FDA History 03

[Guest guest]

http://www.doctoryourself.com/history3.html

 

Back-Room Maneuvering Takes the Teeth Out of the Pure

Food Law

FDA History 03

Home

 

HISTORY OF A CRIME AGAINST THE FOOD LAW

CHAPTER III: RULES AND REGULATIONS

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.”

 

After the enactment of the food and drugs law the

necessary rules and

regulations for carrying it into effect were prepared.

The law provided that a

period of six months should elapse and that the

enforcement of the law should

begin on the first day of January, 1907. In the

preparation of these rules and

regalations not only were the rights of the public at

large to be conserved, but

also a due regard for the ethical interests in the

food and drug industries. The

committee appointed to formulate these regulations

held meetings in Washington,

New York and Chicago. Extensive advertisements of

these meetings were published

and all interests involved were invited to appear and

give their views.

Secretary Wilson named the Chief of the Bureau of

Chemistry as his

representative on the committee authorized by the law

to draft the rules and

regulations for the enforcement of the new act. The

representative of the

Treasury Department was Mr. James L. Gary; the

representative of the Department

of Commerce and Labor was Mr. S. N. D. North. The

Chief of the Bureau of

Chemistry was named chairman. My colleagues entered

most enthusiastically into

the discharge of the duties assigned to them. First of

all they studied the act

in all of its relations. We sat almost continuously

every day, and always with

cordial collaboration and mutual sympathy in the

difficult task set before us.

 

 

COMMITTEE TO FORMULATE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF PURE FOOD LAW

From left to right: Dr. S.N.D. North, Dept. of

Commerce; Dr. H.W. Wiley, Dept.

of Agriculture; and Mr. James L. Gary, Treasury Dept.

On the completion of our labors we each undertook

to secure the signature of

our respective secretary. The Secretary of Agriculture

promptly signed our

report; likewise the Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

Mr. Gary had some little

difficulty in securing the signature of the Secretary

of the Treasury. He

thought that the regulations were a little bit too

severe upon some of the food

industries. Finally, however, he affixed his signature

without any amendment

whatever to the rules and regulations as presented.

During the hearings accorded interested parties

there appeared before the

committee practically the same interests that had been

active in opposing the

enactment of the law. The same arguments with which

the chairman of the board

had been so long familiar were repeated. Pleas for

recognition of the use of

borax under the regulations were made by the fishing

interests of Massachusetts;

the interests engaged in the manufacture of catsup

begged for recognition of

benzoic acid. The manufacturers of syrups pleaded for

permission to use sulphur

dioxide and were joined in this plea by the interests

engaged in drying fruits

in California.

An interesting incident occurred in this

connection. It was while the

committee was sitting in New York that the advocates

for the recognition of

sulphurous acid and sulphites were heard. A

particularly earnest plea was made

by the representative of the California interests, in

which we were told that

failure to use sulphur dioxide would ruin the dried

fruit industry of that

state. Reporters were constantly present at these

hearings and this story of the

California interests got into the afternoon papers of

this city. About seven

o'clock that evening the card of the California

advocate was brought up to my

room. When he himself appeared he was considerably

embarrassed. Finally he

stated the object of his visit. He said:

" My wife read an account of my remarks in the

afternoon papers. On my

return to my apartment she chided me for what I had

said. She urged me--almost

commanded me--to come to see you in regard to the

matter and here I am. My

Wife does not allow any sulphur dioxide fruit to

come onto our, own table. She

is so firmly convinced of the undesirability of this

kind of preservative that

she will not allow me or any of my family to eat

foods preserved with sulphur

dioxide. "

This confession on the part of the representative

of the California interests

I imparted to my colleagues the next morning before

the hearings began.

It is hardly necessary to say that any regulation

for carrying a law into

effect shall not presume to ignore any function of

that law. As it was provided

in the law that the Bureau of Chemistry alone was to

be the judge of what was an

adulteration and misbranding any decision of that kind

under the rules and

regulations would be illegal.

The report of the committee after receiving the

signature of the three

cabinet officers authorized to make the rules and

regulations was finally

published on Oct. 17,1906.

