FDA History 09

[Guest guest]

http://www.doctoryourself.com/history9.html

 

The Unhealthy Story of " Corn Syrup " (also known as

" Corn Sweetener " )

FDA History 09

Home

 

HISTORY OF A CRIME AGAINST THE FOOD LAW

CHAPTER IX: THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS

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.”

 

" Under free government trade must be free, and to

be of permanent value it

ought to be independent. Under our standard we do

not expect the government to

support trade; we expect trade to support the

government. An emergency, or

national defense may require some different

treatment, but under normal

conditions trade should rely upon its own resources,

and should therefore

belong to the province of private

enterprise. " --President Calvin Coolidge,

address to the Pan American Commercial Congress; The

Nation's Business, May

20, 1927.

 

STICKING TO THE BASE

In the great national game, theft is an important

element of success. The man

who reaches first must stick to his base as long as

the first baseman is at the

sack. When the first baseman goes off to quite a

distance, the runner leaves his

place of safety and goes as far as he dare toward

second. He must keep a keen

eye, however, as either the catcher or the pitcher may

return the ball to the

first baseman, who has crept up unawares, and the

runner is " out. " If the

basestealer is put out he is booed; if he succeeds he

is wildly cheered.

In general it is the first principle of safety to

stick close to your base.

An army that leaves its base too far may run into

danger. Its supply of

provisions and munitions may be cut off. The enemy may

send an armed force to

cut off retreat.in case of defeat. Upon the whole,

sticking to one's base is not

only considered a mark of good judgment, but often of

honesty of purpose in

fulfilling the duties imposed upon a player. Stealing

bases in scientific

matters is quite another story.

 

RISE OF BUREAUCRACY

While the bureau is an important element in

Government activities, it also

affords an opportunity for ambitious directors (and

all directors should be

ambitious) to leave the base on which they are

supposed to stay. I do not except

even the bureau over which I presided for nearly

thirty years from having at

various times had attacks of this grasping

disposition. The Honorable Frank A.

Lowden says, in World's Work, December, 1926:

" The Government official is inclined to

exaggerate the importance of his

office. He is constantly endeavoring to expand its

scope. He is properly

jealous of his authority. * * * I think that this

tendency is inevitable. * *

* Where, however, the enterprise is a vast one, as

in Government, or as in a

great business organization, these tendencies, if

left uncontrolled, are

likely to inflict serious injury upon the service. *

* * The original purpose

of the creation of the Bureau is finally lost sight

of and it is likely to

seem to those who direct it an end and not a means. "

 

It would be well to add to the warnings of

President Coolidge and Governor

Lowden in regard to mixing up business with

Government, the opinion also of

another expert along the same line. Mr. Merle Thorpe,

editor of Nation's

Business, published under the auspices of the National

Chamber of Commerce, made

this interesting statement before the National

Association of Real Estate Boards

held (Sept. 18, 1927) in Seattle, Washington. The

title of his address was " From

Bottom Up or Top Down. "

" Because of our failure to do things for

ourselves, we are calling upon the

government to do everything under the sun. Statute

books are groaning.

Regulations are myriad. Bureaus and commissions

spring up overnight. Taxes are

mounting, and naturally, because every one of the

laws we put upon the statute

books requires administration and more people on the

tax payroll. To-day it is

estimated that each ten families in the United

States feed and keep another

family on the tax payroll. Two months' production of

each man, woman, and

child, out of the twelve, now go to keep up the tax

payroll.

" 'Let the Government do it!' is our favorite

panacea. Of course, the

politicians do not object. In fact, there have been

occasions where they have

been known to encourage legislation and join in the

national anthem, 'There

ought to be a law--'

" The waste and inefficiency and mounting costs,

however, are not the

greatest penalties we pay for doing the nation's

work from the top down. Most

of the legislation is directed at business and

business is no longer the

simple act of trade and barter it once was. It has

become most complex.

Business is so interrelated, so interdependent, that

a law regulating this

industry reaches out and out and affects scores of

us thousands of miles away.

 

" It is a wise man indeed, who can see through and

through to its conclusion

a simple piece of economic legislation. We shall

never know how much the orgy

of lawmaking has slowed down the legitimate task of

furnishing food and

shelter and clothing, to say nothing of the luxuries

of life, to those who

need and want them, but it is safe to say it has

done a great deal.

" The breaking point will come. Already there have

been four parliamentary

governments overthrown and dictators rule to-day. As

Mussolini says,

'Democracy, with its endless talk and politics, has

miserably failed.' We may

never come to that situation of dictatorship in the

United States, but we may

reach a stage where democracy and its accredited

representatives are

discredited. That would be disastrous, for democracy

is based upon confidence.

 

" Disastrous, too, for it would destroy the one

thing which has made this

country great, 'individual reward for individual

initiative.' Every time we

ask government to do something which we as

individuals, or groups, or

communities, can do better for ourselves, we are

striking at that

individualism which has given us our strength. "

Bureaus are either created by Act of Congress or by

executive order. In the

latter case Congress must approve the executive act by

appropriations for

specific purpose. By specific legislations Congress

also assigns to certain

bureaus special duties which presumably can not be

abrogated by executive

orders. It follows that all expansive work must lie in

the scope of the bureau

and in harmony with problems already allocated.

 

SCIENTIFIC ETHICS

In Science, July 19, 1927, page 103, is found a

proposed code of ethics for

scientific men. No. 2 of this code reads as follows:

" Exemplify in your conduct and work a courageous

regard for the whole

people, and not alone some powerful and influential

faction thereof with which

you come in close personal contact. "

This is most excellent advice in connection with

the above observations.

 

CHEMICAL ETHICS

The American Chemical Society has no printed code

of ethics. There is,

however, an unwritten code which every member of the

society is under obligation

to respect.

There are two cardinal principles involved in the

unwritten code of ethics of

the American Chemical Society. The first is that no

member of the society shall

seek by improper means to deprive any other chemist of

his employment. The

second is that a field of investigation which is

already occupied shall not be

entered by an outsider without full cooperation and

agreement with the party

already occupying the field of investigation. These

two fundamental principles

guide and control the relations of the members of the

Society toward each other.

A much younger association of chemists, namely, the

American Institute of

Chemical Engineers, has already adopted a code of

ethics. Inasmuch as some of

the activities of the Bureau of Standards are

essentially those of chemical

engineers, it is probable that most of the chemists in

the Bureau of Standards

are members of the American Institute of Chemical

Engineers. This code of ethics

is not very long but it is very pertinent. The

principal elements of this code

are the following:

1st. That in all their relations, they shall be

guided by the highest

principles of honor.

2nd. The upholding before the public at all times

of the dignity of the

chemical profession generally and the reputation of

the Institute, protecting

its members from misrepresentation.

3d. Personal helpfulness and fraternity between

its members and toward the

profession generally.

4th. The avoidance and discouragement of

sensationalism, exaggeration and

unwarranted statements. In making the first

publication concerning inventions

or other chemical advances, they should be made

ithrough chemical societies

and technical publications.

