« PreviousContinue »
Does he not say also further down:
The physiological heat of combustion is not identical for the different proteins. The normal value for animal albumin is estimated as 4.23 calories; 3.99 for vegetable albumin; and 4.1 as an average value for proteins as a class.
Does he not say that?
Mr. BURNS. You read it there.
Mr. LIND. Animal protein? Is that animal protein that you read? Mr. LANNEN. That is vegetable.
Mr. LIND. It was not grain?
Mr. LANNEN. 3.99 for vegetable: 3.99 for vegetable albumin and 4.1 as an average value for proteins as a class. Showing that he agrees exactly with Graham Rusk, who says that the calorific value of starch is 4.1 and the calorific value of protein is 4.1.
Mr. FORDNEY. I submit that the time is flying pretty fast here, and we shall have to sit another week if we go on at this rate.
Mr. HILL. I want to ask you a question on the practical working of the bill on the statement you just made. Could you buy flour and ship it down there to your mill and adulterate it with corn flour at your blending mill and sell it within the State without any restriction?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILL. That now under the present law would be branded "mixed flour" and would you or the Minnesota man, if the flour came from Minnesota, have to pay the tax and keep the books? Mr. BURNS. I would have to do it. Mr. HILL. Suppose the bill passed.
under this bill, could you not?
You could do the same thing
Mr. BURNS. Yes; without keeping any books.
Mr. HILL. Without keeping any books?
Mr. BURNS. Yes.
Mr. HILL. But under this bill would you have to put a brand on that thing showing just the proportion of the ingredients that you are paying a tax on?
Mr. BURNS. Not if it is sold within the State where it is blended; no, sir.
Mr. HILL. Why not?
Mr. BURNS. Because the pure food and drugs act does not control anything except interstate business.
Mr. HILL. Anything that goes into interstate commerce it controls?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILL. But not intrastate?
Mr. BURNS. No, sir.
Mr. HILL. Does Nebraska have a food law?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir; but I do not believe that it has a law that will cover this sort of thing.
Mr. HILL. Then what you want is to have the United States Government protect you against yourself?
Mr. BURNS. No. I am not asking for protection out in Nebraska. Mr. HILL. No, but you are asking that the United States Government protect the people of Nebraska against your own dereliction. Mr. BURNS. Yes, but the United States Government annually spends millions of dollars protecting those people in other trades.
Mr. HILL. Your principal objection is that this pure food law would not protect you in the State of Nebraska?
Mr. BURNS. That is only an incidental objection to it. My objection to it is any modification of this bill which will allow in any way the creeping into the flour of this country of corn starch.
Mr. HILL. The point about the case is that in neither case, under the old law nor under the proposed law, the package would not have to contain the mark of the percentages of the ingredients if it was entirely included within intrastate commerce.
Mr. BURNS. No, I believe that is true.
Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Lannen a question about the bill.
Mr. DIXON. Proceed.
Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Lannen, with this bill as it is drawn, would this provision for branding mixed flour affect any mixed flour except that designed for export?
Mr. LANNEN. It would affect both the mixed flour designed for export and the flour sold in this country.
Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, now, how do you explain that, because it seems to me your first provision affects only that flour which is intended for export.
Mr. LANNEN. I will explain that to the Congressman when I get the law here. You see section 2 of the present pure-food law covers interstate commerce, defines the jurisdiction of the Government over a shipment of an article of food. It also deals with export trade and prohibits the shipment of adulterated or misbranded articles of food in interstate commerce, the adulteration and misbranding being defined in following sections of the law. Congress evidently ran into a proposition of this kind: That the foreign countries might have laws that would be in conflict with the laws of the United States, and that an article of food legally labeled in the United States according to the provisions of this law might not be legally labeled in a foreign country to which an American exporter wanted to ship it. So, in order to cover that point, they put in this proviso in section 2 of the national food law:
Provided, That no article shall be deemed misbranded or adulterated within the provisions of this act when intended for export to any foreign country and prepared or packed according to the specifications or directions of the foriegn purchaser when no substance is used in the preparation or packing thereof in conflict with the laws of the foreign country to which said article is intended to be shipped; but if said article shall be, in fact, sold or offered for sale for domestic use or consumption, then this proviso shall not exempt said article from the operation of any of the other provisions of this act.
Our opponents on the other side last year came forth with the proposition that the export trade was a very material thing to consider, and that if the law was repealed all that it would be necessary to do if you wanted to ship adulterated wheat flour to England or Germany or some other country would be to have your purchaser over there specify how it should be labeled, and then under this food law, under that proviso, the labeling would be legal unless you put some substance in there that was prohibited by the laws of the foreign country, so in order to cover that, in drawing this bill Mr. Rainey put that first part of the law in, added it right onto the end of section 2.
Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes; but it does not relate back at all to anything in the other section. It simply provides what construction shall be placed on the term "mixed flour," and then goes on to say:
And when the same is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country the same shall in all respects comply with subdivision 3 (a) of section 8 of this act in the case of food.
All that subdivision 3 (a) will do is to simply provide as to what the brand shall contain, and it seems to me that you have not made it at all sure that this misbranding will be applied to any article except that which goes into export.
Mr. LANNEN. You see this law here, Mr. Congressman, deals with food generally. The definition of food in this act is this:
The term "food," as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound.
Therefore when you bring this flour under this law all of the provisions of the law apply to it right straight through; all the definitions of misbranding, all the definitions of adulteration, and all the provisions of section 2 also apply.