FOOD STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Quite as important as the rules and regulations for

carrying out the

provisions of the law was dependable information

respecting the methods of

judging the quality of foods and drugs by standards

which were legal and

conclusive in their character. About the time of the

beginning of the

experimental work for determining the effect of

preservatives and coloring

matters upon digestion was originated the idea of

establishing under proper

authority standards of foods. Accordingly about 1902 a

section was added to the

appropriation bill of the Department of Agriculture,

authorizing the Secretary

of Agriculture to appoint a committee of this kind.

Similar action was taken by

the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.

When this authority was

secured the following named representatives of

Agricultural Colleges and

Experiment Stations were selected for this very

difficult and important work:

Mr. M. A. Scovell, Director of the Agricultural

Station of Kentucky, Mr. H. A.

Weber, Professor of Agricultural Chemistry in the

College of Agriculture of the

State University of Ohio, Mr. William Frear, Assistant of the

Agricultural Experiment Station of Pennsylvania, Mr.

E. H. Jenkins, Director of

the Agricultural Experiment Station of Connecticut, at

New Haven, and Mr. H. W.

Wiley, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry of the

Department of Agriculture, at

Washington, D. C.

 

 

FOOD STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Left to Right: Prof. M. A. Scovell, Director,

Agricultural Station of Kentucky,

H. A. Weber, Prof. Agricultural Chemistry, University

of Ohio, Dr. William

Frear, Assistant Director, Agricultural Experiment

Station of Pennsylvania, Dr.

E. H. Jenkins, Director, Agricultural Experiment

Station of Connecticut; Dr. H.

W. Wiley, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, Department

of Agriculture

 

This committee was enlarged subsequently by

additional members, but the five

original members remained as its nucleus and principal

actors until the

Secretary of Agriculture at the instigation of the

Solicitor of that Department

abolished the committee by having the authority for

its continuance withdrawn

from the appropriation bill. This, however, only

temporarily prevented its

activities. Subsequently, after the Chief of the

Bureau resigned, it was

reorganized and is still at work. The value of the

contribution made by these

five original members is almost incalculable. We had

frequent meetings lasting

for days at a time, usually held at the Department of

Agriculture, but in many

cases we met in other cities where it was more

convenient for interested parties

to attend. You may have some idea of the extent of our

investigations by seeing

the official papers piled up on the table before us,

as shown in the

illustration. The results of the deliberations of this

committee were published

from time to time by the Department of Agriculture as

official documents. They

have become the guide and director, not only of the

national food law, but also

they have been approved and adopted by the various

states.

Before this committee also appeared practically the

same interests which on

the enactment of the food law appeared before the

committee to establish rules

and regulations to carry the law into effect. They

continually presented their

claims for indulgences before the Food Standards

Committee. The character of

this opposition has already been definitely

illustrated. It was not based on

ethical grounds but on individual and industrial

interests without relation to

the welfare of the consuming public.

The result of all these preliminary investigations

shows the wisdom and

timeliness of their inauguration. Had it not been for

these fundamental

investigations the Bureau of Chemistry would have been

totally unprepared to

have organized the machinery which immediately went

into effect January 1, 1907.

It is hardly necessary to add. that all the

conferences, indulgences and

collaborations with vested interests which thereafter

were resorted to as a

means of defeating the purpose of the law have

effectively nullified the

efficiency of the standards originally established.

The Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce cannot

be blamed for affixing

their signatures to these documents. They assumed that

these decisions were

intended to carry the provisions of the law into

effect. The Secretary of

Agriculture stood in a different position. He knew the

exact purpose of putting

the decisions of the Remsen Board into effect. He

boldly proclaimed that the

Board was created to protect the manufacturers.

Leaving his Solicitor to

interpret the law, he was firmly convinced that these

restrictions were legal

and binding. He gave himself wholeheartedly to the

effective plan of prohibiting

the Bureau of Chemistry from exercising its duty to

enforce the law according to

its letter and spirit. The food and drugs law became a

hopeless paralytic. It

still breathed but its step was tottering and its hand

shaky. The clot on its

brain has become encysted. There is no hope that it

will ever be absorbed. Only

a capital operation will restore it to health.

FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS

From June 30, 1906, the date the Food and Drugs Act

became a law, until

January 1, 1907, when it went into effect, numerous

questions were propounded to

the Bureau of Chemistry by interested parties

respecting the scope and meaning

of many of its requirements. The Bureau of Chemistry

to the best of its ability

interpreted, as the prospective enforcing unit, the

intent of the law. Following

the usual customs in such cases these opinions were

taken to the Secretary of

Agriculture for signature. The last Food Inspection

Decision prior to 1907 was

No. 48, issued Dec. 13, 1906.

For a few days after January 1, 1907, the Bureau of

Chemistry was

unrestricted in its first steps to carry the law into

effect. Although all

matters relating to adulteration or misbranding were

now solely to be

adjudicated by the Bureau, it was decided to continue

to have these opinions, as

heretofore, signed by the Secretary. The first

decision under the new regime was

signed by the Secretary Jan. 8, 1907. It discussed the

time required to render

decisions. It was prepared because many persons

presenting problems were

complaining of delay.

An open break in the plan of preparing decisions by

the Bureau of Chemistry

for the Secretary came in the case of F. I. D. 64,

signed. by the Secretary

March 29, 1907. The question was, " What is a sardine? "

The Bureau prepared a

decision that only the genuine sardine prepared on the

coasts of Spain, France

and the Mediterranean Islands was entitled to that

name. The Secretary, due to

protests from the Maine packers, referred this problem

to the Fish Commission of

the Department of Commerce. The Fish Commission, which

had no function whatever

in describing what was a misbranding, made a decision

diametrically opposed to

that reached by the Bureau. It was as follows:

Commercially the name sardine has come to signify

any small, canned

clupeoid fish; and the methods of valuation are so

various that it is

impossible to establish any absolute standard of

quality. It appears to this

Department that the purposes of the Pure Food law

will be carried out and the

public fully protected if all sardines bear labels

showing the place where

produced and the nature of the ingredients used in

preserving or flavoring the

fish.

The Fish Commission, being in the Department of

Commerce, would consider any

commercial process or practice as of more importance

than the plain provisions

of the food law looking to the protection of the

public against misbranding. The

Secretary of Agriculture ignored the protest of the

Bureau of Chemistry to this

decision, placing a trade practice above the plain

precepts of the law. The

Secretary of Agriculture said:

In harmony with the opinion of the experts of the

Bureau of Fisheries, the

Department of Agriculture holds that the term

" sardine " may be applied to any

small fish described above and that the name " sardine "

should be accompanied

with the name of the country or state in which the

fish are taken and prepared

and with a statement of the nature of the ingredients

used in preserving or

flavoring the fish.

The Ambassador of France earnestly indicated to me

in a personal interview

his feeling that the sardine packers in France would

be subjected to a ruinous

competition by permitting young sprats and young

herrings to be prepared

according to the manner of the French sardine and thus

enter into direct

competition therewith. I believe also the French

Ambassador voiced his objection

to this decision in a diplomatic way with a protest

filed with the Secretary of

State. Both this protest and the plain provision of

the law that the Bureau of

Chemistry should decide all cases as to whether or not

the articles were

adulterated and mi sbranded failed to have any effect

whatever on the Secretary

of Agriculture. This was the second official departure

of the Secretary of

Agriculture from the plain provisions of the law. His

whisky decision, which

Secretary Bonaparte turned down, was the first.

THE BOARD OF FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTION

Soon after this incident the Board of Food and Drug

Inspection was formed in

the Secretary's office. Theretofore the Chief of the

Bureau of Chemistry had not

affixed his official signature to the Food Inspection

Decisions which he had

prepared and the only signature these decisions

carried was that of the

Secretary of Agriculture. After the organization of

the Board of Food and Drug

Inspection the Secretary required that all the

decisions of that Board submitted

to him for approval should be signed by at least two

members of the Board. The

first decision thus signed was Food Inspection

Decision No. 69. The three

members of the Board affixed their signatures to this

and the Secretary of

Agriculture approved it on May 14, 1907.

FOOD AND DRUG DECISIONS SIGNED BY THE SECRETARIES

AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS

It so happened that when the decisions of this

board were deemed of

extraordinary importance the practice arose of having

them approved, not by the

Secretary of Agriculture alone, but by the three

Secretaries authorized by law

to make rules and regulations for the enforcement of

the act. When these

Secretaries therefore signed a Food Inspection

Decision it became a rule and

regulation. The first decision of this kind thus

signed was Food Inspection

Decision No. 76, concerning dyes, chemicals and

preservatives in foods.

