is it not an adulteration under the pure-food act as it stands to-day?

Mr. LANNEN. Well, we are not concerned with that question. We are not asking to sell wheat flour and cornstarch unqualifiedly as mixed flour. May I have one of these labels here? I will show you what the courts have passed upon, and show it to you very simply. Cane sirup is mixed with maple sirup and sold as "cane and maple sirup or "maple and cane sirup" all over the United States. Is that an adulterated product?

25718-16- -26

Mr. LIND. It certainly is, if sold as maple sirup.

You have not answered my question. I will ask the reporter to read it.

Mr. LANNEN. I have drawn a ring around the label reading "mixed flour; cornstarch, 20 per cent; wheat flour, 80 per cent."

In passing upon the question of misbranding or adulteration the courts confine themselves to what is inside of that ring, and if a substance has been added that is outside of that ring that that ring does not indicate, then the product is adulterated and is misbranded, but you can not pick out "mixed flour" and address your inquiry to that word and ignore the rest of the label. You can not pick out half of a sentence and ignore the rest of the sentence. You can not take a label reading "maple sirup and cane sirup" and pick out the words "maple sirup" and exclude the rest of the sentence.

Mr. FORDNEY. Whichever one of the products predominates, that is the one that is supposed to be referred to first, is it not?

Mr. ROGERS. Could you sell, under the existing law. a product under the brand which you have placed in the ring, of mixed starch and wheat flour 1 per cent?

Mr. LANNEN. Under the existing law?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LANNEN. Why, certainly.

Mr. ROGERS. Without being a misbranding?

Mr. LANNEN. I am talking about the pure-food act.

Mr. ROGERS. I am, too.

Mr. LANNEN. Certainly.

Mr. ROGERS. You say that can be sold under the pure-food act now?

Mr. LANNEN. I have lots of decisions here.

Mr. BURNS. This is a very good label here, but that would be further illuminated if there could be added to that label "This admixture reduces the food value of the wheat flour 20 per cent."

Mr. FORDNEY. It was stated by Dr. Wiley, who is a very good authority as a chemist, and I have always understood it all my life, that wheat bread, the staff of life, is the most valuable food article that enters into the human body. If by mixing cornstarch with wheat flour the food value of that article is reduced, is it not adulterating wheat flour?

Mr. BURNS. Absolutely; and under the definition of the present food and drugs act it is adulterating wheat flour.

Mr. FORDNEY. It does not make any difference what label you put on the package, if it is big as the full moon, it adulterates the most valuable article which is a component part of the product?

Mr. BURNS. Absolutely; and as Dr. Wiley very pointedly stated yesterday, strychnine, if it is not labeled strychnine, is strychnine just the same.

Mr. GREEN. Starch is not a food.

Mr. BURNS. I do not say that; but it is not as valuable a food as wheat flour. Starch contains no protein, or so little protein that it is not worth mentioning.

Some years ago. Prof. Harry Snyder, who I believe is here in the room, was at that time connected with the University of Minnesota, and he gives an analysis.