Page images

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 law— I 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.

Mr. GREEN. There is no question about that. Starch contains no element that is necessary to the human body.

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir; it does. It contains carbohydrates almost exclusively and, as I stated before, the trouble with the entire human race in trying to find a balanced ration is to get away from an excess of carbohydrates.

Mr. GREEN. These people that have advocated that doctrine have sometimes objected to your bakers' bread, have they not, on the ground that the carbohydrates are not sufficiently present?

Mr. BURNS. No; not that they were not sufficiently present in it. I have never heard an objection of that kind.

Mr. GREEN. Well, I have.

Mr. BURNS. That there was not enough carbohydrates in wheat bread?

Mr. GREEN. No, no; that there was too much carbohydrates in it. Mr. BURNS. Well, there is too much. There is no question about that. There is no question. That is why we oppose any addition of it.

Mr. HELVERING. Let me ask you this question: Is it possible to bake from cornstarch a bread that is edible at all?

Mr. BURNS. I do not think so. I would not say positively. I suppose if a man was stranded on an ocean island and he had no food in the world but a mass of something made up of cornstarch, he would grab at it and eat it as he would at a reed growing out of the side of the rock.

Mr. RAINEY. They do make lots of food articles out of it to-day, do they not?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. And they are edible, too?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir. But all those articles that they make out of it for the table are primarily little delicacies that they like to finish off the meal with or decorate the table with. They do not make any of the staff of life with it. They do not depend on that for their meal. Put a little cornstarch in some pastries to top off the meal with, but do not put it in their bread.

Mr. RAINEY. Cornstarch is present a great deal as an ingredient in wheat flour, is it not?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir; it is. Its principal ingredient in all-
Mr. RAINEY (interposing). Are they trying to get it out?

Mr. BURNS. No, sir; but we are always trying to get that wheat that has the smallest percentage of starch in it and the largest percentage of protein. We are fighting for that constantly, to the extent that we are paying to the miller who can give us the most gluten the highest price for his flour.

Mr. GREEN. That raises better and makes more loaves?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir; it does both; and makes better bread-bread which, when you buy it you get more for your money out of.

Mr. GREEN. That is, you mean for the purpose of making food? Mr. BURNS. Of course, if any of you gentlemen or any of these people concerned about it are troubled with not getting enough carbohydrates, that would apply, but our trouble is all the other way. Mr. RAINEY. Are there any carbohydrates in water?

Mr. BURNS. I am not a chemist.

Mr. SLOAN. In what?

Mr. RAINEY. In water. Is there any gluten in water?
Mr. BURNS. I do not believe there is.

Mr. RAINEY. It is pretty cheap, is it not?
Mr. BURNS. That is pretty cheap; yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. Adding to the finished product a cheaper product is adulteration, is it not, according to your theory?

Mr. BURNS. Not necessarily; no, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. To put in 40 per cent of water in bread-does that adulterate it any?

Mr. BURNS. No, because the water is absolutely necessary to make the flour that is

Mr. RAINEY (interposing). To enable the baker to make as much money as he wants to out of it?

Mr. LIND. Will you let him answer that, please?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes. I thought he had.

Mr. BURNS. Adding water is absolutely necessary to develop the flour into bread, and I make bold to say that no man or woman ever yet made bread by putting as much water in it as he or she ought to do to produce the best results.

Mr. RAINEY. So that for that reason you need the flour that absorbs the most water?

Mr. BURNS. No; because it makes the most bread and best bread, and I will tell you why it makes the best bread.

You have a statement in here with reference to soft winter wheat containing 8.8 per cent of gluten, and you also have reference to a flour which contains 11 per cent gluten. There is 20 per cent more gluten in the one than in the other. The flour containing 11 per cent gluten will absorb more water than the flour containing 8.8 per cent gluten, but it won't absorb water in the same ratio as the gluten or protein content increases.

Mr. RAINEY. You say water improves the gluten content of flour? Mr. BURNS. No; I did not say that. I said there was more gluten in the one flour than in the other, and the flour which has the larger per cent of gluten will absorb the most water.

Mr. RAINEY. That is the flour you want?

Mr. BURNS. You bet that is the flour I want.

Mr. RAINEY. Do you know about

Mr. LIND (interposing). Let the witness kindly answer the balance of the question.

Mr. RAINEY. Go ahead. I thought he was through.

Mr. BURNS. The reason for that is this: If you take, for instance, two flours that can commonly be found on the market-possibly not this year, because all flour is a little low in gluten this year, but in ordinary years we can find flours running 9 per cent in gluten and flours running 12 per cent in gluten. In other words, the 12 per cent flour has 333 per cent more gluten than the 9 per cent. The average absorption in the commercial bakery to-day is about 56 per cent of 57 per cent. In other words, 100 pounds of flour will take up 56 or 57 pounds of water.

Mr. FORDNEY. Please state that again. the amount of flour and


Mr. BURNS. When they speak of absorption they speak of the percentage of water to the total weight of flour which the flour will absorb. In other words, 57 per cent absorption means that 100

« PreviousContinue »