OPINIONS OF EXPERTS

Some time prior to the issuance of this decision,

and in fact long before

there was any hint that the functions of the Bureau of

Chemistry would be

usurped illegally, questionnaires had been sent to

three or four hundred

prominent physiologists and dietitians in the United

States as to their attitude

in regard to the use of preservatives and coloring

matters in foods. The

questions propounded and the number of answers

received, both negative and

affirmative, are as follows:

1. Are preservatives, other than the condimental

preservatives, namely,

sugar, salt, alcohol, vinegar, spices and wood

smoke, injurious to health?

Affirmative, 218; negative, 33.

2. Does the introduction of any of the

preservatives, which you deem

injurious to health, render the foods injurious to

health? Affirmative, 222;

negative, 29.

3. If a substance added to food is injurious to

health, does it become so

when a certain quantity is present only, or is it so

in any quantity whatever?

Affirmative, 169; negative, 79.

4. If a substance is injurious to health, is

there any special limit to the

quantity which may be used which may be fixed by

regulation of our law?

Affirmative, 68; negative, 183.

5. If foods can be perfectly preserved without

the addition of chemical

preservatives, is their addition ever advisable?

Affirmative, 12; negative,

247.

It is readily seen from this tabulation that the

opinion of physiologists,

hygienists, health officers and physicians in the

United States to whom these

questionnaires were sent is overwhemingly against

their use. These opinions of

distinguished experts were obtained before the Remsen

Board was ever thought of.

(Food Inspection Decision No. 76, Pages 5 and 6.)

Food Inspection Decision No. 87 is signed by the

three Secretaries as a rule

and regulation. It is neither. It was an opinion that

the term " corn sirup " is a

proper label for the substance commonly known as

glucose. This opinion repealed

the opinion of the Bureau of Chemistry, which, after a

long argument, was

endorsed also by the other two members of the Board of

Food and Drug Inspection.

Thus the three Secretaries authorized by law to make

rules and. regulations

usurped the function of the Bureau of Chemistry in

regard to what was a proper

label under the law.

Food Inspection Decision No. 102 was signed by the

three Secretaries,

legalizing the introduction into the United States of

vegetables greened with

copper. This was clearly another usurpation of the

functions of the Bureau of

Chemistry.

Food Inspection Decision No. 104 legalized the use

of benzoate of soda and

benzoic acid and was signed by the three Secretaries

authorized by law to make

rules and regulations for carrying out its purposes.

It was directly contrary to

the decision of the Bureau of Chemistry that these

preservatives were illegal

under the Act.

Food Inspection Decision No. 107 is the opinion of

the Attorney-General that

the Referee Board was appointed in a perfectly legal

way. In making this

decision Mr. Wickersham vetoed the decision of

Assistant Attorney-General

Fowler, holding that the Referee Board was illegally

appointed. He adopted in

the main the decision of Solicitor George P. McCabe

that it was legally

appointed. The Referee Board usurped many of the

specific functions of the

Bureau of Chemistry, committted to that Bureau by

express wording of the Act.

Food Inspection Decision No. 113 as to the proper

labeling of whisky and its

mixtures, a function specifically confided to the

Bureau of Chemistry by law,

was signed by the three Secretaries, authorized to

make rules and regulations

for carrying the law into effect. It repealed the

decision of the former

Attorney-General, Mr. Charles J. Bonaparte, and all

previous Food Inspection

Decisions relating thereto.

Food Inspection Decision No, 118 is an extension of

No. 113, just described,

and of the same character.

Food Inspection Decision No. 127 is a decision of

Attorney-General Wickersham

in regard to the proper labeling of whiskies sold

under distinctive names. It is

also a complete reversal of the decisions in regard to

proper labeling reached

by the Bureau of Chemistry, and confirmed by many

decisions of federal courts.

Food Inspection Decision No. 135, in regard to

saccharin, is a direct

assumption of authority granted specifically by law to

the Bureau of Chemistry.

It was signed by the three Secretaries authorized to

make the rules and

regulations for carrying the law into effect.

Food Inspection Decision No. 138 refers to the same

subject and is signed by

the three Secretaries.

