FDA History 01

[Guest guest]

http://www.doctoryourself.com/history1.html

 

Why Chemical Food Preservatives Are Never Harmless

FDA History 01

Home

HISTORY OF A CRIME AGAINST THE FOOD LAW

CHAPTER I: THE FIGHT FOR THE FOOD AND DRUGS LAW

by Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., the very first commissioner

of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), then known

as the “US Bureau of Chemistry.”

 

It would be impossible and perhaps unnecessary to

survey the whole field of

effort which led to the enactment of the Food and

Drugs Law. It will be

sufficient to take the last of the hearings as typical

of all those that had

gone before. If the Latin motto is true, " ex pede,

Herculem, " we can judge the

whole of this opposition by its last expiring effort,

just as we can recreate

Hercules if we have a. part of his big toe.

 

The final hearings were before the committee on

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce, beginning on Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1906. This

was just before the time the

bill was completed in the Senate and after an

agreement had been made to vote on

it the 21st of February. These hearings are printed in

a volume containing 408

pages. Pages 1 to 40 are taken up with testimony that

benzoate of soda is a

perfectly harmless substance. These witnesses were

made up of both manufacturers

and experts. The experts were Dr. Edward Kremers, of

the University of

Wisconsin, Professor Frank S. Kedzie of the

Agricultural College of Michigan,

and Dr. Victor C. Vaughan, Dean of the College of

Medicine of the University of

Michigan. The manufacturers who testified in this case

unanimously said that the

business of keeping food could not be carried on

without the use of some

preservative and that eminent scientific men had

declared that benzoate of soda,

borax, etc., in the proportions used were entirely

harmless. Ex-Senator William

S. Mason was also before the committee in the interest

of a bill prepared by Mr.

Meyers, editor of the American Food Journal,

ostensibly offered by food

manufacturers. This was a publication devoted to the

propaganda of rectified

whisky.

 

EXCERPTS FROM FINAL HEARINGS

Although food bills of various kinds had been

continually before Congress for

a quarter of a century, the character of the

opposition thereto had not changed.

The excerpts here given are typical of the whole

struggle.

Inasmuch as this closing testimony was the final

effort to block the passage

of the food law, it is summarized at some length.

Testimony of Walter H.

Williams, President of the Walter H. Williams Company,

of Detroit, Michigan.

(Page 19 of the hearings.)

In the most palatable foods that we can find there

are traces of benzoic

acid, and it seems to me if the Almighty put it there,

the manufacturer ought to

be allowed to use it, if he don't use it in the same

quantities as put in the

fruit by nature. * * *

We went to three men, each of them connected with

one of the largest

universities in the United States, men who stand at

the very top of their class

in the chemical and physiological world.

MR. TOWNSEND: Who were they?

MR. WILLIAMS: Dr. Victor Vaughan, who is dean of

medicine and physiology at

the University of Michigan, a man whom I do not

believe any one can speak too

highly of, a man right at the top of his profession.

Another gentleman, Dr.

Kremers, dean of chemistry of the University of

Wisconsin. Another man who has

given the subject the very closest attention is Dr.

Frank Kedzie of the Michigan

Agricultural College. * * *

MR. TOWNSEND: Do you know of any manufacturer of

these goods who does not use

some form of preservative?

MR. WILLIAMS: I do not.

MR. TOWNSEND: As a manufacturer, do you know of any

way to manufacture these

goods and keep them as they have to be kept for sale,

without a preservative?

MR. WILLIAMS: I do not.

MR. BURKE: Have you had any trouble in any of the

states by reason of the

state laws interfering with your using this

preservative?

MR. WILLIAMS: Our firm has not. We have been told

that as soon as this

committee gets through with the hearings on this

subject there is going to be

trouble in Pennsylvania. That is all we know about it.

MR. RICHARDSON: How? What troubles? In what way?

MR. WILLIAMS: We understand that the use of benzoic

acid will be condemned,

and we also know that as soon as this bill becomes a

law, if it ever becomes a

law, it will be condemned by the Bureau of Chemistry.

* * * Now, the only point

is--and all I wish to bring out now--that I don't

think this committee ought to

recommend any legislation that will give one man the

absolute power to say what

the manufacturers of this country shall do and what

they shall not do. There is

a difference of opinion as to what is injurious and

what is not injurious. We

can show that the best scientific thought in this

country will differ with the

present Bureau of Chemistry. Now, gentlemen, do not

understand for a moment that

I am attacking Dr. Wiley or the Bureau of Chemistry or

the Department of

Agriculture. I am simply pointing out, or trying to

point out, the principle of

this bill. The principle is wrong. It is not fair; and

I think before you allow

anyone to condemn any preservative about which there

is a question that you

ought to investigate the subject fully by a committee

of scientists--the best

that we can find-appointed by the President or by

Congress.

In this connection it is interesting to know that

the bill subsequently

passed by the House of Representatives contained, a

clause, with my full

approval, and written by myself, in which such a

committee was recognized. Its

composition was one eminent chemist, one eminent

physiologist, one eminent

pharmacist, one eminent bacteriologist, and one

eminent pharmacologist. In view

of the attitude which the Secretary of Agriculture

held toward me at that time I

was very certain that he would consult me in regard to

the personnel of this

committee which was to be appointed by him, and that

not only eminent, but

fair-minded members would be appointed on this

committee. When the bill went to

conference with the Senate bill the conferees on the

part of the Senate would

not consent to encumbering the bill with an additional

authority paramount to

that of the Bureau of Chemistry. The Senate conferees

contended that the whole

matter of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness of

ingredients in foods would go

before the Federal Courts for final determination. The

House conferees yielded

on this point and the food bill was passed without the

nucleus of the Remsen

Board. This view of Mr. Williams was shared by

practically all the objecting

witnesses, both scientific and legal, as well as all

of those interested in

commercial matters throughout the whole course of the

discussion of the various

food bills before the committees of Congress. It was

also voiced on the floors

of both the Senate and the House. In spite of all this

publicity and opposition

the Congress. of the United States conferred upon the

Bureau of Chemistry the

sole function of acting as a grand jury in bringing

indictments against

offenders or supposed offenders of the law. The

Congress specifically provided

that all these indictments should have a fair, free

and open trial before the

Federal Courts for the purpose of confirming or

denying the acts of, the Bureau

of Chemistry.

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR KREMERS

Professor Kremers at the close of his testimony

before the Interstate and

Foreign Commerce Committee disclosed the fact that Mr.

Williams was the party

who secured the participation of Professors Kremers,

Kedzie and Vaughan in this

hearing. I quote from page 39:

MR. KREMERS: I would like to state just what I have

been invited to do. I

have been asked as a plant chemist, for that is my

specialty in chemistry, to

find out what could be learned about the occurrence of

benzoic acid in the

vegetable kingdom, and also to find out what the best

literature, the

physiological and therapeutic literature on the

subject, has to say with regard

to the administration of benzoic acid to the human

system and with regard to the

course that it took in the human system. That is the

extent of my knowledge on

this particular subject. I have not gone outside of

that.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there an employment in connection

with this matter by you I?

MR. KREMERS: I was employed; yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: By whom?

MR. KREMERS: By Mr. Grosvenor.

THE CHAIRMAN: What Mr. Grosvenor?

MR. KREMERS: Mr. Grosvenor of Detroit. Mr. Elliott

O. Grosvenor.

THE CHAIRMAN: Was there a compensation fixed?

MR. KREMERS Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to stating

it?

MR. KREMERS: No.

Mr. Kremers in detail stated in the testimony the

amount he was to receive

for the work and the amount he was to receive in

reporting the results of his

work to the committee. In his testimony, which I was

asked to summarize by the

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Mr.

Kremers gave the results of

his many investigations into natural food products in

which he found traces of

benzoic acid and related bodies. I quote from his

testimony, page 33:

MR. KREMERS: Gentlemen, I don't want to take up

more of your valuable time

unless you desire to ask some questions of me, for I

fear I may not have made

myself perfectly clear. I will admit that I am

accustomed to talking technically

on technical subjects, and that I am not an expert in

the popularization of

scientific subjects. I trust you will pardon my

shortcomings in this respect.

But briefly let me summarize the facts I have tried to

make clear to you.

Benzoic acid is found in the vegetable kingdom; it is

fairly widely distributed

in the vegetable kingdom. We find it among others in

the products of the

vegetable kingdom which we use for food purposes. We

find it even more widely in

food products which are used by herbivorous animals.

In addition to benzoic

acid, we find closely related compounds, namely,

benzaldehyde, commonly known as

bitter-almond oil, cinnamic aldehyde and quinic acid.

I have tried to make plain the fact that benzoic

acid is formed in the human

system and that the amount of hippuric acid eliminated

from the system is

increased whether we administer benzoic acid as such

or whether we add it

through certain food products; in other words, that

benzoic acid is a natural

product of the human economy.

Finally, I have tried to make clear to you,

gentlemen, that whether it seems

desirable to you or not to prohibit the use of benzoic

acid from any artificial

source rather than the natural source, and there is no

bitter-almond oil which,

after it is a day old, but that contains some benzoic

acid,--that benzoic acid

directly or indirectly will be administered to the

system through the

bitter-almond flavor, as I have explained.

MR. TOWNSEND: You are not a physiologist, are you?

MR. KREMERS: I am not.

MR. TOWNSEND: Are you able to answer as to whether

benzoic acid has an

injurious effect upon the body?

MR. KREMERS: I told you that I am not a

physiologist, but I have prepared

myself for a question of that sort, because it

occurred to me that it would be a

natural question for you to ask. I have here, in order

that I might not be

compelled to rely entirely upon my memory, a copy of

the National Dispensatory,

one of the standard commentaries on the United States

Pharmacopoeia, a statement

concerning the physiological action of benzoic acid.

This statement is written

by Professor Hare, one of the most prominent writers

in this country on

therapeutic subjects (Reads) :

" Ordinary doses cause a sense of warmth over the

entire body, which feeling

increases with the amount ingested, large quantities

causing severe burning

pain, etc. The drug increases the acidity of the

urine as it is eliminated by

the kidneys as hippuric acid. "

Now, lest the statement might be misunderstood, let

us read the last

paragraph; but it will be apparent to you that Mr.

Hare does not speak of

benzoic acid here in quantities such as have been

under consideration before

you, but in totally different amounts.

" It may be given with benefit in certain diseases

due to alkalinity.

Benzoic acid is given in the dose of from ten to

thirty grains.

Those amounts may be administered by a medical man,

and they are very much

larger than any amount that is necessary to bring

about the preservative action.

MR. TOWNSEND: Does any antiseptic that is taken

into the system interfere

with digestion?

MR. KREMERS: I dare say it does.

MR. TOWNSEND: In that respect it is injurious?

MR. KREMERS: Not necessarily.

I thought it would be better for me to quote the

summary that Mr. Kremers

himself made of his testimony rather than to attempt

any condensation of it

myself. I may add here for the further information of

the reader of this story

that Dr. W. D. Bigelow, my first assistant in the

Bureau of Chemistry, repeated

many of the investigations reported by Mr. Kremers, as

to the wide distribution

of benzoic acid in food products, and failed to

confirm them.