5th. The refusal to undertake for compensation

work which they believe will

be unprofitable to clients without first advising

said clients as to the

improbability of successful results.

6th. The upholding of the principle that

unreasonably low charges for

professional work tend toward inferior and

unreliable work, especially if such

charges are set at a low figure for advertising

purposes.

7th. The refusal to lend their names to any

questionable enterprise.

8th. Conservatism in all estimates, reports,

testimony, etc., especially in

connection with the promotion of business

enterprises.

9th. That they shallnot engage in any occupation

which is obviously

contrary to law or public welfare.

10th. When a chemical engineer undertakes for

others work in connection

with which he may make improvements, inventions,

plans, designs, or other

records, he shall preferably enter into a written

agreement regarding their

ownership.

The 4th, 7th, 8th and 9th sections of the above

code of ethics are not

italicized in the original.

 

PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The object of establishing the Bureau of Standards

is luminously set forth in

the hearings before the comittee on weights and

measures and in the debates in

Congress on this measure.

I desire to call attention to a bureau in which it

appears that the desire to

get control of all forms of activities has developed

into a megalomania, and to

point out some of the crimes it has committed or

attempted to commit against the

battered and bleeding food law.

Professor Edward Murray East, eminent biologist of

Harvard University, says:

In our most cherished beliefs, from the earliest

ages to the present, there

is a great deal to justify the opinion of the cynic

that man is to be

distinguished from the apes not by his lack of a

tail, but by his megalomania.

Since becoming the dominant animal on the surface of

this cosmic atom, he has

never, until recently, had the slightest doubt

concerning his supreme

importance in the general scheme of things.

I am not looking into the activities of the Bureau

of Standards in any way

which would reflect upon any member of the Bureau,

either as to his capacity and

ability, or as to his honesty. I assume, and I believe

the disease of

megalomania is to some extent epidemic; it attacks

people against their desire

and will. We do not lose our esteem for those who are

ill of influenza or high

blood pressure. We might attach some personal blame to

those who suffer from

typhoid fever. We should regard megalomania as a sad

misfortune.

It is not in any way my purpose to review all the

expansive activities of the

Bureau of Standards. I will confine my remarks to

those activities which affect

scientific ethics, public health, and adulteration of

foods.

The Bureau of Standards was intended to be a

natural enlargement of the old

office of Weights and Measures. This office for some

mysterious reason was

connected with the Department of the Treasury. The

enlargement of the office and

its change of name to the Bureau of Standards was

first publicly suggested by

the Secretary of the Treasury, the Hon. Lyman J. Gage

(50th Congress, first

Session, House of Representatives, Document No. 625.)

The general purpose of the

new Bureau is outlined by the Secretary of the

Treasury in the following

language:

The functions of the bureau shall consist in the

custody of the standards;

the comparison of the standards used in scientific

investigations,

engineering, manufacturing commerce, and educational

institutions with the

standards adopted or recognized by subdivisions; the

testing and calibration

of standard measuring apparatus; the solution of

problems which arise in

connection with standards; the determination of

physical constants, and the

properties of materials when such data are of great

importance to scientific

or manufacturing interests and are not to be

obtained of sufficient accuracy

elsewhere.

Under the head of conditions which necessitated the

establishment of a

National Standards Bureau the Secretary makes, among

others, the following

remarks:

Throughout our country institutions of learning,

laboratories,

observatories, and scientific societies are being

established and are growing

at a rate never equaled in the history of any

nation. The work of original

investigation and instruction done by these

institutions requires accurate

reliable standards, which in nearly every case must

be procured from abroad,

or can not be procured at all. * * *

The recent acquisition of territory by the United

States more than

proportionately increases the scope and importance

of the proposed

institution, since the establishment of a government

in these possessions

involves the system of weights and measures to be

employed. During the near

future large public improvements will be undertaken

in these countries;

schools, factories, and other institutions will be

established, all of which

require the use of standards and standard measuring

apparatus.

The National Academy of Sciences endorsed the

movement in the following

resolution:

Whereas the facilities at the disposal of the

Government and of the

scientific men of the country for the

standardization of apparatus used in

scientific research and in the arts are now either

absent or entirely

inadequate, so that it becomes necessary in most

instances to send such

apparatus abroad for comparison: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Academy of Sciences

approves the movement now

on foot for the establishment of a national bureau

for the standardization of

scientific apparatus.

The American Chemical Society approved the

measure:

Resolved, That the Congress of the United States

be urged to establish a

national standard bureau in connection with the

United States Office of

Standard Weights and Measures, which shall provide

adequate facilities for

making such verification of chemical measuring

apparatus and for stamping the

same as are provided by foreign governments for

similar work. "

Prof. Simon Newcomb, U. S. N., said:

I do not think that anything I could do or say is

necessary to emphasize

the practical and scientific importance of

introducing the highest standard of

efficiency and precision in the work of such a

bureau.

Prof. Albert A. Michelson (head of department of

physics, University of

Chicago) made the following statements:

It gives me great pleasure to indorse the

measures proposed regarding the

importance of the establishment of a central bureau

of weights and measures,

the functions of which shall be:

(1) The calibration of all standards and

measuring instruments used in

scientific or commercial work.

(2) The investigation of problems which arise in

connection with standards

or standard measuring apparatus.

(3) The determination of physical constants and

the properties of

materials.

A large number of eminent scientists joined in the

same general way in urging

the enactment of the measure. Wherever reference was

made to foreign

institutions they were institutions for standardizing

weights and measures of

various kinds in all the different countries.

When the measure went before the Senate (50th

Congress, Second Session,

Document No. 70), the Secretary of the Treasury

appeared also before the Senate

Committee. Among other reasons which he advanced are

the following:

In this particular of standardizing weights and

measures and testing

apparatus of every kind the older countries are far

ahead of us; in fact, it

may be said that there is no comparison between us.

We are dependent utterly

upon Germany, perhaps France to some extent, and

England for our measurements

and those standards which we are obliged to resort

to in testing and comparing

when we enter into competitive work against them. *

* *

Now the establishment of a bureau like this,

where the Government is the

custodian and the originator of these standards of

weights and measures as

applied to all the higher scientific aspects of life

which we are so rapidly

developing in, has, to my mind, a value far and

above the mere physical

considerations which affect it, although those

physical considerations are

fundamental and most important. Nothing can dignify

this Government more than

to be the patron of and the establisher of

absolutely correct scientific

standards and such legislation as will hold our

people to faithfully regard

and absolutely obey the requirements of law in

adhesion to those true and

correct standards.

Before the Senate, as was recorded in the document

above mentioned, many

scientific men appeared and all in the same strain

stressing the importance of

standards of accuracy for all kinds of weights,

measures and instruments of

precision. Among those was Mr. 0. H. Tittmann,

Superintendent of the United

States Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Professor H. A.

Rowland of Johns Hopkins

University.

