Again, we are struck here with the practically identical composition of the bakers' flour with the high-grade patent flours. The chief differences are found in the fact that the bakers' flours are drier, containing about 1 per cent less moisture. They have, too, a distinctly higher percentage of proteids as compared with the high-grade flours, due to the fact, doubtless, that large quantities of the outer part of the kernels enter into the composition of these flours. The quantities of gluten are more than correspondingly increased, which indicates that the glutinous part of the proteids tends to accumulate in flours of this character, and this is due to the nature of the milling process and to the separation of the various parts of the wheat kernel. The quantity of oil is also higher than in the high-grade flours, showing a less perfect degermination of the grain during the milling process. The ash is also slightly higher than in the highgrade flours, while the carbohydrates are somewhat lower, due to the higher percentage of proteids.

In a general comparison of bakers' flours with high-grade patent flours it is seen that the nutritive ratio is much narrower in the bakers' flour, and the percentage of proteids higher. Judged by the common theories of nutrition, therefore, the bakers' flour would make a bread better suited to the laboring man, while the high-grade patent flours would form bread with a greater tendency to produce fat and animal heat.

TYPICAL FLOUR OF CLASS 4.

In class 4 wheat flours have been collected of the miscellaneous samples which were not capable of classification, by reason of their names or descriptions, with the three preceding grades of flours. These flours doubtless represent the product of small mills, and are derived from the most diversified sources. As would be expected, they show among themselves a considerable degree of variation, although the mean composition does not differ very greatly from that of the previously described grades. The typical flour of this miscellaneous class, judged by the data which have been obtained, has the following approximate composition:

The important feature of such a typical flour is its almost exact identity, from a commercial point of view, with the high-grade patent flours. The averages of the two classes are so nearly alike that they could be interchanged with each other with no appreciable modification of chemical composition. This fact emphasizes in a most marked degree the points which have been brought out in the previous discussions, viz, that the commercial value of flour depends almost exclusively upon the nature of the milling process and upon the color and general appearance of the flour, and has little or nothing to do with nutritive properties.

TYPICAL SELF-RAISING FLOURS.

The small importance, from a commercial point of view, of a self-raising flour gives little encouragement for the endeavor to establish a typical standard for this class of nutrients. It is evident without discussion that the selfraising properties of a flour are due to the incorporation therewith of some of the ordinary chemical leavening agents which are commonly used. In other words, by mixing with the flour an ordinary baking powder, or the essential leavening constituents thereof, the so-called self-raising flour is produced. This flour, it is evidently intended, should be used immediately for bread making without being subjected to any previous fermentation.

Only a few samples of self-raising flours have been examined. A typical self-raising flour, representing nearly the mean of the samples examined, has the following composition:

As was to be expected, the chief variation of a self-raising flour from a typical flour of the other grades described is found in the percentage of ash which it contains. This percentage of ash arises from the mineral residue of the leavening agents added for the purpose of securing the raising of the loaf when the flour is mixed for bread making. Since the normal ash constituent of a flour is about 0.5 per cent, it is seen that there are added to the flour for leavening purposes about 3.5 per cent of mineral matters. The manifest unfitness of flours of this kind for general baking purposes will prevent a very wide commercial use of such articles. If chemical leavening agents are to be used, it is undoubtedly the better plan to mix them with the flour at the time of baking rather than to sell them in an already mixed condition.

APPENDIX II.

THE PRESENT FOOD AND DRUGS ACT WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE RAINEY BILL INSERTED.

The proposed amendments are printed in italic.

[The food and drugs act, June 30, 1906, as amended Aug. 23, 1912, as amended Mar. 3, 1913.]

AN ACT For preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture within any Territory or the District of Columbia an article of food or drug which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act; and any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $500 or shall be sentenced to one year's imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, and for each subsequent offense and conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $1,000 or sentenced to one year's imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

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 and be imprisoned not exceeding

one year, or both, in the discretion of the court: 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 foreign 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:

Provided further, That the words "mired flour" shall be taken and construed to mean a food product resulting from the grinding or mixing together of wheat or wheat flour with any other grain or with the product of any other grain, whether the same contains a leavening agent or not; 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.

SEC. 7. That for the purposes of this act an article shall be deemed to be adulterated:

*

In the case of food:

First. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.

Second. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article.

Third. If any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted.

Fourth. If it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed.

Fifth. If it contain any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health: Provided, That when in the preparation of food products for shipment they are preserved by any external application applied in such manner that the preservative is necessarily removed mechanically, or by maceration in water, or otherwise, and directions for the removal of said preservative shall be printed on the covering or the package, the provisions of this act shall be construed as applying only when said products are ready for consumption.

Sixth. If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, or putrid animal or vegetable substance, or any portion of an animal unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it is the product of a diseased animal, or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter.

66

SEC. 8. 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 the State, Territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced.

That for the purposes of this act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded in the case of food

First. 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, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any of such substances contained therein.

Third. If in package form, the quantity of the contents be not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count: Provided, however, That reasonable variations shall be permitted, and tolerances and also exemptions as to small packages shall be established by rules and regulations made in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of this act.