PROFESSOR KEDZIE'S TESTIMONY

Dr. Kedzie testified that he is the son of

Professor Kedzie, the

distinguished chemist of the Michigan Agricultural

College. He was associated

with his father as professor of chemistry at that

institution, that he undertook

these investigations under the same auspices and

practically for the same

remuneration as was given to Professor Kremers and

Professor Vaughan. I quote

from page 58:

MR. KEDZIE: I took up this matter of finding where

benzoic acid was

distributed among materials which I could purchase in

the market. I will read

these articles in about the order in which I found the

greatest quantity of

benzoic acid: cranberries, huckleberries, plums,

grapes (the Malaga grape),

grapefruit, oranges, pineapples, carrots, parsnips,

cauliflower, rhubarb, and

green peppers. The amount of benzoic acid which I

found present in cranberries,

taking the dry material, we find the dried substance

of the cranberry contains

about, on the average, 1/2 of 1% of benzoic acid, but

when we calculate it as to

the wet substance, it then falls to 5/100 of 1% on

account of the water present,

or, to put it differently, it is one part in two

thousand. * * * In analyzing

the sample of catsup in the Michigan market I have

found that the amount of

benzoic acid varies from one part in twelve hundred to

one part in two thousand.

These are the first class goods, such as Heinz sells

in Michigan, and also sold

by Curtice Brothers.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you find any benzoic acid in

catsup made by Heinz?

MR. KEDZIE: Yes, sir; when it is sold in Michigan

we do.

MR. MANN: Do you find it labeled that way?

MR. KEDZIE: The Michigan law requires that it shall

be labeled with the

preservative used.

MR. MANN: Was it so labeled?

MR. KEDZIE: I believe that it was, but I am not

absolutely certain. Living at

the capital, I would expect that the law would be

complied with. The

commissioner's office is right where I live.

MR. MANN: I have been told that it never had been

done, and wondered whether

it had or not.

MR. KEDZIE: I am sorry that I can not be absolutely

certain in regard to

that.

MR. WAGNER: How recently have you examined Heinz's

goods?

MR. KEDZIE: I collected a sample about three weeks

ago, and I inquired

particularly in getting the bottle, whether it had

been long in stock, and was

told that it had just been received about two or three

days before.

MR. MANN: Have you a memorandum showing the

percentage of benzoic acid in

these other fruits?

MR. KEDZIE: I made a thorough test of each one and

I am prepared to say that

in the grapefruit and the pineapple the amount of

benzoic acid present there

will not probably be far from 1/100 to 2/100 of 1 per

cent in the fresh fruit.

MR. MANN: Did you ascertain in each of these fruits

just how much benzoic

acid was there?

MR. KEDZIE: Only in the cranberries, and that I did

over and over again. * *

*

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hepburn): What would be the

effect of a large dose of

benzoic acid upon the human stomach?

MR. KEDZIE: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I am not a

physiological chemist. My

work is analytical and what I know about that question

is not much. I never took

a large dose of benzoic acid-that is, a large dose, of

course, would be 60 or

100 grains or more. I never took it and know nothing

about it. I am not a doctor

of medicine.

THE CHAIRMAN: From your knowledge of the properties

and qualities of the

acid, what would be the probable effect of benzoic

acid upon the human stomach?

MR. KEDZIE: I should expect that if it were taken

in very large doses up to

100 grains that it would have an inflammatory action

on the stomach.

THE CHAIRMAN: It would be an irritant?

MR. KEDZIE: It would be irritating; yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: You regard it when used as a

preservative, in the proportions

that were spoken of by Mr. Williams yesterday, as

entirely harmless, do you?

MR. KEDZIE: That is my opinion; yes.

Perhaps the wisest comment I can make upon the

testimony of these experts is

that they were honestly of the opinion that because

some of these preservatives

were found in natural food products it was perfectly

proper to imitate nature

and increase these amounts. The weakness of this

argument is so apparent that

only a few of the causes of the fallacy need be

mentioned. Hydrocyanic acid,

perhaps one of the most poisonous organic acids known,

exists in minute traces

in the fruit of peaches and plums, associated often

with benzaldehyde, a

flavoring agent. It exists in some varieties of

cassava in such proportions that

fatal effects have resulted from eating the cassava

starch. Salicylic acid is

present in a flavoring product known as oil of

wintergreen and may exist, in

traces, also in other food products. Passing from the

ranks of organic poisons,

arsenic is a widely distributed poisonous material

which is often found in our

foods, due to absorption from the soil. The presence

of these bodies, instead of

being a warrant for using more of them, points to the

necessity of reducing

their quantity to the minimal amount possible.

Another point in this connection is worthy of

mention. These experts were

paid for the work they did and for the expense of

laying it before the

committee. I mention this without even a suspicion of

criticism. I think payment

of this kind is perfectly ethical and proper. On the

other hand, during the

twenty-five years in which food bills of various kinds

were discussed before

committees of Congress, not a single expert appeared

before these committees

urging the enactment of the good sort thereof who

received any compensation

whatever for his services. Probably officials of the

various states who appeared

frequently before committees of Congress to urge the

passage of these bills had

their expenses paid by their respective states, but

received -no other

compensation. In the twenty-five years of active

opposition to the use of

preservatives it never occurred to me to think of any

compensation save that of

my regular salary.

SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY OF VICTOR C. VAUGHAN

MR. VAUGHAN: I am thoroughly desirous that

something should be done to

regulate the use of preservatives in foods.

MR. BURKE: Where would you draw the line? Where

would you fix the point

beyond which it would be dangerous to go in the use of

benzoic acid, as to

quantity?

MR. VAUGHAN: That brings up a very interesting

point. * * * It seems to me

that that ought to be settled by a commission of

experts, as to what

preservatives could be used and in what amounts they

could be used, and in what

foods they might be used.

MR. STEVENS: In other words, you want a board or

bureau of standards?

MR. VAUGHAN: I think so.

MR. BURKE: Have you not an opinion of your own in

regard to the matter?

MR. VAUGHAN: Yes; I have an opinion of my own, but

that opinion might be

changed by further study of the subject. I am sure

that benzoic, acid in the

quantities in which it is used in tomato catsup, sweet

pickles, etc., does not

do any harm. I should be opposed to the use of

formaldehyde in milk in any

quantity, or the use of any other preservatives in

milk. I have testified

repeatedly against the use of sulphite of soda on

Hamburger steak. I am

thoroughly in sympathy with the Hepburn bill. It does

seem to me, however, that

it is the part of wisdom not to say that preservatives

shall not be used at all,

but to find out what foods need preservatives, and in

what quantities they might

be used with safety.

MR. BURKE: Is not formaldehyde used very generally

now in preserving cream

and milk?

MR. VAUGHAN: I do not think it is used generally.

It is used to some extent.

MR. BURKE: Where cream is gathered up and shipped

some distance to a creamery

they use some preservatives, and usually formaldehyde,

do they not?

MR. VAUGHAN: I do not know. I have not found much

formaldehyde in cream.

Borax is used some, and one-half of one per cent of

boric acid is used.

Formaldehyde is used to some extent.

MR. MANN: Do you understand that the Hepburn bill

absolutely forbids the use

of preservatives?

MR. VAUGHAN: No, Sir; but I find that it puts into

the hands of one man, or

of one Department, at least, the question of deciding

as to the harmfulness of

preservatives.

MR, MANN: You say in the hands of one man or of one

Department. Eventually it

must be put into the hands of somebody to decide the

question, in your opinion,

I take it?

MR. VAUGHAN: Certainly, certainly.

MR. TOWNSEND: Right there I want to ask you this

question; as I understand,

some experiments have been made with benzoic acid to

determine whether it is

harmful or not, by giving doses of pure benzoic acid

to patients. What have you

to say in regard to that method of determining the

safety of benzoic

acid--whether it is harmful or otherwise?

MR. VAUGHAN: The experiments upon benzoic acid, I

understand, have been

finished by Dr. Wiley, but there is no report on them

up to the present time.

Dr. Wiley has made a report on boric acid as to

preservatives, and while I am a

personal friend of Dr. Wiley's, appreciate him very

highly and think greatly of

him, his experiments have shown that boric acid in

large amounts disturbs

digestion and interrupts good health, but they have

not shown that boric acid in

the small quantities which would be used as a

preservative, if used at all, has

any effect on the animal body.

MR. ADAMS: About what do you mean by " small

quantities " ?.

MR. VAUGHAN: I mean one-half of one per cent.

Dr. Vaughan then engaged in a somewhat animated

discussion with members of

the committee in regard to what kind of board should

be provided for in the law

to decide all these questions. At the end of this

discussion the following

questions were asked:

MR. BURKE: When benzoic acid is taken in excessive

quantities what is the

effect?

MR. VAUGHAN: In large quantities it irritates the

stomach. In very large

quantities it causes acute inflammation of the mucous

membranes of the stomach,

nausea, and vomiting.

The maximum medical dose of benzoic acid is about

ten grams, or one hundred

fifty grains, and larger amounts are likely to cause

inflammation of the

stomach.

MR. MANN: How much benzoic acid could one eat, day

after day, year after

year, without injury?

MR. VAUGHAN: I could not answer that.

MR. MANN: Have you any idea about it? How much can

you eat wholesomely

without injury?

MR. VAUGHAN: I should say certainly that the amount

that is found in your own

body, which is from one to ten grains a day.

MR. MANN: That is formed in addition to your own

body. I asked how, much can

you eat?

MR. VAUGHAN: I would have to answer only in a

general way and say a grain or

two, I am sure, taken day by day for one's life, would

not do any harm.

MR. MANN: Do you mean one grain or two grains?

MR. VAUGHAN: One grain.

MR. MANN: Would two grains do any harm?

MR. VAUGHAN: Well, I do not know. I would not like

to set up my dictum. I do

not know enough about it.

MR. MANN: I appreciate your position, Doctor; but

still, as far as you can,

we would like to have your opinion.

MR. VAUGHAN: Well, I should say one grain would be

perfectly safe. I do not

know whether two grains would be or not.

It is not at all surprising that at the end of this

examination by Mr. Mann,

Dr. Vaughan had put himself in a most ticklish

position. He was arguing for some

amendment to the bill which would permit the use of

benzoic acid in food

products, but he, was under the impression that even

one grain a day for every

day would be safe, but by eating two grains a day for

all one's life it might

not be safe. As two grains a day is a most minute

quantity of benzoic acid, a

quantity which would be exceeded if benzoic acid were

used in foods in general,

it is evident that such a course of reasoning could

have little effect upon a

deliberative body.

TESTIMONY OF DR. ECCLES

The most spectacular of the witnesses who appeared

against the bill was Dr.

Eccles of Brooklyn. Dr. Eccles describes himself as a

physician residing in

Brooklyn and he appears at the invitation of the

National Food Manufacturers'

Association. There was evidently a period approaching

when some kind of food law

would be enacted. To protect the manufacturers a bill

was introduced by Mr.

Rodenberg, of Illinois. Mr. Lannen, a lawyer in the

interest of this measure,

who had been actively opposed to the pending bill, was

also present at the

hearing. Dr. Eccles stressed the fact that instead of

trying to prevent the

addition of preservatives to foods their use ought to

be encouraged. Quoting

(from page 131):

MR. RICHARDSON: Is vinegar deleterious?