The Association of Official Agricultural Chemists

adopted the following

resolution:

Resolved, That the Association of Official

Agricultural Chemists most

heartily indorses the movement in progress for the

establishment in this

country of a national standardizing bureau, and

hereby declares that the

absence of facilities such as would be provided by

the proposed bureau has

seriously hampered the work of this Association,

owing to the difficulty of

obtaining in this country, with official

certificates of accuracy, the flasks,

burettes, pipettes, weights, thermometers,

polariscopes, and other apparatus

needed in the work of official chemists. The use of

apparatus which bears the

official stamp of the Government would eliminate one

element of dispute in

commercial analyses, thus preventing the expense of

litigation, and would, in

general, increase the value of the work of this

Association by facilitating

the attainment of uniform results.

Not only were scientific men all over the country

interested in the

establishment of standards invited to give testimony,

but the heads of

departments in which scientific work was carried on

were also asked their

opinions respecting the proposed legislation. The

Secretary of Agriculture asked

the head of the bureau most interested to prepare his

paper. Mr. Southard, in

introducing the discussion in the House said:

Mr. Speaker, the functions of the present office

of weights and measures

are confined to the ordinary measurements of mass,

length, and capacity. That

was sufficient, perhaps, when that office was

established. In the early days

the standards in question were the pound, the yard,

the bushel, and the

gallon. Now, however, the progress of science and

the complexity of industrial

processes resulting from it require derived

standards of a thousand and one

kinds--all kinds of measuring apparatus--volumetric

apparatus used in the

chemical laboratories of the Government and similar

laboratories all over the

country--standards of measurement for high and low

degree of temperature, etc.

 

I must stop here to indicate some of the

different kinds of measuring

apparatus. They are barometers, thermometers,

pressure gauges, polariscopes,

instruments of navigation, steam-engine indicators,

and instruments of a

thousand different varieties. That the graduations

and indications of these

instruments should agree with the fundamental

standards is a question of most

vital importance, and without the facilities for

such tests and comparisons

the public is deprived of the greatest benefits to

be derived from the

standards recognized by the Government. We have in

this country to-day no

means of testing these different instruments of

precision. The result is, we

have to send them to Germany or France or England or

somewhere else to have

them tested and calibrated.

The bill has been enthusiastically indorsed by all

the heads of Department of

the General Government having scientific bureaus, as

well as by all the chiefs

of such bureaus. As furnishing an illustration of the

necessity and value of

this proposed bureau to the General Government, I will

quote from the statement

of the Secretary of Agriculture:

" I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of

your letter of April 24,

and beg to assure you that the establishment of a

national standardizing

bureau, having the function outlined by you, will be

of the highest value and

importance, not only to the scientific bureaus,

offices, and divisions of this

Department, but to the country at large. Its

influence will be felt wherever

the quality and value of substances are fixed by

chemical and physical tests,

whether this be in connection with scientific

investigations, in connection

with manufacturing and other industrial processes,

or in connection with

commercial transactions.

" Speaking for this Department alone, I wish to

say that it has been our

policy to patronize the American manufacturers of

scientific apparatus

whenever practicable without hampering our

investigators by compelling them to

use apparatus of an inferior grade. The art of the

construction of scientific

apparatus has been brought to such a high degree of

perfection under the

fostering care of European govemments--notably

Germany--that we have been

compelled to send abroad a large proportion of our

orders, either directly or

indirectly, through importers. The greatest

disadvantage resulting from this

state of affairs is not the delay, inconvenience,

and expense connected with

making purchases abroad; nor is it to be found in

the danger of injury to

delicate and expensive apparxtus during

transportation across the sea.

" It is the necessity of importing the certificate

of a foreign government

whenever an official certiflcate of accuracy is

desired with apparatus. In

Germany an order can be issued for apparatus with

the specification that the

goods delivered must be of the quality and accuracy

recognized by the

regulations established by the standardizing bureaus

of the Imperial

Government. Apparatus made in accordance with these

regulations are regular

commodities, and are described in the catalogues of

all the apparatus makers

and dealers. When the goods are received the

purchaser is able to send a

proper proportion of the shipment to the government

standardizing bureaus and

base his acceptance or refusal of the goods upon the

results of the official

tests. For the accommodation of customers who need

certified apparatus for

immediate use most of the dealers keep in stock

apparatus bearing the official

stamp.

" The disadvantage under which American scientific

workers--notably

chemists--labor is evidenced by a recent experience

of the Division of

Chemistry of this Department. The confusion of

standards and carelessness

which has characterized the manufacture of graduated

chemical glassware in the

past is notorious. Some months ago the Division of

Chemistry issued to an

American dealer and importer an order for graduated

glassware, to be made in

accordance with the regulations of the German

Imperial Testing Commission.

" While all this apparatus was to fulfill the

requirements in point of

construction and limits of error in graduation of

the regulations named,

certain pieces were to bear the official stamp of

the Imperial commission. At

the special request of the American dealer to whom

the order was sent

permission was granted to import only the pieces of

apparatus requiring the

official stamp and to supply for the remainder of

the order apparatus of

American manufacture, but made in accordance with

the regulations named. After

considerable delay the goods were delivered. The

certified pieces were

eminently satisfactory; the uncertified ones were

quite the opposite. They

were unsatisfactory both in the form of construction

and in regard to

accuracy.

" As an example of the degree of inaccuracy, it

may be stated that a flask

marked to contain 100 cubic centimeters was found to

contain 100.3 cubic

centimeters. I do not believe that this experience

was due to unworthy motives

on the part of either the manufacturer or dealer.

This experience is simply

the result of the absence in this country of any

well-established and

authoritative standards governing the forms of

construction, the system of

graduation, and the allowable limits of error for

apparatus of this kind. The

mere adoption of regulations relative to the

character of apparatus admissible

for stamping by a national standardizing bureau will

cause a revolution in the

apparatus manufactured and give to it that highly

important quality,

uniformity.

" As a further illustration of the great

desirability of such an

establishment, I may call your attention to the

contention which has arisen in

the courts in the United States in the last few

years concerning the

regulations prescribed by the Treasury Department

governing the polarization

of imported sugars. These regulations were prepared

by a joint commission

consisting of the Chemist of the Department of

Agriculture as chairman, a

representative of the Coast and Geodetic Survey,

Office of Weights and

Measures, and the Chemist of the Bureau of Internal

Revenue.

" The regulations were based upon the most careful

scientific determinations

and the apparatus and utensils employed by the

customs-house officers

standardized by the Office of Weights and Measures

of the Coast and Geodetic

Survey. Nevertheless, the accuracy of these

officials has been called into

question by the importers, and the question is now

the subject of expensive

and tedious litigation. The existence of such an

office of your Department as

you propose to establish would have avoided all sueh

trouble by the weight of

its authority. This is only one of the many

instances where the utility of

such a bureau would prove of practical advantage to

official operations. "

It is not because of any desire to claim credit for

supporting the campaign

to establish the Bureau of Standards, but for other

reasons which are important

that the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry at the time

mentioned desires to state

that he was the author of the letter signed by the

Secretary of Agriculture.