Third A: If it be the product denominated "mixed flour" in the second section of this act and the package containing it be not plainly, conspicuously,

and correctly marked or branded with the words "mixed flour as the principal name of the product, or if it fails to bear below the principal name a plain, conspicuous, and correct statement of the names and percentages or relative proportions of all ingredients contained therein.

Fourth. If the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which statement, design, or device shall be false or misleading in any particular: Provided, That an article of food which does not contain any added poisonous or deleterious ingredients shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded in the following cases:

First. In the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now or from time to time hereafter known as articles of food, under their own distinctive names, and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, if the name be accompanied on the same label or brand with a statement of the place where said article has been manufactured or produced.

Second. In the case of articles labeled, branded, or tagged so as to plainly indicate that they are compounds, imitations, or blends, and the words "compound," "imitation," or "blend," as the case may be, is plainly stated on the package in which it is offered for sale: Provided, That the term blend as used herein shall be construed to mean a mixture of like substances, not excluding harmless coloring or flavoring ingredients used for the purpose of coloring and flavoring only: And provided further, That nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or compelling proprietors or manufacturers of proprietary foods which contain no unwholesome added ingredients to disclose their trade formulas, except in so far as the provisions of this act may require to secure freedom from adulteration or misbranding.

Hon. CLAUDE KITCHIN,

Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

CORN PRODUCTS REFINING Co.,
New York, February 16, 1916.

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: During the recent hearing before your honorable committee on H. R. 9409, I was requested to furnish certain information which I could not obtain until I could confer with our auditors.

Representative Fordney desired certain information with respect to the production of starch from corn. This information is contained on the inclosed sheet marked "A."

Representative Fordney, of Michigan, also desired to know to what extent the item of labor entered into the manufacture of cornstarch. This information is contained on the inclosed sheet marked "B."

Representative Helvering desired to know how many hands were employed in the industry of corn products obtained by the wet milling process. This information is contained on the inclosed sheet marked "C." Respectfully, yours,

A.

T. B. WAGNER.

Remarks.-Inasmuch as commercial shelled corn contains between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of moisture, and inasmuch as the products made from corn contain variable amounts of moisture ranging from zero to 15 per cent, the only way to present comparative figures is to compute them on a dry basis, eliminating the moisture. The above figures are computed on that basis.

B.

COST OF LABOR PER 100 POUNDS OF CORNSTARCH PUT UP IN 1-POUND CARTONS (EXCLUSIVE OF ANY PACKAGE-PAPER AND WOODEN).

The average cost of labor amounts to from 16 per cent to 20 per cent of the total manufacturing cost, exclusive of the cost of corn.

The labor item increases or decreases in direct ratio with the operation of the plant; that is to say, the proportionate charge for labor is relatively low when the plants are operating at full capacity and relatively high when the reverse is the case.

C.

LABOR EMPLOYED BY MEMBERS OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCTS FROM CORN.

The best estimate obtainable without a prolonged inquiry among the members of the association is that the total number of hands employed is about 6,000. This is exclusive of clerical help, brokers, and selling agents. In computing these figures it should be borne in mind that this industry is a large purchaser of various supplies, such as corn, coal, barrels, boxes, cartons, machinery, tools, repair parts, tin plate, etc., and in that way the industry gives indirect employment to a large number of men. The total tonnage of in-and-out freight is approximately 6,000,000 tons per annum.

LETTERS, TELEGRAMS, ETC., SUBMITTED BY HON. HENRY T. RAINEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS.

Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY,

House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, January 20, 1916.

DEAR MR. RAINEY: In your letter of January 12, 1916, commenting upon a letter of this department of January 8 in the matter of the mixed-flour bill, you ask whether paragraph "5. If it be a product resulting," etc., in that letter is intended to prohibit the placing on the market of a flour which contains any added pure starch, whether it be derived from potatoes, corn, or other

sources.

In reply, you are advised that it was not intended to keep off the market a compound consisting of wheat flour and pure starch, but to prevent the designation of such a mixture as a flour. It is a compound of flour and starch, and in the opinion of this department should be labeled as such. The department sees no objection to the use of a product of this kind for any purpose for which it is suited. It is believed, however, that it is highly objectionable to permit the sale of such a product under the designation of "flour," whether qualified by the word "mixed" or compound."

You ask further whether the above-mentioned clause in the department's letter of January 8 is designed to keep off the market "a mixed flour composed approximately of 60 per cent wheat flour and 40 per cent corn flour." The department is of the opinion that this clause would not have the effect of keeping such an article off the market if the corn product used was, in fact, corn flour; that is, a product which contains essentially all the ingredients of the corn kernel, except part of the bran and germ, and not merely cornstarch. It is believed, however, that "flour" is not a proper designation for cornstarch that has been ground to the fineness of flour. The department is inclined to the view that if the mixed-flour law were repealed, a product composed of wheat flour and starch would be misbranded under the food and drugs act if labeled "flour" or "mixed flour." It would seem, however, that this should be made plain by Congress in the act repealing the mixed-flour law.

While it is true that wheat flour mixed with carbohydrates of any edible type could be used for many purposes for which wheat flour is at present used, the department believes that the food and drugs act does not permit and should not permit the sale of such a product as a flour." It is a compound of flour and starch and should be so designated. The department is of the opinion, therefore, that the term "flour" should not be defined in your proposed bill

66