DR. ECCLES: No, Sir; I do not think anything is. I

would compel them to use

substances less deleterious than vinegar. I would not

let them go below vinegar.

I would allow them to use substances the dose of which

is smaller than a dose of

acetic acid or vinegar. Substances of larger doses

than vinegar I would allow

them to put in a certain fraction of the dose, and I

would make the fraction the

same for every substance, with no exception. I would

have those gentlemen fixing

the Pharmacopoeia say that no substance could be used

that is stronger than the

acid of vinegar under any circumstances. * * * In

other places, where the

preservatives have been stopped, the death rate has

risen. Two notable

illustrations have occurred lately--exceedingly

notable. In North Dakota, the

state of pure food--Senator McCumber's state--they

tried the experiment. In

Germany, particularly in Berlin, in the same year they

tried the experiment.

These two places were put up as tests. I predicted

that the death rate in both

those places would rise fifty per cent in that year.

Now, what are the official

figures? The official figures given by the Board of

Health of the State of North

Dakota and the :figures of the German Government in

their own publications show

that they transcended my prediction; that the deaths

were nearly three times as

many as they were during the same period the year

before.

THE CHAIRMAN: From what cause?

DR. ECCLES: I predicted it would occur if they

stopped the use of

preservatives, and it did occur just as I predicted

from the stopping of the use

of preservatives. In no other place in the world did

the death rate rise as in

Berlin, and in no other state in the United States did

it rise as it did in

North Dakota.

THE CHAIRMAN: The use of what preservatives was

stopped?

DR. ECCLES: All.

OTHER WITNESSES

Mr. Lannen followed Dr. Eccles with a long tirade

against the pending measure

and in favor of substituting the Rodenberg bill

therefor. Warwick M. Hough,

attorney for the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers

Association of America,

endeavored to have the pending measure changed so that

deleterious substances in

compounded and blended whiskies should have the same

protection that similar

substances had in straight whisky. Mr. Hough had

appeared many times before the

committees endeavoring to secure immunity for the

artificially compounded

whiskies. He evidently saw clearly what would happen

to artificial whisky if the

pending measure should become a law. His foresight was

prophetic. After the law

became effective and the definitions of the Bureau of

Chemistry for whisky went

into effect, Mr. Hough carried the case to several

United States Courts. In all

about eight different suits were instituted, the

purpose of which was to declare

the standards of whisky established, by the Bureau of

Chemistry illegal. In

every single instance Mr. Hough's clients were

defeated.

FAVORING WITNESSES

Appearing in behalf of the pending measure Mr.

Edward W. Taylor, of

Frankfort, Kentucky, reviewed Mr. Hough's arguments

and showed to the committee

their fallacy. On page 173 he says:

MR. TAYLOR: This investigation in 1893 of the

whisky trust showed that the

people of the United States were being imposed on to

such an extent that this

committee recommended to Congress that it incorporate

into law a suggestion made

by the deputy commissioner of Internal Revenue, Mr.

Wilson, which was the origin

of what is known as the " Bottling in Bond " act--a

national law which enjoys so

much disparagement that it is a pleasure to me to have

the opportunity to

explain it. The reason it has such disparagement is

because the other 95 per

cent of the so-called whisky on the American market

today is the spurious

article and can not get the guarantee stamp which is

put over bottled in bond

whisky. * * * And I have here the report of the Ways

and Means committee in the

House, in recommending the bill for passage--approving

the bill. Here is the

official report. It is all very well for Mr. Hough or

myself to come up here and

express an opinion as to the intention of the law, but

I think it is to the

advantage of this committee if we can produce some

official expression as to the

purpose of the law, and take the matter out of

contention. * * *

" The obvious purpose of the measure is to allow

the bottling of spirits

under such circumstances and supervision as will give

assurances to all

purchasers of the purity, of the article purchased,

and the machinery devised

for accomplishing this makes it apparent that this

object will certainly be

accomplished.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. ALLEN, OF LEXINGTON, KY.

Mr. Allen was the militant administrator of the

food laws of Kentucky. As a

state official he realized most keenly the need of a

national law. He had heard

the arguments against adopting this measure most

patiently. The impression he

gained from listening to this testimony is thus

illustrated by his own words

(page 20-5).

 

ROBERT M. ALLEN

I want to say in this connection right here that

there are two sides to this

food proposition. There is the side which agitates and

clouds the issue, brings

up this point and that point, which, perhaps, does not

materially affect the

question; but when you come specifically down to these

questions: Should glucose

be sold as glucose or as honey or maple syrup? Should

any synthetic product be

sold under the name and trade terms of the genuine

product which it is designed

to imitate? Should a preservative be allowed use

without any control or

restriction?--when you come down to those propositions

I think that not only the

food commissioners, but the majority of the reputable

manufacturers are agreed.

But I say, Mr. Chairman, that I can take a committee

from food manufacturers

which would meet good men like yourself and others in

Congress who are

interested on this subject and cut aside from all of

these issues that have been

clouding and confusing the main central idea, and I

believe that you could all

agree upon a bill which would be fair and equitable to

all and which would

accomplish the purposes for which we are working along

the lines of national

pure-food legislation. In our Kentucky work we are not

only the food

commissioners of the people, the consumers, but we are

also the food

commissioners of every reputable manufacturer, and he

has a hearing, a frank

man-to-man hearing, whenever he wants to come in and

discuss the subject.

At that time the chairman of the committee, the

Hon. W. P. Hepburn of Iowa,

gave notice that the hearings in favor of and against

a food law preventing

adulterations of the kind described were closed. Thus

those who had for

twenty-five years favored all kinds of adulterations

and misbranding were

finally shut out of any further participation in

forming a food and drug act.

CLOSING ADDRESS OF DR. WILEY

The Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry had been

informed by Mr. Hepburn and his

lieutenant, the Hon. James R. Mann, that he should

have the final summary of the

evidence both for and against preservatives in foods.

Accordingly he was given

ample time to summarize the principal arguments for

and against preservatives as

affecting the public health. His testimony begins on

page 237 and extends to the

end of the report on page 408.

DR. WILEY: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the

committee: At the request of

your chairman and in harmony with the terms of the

resolution passed by your

honorable body, and with the consent of the Secretary

of Agriculture, I appear

before you for the purpose of summing up the expert

testimony which has been

offered in the hearings held before your committee

during the past fortnight on

the pending measure concerning the regulation of

interstate and foreign commerce

in foods. Numerous expert witnesses have appeared

before your body, mostly in

opposition to the pending measure, and a few witnesses

have appeared in favor

thereof. I appear before you not as the advocate of

any particular measure, but

as an advocate of legislation of some kind controlling

interstate and foreign

commerce in adulterated and misbranded foods and

drugs. I shall support with

what influence I may possess any bill which your

honorable body in its wisdom

may report, although it might not, and probably would

not, meet with my entire

approbation. I do not believe it is possible to draw

any measure of this kind

which would receive the unqualified support of all

parties. It becomes

necessary, therefore, in measures of this kind to keep

in view the principle of

the legislation and to regard as of minor importance

the various details which

may be devised to obtain the end in view.

In the discussion of some of the principal points

which have been presented,

I wish to be understood as according to each witness

the same sincerity, the

same desire to present the facts, and the same freedom

from bias in interpreting

them that I shall hope may be attributed to me. The

cause of truth is never hurt

by unjust attacks and its citadel never reached by the

devious ways of unworthy

foes, but it is sometimes weakened by the unguided

enthusiasms of its defenders.

I therefore accord honesty of purpose and sincerity

of effort to those whose

contentions I feel impelled to resist. I desire to

point out wherein I think

they have fallen into errors of statement followed by

fallacious reasoning

leading to wrong conclusions. I want to point out how

they have misunderstood

the efforts which have been made to ascertain certain

facts relating to the

effect of preservatives, coloring matters, and other

substances added to foods

on health and digestion; how they have misinterpreted

the purpose and scope of

the food standards which have been proclaimed by the

Secretary of Agriculture in

accordance with an. act of Congress, and have, as a

result of these erroneous

views, created what seems to them a demon of future

dangers, but which is

nothing more than a phantom of a perturbed

imagination.

In doing this I shall speak frankly and freely,

without any bias or rancor,

without any feeling of resentment for the many

denunciations and anathemas which

have been published all over this broad land and in

Europe during the past two

years.

I hope you may not conclude from the necessary

trend of my argument that I

oppose all use of preservatives and coloring matters

in foods. On the contrary,

there are doubtless often conditions when the use of

preservatives is indicated.

In countries which are unable to produce their own

foods, as for instance

England, on journeys to distant or difficultly,

accessible places, such as mines

and logging camps and long journeys on the sea, and in

other exigencies,

preservatives may be indicated. I also think that the

consumer who prefers them

should not be denied that preference. My argument,

therefore, applies to the

usual conditions which obtain in this country and

especially to the apparent

fact that the great majority of our people seem to

prefer their food untreated

with noncondimental preservatives.

As it has appeared to me from listening to a part

of the testimony and

reading a part thereof, the character of the

opposition to the pending measure

may be described as follows:

Opposition to the cardinal principles of the bill.

Opposition to some of the prohibition principles of

the bill.

Opposition to the method of enforcing the bill.

Opposition to the officials who may be called upon

to enforce the bill.

Opposition of special interests engaged in certain

industries which apparently

may be affected to a greater or less extent by the

provisions of the bill

should it become a law.

I will begin by a statement of the grounds of the

opposition of the first

class of objections. This opposition has not been

brought out by any of the

witnesses who have been called upon to testify; but is

based upon broad

Constitutional grounds and is of a character to

command profound respect and

careful consideration. I refer to the views which are

held by many distinguished

and earnest men to the effect that the cardinal

provisions of the bill are

unconstitutional. This is a matter, therefore, which

does not call for any

further consideration on my part.

The second class of objections to the bill: The

prohibition principles of the

pending bill consist in the elimination of harmful and

injurious ingredients

which may be added to foods. I may say, and the

statement is rather a broad one,

that there is no opposition to such a prohibition, as

no one has advocated, in

so far as I have been able to find in the testimony, a

permission to add

harmful, deleterious, or poisonous substances to

foods, except Dr. Eccles.

The objections have rather lain against the

possible decisions as of the

courts in such matters, and especially against the,

method of collecting

evidence for the prosecution. It is, of course, self

evident that no prosecution

could be brought, under these prohibition provisions

unless some one should

certify that any given added substance was harmful,

deleterious or poisonous.

The opposition, therefore, to this provision of the

bill has voiced itself in an

argument that the committee. should insert prohibitive

provisions in the bill

against this prohibition. Plainly stated, the

contention has been made that the

Congress of the United States should declare by act

that certain substances in

certain proportions are not harmful, deleterious, or

poisonous substances.

The only expert testimony which has been submitted

on this question, which is

worthy of any consideration by your committee, is that

which was offered by

Professor Kremers, of the University of Wisconsin,

Professor Kedzie, of the

Agricultural College of Michigan, and Professor

Vaughan, of the University of

Michigan. The high character and attainments of these

experts entitle their

views to the most profound and respectful

consideration.