It is a matter of some interest to know that the

importers of sugar paid

import duties under protest according to the

regulations above cited. The case

finally reached the Supreme Court. The Chief of the

Bureau was asked by the

Solicitor of the Treasury to write the scientific part

of the brief before the

Court. It was unanimously decided in favor of the

Government. Nearly a million

dollars were saved by this decision. It would be

illuminating to cite many other

cases but the records of the discussion of this bill

are all on file and those

who are interested in the matter can find them in the

references given. The

Congressional Record of Feb. 1, 1901, pages 1793 to

1795, and March 2, pages

3473 to 3478 in the House; and 3487 and 3515 in the

Senate may be consulted.

The wonderful unanimity of scientific men in

support of this measure is best

illustrated by the words of Mr. Southard's address on

page 1794 of the Record

above referred to:

Shortly after the reference of the measure to the

Committee on Coinage,

Weights and Measures that committee received a

deluge of indorsements, most

commendatory in character. They came from almost

every Department of the

Government and from the different bureaus in the

various Departments. They

came from the governors of States and from the

departmental officers in the

States. They came from scientific bodies, from

scientific men, and from

associations of scientific men. They came from men

engaged in educational

pursuits everywhere. They came in the form of

resolutions adopted by the

faculties of universities and colleges throughout

the country. They came from

the great railroad corporations, many of which

maintain, as gentlemen know,

chemical laboratories in connection with the

operation of their roads. They

came from the great iron and steel industries of the

country and from the

manufacturers of electrical machinery and

appliances, and they came from

agricultural associations and from other sources. In

other words, they came

from almost everywhere. and I may say that these

were no mere perfunctory

indorsements, but were characterized by a remarkable

zeal and earnestness,

indicating clearly and strongly the desire, in this

connection, of the people

making them.

The attitude of all these supporters of this

measure, who practically

represent all the scientific men of this country

interested in physics and

chemistry, shows that they all understood the bill

exactly the same way; it was

to be a real bureau of standards, of all weights and

measures. There was no hint

of extending the functions of this bureau to standards

of purity of foods,

drugs, soaps, or anything else; nor was there the

least hint of the Bureau of

Standards engaging in manufacturing, or promoting

manufacturing in any way

except by furnishing accurate standards of

measurements for all the processes

that go on under the guidance of accurate measurements

in official industrial

and commercial activities. To invade the domain of

agriculture and to furnish

plans for building dextrose manufactories were never

even suggested.

Rarely has any topic been presented to Congress in

which members of the

committees considering the measures, and witnesses

brought before them, and

speakers on the floor of each house, have shown

greater unanimity than was

exhibited in connection with the establishment of the

Bureau of Standards. The

character of the work was fully understood by all

participants in these

discussions. The standards which were to be

established were those in every case

of precision and accuracy for the use and

enlightenment of all parties needing

standards of measurement of all kinds. Only one

witness, Professor Rowland, saw

in the wording of the proposed act any possibility of

departing in the

activities of the bureau from the basic purpose for

which it was organized.

Professor Rowland, with that keen sense of accuracy

and definiteness for which

he was so renowned, pictured some future Director,

who, by misinterpreting the

spirit, and also the words of the act, might proceed

to explore fields of

investigation entirely foreign to its purpose. In his

testimony before the

Committee of Coinage, Weights and Measures, Professor

Rowland made the following

suggestion:

There is one point that is left out in this bill,

and I do not see how it

can be covered, and that is with regard to the kind

of standards that are to

be adopted. Shall the director of this standardizing

bureau have the right to

introduce any standards he pleases, or shall they be

more carefully defined?

Many of the activities of the Bureau of Standards

illustrate the prophetic

wisdom of Professor Rowland's foresight. As an

illustration of how far the

Bureau of Standards has departed from its base, a few

quotations from the budget

submitted for the fiscal year 1928 will show.

THE BUDGET FOR 1928

(Page 369) For structural materials, such as

stone, clays, cement, etc.,

and for collecting and disseminating approved

methods in building, planning

and construction, economy in the manufacture and

utilization of building

materials and supplies, and such other matters as

may tend to encourage,

improve and cheapen construction and housing.

For the authority to do this the original Act of

March 3, 1901, is quoted.

(Page 371) For investigation of fire-resisting

properties of building

materials and conditions under which they may be

most efficiently used, and

for the standardization of types of appliances for

fire prevention.

The original act is also quoted as authority for

this investigation:

(Page 375) " To study the methods of measurement

and technical processes

used in the manufacture of pottery, brick, tile,

terra cotta, and other clay

products, and the study of the properties of the

materials used in that

industry. " The original Act is again cited.

(Page 376) " To develop methods of testing and

standardizing machines,

motors, tools, measuring instruments,. and other

apparatus and devices used in

mechanical, hydraulic, and aeronautic engineering. "

The original Act is

cited.

(Page 377) " To investigate textiles, paper,

leather and rubber, in order to

develop standards of quality and methods of

measurement. " Original Act cited.

(Page 380) " For investigating the conditions and

methods of use of scales

and mine cars used for weighing and measuring coal

dug by miners for the

purpose of determining wages due and of conditions

affecting the accuracy of

the weighing or measuring coal at the mines. "

Original Act quoted.

Again on the same page: " For metallurgical

research, including alloy

steels, foundry practice and standards for metals

and sand; casting, rolling,

forging, and the properties of aluminum alloys;

prevention of erosion of

metals and alloys; development of metal substitutes;

as for platinum;

behaviour of bearing metals; preparation of metal

specifications;

investigation of new metallurgical processes and

studies of methods of

conservation in metallurgical manufacture and

products; investigation of

materials used in the construction of rails; wheels,

axles, and other railway

equipment; and the cause of their failure. " Again

the original Act is cited.

(Page 381) " For laboratory and field

investigations of suitable methods of

high temperature measurements and control in various

industrial processes, and

to assist in making available directly to the

industries the results of the

Bureau's investigations in this field. " Same Act is

cited.

(Page 382) " For the investigations of the

principles of sound and their

application to military and industrial purposes. "

Same Act cited.

(Again on the same page) " For technical

investigations in cooperation with

the industries upon fundamental problems involved in

industrial development

following the war with a view to assisting in the

permanent establishment of

the new American industries. " Same Act cited.

(Page 384) " To enable the Bureau of Standards to

cooperate with Government

departments, engineers and manufacturers in the

establishment of standards,

methods of testing and inspection of instruments,

equipment, tools, and

electrical and mechanical devices used by the

industries and by the

Government, including the practical specifications

of quality and performance

of such devices and the formulation of methods of

inspection, laboratory and

service tests. " Same Act cited.

(Page 388) " During the fiscal year, 1928, the

head of any Departmed or

independent establishment of the Government having

funds available for

scientific investigation and requiring cooperative

work by the Bureau of

Standards on scientific investigations within the

scope of the functions of

that Bureau, and which the Bureau of Standards is

unable to perform within the

limits of its appropriations, may, with the approval

of the Secretary of

Commerce, transfer to the Bureau of Standards such

sums as may be necessary to

carry on such investigations. "

These transferred funds in 1926 amounted to

$173,250. They were used to

investigate oil pollution, radio direction for the

coast guard, helium

recorders, chromium plating, corrosion, fatigue and

embrittlement of duralumin,

electrically charged dust, optical glass, substitutes

for parachute silk,

goldbeaters skin, storage batteries, internal

combustion engines, fuels,

lubricants, photographic emulsions, stresses in

riveted joints, machine guns,

bomb ballistics, rope and cordage, chemical and

metallurgical tests, wind tunnel

tests of models, aircraft engines, velocity of flame

in explosives, etc.