FAREWELL TO McCABE AND DUNLAP

On the publication of the report of the findings of

the Moss Committee Mr.

George P. McCabe retired from the Board of Food and

Drug Inspection, and Mr. F.

L. Dunlap was given an indefinite leave of absence.

Mr. R. E. Doolittle was

appointed in Mr. McCabe's place.

Food Inspection Decision No. 140, issued Feb. 12,

1912, was signed by H. W.

Wiley and R. E. Doolittle and approved by James

Wilson.

On Feb. 17, 1912, Mr. Dunlap, having returned from

his vacation, signed

together with H. W. Wiley and R. E. Doolittle Food

Inspection Decision No. 141.

On Feb. 29, 1912, Food Inspection Decision No. 142,

in regard to the use of

saccharin in foods, was signed by two of the

Secretaries, namely James Wilson

and Charles Nagel, but the Secretary of the Treasury

dissented. This was a

function specifically committed to the Bureau of

Chemistry by the law.

The last Food Inspection Decision which I signed

was No. 141 as to the proper

labeling of maraschino cherries. Mr. R. E. Doolittle

was appointed as acting

chief and took my place as Chairman of the Board of

Food and Drug Inspection for

the remainder of its hectic career.

Mr. F. L. Dunlap resigned from his position as

Associate-Chemist at the time

of the inauguration of President Wilson in his first

term as President. Dr. Carl

L. Alsberg, who had been appointed Chief of the Bureau

of Chemistry in the place

of R. E. Doolittle, became by that office the Chairman

of the Food Inspection

Board and became associated with Dr. W. D. Bigelow and

Dr. A. S. Mitchell as the

new Board of Food and Drug Inspection, the first

decision of which was approved

by James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, Jan. 24,

1913.

RESIGNATION

On March 15, 1912, having been convinced that it

was useless for me to remain

any longer as a Chief of the Bureau which had been

deprived of practically all

its authority under the law, I resigned.

Letter of Resignation of Dr. H. W. Wiley March 15,

1912.

In retiring from this position after so many

years of service it seems

befitting that I should state briefly the causes

which have led me to this

step. Without going into detail respecting these

causes, I desire to say that

the fundamental one is that I believe I can find

opportunity for better and

more effective service to the work which is nearest

my heart, namely, the pure

food and drug propaganda, as a private citizen than

I could any longer find in

my late position.

In this action I do not intend in any way to

reflect upon the position

which has been taken by my superior officers in

regard to the same problems. I

accord to them the same right to act in accordance

with their convictions

which I claim for myself.

After a quarter of a century of constant

discussion and effort the bill

regulating interstate and foreign commerce in foods

and drugs was enacted into

law. Almost from the very beginning of the

enforcement of this act I

discovered that my point of view in regard to it was

fundamentally different

from that of my superiors in office. For nearly six

years there has been a

growing feeling in my mind that these differences

were irreconcilable and I

have been conscious of an official environment which

has been essentially

inhospitable. I saw the fundamental principles of

the food and drugs act, as

they appeared to me, one by one paralyzed or

discredited.

It was the plain provision of the act, and was

fully understood at the time

of the enactment, as stated in the law itself, that

the Bureau of Chemistry

was to examine all samples of suspected foods and

drugs to determine whether

they were adulterated or misbranded and that if this

examination disclosed

such facts the matter was to be referred to the

courts for decision. Interest

after interest, engaged in what the Bureau of

Chemistry found to be the

manufacture of misbranded or adulterated foods and

drugs, made an appeal to

escape appearing in court to defend their prac

tices. Various methods were

employed to secure this end, many of which were

successful.

One by one I found that the activities pertaining

to the Bureau of

Chemistry were restricted and various forms of

manipulated food products were

withdrawn from its consideration and referred either

to other bodies not

contemplated by the law or directly relieved from

further control. A few of

the instances of this kind are well known. Among

these may be mentioned the

manufacture of so-called whisky from alcohol, colors

and flavors; the addition

to food products of benzoic acid and its salts, of

sulphurous acid and its

salts, of sulphate of copper, of saccharin and of

alum; the manufacture of

so-called wines from pomace, chemicals and colors;

the floating of oysters

often in polluted waters for the purpose of making

them look fatter and larger

than they really are for the purposes of sale; the

selling of mouldy,

fermented, decomposed and misbranded grains; the

offering to the people of

glucose under the name of " corn sirup, " thus taking

a name which rightfully

belongs to another product made directly from Indian

corn stalks.