The wide distribution of benzoic acid in vegetable

products, as described by

Professor Kremers, is well known to physiological and

agricultural chemists. He

says that in the destruction of certain proteins in

the human economy benzoic

acid is formed, which is then changed into hippuric

acid. There is no evidence

that I have been able to find to show that hippuric

acid may not be formed from

the benzol radical without its passing through the

benzoic acid state. But this

is of little importance, because even if benzoic acid

should precede the

formation of hippuric acid it could only exist in the

most minute quantities and

for a relatively very short period of time. Hippuric

acid is one of the natural

toxic or poisonous bodies produced in catabolic

activity, which, like urea and

other degradation products of proteins, must be at

once eliminated from the

system to avoid injury. Uremic poisoning at once

supervenes on the suppression

of the excretive activities of the kidneys, and unless

this condition is removed

death speedily results.

This brief summary of the opposition to the food

and drugs act during the

time it was before Congress accentuates the fact that

it is essentially a health

measure, as has been officially confirmed by a

decision of the Supreme Court of

the United States.

There had been little discussion during the whole

twenty-five years of the

subject of misbranding. This was such an apparent and

unnecessary evil that it

had few defenders. During all this time the chief

discussion was the effect upon

health of certain preservatives and coloring matters,

and as to the selection of

officials for carrying the law into effect. It was the

unanimous opinion of all

opponents of the law that the Bureau of Chemistry

should have nothing to do with

its enforcement. It was well understood that the

attitude of the Bureau of

Chemistry was distinctly hostile to the use of

chemical preservatives of any

kind in food and that all such manipulations

threatening the health of the

American consumer would be frowned upon. In spite of

many attempts to prevent

it, Congress deliberately and overwhelmingly decided

to submit the execution of

the law to the Bureau of Chemistry.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

In the future the student of history who may wish

to review all that was said

and done during the fight for the enactment of the

pure food law will find all,

the hearings in the libraries connected with the

various committees in Congress

in charge of these hearings. They are a thesaurus of

interesting facts which the

future historian ought not to overlook.

 

FURTHER EXCERPTS FROM THE CLOSING SUMMARY

MR. BARTLETT: I would conclude, then, that you

think benzoic acid as a

preservative is not necessary.

DR. WILEY: I think you forecast my argument very

well.

MR. ADAMSON: Before you became a chemist, you saw

women make catsup and put

it up hot in sealed bottles and keep it a long time,

didn't you?

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir.

MR. ADAMSON: Without putting anything in it?

DR. WILEY: Excepting the ordinary spices and

condiments. I want to call the

especial attention of this committee to this argument

which I am presenting. I

will state it again without reading from my

manuscript, so as to make it

perfectly distinct.

The human body is required to do a certain amount

of normal work. That amount

of normal work is a beneficial exercise of these

organs. If you diminish the

normal work of an organ you produce atrophy--lack of

functional activity. If you

increase it hypertrophy ensues, and increase of

functional activity. Nearly all

of the organs that wear out do so from one of those

causes, not from normal

exercise of their functions. Therefore, assuming that

the food of man, as

prepared by the Creator and modified by the cook, is

the normal food of man, any

change in the food which adds a burden to any of the

organs, or any change which

diminishes their normal functional activity, must be

hurtful.

MR. ESCH: If the organs were always normal, death

would not ensue?

DR. WILEY: I will not go so far as that, Mr. Esch.

I do, refer to longevity,

though, and I believe this with all my heart, that

when man eats a normal food

normally the length of human life will be greatly

extended. That is what I

believe. But if we consume abnormal food abnormally we

shall lessen the length

of human life.

MR. TOWNSEND: Who is going to define normal food;

there is a great difference

of opinion about that?

DR. WILEY: I will admit that.

MR. MANN: Doctor, do you think the action of eating

cranberries with turkeys

is detrimental to health in any way or to any degree?

DR. WILEY: I will answer that as categorically as I

can. I do not believe

that a healthy organism is going to receive any

permanent injury or measurable

injury by eating cranberries because they contain

benzoic acid. And I want to

add this, that it is not because they contain benzoic

acid that they are

wholesome, but that if they did not contain it they

would be more wholesome than

they are.

I want to accentuate this point: I noticed very

many questions from many

members of the committee which lead me to think that

you have this feeling, that

if a substance does not hurt you so that you can

measure it it is not harmful.

That does not follow at all. Take this one substance

of benzoic acid. Benzoic

acid never takes any part in the formation of tissue,

and its. degradation

product is hippuric acid, which is a most violent

poison. If the kidneys should

cease to act for twenty-four hours there is not a man

on this committee who

would not be at death's door from the hippuric acid

and the urea which would be

in the blood. Hippuric acid is perhaps far more

poisonous than urea; it is a

deadly poison. Therefore nature gets rid of it

directly it is formed, otherwise

health would be destroyed.

Now, is there force in the argument, gentlemen,

that in view of the fact that

this degradation product comes from the natural foods

which we eat--and I am not

criticizing the Creator at all for putting them in the

food--then benzoic acid,

which occurs in natural foods and of which the

degradation product is a violent

poison if increased by an infimitesimal amount, and

although we may not be able

to note any injury coming from it, yet should we be

advised to use it? There is

a subtle injury which will tell in time. For instance,

a mathematician desires

to make a curve to express inflnitesimally small

values which only the

mathematician can consider, and to do that he has to

have experimental evidence.

He can not experiment at the small end of his curve;

it is impossible. He

experiments upon the part of the curve that he can

measure, fixes the ordinates

and the abscissas with the points that he can measure.

Then he draws his curve,

passing into the infnitesimally small values. And it

is the same with the

substances added to food. You must construct your

curve on data which you can

measure, and then you draw your curve down to the

inflnitesimally small. That

curve is a curve the moment it varies from zero,

although you can not see it or

measure it. If you add any substance to food--add, I

say--which produces a

poisonous degradation product, or adds one additional

burden to the secretory

organs, you have changed that infinitesimal small part

of your curve that you

can not measure, but the change is there all the same.

MR. MANN: Take the case of cranberries. Does

benzoic acid in the cranberries

to the extent that the benzoic acid exists injure

cranberries as a food?

DR. WILEY: It is so small. that you can not measure

its harmful effects.

MR. MANN: But to the extent that it exists at all;

or that the other values

in cranberries as a food in the normal use of them

overcome the injurious

effects of benzoic acid. If that be the case, might

not that be the case of

other preservatives in other foods?

DR. WILEY: What is true of one is true of all.

MR. MANN: But with artificial preservatives. Might

not the case arise where,

although the food is injured to the extent in which

the preservative exists, yet

it has preserved the food so that it is better food,

the total product is better

than the food would have been without the

preservative. That is what we want to

get at here.

DR. WILEY: I stated that particularly in my

introduction. I said there were

many places where preservatives were indicated.

Wherever you can make food

better, where it is impossible to have it without

having a preservative,

certainly the preservative is indicated.

MR. ADAMSON: I am curious to ask you, before you

leave the subject of

cranberries, about the effect of berries, in which I

am locally interested. I

can give up cranberries, but I can not give up

blackberries and huckleberries. *

* *

MR. BARTLETT: Did you see the account in

yesterday's Herald about the dinner

that some chemist gave to a friend in New York, at

which everything they ate was

made out of acids and things of that kind?

MR. MANN: Synthetic products?

MR. BARTLETT: Yes.

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir; I saw the account, and I know

the gentlemen very well. I

don't believe any of them would care to eat that kind

of a dinner every day. It

is like my very distinguished friend, Professor

Chittenden, perhaps the most

distinguished physiological chemist in this country,

who proved conclusively to

himself that man in his natural tastes ate too much

protein. The average man

instead of eating 17 grams of nitrogen in a day, as he

does, ought not to eat

more than 10 or 11. But almost every man taught to do

that, I understand, has

gone back to the old way, although apparently it was

beneficial at the time.

MR. TOWNSEND: Professor Chittenden does not agree

with you in regard to the

use of preservatives.

DR. WILEY: I think not; I think he does not agree

with me. I want to say

here, Mr. Chairman, that experts never think the less

of each other because they

disagree; it is the natural condition of humanity.

MR. ADAMSON: You did not really run a boarding

house on pills, paregoric, and

other things, did you?

DR. WILEY: I ran a boarding house something of the

kind you describe for four

years, and I am running it to-day; and would be

pleased to have you come down

and take a meal with us.

MR. ADAMSON: I think I would prefer to have a

colored woman do the cooking

for me.

DR. WILEY: We have a colored cook. You will hear

more about that boarding

house later on.

MR. BARTLETT: I understood you to say you knew

these gentlemen in New York

who gave this dinner that we were speaking about a

moment ago?

DR. WILEY: I know them very well.

MR. BARTLETT: They are reliable gentlemen?

DR. WILEY: Oh, yes; perfectly so. In fact, I have a

very high opinion of the

chemists of this country. Just as high when they

differ from as when they agree

with me.

MR. ADAMSON: While you have such a high opinion,

yet you do not take their

judgment in these instances?

DR. WILEY: Certainly not; I should not occupy such

a position. I do not want

anybody else to judge for me the results of my own

work. I want to do that

myself.

MR. ADAMSON: I wanted to give you a chance to

disclaim that.

DR. WILEY: Not only disclaim it, but I never have

put myself in any such

position and never intend to.

Now I will go on with my statement.

Because nature produces an almost infinitesimal

quantity of substances in

foods which add to the quantity of these poisonous

excreta appears to me to be

no valid argument for their wholesomeness. Could even

the small trace of

substances in our foods which produces hippuric acid

be eliminated, the

excretory organs would be relieved of a useless burden

and the quantity of work

required by them be diminished. This would be

conducive to better health and

increased longevity. I fail to see the force of the

argument that a deliberate

increase of the work required by the adding of

substances capable of producing

poisonous degradation products is helpful and

advisable. Granting, for the sake

of the argument, the grounds of a trace of benzoic

acid and its analyses in all

the substances mentioned by Professor Kremers, we do

not find that this is a

warrant to add more of these bodies, but, on the

contrary, a highly accentuated

warning to avoid any additional burden. That benzoic

acid is a useful medicine,

no one who has ever studied medicine will deny, but I

think almost every

practicing physician will tell you that the exhibition

of drugs having a

medicinal value in case of health is highly

prejudicial to the proper activity

of these drugs when used in disease. The excretory

organs of the body become

deadened in their sensibilities by the continued

bombardment to which they are

subjected and do not respond at the proper time to the

stimulus which a medicine

is supposed to produce. Keeping the hand in cold water

constantly would unfit it

to be benefited by the addition of a cold application

for remedial purposes.

I think that I need only call the attention of the

committee to the wide

distinction between a drug used for medicinal purposes

and a food product to

show them that all reasoning based on the value of

drugs as medicines is totally

inapplicable to their possibly beneficial effects in

foods. I further think I

shall be sustained almost unanimously by the medical

profession of the United

States when I say to this committee that the " drug

habit, " which is so

constantly and so unavoidably, I am sorry to say,

formed in this country is one

of the greatest sources of danger to the public health

and of difficulty in the

use of remedial agents that can well be imagined.