According to Industrial and Engineering Chemistry,

one of the largest

publications of the American Chemical Society, the

Bureau of Standards has just

completed an investigation of the suitability of caroa

fiber for paper making,

also the development of suitable lubricants for glass

stopcocks.

Since the publication of budget estimates, a

supplemental grant of funds to

the Bureau of Standards has been submitted by the

budget authorities, to the

amount of $50,000, to enable the Bureau of Standards

to investigate farm wastes.

These illustrations show how in nearly all cases the

Bureau has introduced the

word " standardization " or " measurement " in some way to

connect these

miscellaneous investigations into everything under the

skies with the original

Act. This Act is cited as authority for these

universal studies which can in no

way be connected with the basic idea of the standards

implied in the hearings.

 

DISCOVERY OF A NEW PRODUCT

In the annual report of the Bureau of Standards for

the fiscal year ended

June 30, 1920, page 129, is found the first report on

a commercial process for

manufacturing pure dextrose. In this report it was

announced that for the first

time dextrose had been separated from a water

solution. It is stated:

" Previous methods for the preparation of the pure

substance have demanded

the use of alcoholic solvents. "

It is stated further down on the same page:

" In carrying this investigation to a successful

conclusion the Bureau has

-virtually created a new industry of great

magnitude. * * * The magnitude of

the commercial possibilities of the new sugar is

shown by the fact that one of

the largest corporations in the country requested

the Bureau to design a large

scale experimental plant costing approximately

one-half million dollars. This

has been done and the plant is now practically

completed. "

A careful re-reading of the original bill which was

enacted into a law, fails

to find any warrant for, the architectural excursions

which the Bureau of

Standards confesses to have made. Let us examine for a

moment some authorities

relating to this discovery. In Industrial and

Engineering Chemistry, issue of

July 10, 1924, News Edition, on page 2, Ifind the

following copied from an

address made by T. B. Wagner, for many years chief

chemist for the Corn Products

Company, the corporation for which the Bureau of

Standards designed a

half-million dollar factory. It was on the occasion of

the presentation to the

Chemists Club of New York City of a portrait of Dr.

Arno Behr, for many years

chief chemist of the Corn Products Company, and one of

the most eminent

carbohydrate chemists this country has produced. Dr.

Wagner said, in speaking of

the earlier investigations of Dr. Behr, some Menty or

twenty-five years prior to

the new discovery of the Bureau of Standards:

" It was while engaged in the refining of cane

sugar that Dr. Behr turned to

a study of the chemistry of corn and while following

these pursuits he

discovered a simple method of producing without the

aid of alcohol,

crystallized, anhydrous dextrose of great purity and

beauty. * * * That was

over forty years ago, and it is curious therefore to

note the Director of one

of,the important Government Bureaus in Washington

coming forth at so recent a

date as July 1, 1920 with the announcement * * *

that * * * the Bureau has

shown that a pure, white dextrose may be obtained by

crystallization from a

water solution and may be easily separated from the

mother liquor by using a

centrifugal machine. Previous methods for the

preparation of the pure

substance have demanded the use of alcoholic

solvents.

Dr. Wagner adds:

" These are almost exactly the words employed by

Dr. Behr in his patent

specifications of 1883. Being on the subject I will

be pardoned, perhaps, for

commenting upon another discovery pertaining to the

discovery of pure dextrose

and described in the same report in the following

language:

'Two processes were investigated. In the one

which met with almost

immediate success the converted starch liquor was

boiled in a vacuum until

concentrated to 42° Baumé, and was then dropped into

a crystallizer. It was

then inoculated with pure crystals of dextrose and

agitated until the

crystallization was complete.' "

Dr. Wagner then continues as follows:

" That is the substance of U. S. Patent 835, 145,

issued on Nov. 6, 1906, of

which I happen to be the author. "

The Bureau of Standards sent a representative to a

large glucose

manufacturing company to apply the process on a large

commercial scale of

operation. It is interesting to inquire whether the

Bureau's process, which was

discovered about one hundred and thirteen years before

the Bureau discovered it

and had been practiced in commercial production

frequently, succeeded in making

the new discovery practical in the special factory

costing a half million

dollars, which was built upon architectural plans

supplied by the Bureau of

Standards. As we are dealing here with United States

patents there is no harm in

calling names. Mr. Newkirk, who was the man sent to

introduce this new process,

which was to establish a new industry on a magnificent

scale, succeeded in doing

so with the knowledge he obtained in working out these

plans in the Bureau of

Standards. It was not long before he resigned from the

Bureau of Standards to

accept the position of chief dextrose-maker for the

Corn Products Company. After

he left the Bureau of Standards Mr. Newkirk began to

take out patents on the new

process of manufacture. He filed an application for a

patent on Nov. 16, 1922,

and the patent was issued to him, No. 1,471,347, on

October 23, 1923, and

assigned by him to the Corn Products Refining Company,

a corporation of New

York. The title of the patent is " Method of Making

Grape Sugar. " He says in this

application:

" I have found that by making a radical departure

from the methods usually

employed in the manufacture of grape sugar, a sugar

of very close to absolute

purity can be produced by a process which is

relatively simple and is

economically practical. "

This shows, if it shows anything, that the method

devised by the Bureau of

Standards wouldn't work economically. He clinched this

conclusion by continuing:

" Dextrose or grape sugar of high purity has been

made heretofore, but

never, so far as I am aware, on a commercial scale

by methods which can be

regarded as feasible from its economic point of

view. "

The Bureau of Standards' own expert in this

language denies that the great

discovery which founded a new industry was

economically workable.

Mr. Newkirk continues his assertions of the failure

of all previous

processes, as follows:

" Failure of previous experimentors to realize the

importance of these

considerations accounts for the practical

unworkability of many of the

processes described in the literature for

manufacturing high purity grape

sugar. By accident when conditions were just right a

satisfactory product

might be produced. But there was no certainty that

another batch, treated in

apparently the same way, would not prove a failure.

Obviously manufacture on a

commercial scale under these conditions was

impossible. Other processes,

theoretically possible, have proved too expensive

for commercial utility.

Hence a literature disclosing apparently repeated

successful solution of a

problem, which as a matter of fact, has not prior to

the present invention

received any satisfactory solution. "

It seems, therefore, that the Bureau of Standards

was somewhat mistaken in

having claimed to make the only discovery which put

this great industry on its

feet. Either a mistake was made by the Bureau, or Mr.

Newkirk has done the

Bureau of Standards a grievous wrong.