Mr. LONGWORTH. But you take pains to say in your bill " and when the same is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country, the same shall in all respects comply with subdivision 3 (a) of section 8 of this act in the case of food," whereas nothing else in this article does conform with subdivision 3 (a). You have drawn this so as to make it only applicable to subdivision 3 (a).
Mr. LANNEN. Yes; but all the other definitions of adulteration and misbranding apply to it also.
Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, but you go further and make use of subdivision 3 (a), and simply provide how this particular product shall be branded.
Mr. LANNEN. That is for the purpose of putting branding on there that is not covered by the law as it is.
Mr. LONGWORTH. Why did you put in lines 16, 17, and 18 at all? Mr. LANNEN. Let me see that bill. How do those lines read? Mr. LONGWORTH. Those are the ones that confine your definition "mixed flour" to export.
Mr. LANNEN. As I explained before, Mr. Congressman, I would like to make that clear. Supposing we passed this bill. Suppose that the Congress passes this law simply repealing the taxing provision, simply wiping out the old law, what would happen? Then mixed flour would be labeled just the same as any other article of food, and so far as export is concerned there would be no regulation over it.
You could go over to England and get an order from the consumer over there, from a man who bought it from you, and have him specify that you label it "wheat flour." Suppose he sends you an order and says, "You give me so many pounds of flour, and I want you to put in there 20 per cent of cornstarch and 80 per cent of wheat flour," and he specifies, " and I want you to label that 'pure wheat flour."" Under the food law as it stands to-day you could label that "pure wheat flour" and ship it to England without saying a word on the label about cornstarch being in it.
Mr. LONGWORTH. What I am driving at is this. I wish you would take your bill.
Mr. HELVERING. The conjunction "and" connects the thing.
Mr. LONGWORTH. You put a connecting phrase after the semicolon, and there you say:
And when the same is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country the same shall in all respects comply with subdivision third (a) of section 8 of this act.
This is a new subdivision. You confine the operation of this definition, which is a new definition which you make for mixed flour, solely to mixed flour used for export and not used in interstate
Mr. LANNEN. Let me read section 8 to you as it will read. That applies to export, the part you read there. Now, let me read section
That the term "misbranded" as used herein shall apply to all drugs or articles of food or articles which enter into the composition of food the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained therein, which shall be false or misleading in any particular, and to any food or drug product which is falsely branded as to State, Territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced.
Now we are talking about articles of food.
In the case of drugs-
In the case of food.
First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.
Is it clear to you that that applies to mixed flour also?
Mr. LANNEN. There is where you are mixed up. Mixed flour is a food.
Mr. LONGWORTH. But you have only provided that your mixed flour shall conform with this particular part of the section, and that is only that part which is used for export.
Mr. LANNEN. No, Mr. Congressman; this says:
And when the same is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country, the same shall in all respects comply with subdivision third (a) of section 8 of this act in the case of food.
Mr. LONGWORTH. Precisely; but the part in which you define it, that I have been reading to you, specifically exempts in its provisions the part used in interstate commerce.
Mr. LANNEN. Section 2 provides:
That the introduction into any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or from any foreign country, or shipments to any foreign country of any article of foodAnd is it understood that this mixed flour is an article of food? Mr. LONGWORTH. I suppose so. But you have not answered myquestion yet. Why do you limit it? Take section 2 of your bill, beginning in line 2, with the proviso. Why do you limit the word "mixed flour" to that part which is intended for export? That is
to say, you divide it and only say that the part of mixed flour which is intended for export shall conform to subdivision 3a.
Mr. LANNEN. I was going to make that clear to you, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. LONGWORTH. I wish you would. Go ahead.
Mr. LANNEN (reading):
SEC. 2. That the introduction into any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or from any foreign country, or shipment to any foreign country, of any article of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this act, is hereby prohibited; and any person who shall ship or deliver for shipment from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or to a foreign country, or who shall receive in any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia or foreign country, and having so received, shall deliver, in original unbroken packages, for pay or otherwise, or offer to deliver to any other person, any such article so adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, or any person who shall sell or offer for sale in the District of Columbia or the Territories of the United States, any such adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs, or export or offer to export the same to any foreign country, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for such offense be fined not exceeding $200 for the first offense, and upon conviction for each subsequent offense not exceeding $300, or be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Now, you will notice that prohibits the interstate shipment of any article of food adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the
Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes; but you go to work and legalize your socalled adulteration.
Mr. LANNEN. No. Let me explain my position on that clearly. Mr. LONGWORTH. You have a definition of it, and you limit it to that part only which goes into export and exclude the interstate commerce; that is, the part for which you provide your branding.
Mr. LANNEN. Not at all. That prohibits the shipment of any article which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, in interstate commerce, any interstate shipment. You concede that mixed flour is an article of food. Now, then, section 7 of the act defines what is adulteration. All the definitions of adulteration that are set out there apply to mixed flour, so far as interstate shipments are concerned. Section 8 defines misbranding. All the definitions of misbranding under section 8 apply to mixed flour, so far as interstate shipments are concerned. Therefore, when you add a section 3 (a) among those definitions, that also will apply. We are simply adding one more element of misbranding to what is already in the law, and I want to read what is in the law now, and you will see that that does not apply to the percentage proposition:
That for the purposes of this act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded, in the case of food, if it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.
Second. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed, in whole or in part, and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if it fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha, or beta, eucaine