Professor Kremers, on page 33,

seeks to justify the statement he reads from Professor

Hare respecting the

properties of benzoic acid by saying that benzoic acid

is useful in diseases of

the urinary organs which produce alkalinity. I will

show this committee later on

that small doses of borax bring about this abnormal

condition of the urine, and

therefore it might be advisable in using borax, which

has been pronounced

harmless by some experts here, to be able to

counteract one of its particularly

certain effects by administering a remedy at the same

time that you supply the

cause of the disease. For this reason your committee

might well say in the bill

that whenever borax is used in foods benzoic acid

should also be used as a

corrective of its dangerous influences.

I am somewhat surprised also at the reference that

Professor Kremers makes to

salt, on page 34. Salt is not only a delightful

condiment, but an absolute

necessity to human life, and the fact that excessive

doses of salt are injurious

has no more to do with this argument than the fact

that you can make yourself

ill by eating too much meat. It seems to me

astonishing in these days of rigid

scientific investigation that such fallacious

reasoning can be seriously

indulged in for the sake of proving the harmlessness

of a noncondimental

substance. Yet this is the argument advanced by

Professor Kremers on page 34 in

respect of salt, wood smoke, and other useful,

valuable, and necessary

condimental bodies. The argument in regard to

benzaldehyde in ice cream is on

the same plane. The substance known as ice cream, as

usually made, is an

inferior food product at best, and how it could be

improved by the addition of a

substance which increases the quantity of poisonous

principles in the excrements

is a matter entirely beyond my comprehension. I am

perfectly familiar with the

argument that this small quantity would not produce

any harm. It is doubtless

true, Mr. Chairman, that a slight increase for one day

or even oftener of these

bodies in the food would produce practically no

measurable effect upon a healthy

individual for a long time, but that in the end it

would produce no harmful

effect is contrary to all the rules of physiology and

logic.

The body wears out and death supervenes in natural

order from two causes:

First, from a failure of the absorptive activities of

the metabolic processes,

and, second, by an increased activity of the catabolic

processes, producing

increased amounts of poisonous and toxic matters in

the system, while the

excretory organs are less able to care for them. Thus

the general vitality of

the body is gradually reduced, and even old age, which

is regarded as a natural

death, is a result of these toxic activities carried

through a period of time

varying in extreme old age from eighty to one hundred

years. This process is

described by Professor Minot, of Harvard University,

as the differentiation and

degeneration of. the protoplasm. On the contrary, it

is not difficult to show

that .every condimental substance, by its necessary

and generally stimulating

effect upon the excretory organs which produce the

enzymes of digestion,

produces a positively helpful result, while its

preservative properties are

incidental merely thereto. Condiments are used not

simply because they are

preservatives, but because without them the digestive

organs would not respond

to the demands of nature, and therefore I ask your

very careful consideration of

the arguments based upon a comparison of

noncondimental preservatives added to

foods and the use of the condimental substances which

are natural and necessary.

I do not believe that your minds will be misled in the

consideration of this

important and radical distinction.

A careful review of other parts of the argument of

Professor Kremers shows

that he unwittingly admits the poisonous and

deleterious properties of benzoic

acid by calling attention, on page 35, to the fact

that when doses of it are

added to an kinds of stock, so called, preserved in

large quantities, it is

boiled out or disappears by sublimation during

subsequent treatment. If benzoic

acid is a. harmless substance, as suggested, why

should so much importance be

attached by its advocates to the fact that it is

practically eliminated? Thus

the advocates of benzoic acid at once, by their own

words, show the insecurity

of the platform on which they stand.

MR. TOWNSEND: Did you understand him to testify in

that way as showing that

that was the reason it was not harmful?

DR. WILEY: No; excepting it was boiled out.

MR. TOWNSEND: That was in answer to a question.

MR. ESCH: The use of it more particularly with

reference to the preparation

of the stock.

DR. WILEY: Yes; I have mentioned that in large

quantities, in relation to the

stock.

You are asked to insert in this bill a provision

which will allow the use of

one-fourth or one-fifth of 1 per cent of benzoic acid

in food products, which is

practically ten times that found, as stated by

Professor Kremers, in the

cranberry, which, of all known vegetable substances

used as foods, contains the

largest quantity. Fortunately, cranberries are not an

article of daily diet. Do

not, I beg of you, lose view of the fact that because

a single dose of benzoic

acid does not make you ill its daily consumption is

wholly harmless. This is a

non-sequitur of the most dangerous character.

Professor Kremers says that he has searched through

all literature and has

not found a statement that benzoic acid administered

even in medicinal doses

would produce harm. I would like to compare this with

his own quotation of

Professor Hare, in which it is said:

Ordinary doses cause a sense of warmth through

the entire body, which

feeling increases with the amount ingested, large

quantities causing severe

burning pain.

Asked by Mr. Richardson, Professor Kremers

acknowledged that there might be

many persons who would be injuriously affected by

benzoic acid. Now, when anyone

is accused of a crime it is no defense to prove that

the crime was not committed

against a hundred or a million individuals. It is

sufficient to prove that it

was committed against one. Professor Kremers

acknowledges that benzoic acid may

be harmful, therefore Professor Kremers has convicted

benzoic acid as being a

harmful substance; and, therefore, his argument that

it should be used

indiscriminately in foods, or, as asked when before

this committee, be permitted

to the extent of one-fourth of 1 per cent, being ten

times the quantity produced

in its most abundant natural substance, seems wholly

illogical.

MR. TOWNSEND: That would be true of any article;

that not only applies to a

preservative, but it applies to all kinds of foods as

well.

DR. WILEY: Well, yes; but foods and drugs must be

regarded differently.

MR. BARTLETT: There are people who can not eat food

ordinarily regarded as

harmless. There are certain people who can not drink

sweet milk; and I know

people who can not eat eggs of any description, nor

anything that has an egg in

it. Now, do you think that everybody ought to be

prevented from eating eggs or

drinking milk if a half a dozen people in a thousand

are injuriously affected by

them?

DR. WILEY: Certainly not; nor would I prevent

anybody from using benzoic acid

who wanted to do it, but I certainly would help

persons from using it who did

not want to use it. I am not advocating the

prohibition of the use of benzoic

acid by anybody who wants to use it. I would be in

favor of putting benzoic acid

in a little salt-cellar, the same as is used for salt

and pepper, and letting

the people use it if they want to. I think benzoic

acid would not hurt me, or be

injurious to my system, if I used it one day--

MR. BARTLETT: You know some people have tried to

eat a quail a day for thirty

days, but they get sick.

MR. ADAMSON: Is there not a great difference

between the occasional use of

these poisons medicinally, in cases of emergency, and

the use of them in any

quantities in food?

DR. WILEY: I think that is a great point. I will

come presently to the

statement of Professor Vaughan, which covers that case

beautifully in the

testimony he gave here.

There are two points that I wanted to call to the

attention of the committee.

One is that we have examined a number of substances in

which Dr. Kedzie

testified that he has found benzoic acid, and we have

found none.

MR. BARTLETT: What substances are those?

DR. WILEY: Dr. Kedzie testified that he had found

benzoic acid in

cranberries, huckleberries, plums, grapes, grapefruit,

oranges, pineapples,

carrots, pears, cauliflower, rhubarb, and green

peppers.

We have obtained from the open market samples of

the following fruits and

vegetables, said by Professor Kedzie to contain

benzoic, and tested them for

benzoic acid:

Malaga grapes, grapefruit, oranges, pineapples (two

varieties), carrots,

parsnips, cauliflower, rhubarb, and green peppers. We

were unable to obtain any

indication of benzoic acid in any of these fruits with

the exception of

pineapples, where in one test of one variety there was

a reaction which might

have been caused by a trace of benzoic acid. On

repeating the test on a fresh

portion of the sample, however, the test could not be

confirmed. The test

obtained, however, even if caused by benzoic acid, was

so slight that the

substance could not have been present in greater

quantity than one part per

million, or one ten-thousandth of 1 per cent. It is

certain from our analyses

that benzoic acid is not present in this substance in

the quantities stated by

Doctor Kedzie, viz., from one one-hundredth to two

one-hundredths of 1 per cent.

In 1904 1 obtained samples of huckleberries grown

in three regions of the

United States and did not succeed in obtaining the

slightest indication of

benzoic acid in any of them.

Professor Kedzie also dwells upon the fact that in

the process of cooking a

great deal of the benzoic; acid escapes. Inasmuch as

he contends that it is

harmless, the object of enforcing this view of the

case is not apparent,

although I do not doubt its accuracy.

Professor Kedzie found catsup made by Heinz, when

sold in Michigan, to

contain benzoic acid. Mr. Allen finds that when sold

in Kentucky, it does not

contain any benzoic acid. Professor Kedzie states that

he has determined that

the amount of benzoic acid in grapes is not far from

one one-hundredth to one

two-hundredths of 1 per cent. It requires, of course,

very delicate

manipulations to quantitatively determine these small

quantities and very large

quantities of samples must be taken. We feel certain

that Professor Kedzie has

utilized much more delicate methods than we have been

able to develop in our own

laboratory and I regret that he .did not disclose the

methods employed to the

committee.

Professor Kedzie testifies that the artificial

product added to a food does

not differ from the article naturally present in food.

He testifies that it is

present as pure benzoic acid in either case. This

statement would mean that if

you should take some butter and skim milk and beat

them up together the product

will be exactly. the same as that of the original

full-cream milk. This is a

remarkable doctrine in physiological chemistry, and

upon this doctrine could be

established the perfect wholesomeness of all synthetic

foods. This will be

strange doctrine to the makers of champagne. For

instance, a still wine having

practically the same composition as champagne, when

artificially carbonated with

the same quantity of carbonic acid which would be

found in the natural

champagne, is exactly the same substance as the

article made naturally by

fermentation in the bottle by the slow and tedious

process employed. Every

physician who prescribes champagne and every man who

drinks it will without

hesitation doubt this statement.

Professor Kedzie testifies that he is not a

physiological chemist and not a

doctor of medicine. On the same page, however, he

testifies that between 60 and

100 grains, a large amount, a teaspoonful or a

tablespoonful or something like

that, would have an inflammatory action upon the

stomach. When asked in regard

to its specific effect in small doses, he said:

I eat cranberries right straight through the

season. I like the

cranberries, and I see no untoward effects whatever

from their use. I never

took benzoic acid except in that form and in the

form of catsup.

He therefore testifies, as he says, from his own

personal experience, and. at

the same time says that he never took any except that

which was natural to

certain foods and introduced in catsup. Professor

Kedzie has already testified

that cranberries contain only five one-hundredths of 1

per cent of benzoic acid.

The amount which he took daily he does not state, but

it evidently must have

been quite small in quantity, and, more than that, it

was in the form in which

the Author of Nature had placed it and not in an

artificial or adulterated form.

From this remarkable metabolic experiment Professor

Kedzie says that he can

testify from his own experience that benzoic acid is

not harmful. I ask you,

gentlemen, to consider in all seriousness expert

testimony of that description

and compare it with the elaborate trial and continued

experimental work

conducted in the Department of Agriculture on similar

lines of inquiry which I

have mentioned.