The Bureau of Standards not only claims the

discovery of a process which has

created, or will create a new industry, but it

specifies particularly the things

which it has discovered. Before their experiments,

which evidently were carried

on immediately prior to 1920, they stated that all

previous preparations of

dextrose were from alcoholic solutions. In a patent,

No. 256,623, dated April

18, 1882, issued to Arno Behr, he makes the following

statement:

In carrying out my process I form a watery

solution of grape-sugar

containing, say, thirteen per cent. of water and

deposit the same in a

suitable tank or vessel, and maintain it at a

temperature of about 90°

Fahrenheit for a period of one to two weeks, or

until thorough crystallization

has taken place. * * * In order to somewhat hasten

crystallization, I

introduce into the concentrated solution a minute

quantity of finely-divided

crystallized anhydrous grape-sugar previously

prepared. "

Thus it is seen that two of the discoveries of the

Bureau of Standards, one,

that dextrose could be crystallized from an aqueous

solution, and the other that

it could be hastened by the addition of previously

crystallized dextrose, were

known and patented forty years prior to this great

discovery. The fact that the

temperature should be kept up to or, above blood heat

for the purpose, of making

anhydrous dextrose is clearly pointed out in the

patent issued to T. B. Wagner

(No. 259,794, dated June 20, 1882). He says:

" Prior to my invention it was known that

crystallized anhydride of

grape-sugar could be produced by dissolving grape

sugar in strong alcohol and

crystallizing it from the alcoholic solution; but in

this process it is

difficult to entirely free the resulting product

from all traces of alcohol

and from an unpleasant flavor resulting from

impurities contained in

commercial alcohol. My improved product,, which

consists of pure crystallized

anhydrous grape-sugar, entirely free from all traces

of alcohol, may be made

in various ways from water solutions of grape

sugar. "

The claim he makes is as follows:

" I claim as my invention a new article of

manufacture, crystallized

anhydrous grape-sugar, free from any trace or flavor

of alcohol or its

impurities, produced from a watery solution of

grape-sugar.

In a patent issued to T. B. Wagner, No. 835,145,

dated Nov. 6, 1906, the

following purpose of the invention is described:

" The object of my invention is to produce

anhydrous grape-sugar from corn

or other analogous farinaceous material by a method

in which the yield of

sugar is larger, its quality is purer, the time

required for its production is

shortened, and the amount of labor required is

materially lessened. I have

found that all of these results may be obtained by

abandoning that part of the

present process which has heretofore been considered

neeessary--that is

keeping the crystals during the process of

generation in as quiet and still a

condition as possible, and on the contrary employing

the principle of

crystallization in motion. "

From the above citations it seems plain that the

claims made by the Bureau of

Standards as the original discoverers of this great

industry are, to say the

least, contrary to historical evidence.

 

ATTEMPT TO MODIFY THE FOOD LAW

While the foregoing is interesting as a sample of

bureaucratic ethics it

serves solely as a background to an assault on the

food law.

 

The most objectionable effort of the Bureau of

Standards was in trying, by

the great weight of its authority as the original

discoverers, to force this

product ( " corn syrup " )upon the American people under

the guise of real sugar.

 

A bill was introduced into the House of

Representatives by Mr. Cole, on

December 7, 1925 (H. R. No. 39), providing that the

Food and Drugs Act be

amended so that the presence of dextrose in food

products would not be regarded

as a misbranding and would not require any

notification of its presence. The

same bill (S. 481), was introduced into the Senate of

the United States by Mr.

Cummins on Dec. 8, 1925.

The Senate bill was considered by the Committee on

Manufactures, beginning

Thursday, January 7, 1926. There was no very great

publicity given to this

hearing and the only persons who appeared, besides the

members of the Committee,

were Senator Cummins, Representative Holaday, and

Representative Cole. Senator

Cummins said to the Committee:

" Introduction of that paragraph into the law

would avoid the charge that

any article of food in which corn sugar is used is

either misbranded or

adulterated. "

Mr. Holaday said:

" Mr. Chairman, I should like to voice my approval

of the measure before

you, and the feeling is somewhat general throughout

the agricultural regions

of the country that this bill may be of benefit to

corn producers. The fact

that the producer of goods sweetened with cane sugar

is not compelled to place

anything to that effect on his label, while the

manufacturer who sweetens with

corn sugar is required to mention that fact on his

label, creates an unjust

impression in the minds of the people. "

Representative Cole stated:

" The difference between dextrose and sucrose, a

chemist has told me, is as

small as a molecule of water.

" Now what does that mean? It means that it will

be used very largely,

especially in the case of sweetened fruits. You buy

canned peaches, sweetened

apples, in many cases too sweet, in fact they have

to put in so much cane

sugar in preserving these fruits that they become

almost like a sirup. In

using corn sugar that degree of sweetness would not

be obtained, but still the

preserving power would be there.

The Committee, after hearing these witnesses and no

one appearing in

opposition, made a favorable report and as a result of

this report the Senate

unammously passed the bill.

 

LEGALIZING ADULTERATION OF FOODS

When these bills came before the House, the Bureau

of Standards appeared as

the chief protagonist of this effort to mutilate the

Food Law. At the time the

hearings were begun on March 2, 1926, a formidable

array of opponents to the

measure was on hand. Among these were Mr. George S.

DeMuth, representing the

bee-keepers, the Hon. Franklin Menges, representative

in Congress from

Pennsylvania, Mr. W. G. Campbell, chief of the

Regulatory Service of the

Department of Agriculture, Dr. George M. Kober,

..eminent physician and Dean of

the Georgetown University Medical School, and Mr.

Harvey W. Wiley, farmer. Among

the protagonists of this measure was Mr. Frederick

Bates of the Bureau of

Standards. Following is a brief outline of his

testimony.

He said he did not feel it would ever be necessary

to defend the creation of

industries of such momentousi importance, and when the

Bureau of Standards

created crystallized dextrose, a carbohydrate of great

food value, great

stability, great purity, and great cheapness, it was

deemed a waste of time to

attempt to take out a basic patent on a subject in

which the process of

manufacture requires so many individual steps. .He

called attention to the fact

that the Bureau of Standards for the first time in one

hundred years had

successfully crystallized manite and dextrose from.a

water solution, and that is

the crux of the whole matter.

He referred to the fact that there had been, he

presumed, several hundred

patents on the subject of dextrose. As an example he

cited Mr. W. B. Newkirk, a

practical sugar-maker.

" He was the man I sent to the Corn Products

Refining Company to perform the

first experiment, and he threw down four thousand

pounds of chemically pure

crystallized dextrose after forty years of failure. "

 

Mr. Bates grew more enthusiastic as he was

questioned in regard to whether

Mr. Newkirk in his patents had mentioned any of the

things discovered by the

Bureau of Standards. Like the men in Buckram, these

patents " grew apace. "

Finally (page 122) Mr. Bates said:

" I suppose 500 would be a conservative estimate

of the number of patents

on dextrose processes now in existence. Possibly

there are 1000. "

These patents must have been granted in foreign

countries. Very few are found

in our patent office, even including the six taken out

by Mr. Newkirk after he

left the Bureau of Standards.