The official toleration and validation of such

practices have restricted

the activities of the Bureau of Chemistry to a very

narrow field. As a result

of these restrictions I have been instructed to

refrain from stating in any

public way my own opinion regarding the effect of

these substances upon

health, and this restriction has interfered with my

academic freedom of speech

on matters relating directly to the public welfare.

These restrictions culminated in the summer of

1911 with false charges of

misconduct made against me by my colleagues in the

Department of Agriculture,

which had it not been for the prompt interference on

the part of the President

of the United States (William Howard Taft), to whom

I am profoundly grateful,

would have led to my forcible separation from the

public service. After the

President of the United States and a committee of

Congress, as a result of a

searching investigation, had completely exonerated

me from any wrong doing in

this matter, I naturally expected that those who had

made these false charges

against me would no longer be continued in a

position which would make a

repetition of such an action possible. The event,

however, has not sustained

my expectations in this matter. I was still left to

come into daily contact

with men who secretly plotted my destruction.

I am now convinced that the freedom which belongs

to every private American

citizen can be used by me more fruitfully in

rallying public opinion to the

support of the cause of pure food and drugs than

could the limited activity

left to me in the position which I have just

vacated. I propose to devote the

remainder of my life, with such ability as I have at

my command and with such

opportunities as may arise, to the promotion of the

principles of civic

righteousness and industrial integrity which

underlie the food and drugs act,

in the hope that it may be administered in the

interest of the people at

large, instead of that of a comparatively few

mercenary manufacturers and

dealers.

This hope is heightened by my belief that a great

majority of manufacturers

and dealers in foods and drugs are heartily in

sympathy with the views I have

held, and that these views are endorsed by an

overwhelming majority of the

press and of the citizens of the country.

In severing my official relations with the

Secretary of Agriculture I take

this opportunity of thanking him for the personal

kindness and regard which he

has shown me during his long connection with the

department.

In a supplemental statement to Secretary Wilson Dr.

Wiley says:

In transferring the management of the Bureau of

Chemistry to other hands I

desire to direct your attention to a few matters in

which I think you will be

interested.

I have always been a believer in the civil

service law and have endeavored

to carry out both its spirit and its letter. For

this reason I have strongly

opposed, except in cases of extreme necessity, the

appointment of any person

in the bureau not secured from the civil service

register.

It is also a matter of extreme gratification to

me that in the twenty-nine

years which I have been chief of this bureau to my

knowledge there has never

been a cent wrongfully expended and no officer or

employe of this bureau has

ever been accused of misappropriation of public

funds.

Those whose memories carry them back As far as 1912

will recall that the

resignation of the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry

created quite a commotion.

Not only were the newspapers and magazines full of

references thereto, but the

caricaturists took up the fight. One of these cartoons

in the Rocky Mountain

News depicted Uncle Sam bidding adieu to the departing

Chief of the Bureau.

Another striking cartoon depicted Uncle Sam measuring

the shoes of the departed

chief. Among the hundreds of editorial comments

perhaps the most interesting are

those made also by the Rocky Mountain News., under the

caption " The Borgias of

Business. "

" If the people exhibited the same persistence in

looking after their

interests that Illegitimate Business displays in

looking after its interests,

the things of which we complain would soon be

brought to an end, and

prosperity, like a tidal wave, would flood the land.

" For twenty years at least, the food poisoners of

the country have waged

warfare on Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, and since the

passage of the Pure Food act in

1906 they have trebled efforts to have him

discharged. These Borgias of

business have won, for the circumstances attending

Dr. Wiley's recent

resignation make it, in practical effect, a

dismissal.

" Dr. Wiley resigned because the fundamental

principles of the Pure Food law

have been strangled; because he has been powerless

to punish the manufacturers

of misbranded and adulterated drugs and foods; and

because the powers of his

position had been nullified by executive orders. * *

*

" Dr. Wiley was only head of the Bureau of

Chemistry, but there is every

reason to believe that President Taft will find that

Dr. Wiley gave the

position an importance out of all proportion to its

standing. "

--From the Rocky Mountain News, March 21, 1912.