I quote Professor Kedzie's experiments with boric

acid and salicylic acid:

I investigated bulk oysters, for instance, and

found the presence of boric

acid in a small amount. We investigated shrimps,

also, which I found at the

market and brought to the laboratory. That is my way

of teaching. I

investigated the shrimps and found in the shrimp

liquor, on evaporating it,

that there was a considerable amount of boric acid.

Then, I took a sample of

pickles from my grocer--pickles that I eat

myself--and tested them and found

in the vinegar of the pickles sulphurous acid to

prevent that little growth of

mold that is so objectionable to the consumer.

MR. BURKE: To what extent did you find sulphurous

acid in the vinegar that

you have just spoken of?

MR. KEDZIE: I did not estimate the exact amount,

but it was very small. It

takes very little to inhibit the growth of a mold in

the vinegar.

MR. ESCH: What determination did you reach in

regard to cranberries?

DR. WILEY: His analysis and ours agreed almost

exactly.

MR. TOWNSEND: Did you examine more than one

specimen of the cranberries?

DR. WILEY: We examined a large number. That is only

a question, however, of

analytical detail. I only present that, not to throw

any doubt on the fact of

the wide distribution of benzoic acid, which no one

denies.

I also want to call the attention of the committee

to Doctor Kedzie's expert

testimony to the effect on his health, and ask you to

compare the few samples of

cranberries that he has eaten, and few samples of

ketchups, with the careful

determination which we have made. That is all. The

rest is confirmatory of what

Professor Kedzie says.

I say here that I am sorry that Professor Kedzie

did not submit his methods

of examination; and I would like to incorporate in the

minutes the methods which

we have used so he can review our work if he desires.

MR. EXCH: Do you know of any other analysts who

have found benzoic acid in

these fruits?

DR. WILEY: No; I do not. I have never seen any

results excepting these of

Professor Kedzie and Professor Kremers.

DR. VAUGHN'S TESTIMONY

Now I come to the most important testimony, that of

Dr. Vaughan, and I shall

ask the indulgence of the committee to speak at some

little length on that

point.

DR. VAUGHAN'S thorough training and large

experience and scientific methods

of work have fitted him particularly well to speak on

a subject of this kind. I

quote, therefore, with pleasure from his testimony.

I want to say, and I should have said in the

beginning, that I am very

anxious that Congress should do something to

regulate the use of preservatives

in foods. I think that the use of preservatives in

foods may be and often is

overdone and that great harm may come from their

excessive use. The law

requires of a physician before he can prescribe

benzoic acid or sulphurous

acid or anything of that kind a certain degree of

education and that he must

pass a State examination.

I am willing to stand with Dr. Vaughan on this one

proposition, which I

indorse in every word. Of course he must agree with me

that if a physician, who

of all men knows the responsibility which rests upon

him in connection with his

profession, is not allowed to prescribe benzoic acid

until he has studied four

years or longer in a medical college, received a

diploma, and passed an

examination before a State board of examiners, then

surely no manufacturer

without any education of a medical character, without

ever having passed any

examination, without having a single faculty of

knowledge respecting the use of

drugs, should be allowed to put any benzoic acid or

any other drug of any kind

in his foods. I think I might omit any mention of the

rest of Dr. Vaughan's

testimony with that simple statement of his, which

covers the ground so

absolutely and effectively.

MR. TOWNSEND: He was testifying, was he not, as an

expert who had had

experience with benzoic acid, and he stated, as an

expert, as a physician, who

was trained and experienced in administering this

drug, that such an amount was

not harmful. That is what he stated, is it not? He did

not state that they

should be allowed to use all that they saw fit; in

fact, the trend of his whole

examination was that this should be passed upon by a

board of experts as to the

amount that should be used. That was his conclusion.

DR. WILEY: That is true. I only call attention to

the basic proposition. He

says in the beginning--I do not think it is unfair to

quote Dr. Vaughan's words,

word for word.

MR. BARTLETT: Oh, no, I did not say that; but

people can take a Bible and

prove by words and quotations from it that they are

justified in believing that

there is no God.

MR. KENNEDY: A doctor would not be permitted to

prescribe anything as a

doctor until he had been licensed, but I can prescribe

if I do not charge for

it. I can advise the use of meats and other things to

be eaten, and so on, with

profit and benefit, and I would not come within any

prohibition of law, would I?

MR., BARTLETT: No; not unless you prescribed for

pay.

MR. GAINES: Unless I did it as a doctor.

DR. WILEY: The manufacturer charges for his goods;

he does not give them

away; and the doctor receives pay for his

prescription.

MR. ESCH: If a physician prescribed the amount

which could be used without

detriment, would it be dangerous to the manufacturer

to use, that or a less

amount?

DR. WILEY: I think so.

MR. ESCH: Provided you could be sure?

DR. WILEY: Yes; because the physician prescribes

constantly very poisonous

substances. A drug and a food are quite different

things. The physician

prescribes after his training and after an examination

of the patient. The

manufacturer asks legal permission to use the same

drug that the physician does

in his practice and to put it in the foods with

certain restrictions, which, of

course, would be proper if he is permitted at all. But

I want to contrast the

difference in the position of the trained man who uses

a drug and the untrained

man who uses a drug. I think it is perfectly fair, Mr.

Chairman, to call the

attention of the committee to that important

distinction.

MR. MANN: There is no difference of opinion between

you and Doctor Vaughan on

that subject, as I understand his testimony; you both

agreed.

DR. WILEY: We agreed in almost every particular. I

indorse almost every word

he said to this committee, absolutely.

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Vaughan's statement, you will

remember, was made after a

manufacturer had testified that he put 6 ounces of

benzoic acid in powder in a

barrel of catsup and trusted to oscillations from the

ordinary movement of that

as freight to distribute it.

DR. WILEY: Yes, Sir.

MR. CUSHMAN: As I understand your position, then,

you agree with Dr.

Vaughan's statement on technical points, but disagree

with his conclusions?

DR. WILEY: Yes; I don't think they are logical in

those particular instances.

I think all of his statements and his facts are

without question so far as his

examinations have gone.

MR. BARTLETT: Do you agree with him that each one

of us, in eating our daily

food, consumes from 1 to 10 grains of benzoic acid?

That is one statement that

he made.

MR. KENNEDY: He said that was formed in the human

body.

MR. BARTLETT: Do you agree with him upon that?

DR. WILEY: I have never measured the amount of

benzoic acid that may be

formed by metabolic activity. We surely do not eat ten

grains a day in ordinary

foods, or even one. It is only in rare cases that you

would eat one grain a day.

MR. TOWNSEND: Where does it come from if his

conclusion is correct that it is

in the system?

DR. WILEY: It is claimed by some physiologists that

the benzol ring that I

showed you yesterday--the product of destructive

metabolism--that small

quantities of the benzol radical might be formed in

the system or unite with

glycocol and form hippuric acid.

MR. TOWNSEND: And would be eliminated by the

kidneys?

DR. WILEY: And would be eliminated by the kidneys;

yes, sir.

Will Congress pass a law permitting physicians to

prescribe a quarter of 1

per cent benzoic acid, or 10 grains or 30 grains of

salicylic acid, or any

quantity of boric acid, or any quantity of strychnine

or of arsenic in patent

medicines, without medical education and medical

training and without studying

the character of the condition of the patient to which

it is to be given? I

really do not believe that any claim of that kind

would meet with a single vote

of this committee or on the floor of the American

Congress. And yet Dr. Vaughan,

after having laid down a principle of ethics, broad,

comprehensive, and

indestructible, immediately proceeds to claim for a

manufacturer, without any

technical knowledge of medicine, the right to do

exactly the thing which he says

no physician by law should be allowed to do. Dr.

Vaughan was asked about the

proper law in regard to the use of preservatives, and

very promptly says:

That brings up a very interesting point. If you

will permit me, I would

like to say just a word about that. I do not know

that I am prepared to answer

the question just now. It seems to me that that

ought to be settled by a

commission of experts, as to what preservatives

could be used and in what

foods they might be used.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask, if Dr. Vaughan, with

all his extensive

experience, with all his work in pharmacology and

physiology and chemistry, has

not yet reached an opinion, where can you expect any

commission or anybody else

to be able to reach one? And, in view of that fact,

can Dr. Vaughan or any other

man logically come before your committee and ask to be

allowed the use of a

definite amount of certain medicines of the highest

value, of which Dr. Vaughan

himself says he does not know what quantity can be

used, and which can not be

used by a physician in any quantity without a license?

Then Dr. Vaughan goes immediately on and says, on

the same page, that he " has

an opinion, " that he is " sure " that benzoic acid in

the quantities in which it

is used in catsup, :sweet pickles, ete.--1 part to

1,200 or 2,000--does not do

any harm. He immediately says: " I should be opposed to

the use of formaldehyde

in milk in any quantity, or the use of any other

preservatives in milk. " Why,

may I ask? If it is harmless in catsup, is it harmful

in milk? If it is harmful

in milk, is it not harmful in catsup?

DR. VAUGHAN also says: " I have testified repeatedly

against the use of

sulphite of soda on hamburger steaks. I am thoroughly

in sympathy with the

Hepburn bill. " I desire the particular attention of

the committee to this part

of the testimony. Dr. Vaughan has said that a

physician should only prescribe

benzoic acid after training and license. He then says

that he himself, with all

his vast experience, has not reached any conclusion in

the matter. He next says

that he believes that the quantity used in tomato

catsup does no harm. Then he

says he is opposed to its use in milk in any quantity.

I should think a jury

would be somewhat confused by expert testimony of this

kind. I believe, with Dr.

Vaughan, that a physician should not be allowed to

prescribe benzoic acid until

he has shown the necessary qualifications. I believe,

with Dr. Vaughan, that no

preservative of any kind should be used in milk. I

agree With him,--that

sulphite of soda, should not be used on hamburger

steaks--three points on which

we agree. I agree with Dr. Vaughan that I have not yet

reached any conclusion as

to the minimum quantities of benzoic acid which are

harmless. Four points,

logical, sequential, and on which perfect agreement is

certain. Just what there

is in tomato catsup which should except it from the

logical sequence I beg some

one to enlighten me.

It is impossible for me in any way to discover it.

Dr. Vaughan states that

nobody but a bacteriologist can decide how much of a

preservative must be used

to preserve a food, and therefore objects to the

results of the experiments

authorized by Congress. I beg to state to the

committee that Congress never

authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to determine

how much preservative was

necessary to preserve foods. All it did was to

authorize him to study the effect

of preservatives, coloring matters, and other

substances added to foods upon

health and digestion. In so far as I can see,

bacteriology has nothing in the

world to do with it. It is a question of physiological

chemistry and

pharmacology only, and it has been answered solely by

the methods of those

sciences.

I will explain in full these methods when I speak

of the effect of borax. Dr.

Vaughan states that the experiments with borax did not

prove that it was

injurious in small quantities, and when asked what he

meant by small quantities

he said, " One-half of 1 per cent. " I suppose he means

by that, in the foods.