 

NUMBER OF PATENTS

A careful search was made in the archives of the

patent office, aided by the

experts employed therein, to determine the number of

patents issued in the

conversion of starch into other products, and

particularly to dextrine, gums,

glucose and grape-sugar or dextrose. Possibly a few

patents may have been

overlooked, and perhaps two or three may have been

included which do not belong

to this category. A total of 64 patents treat of

making dextrose or grape-sugar

from starch. It is curious to note that the greatest

activity in taking out

patents was in the years 1880 to 1886 inclusive,

during which time 27 patents

were issued for this purpose. This was at the time the

glucose industry was

attracting public and financial attention, and

naturaJly marked the era of

greatest activities and inventions.

As has already been shown, all the principal

methods used, with the exception

of those covered by the patents of Mr. Newkirk,

included substantially the

processes employed in all dextrose factories at that

time and subsequently.

There seems to be nothing fundamentally new in any of

the patents taken out by

Mr. Newkirk since his resignation from the Bureau of

Standards and his

employment by the Corn Products Company. The patents

taken out by Mr. Newkirk

were at first assigned to the Corn Products Company,

but later ones were

assigned to the International Patents Developing

Corporation, of Wilmington,

Delaware.

 

RELATIVE SWEETNESS OF SUCROSE AND DEXTROSE

The Bureau of Standards claims a relative sweetness

for dextrose of about 75

per cent. of the sweetening power of sucrose.

Dr. C. A. Browne presented a paper to the Thirtieth

Annual Conference of the

Association of Dairy, Food and Drug Officials of the

United States in

Washington, October, 1926. On Page 6 of the printed

proceedings I find the

following:

" Gottloeb Kirchof about the year 1806 discovered

that the starch of cereal

grains from heating with acid could be converted

into a crystallizable sugar.

* * * The process as originally described by Kirchof

consisted in beating 100

pounds of starch with 400 pounds of water and 1-1/2

pounds of strong sulphuric

acid, boiling for a period of 25 hours with constant

renewal of the evaporated

water. After clarification the neutralized mass was

evaporated to a thick

syrup, set aside for several days until

crystallization was complete. The

inventor, Kirchof, made the following observation :

'Although starch sugar does not have the

sweetness of ordinary sugar, the

ratio of its sweetness to that of the latter being

only 1 to 2-1/4, it can

nevertheless replace cane sugar for many purposes.'

Dr. Browne continues (page 11)

" Certain advocates of 'corn sugar' have employed,

as their measurement of

its sweetness, the recently determined value of

Biester, Wood and Wahlin for

pure anhydrous dextrose which is 74.3 per cent of

the sweetening power of

sucrose. . This value is much higher than any

reported by previous

investigators. The values in the literature for the

sweetness of anhydrous

dextrose range from 40 to 74.3 per cent, the

variations being due to the

differences in the methods of determination and to

differenes in individual

taste perception. In such cases the only legitimate

procedure is to take the

average of the results of all observers and this

average, including the very

high figure of Biestor, Wood and Wahlin, for the

nine determinations which I

have found in the literature is 54.4 per cent. This

value when corrected for

the 8.43 per cent of water in 'corn sugar' gives a

true value of 49.81 per

cent for the sweetness of the product as compared

with sucrose. In other words

'corn sugar' is only about one-half as sweet as cane

and. beet sugar and twice

as much of it must be used in food products as of

cane or beet sugar, if the

same degree of sweetness is to be obtained.

This discussion of the subject by Dr. Browne is in

strict conformity with

scientific ethics and leads to a conclusion entirely

different from that assumed

by the Bureau of Standards. If dextrose is used for

sweetening purposes, twice

as much of it is required as.for ordinary sugar. If it

is used as a, filler,

that is an adulterant, the more you put in the better

the purpose of its use is

secured. This is the kind of sugar which the committee

decided, chiefly under

the influence of the Bureau of Standards, was the

proper thing to offer the

American consumer without notice of its presence. What

a remarkable change from

the attitude of the members of the Interstate and

Foreign Commerce Committee at

the present time to that which characterized their

deliberations in 1906!

 

CAN OTHERS DO IT?

The following question was propounded to Mr. Bates,

Page 127. Hearing, before

the Interstate Commerce Committee:

Is it possible for any one else to produce corn

sugar that you know of now,

profitably, that is this crystallized dextrose sugar

without using the process

that was perfected .in your laboratory and

subsequently patented by the men

that represent you? " To which Mr. Bates answered,

" Yes. "

Another embarrassing question is found on page 130;

" Right here let me ask, was your study of

dextrose instigated by the Corn

Products Refining Company? " to which Mr. Bates

replied, " Oh, no, they had

nothing whatever to do with it. "

Evidently, however, the first mass experiment made

by the Bureau of

Standards' process was not made in the Bureau at all.

On the same page Mr. Bates

said:

" Our contribution was to demonstrate to the world

that a man could take

ordinary sugar-making machinery and throw down pure

crystallized dextrose on a

factory scale. We made 4000 pounds on the first

experiment. "

On the same page the question was asked:

" The Corn Products Refining Company had been

unable to do that? "

To which Mr. Bates replied:

" They.had spent about $6,000,000 in effort to

make dextrose. They had built

one factory in Chicago costing $1,500,000 and had

abandoned it many years

before, after attempting to operate it. for a year

or two. "

Mr. Bates finally acknowledged that dextrose is not

a new sugar, and in

answer to a question he said:

" There is nothing new in the product. It is a new

sugar in the sense that

after forty years of failure by the anufacturers who

are interested in utilizing

corn we have sueceeded in throwing down the material

from water solutions. "

The fact is that Kirchof in 1806 described the

process and Dr. Arno Behr, in

1882, took out a patent for producing dextrose from

water solution, and Dr;

Wagner in 1906 described in detail the technique of

crystallizing and how to

secure anhydrous crystals.

According to the records of the Bureau of

Standards, their experiment in

creating this new industry was made in 1919. In 1923

Mr. Newkirk had already

been in the service of the Corn Products Company for

about two yeaxs. In. 1922

he filed his first application for patents which were

assigned to the Corn

Products Company. Mr. Bates informed the Committee

that according to the best

figures he had available, so-called corn sugar, that

is dextrose, can be

produced under present methods at about 2 cents per

pound, when corn is a dollar

a bushel. He told the Committtee that there is no pure

corn sugar produced in

the world today on a commercial scale except that

produced by Americans, and

that this fact is entirely due to the initiative of

the Congress of the United

States, which provided the funds to make this work

possible. When asked to give

some idea of the future of the industry, Mr. Bates

replied:

" Experience has taught me that it is better to

remami silent. But I leave

it to your experience and knowledge as to what

happens when any basic material

of great stability, purity and cheapness can be

produced. "

 

OPPONENTS IGNORED

In point of fact, the members of the Committee on

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce had very little confidence in those who

appeared in opposition to the

pending bill. In the report of the sub-committee,

which was adopted by the whole

committee, it is stated on the first page:

" In arriving at this conclusion we have had the

benefit of conferences and

frequent consultations and advice with the Bureau of

Standards, the Department

of Agriculture, and with the legislative Counsel, to

all of whom we

acknowledge our obligation. We are, however, under

special obligation to Dr.