That is all he can mean. I will show you gentlemen

that the amount of boric acid

which we used and which produced most disturbing

effects upon the health was far

less than one-half of 1 per cent of the weight of the

food used. Dr. Vaughan's

statement in this respect is hardly the statement of

an expert. It is his

opinion of another expert's findings, and he adduces

no evidence on which to

base his opinion.

I may say to you that the Secretary has never taken

up the subject of

determining what preservatives shall be used in foods

and in what quantities, as

he is authorized to do by act of Conaress. When he

does, he will, under the

authority of Congress, be able to call experts on

these subjects who shall be

able to help him to a just decision. All the Secretary

of Agriculture has done

so far is to determine the effect of preservatives,

coloring matters, and added

substances to foods upon health and digestion. These

experiments have been

conducted in the manner which I shall soon relate to

you.

No board of experts could come in and help another

expert decide what his own

experiment taught him. That would be quite an

impossible thing to do. Dr.

Vaughan would resent five men going into his

laboratory and telling him what the

result of one of his own experiments was. He, being a

man of judgment and tact

and knowledge, alone can decide what his own

experiments have taught him, and

then when he submits the data on which his judgment is

based the board of

experts can come in and criticize the data and reach

another conclusion. The

data on borax, which was used in the experiments which

I will soon describe, are

here before you. Every fact in connection with that

investigation is set forth,

every analysis has its data, every event connected

with the conduct of the

experiment, which lasted nine months on twelve young

men, is set forth in

detail. Dr. Vaughan did not attack a single fact nor

deny its accuracy in all

this mass of material, and then, without doing this,

says:

Dr. Wiley has made a report on boric acid as to

preservatives, and while I

am a personal friend of Dr. Wiley's and appreciate

him very highly and think

greatly of him, his experiments have shown that

boric acid in large amounts

disturb digestion and interrupts good health, but

they have not shown that

boric acid in the small quantities which should be

used as a preservative, if

used at all, has any effect upon the animal body.

Now, Mr. Chairman,. I do not see how Dr. Vaughan,

after reading my report,

could make a statement like that. He certainly did not

read it carefully. I

therefore take this opportunity to lay before this

committee at this opportune

moment a synopsis of the results of the work which has

been accomplished under

authority of Congress in feeding borax and boric acid

to. young men in splendid

health and to place before you the proof of the

deletrious effects which even

small quantities--far less than one-half of 1 per

cent-produce. I will

supplement this also by a similar statement from the

chemists and physiologists

of the imperial board of health at Berlin, which fully

confirms in every

particular every conclusion reached by my own

experiments, and candidly ask the

consideration of this committee of these two reports.

Now, that shows how close our agreement is, as I

have already stated to the

committee, and I would like to repeat it here: That if

benzoic acid is harmful

in milk, and Dr. Vaughan admits it, in any proportion,

there is no logical

reason that I can see why it is not harmful in any

other food. I admit the

argument, however, that it may be placed there and

produce a benefit. Then we

could say that it was placed there to correct some

other and a greater evil, and

on that ground alone would I advocate the use of

preservatives in food, and not

that they are harmless. I do not see, gentlemen, how

anybody can ever admit the

use of preservatives in food on such testimony as Dr.

Vaughan has given, and I

will rest it right on his words, on the ground that it

is harmless. But you

could very justly, as I said yesterday, admit it on

the ground that it is less

of two evils. That is the point that I wanted to

insist upon.

MR. TOWNSEND: Have you changed your mind on that

subject in the last few

years?

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir; very materially. I formerly

believed that certain

preservatives could be used, as Dr. Vaughan believes

now, simply by having its

presence mentioned on the label. I was strongly

convinced of the truth of that

proposition. I have, before committees in Congress and

in public addresses,

stated those sentiments. I was converted by my own

investigations, Mr. Chairman,

and by nobody else's in this matter. My former opinion

was based upon the weight

of expert testimony. I read the opinions of men that I

respected, and the weight

of that opinion was in favor of the position which I

have just stated. I

inclined to that view. And I will state that Dr.

Vaughan's association with me

was one of the things that led me largely to adopt

that view.

LIEBREICH JOINS VAUGHAN

When I went to my office yesterday one of the young

men said: " Have you seen

this criticism on your work which has just come out in

a German magazine in

January? " As I have been pretty busy in the last few

weeks, I had not read the

magazine. It is an adverse criticism of this report of

mine on borax. I am

having it translated and typewritten, and I am going

to put it in the evidence

so that you can read it. Professor Liebreich I know

very well. He is a personal

friend of mine, a very eminent gentleman, and it is

fair to say that he is

employed by the borax syndicate; but I don't think

-that impugns his testimony

at all, and I accept his criticism as if he had been

employed by the German

Government. One of those is the original report of the

imperial board of health

and the other the reply to a criticism made by this

same Professor Liebreich.

And to show how experts disagree, Professor Liebreich

came to this country last

year to testify in some cases in Pennsylvania on

behalf of borax and sulphite of

soda, which Professor Vaughan condemns--he would not

allow it used in any

quantity.

Professor Liebreich appeared before the court in

Philadelphia in the case

where the hamburger-steak people who had been treating

hamburger steak with

sulphite of soda were made defendants; and he

testified that in his opinion

almost any quantity of sulphite of soda could be used

with impunity in meat; and

the court asked him, " Professor Liebreich, do you use

it in your meats at your

home I " And he said: " No; I do not. " " Would you use it

if you wanted to? " was

asked; and he replied, " I don't want to, " and his

whole testimony fell just on

that. I was told--I don't know just how true it

was-that he received $4,000 for

coming over here. One of our young men, who was not

nearly so famous as

Professor Liebreich, went over to Philadelphia and

testified before the same

court, and on his testimony the judge and jury found

against the testimony of

Professor Liebreich, whose criticism of my report I

will submit as soon as it is

ready. That shows that Liebreich and Vaughan agree on

borax. Vaughan and Wiley

agree on sulphite, and I differ from both of them on

the borax question, and

they differ from each other on the sulphite.

That shows the conflict in opinions which you

gentlemen are called upon to

consider. It is something confusing, but of course you

have to rely upon the

character of the data after all. If you find that the

data which I present are

not reliable, have not been obtained in a proper way,

my opinion is worth very

little, and, as Professor Liebreich says, " I will

accept the data as they are,

and then I will draw an opinion which is entirely

different, " just what I told

you yesterday could be done.

MR. RYAN: Do you believe a Congressionaf committee,

none of whom are

chemists, are competent to judge between those

opinions of eminent chemists who

have formed those opinions after having analyzed the

food?

DR. WILEY: I think they are absolutely competent,

just as a jury would be

upon the same thing in the weighing of evidence.

You see the evidence as the weigher of evidence,

and not as experts. You see

it as a jury. I think this committee is absolutely

competent to decide a

question of that kind on the evidence submitted here.

MR. BARTLETT: We have a good many bills before us,

and there is where this

question must come before the court and the jury.

DR. WILEY: That is true so far as the Hepburn bill

is concerned somebody must

render an opinion before you can bring an indictment,

and then that opinion is

subject to review of the court. That is the plain

principle of the law, and

surely you would never try to bind the court by any

statements or anything else

which any expert might set up.

MR. BARTLETT: You will find one court and a jury

deciding that a certain

thing ought to be put in, and another that it ought

not.

DR. WILEY: It should be carried up to the highest

court.

MR. BARTLETT: In one locality a jury and a judge,

with men on trial for not

permitting a certain statement, might acquit one man

and convict another.

DR. WILEY: Exactly, and you will find when I submit

the evidence from the

English courts that that very thing happens all the

time. You must leave it to

the court. Every man can have his opinion, but that

must not bind the court; an

expert's opinion never can.

MR. ESCH: I noticed that Rost came to the

conclusion that the use of borax or

boracic acid resulted in almost every case in a

reduction of weight. Did you

find that true in your experiments?

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir; you will find that in this

chart. We never found an

exception.

MR. MANN: Before you pass from the subject of

borax, I would like to have

your statement in reference to the use of borax under

the provision of the bill,

which in the Hepburn bill was removed by maceration.

DR. WILEY: I heartily approve of that provision in

regard to preservatives of

food products intended for export. I have a little

article that I am going to

submit on that, Mr. Mann, in better form. There is a

chart here (in Bulletin 84)

showing by the position of the lines, the loss of

weight which these young men

suffered. I don't think it is a very serious matter if

a man loses a couple of

pounds in weight.

MR. TOWNSEND: You found some of them were gaining

weight, as I understood

you, and you had to reduce their food.

DR. WILEY: Our foods were constant as long as they

could eat. Until they

became ill their food was never diminished throughout

the preservative period.

MR. TOWNSEND: Didn't you state that you had to

watch them closely to see if

they were gaining?

DR. WILEY: That was before we began to establish

the equilibrium; that was in

the fore period.

Now, I have a transcript there which I think will

prove. very helpful to you

gentlemen. You have heard a great deal about the

finding of the English

departmental committee. I want simply to quote the

evidence of Professor W. D.

Halliburton, who is the most distinguished

physiologist of the English-speaking

people. Professor Vaughan would be very glad to tell

you the same thing. He came

over here last year and gave a series of lectures. His

work is a textbook on

chemical physiology and pathology. I want to read you

just one or two things,

which you might not read, that I have extracted from

his testimony.

The English committee forbade the use of

preservatives in certain food

products, and recommended that a limited quantity,

which they mentioned, should

be permitted in other food products. While that has

never been made a law by act

of Parliament, the courts are all guiding their

decisions on the report of this

committee. For instance, if they do not find any more

than one-half of 1 per

cent of borax, they do not convict a defendant. If

they find less than 1 grain

of salicylic acid to the pound, they do not convict a

defendant. But they

convict any defendant who puts preservatives in milk

of any kind. The evidence

of Professor W. D. Halliburton is as follows--that

part which I wish to

read--and it can be verified if anybody wishes to.

I would say at the outset that the kind of

evidence that I have to offer is

not very largely clinical. The amount of medical

practice which I have seen is

limited. Very soon after my student days, I took to

physiological work, and I

have remained at that more or less ever since, so

that the actual observations

that I have to make are in the nature of

physiological experiments, and deal

principally with the two chief substances that you

have under investigation,

as I understand--compounds of boron and

formaldehyde. On general principles

one would object to the continuous use of

antiseptics. The substance which

would destroy the life of micro-organisms could not

be expected to be

beneficial to the life of a higher organism; it

would be largely a matter of

dose. I mean to say the same dose that would kill a

bacterium would not

necessarily kill a man, but still it would be

hostile to the protoplasmic

actions that constitute the life even of a high

animal like man.

Q. 7541 (p. 264). Then, as to boric acid, you

have made extensive

experiments?--A. With borax and borates I have made

a fair number of

experiments. In the introduction I allude to what is

known as " borism. " The

eruption occurs on the skin of certain individuals

as the result of the use of

either boric acid or borax. There have been other

cases recorded--although

here again I can not speak personally--in which

dyspeptic troubles have

arisen. There have been a fair number of experiments

performed upon animals.

Q. 7544. Boric acid is the commoner preservative,

is it not?--A. I am not

so sure. I think very largely a mixture is used that

is called " glacialin " --a

mixture of boric acid and borax. In animals the

chief advantage, if one may

put it so, of the poison is that it is not

cumulative; it does not accumulate

in the body, but it is rapidly eliminated by the

urine.

Now, I put it to the committee this way: Here is an

opinion of a man whose

fame is far greater even than that of Dr. Vaughan. I

believe that every person

acquainted with medical and physiological literature

in the United States will

say that Professor Halliburton is the greatest living

exponent of physiological

chemistry in English-speaking countries. Could there

be a more sweeping

indictment brought against these preservatives than

Professor Halliburton has

stated? He says of borax and boric acid that the chief

advantage of these

poisonous bodies is that they are rapidly eliminated

from the system, and he

further states that the continual passage of these

foreign bodies through the

cells of the kidneys, to put it mildly, as he does, is

not likely to do them any

good. And yet Professor Vaughan advises this committee

to permit the use of

boric acid in foods in quantities not to exceed

one-half of 1 per cent.

Professor Halliburton says further, in answer to

question 7572: " May we take

it, then, that in your view you are absolutely opposed

to the use of

formalin?--Yes.

Q. 7573. And with regard to the other

preservatives, if they were labeled

that would meet your objection; is that your

position generally?--A. No; I

feel that the ideal condition of things would be to

prohibit them all.

Q. 7574. All preservatives?--A. All

preservatives.

Q. 7575. Even salt?--A. No; I am not speaking of

substances which are

normal constituents of the body.

Q. 7576. Would you prohibit nitrate of potash,

too?

A. One knows, even from smoking cigarettes, that

nitrate of potash is not

absolutely harmless.

So I say to our manufacturers: " Take the American

people into your confidence

and your business will be placed upon a foundation

from which it can not be

shaken nor removed. " I say, as a plain business

proposition, that the men who

put preservatives in foods had better stop it for

their good and for the good of

their business; and they will. And in five years from

now (mark my words, Mr.

Chairman), bill or no bill, we will not have to come

here to argue about this

matter, because there will be nothing to argue

about--because this ethical

principle, aside from any injury to health or anything

of that kind, is one

which appeals, not only to the people who consume, but

to the people who make

the goods which they eat. With these remarks, I submit

the case to your

judgment, saying that whatever your action is I shall

heartily support, with

what little influence I have, any measure which you

bring forth, to have it

enacted into law. [Applause.]

PREVIOUS LEGISLATION

Congress enacted a law conferring plenary power on

the Secretary of

Agriculture to exclude adulterated and misbranded

foreign articles from entry

several years ago. Its terms are as follows:

The Secretary of Agriculture, whenever he has

reason to believe that such

articles are being imported from foreign countries

which are dangerous to the

health of the people of the United States, or which

shall be falsely labeled

or branded either as to their contents or as to the

place of their manufacture

or production, shall make a request upon the

Secretary of the Treasury for

samples from original packages of such articles for

inspection and analysis,

and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby

authorized to open such original

packages and deliver specimens to the Secretary of

Agriculture for the purpose

mentioned, giving notice to the owner or consignee

of such articles, who may

be present and have the right to introduce

testimony; and the Secretary of the

Treasury shall refuse delivery to the consignee of

any such goods which the

Secretary of Agriculture reports to him have been

inspected and analyzed and

found to be dangerous to health or falsely labeled

or branded, either as to

their contents or as to the place of their

manufacture or production or which

are forbidden entry or to be sold, or are restricted

in sale in the countries

in which they are made or from which they are

exported.

DR. WILEY: I will say that the Germans no longer

attempt to send boraxed

sausages to this country. They were making them and

sending them to this country

when they were not permitted in their own country; but

our law says that

anything that is forbidden in any country can not be

sent from that country

here, and so we simply excluded those goods because

they were excluded in

Germany; not on account of any decision respecting

their health.

The same way with salicylic acid. You can not

import anything into this

country from Germany or France that contains salicylic

acid because that is

forbidden in those countries but you can from England.

MR. TOWNSEND: We do not propose to be as liberal as

they are. We forbid their

manufacturing and selling it here but allow them to

sell it abroad.

MR. MANN: Is the amount of borax in these duck eggs

of such a percentage as

to be, without question, injurious to health?

DR. WILEY: If consumed as food, absolutely without

question; and we are not

required, I think, to say that we will follow a man

and see whether he tells the

truth or not as to what he is going to do with it. I

do not think that this firm

in this case would have done anything but what they

said,. because they are most

reputable and honorable men; but suppose some other

person had done it?

MR. MANN: If this provision in the Hepburn bill had

been in the law, you

would have been required to take some action of that

sort, I suppose?

DR. WILEY: Yes; and I hope the committee will read

the paragraph where I have

spoken about that. I think it is a very unfortunate

thing that we are required

to go into a man's kitchen and supervise his cooking,

and I think that when you

come to look into that thing you will find it would be

the one unconstitutional

thing in it, because it is a pure police regulation,

which is solely committed

to the States.

MR. TOWNSEND: In what bill is that?

DR. WILEY: The Hepburn bill--the clause which says

that the thing must be

judged when it is fit for consumption. Now, the

preparation of a food for

consumption is certainly under the supervision of the

police powers of the

States, and it is not in the unbroken packages which

the law specifies as the

only goods to which this law shall apply.

MR. MANN: The provision of the Hepburn bill is not

quite that, Doctor.

DR. WILEY: But I want to say to you, gentlemen,

that I am not frightened

about that clause of the bill at all. That is just a

little principle of ethics

and constitutionality. Not being much of a

constitutional lawyer I only suggest

it; but I would like to have my distinguished friend

here [Mr. Bartlett] look

into that point of it particularly.

MR. ESCH: Is saltpeter still used as a preservative

anywhere, Doctor?

DR. WILEY: I do not think saltpeter was ever used

as a preservative. It was

used to preserve color, but not to preserve food.

MR. MANN: Is it injurious?

DR. WILEY: I think saltpeter is a very injurious

substance. It acts

specifically on the kidneys very injuriously, and

Professor Halliburton, whom I

quoted this morning, agrees perfectly with that

statement.

MR. ESCH: Corned beef is colored with the use of

saltpeter, is it not?

DR. WILEY: That is just the same principle again. I

would not be afraid to

eat a piece of corned beef, because the amount of

injury would be immeasurably

small. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that

it should not be used in

corned beef. I would be sorry to see it left out. But

if you put it on the

principle of harmlessness, it could not go in. And

that reminds me that I did

not show you the thing which is most indicative of my

argument. I am glad you

mentioned that just now. I want that chart that was

made this morning. A little

graphic representation of an argument sometimes helps

a great deal.

The suggestion has been repeatedly made here that

because food was injurious

we should legislate against it. Now, I have drawn here

my argument in a graphic

form. This is a graphic chart showing the comparative

influence of foods and

preservatives. Of course we have to assume the data on

which this chart is

constructed. You will understand that.

 

We will suppose that a normal dose of a drug in a

state of health is nothing.

We do not need it at all. Now, imagine that the lethal

dose of a drug--that is,

the dose that will kill--is 100; and then we go to

work and measure at three

points--at 75, at 50, and at 25. There are points at

which we can measure. We

can not measure up toward the right there, because the

line almost coincides

with the basic line, and the deviation is so slight

that no method of

measurement that we know of could distinguish them.

Then, if we use a little drug I can measure it

here. I can measure it again

here [indicating], and I can measure it again here

[indicating]. Now from those

three points I can construct a curve and calculate the

lethal dose, which we

will assume to be 100. That much drug would kill; no

drug would not hurt at all.

The relative injury of a drug can be calculated

mathematically from a curve

constructed like that on experimental data, and I

could tell you mathematically,

by applying the calculus there, just what the hurtful

value of that drug would

be at an infinitely small distance from zero. You have

doubtless, an of you,

studied calculus, and you know how you can integrate a

vanishing function. I

used to know a good deal about calculus myself, and I

could by integral calculus

tell you the injurious power of a drug at an

infinitely small distance from

zero--that is, an infinitely small dose.

Now, see what a contrast there is between a food

and a drug.

The lethal dose of a food is none at all. What

kills you? You are starved to

death. The normal dose is what you eat normally, 100.

I starve a man, and I

measure the injury which he receives at different

points. I can mathematically

plat the point where he will die.

That one chart shows to this committee in a graphic

form, better than any

argument could, the position of a drug in a food as

compared with the food

itself. They are diametrically opposite. The lethal

dose of one is the normal

dose of the other, and vice versa. Therefore the

argument de minimis as far as

harmlessness is concerned is a wholly illogical and

unmathematical argument, and

can be demonstrated by calculus to be so.

When the committee went into executive session to

put this bill into its

final shape, I was asked to sit with them. This is as

near to being a member of

Congress as I ever reached.

FINAL ACTIVITIES

Thus ended the struggle for legislation controlling

interstate commerce in

foods and drugs. It had been going on nearly a quarter

of a century. In the

beginning the efforts were feeble and attracted very

little attention. As the

work continued more and more interest was taken in the

problem. Many of the

state authorities were keenly alive to the importance

of national legislation.

They felt that without some rallying point their own

efforts in individual

states would be lacking in completeness. The state

officials who were most

active in this crusade were Ladd of North Dakota,

Sheppard of South Dakota,

Emery of Wisconsin, Bird of Michigan, Abbott of Texas,

Frear of Pennsylvania,

Barnard of Indiana, Hortvet of Minnesota, Allen of

Kentucky, and Allen of North

Carolina. Many other food officials were interested

and helpful, but these were

the outstanding members of the state food

commissioners who took the most active

part in the matter. All the great organized bodies

interested in the health of

the people, namely, the American Medical Association,

the American Public Health

Association, together with the Patrons of Husbandry,

and the Federated Labor

organizations of the country were actively engaged in

promoting this measure.

Perhaps the greatest and most forceful were the

Federated Women's Clubs of

America and the Consumers League, They took up the

program with enthusiasm and

great vigor. Two of the leaders of this movement were

Mrs. Walter McNab Miller,

representing the Federated Women's Clubs, and Miss

Alice Lakey, representing the

Consumers League. Their services were extremely

valuable.

 

EDWARD FREMONT LADD

Militant Food Administrator of North Dakota, at Denver

Convention

 

MRS. WALTER McNAB MILLER

Representing Federated Women's Clubs

 

MISS ALICE LAKEY

Representing the Consumers' League

Finally the movement received the approval of

President Roosevelt in a

one-line sentence in his message to Congress at the

opening of the fifty-ninth

Congress in December, 1905. The stage was set for

action. The force of the

movement had passed beyond all restraining influences.

The opposition of the

vested interests had lost all momentum. Victory was in

the air. People talked

about the food bill on the streets, discussed it in

clubs, passed resolutions in

favor of it in their meetings. It was evident the day

of success so long looked

for and so eagerly awaited was at hand. It remained

only for the Congress of the

United States to compose the differences between the

Senate and the House bills

and put the final touches on legislation. It was a

foregone conclusion that a

measure so popular and so universally acclaimed would

receive without hesitation

the approval of the President.

The bill passed the Senate February 21, 1906, yeas

63, nays 4. The House

passed a similar bill June 23, 1906, yeas 241, nays

17. The conferees agreed

soon thereafter and President Roosevelt signed the

bill June 30, 1906.