George K. Burgess, Director, and to Dr. Frederick

Bates, of the Bureau of

Standards, and attach hereto as a part of our report

their concise and clear

statement regarding these new sugars which were

first developed by their

department, and call your especial attention to a

definite statement made

therein by eight of the leading medical authorities

of the United States as to

the complete wholesomeness of these sugars, which

opinion is supplemented by a

letter dated March 18, 1926, from Dr. H. S. Cumming,

Surgeon General of the

United States Public Health Service, which we also

attach with this report. We

call attention also to the numerous citations of

authorities furnished us by

the Bureau of Standards in support of their

position. "

Not a syllable is said concerning the luminous

opposing data presented by the

Honorable Franklin Menges, Member of the House, Mr.

George DeMuth, representing

the bee-keepers, Mr. W. G. Campbell of the Regulatory

Service of the Department

of Agriculture, and H. W. Wiley, in defense of the

Food Law. The only quotation

from the Department of Agriculture is the Secretary's

approval of the amended

bill.

 

REQUEST BUREAU OF STANDARDS FOR HEALTH DATA

In securing this information the Bureau of

Standards entered on a new

activity, namely as promoters of the public health. Burgess in his

letter of March 28, 1926, said:

" In addition we would state for your information

that the Bureau of

Standards does not deal with the subject of foods in

relation either to health

or to physiologic action in their primary aspect.

Investigations of the

character involved in these subjects belong to the

realm of medical science. "

The above is a most important statement. There is

one field of activity in

which the Bureau of Standards has not yet entered.

Nevertheless they have made a

fine beginning and the nose of the camel is now under

the edge of the, tent. It

is to be expected that within a short time the Bureau

of Standards will assume

all of these medical investigations in which they have

made already a very

considerable start.

When the Bureau of Standards was asked to do this

public health work by the

committtee, it looked around to see where it could

best direct its efforts. Dr.

Burgess says:

" In deciding upon the sources from which to

obtain the information you

requested, the staffs of various Government

institutions, such as the United

States Public Health Service, the Hygienic

Laboratory, the Army Medical

School, and the Bureau of Home Economics have been

consulted, and their able

suggestions followed. And it may pertinently be

noted at this point that in

our search we have failed to find a statement by a

single authority that is

detrimental to the use of dextrose and levulose as

human foods, or that their

use as foods would cause diabetes mellitus. On the

contrary we have found that

all authorities are positive as to the desirability

of these sugars as human

foods. Their commendation of the Bureau's work on

the sugars, whenever they

have. had occasion to comment, has been unstinted.

This investigation into the realms of public health

made by the Bureau of

Standards, at the request of the Committee on

Interstate and Foreign Commerce

was due to a statement I made before the Committee in

regard to the

undesirability of increasing the amount of prechewed

and predigested foods in

the American dietary.

On page 113 of the hearings I said:

Now let me give you just a few more words about

another feature of injury.

You understand that we eat starch and fruit sugars.

We digest those. If the

sucrose has not been digested we digest it. If the

starch has not been

digested we digest it, with the functions which we

have achieved in this life,

and then the sugar enters the blood stream. Now what

becomes of the levulose?

We never find levulose in the blood stream. We find

only dextrose. The sugar

that is in the blood and goes to the tissnes and

there is burned is always

dextrose, it is never levulose. I wish I knew what

became of levulose. I do

not; but it is possible that there may be an enzyme,

a digestive enzyme, that

converts levulose into dextrose. Suppose you have

too much starch and too much

sugar. You cannot burn it all at once. It is

converted into an inert substance

called glycogen and is stored up in this condition

in the liver and in the

tissues. The burning of the sugar in the blood is

activated by the pancreas.

Now if we flood our stomachs with dextrose ( " corn

syrup " ), then we will need half a dozen artificial

pancreases to take care of it, and there is the real

danger, the threatening danger, as every wise

physiologist will tell you, from that source. So that

both by reason of paralysis of our digestive apparatus

through lack of functioning that is a threat in

itself, and by reason of the increase of the amount of

dextrose which we ingest far above what we need we

endanger our health in the most serious way. So that I

voice now, and with all the emphasis I can put on it,

my disagreement with every other person, except Dr.

Menges, who has testified here, and it has been

unanimous almost, who has said that this predigested

and prechewed dextrose is harmless. I deny it and I

think I have most scientific grounds to convince you,

gentlemen, that it is not a harmless substance. In

closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I

labored for 22 years before I saw the fruits of my

labors in the Food and

Drugs Act. I did not give myself the name ' but I am

universally acclaimed as

the father of the Food and Drugs Act, as I am

universally acclaimed as the

father of the Beet Sugar Industry. I see both of my

children threatened, and I

have a parental love. Now I have lived long enough

to see my two alleged

children grow up almost to their majority. Twenty

years old they are. I do not

want to live long enough to see them crucified. "

 

INJURY TO HEALTH

The activities of the Bureau of Standards in

securing expressions from

various eminent medical authorities to the effect that

levulose and dextrose as

found in honey and in invert sugar are not prejudicial

to health was a work of

supererogation. I can not find in any of the hearings

before the committee, or

otherwise, that any such question was under

consideration. Evidently the purpose

of this investigation by the Bureau of Standards into

the region of health was

to counteract the statements I made before the

committee that predigested starch

(glucose), in such quantities as was suggested by the

Bureau of Standards, was a

real threat to health.

I desire to refer to page 135 of the hearings on

Interstate and Foreign

Commerce on H. R. No. 39.

MR. HOCH: " Are you familiar with the quotations

that Mr. Cole makes from

medical authorities? "

DR. WILEY: " Certainly, I am. I do not deny the

virtue of dextrose as a

medicine for any man who cannot digest his own food.

It is a valuable remedy;

for use in a hospital. I should hate to see dextrose

moved out of the hospital,

because people in the hospital usually have poor

digestive faculties and need

blood sugar. "

MR. HOCH: " If corn sugar should be used generally

throughout the country

instead of cane sugar or beet sugar what would be the

effect upon the health of

the country?. "

DR. WILEY: " I have no quarrel for use of dextrose

in hospitals, and if you

should use dextrose in place of sugar that would be

all right as to food but all

wrong as to conservation of natural digestion. "

I quote here two statements, one from a physiologic

chemist and one from a

celebrated physician. Dr. Albert P. Mathews, Professor

of Physiological

Chemistry, University of Cincinnati, under date of

Jan. 11, 1927 says:

" As regards the effect of lack of use of our

digestive apparatus by eating

predigested food, I dare say the point you make is

correct. It seems to be the

general experience throughout the animal kingdom

that the use of an organ

increases its efficiency and keeps its health. What

you say as to the quantity

of this new sugar which would probably be consumed

staggers me, but it is true

that it can't be told by its appearance from a good

grade of granulated sugar,

and if it is cheaper I have no doubt it would drive

the other out of the

market, which would be a great calamity. "

The other authority, the eminent physician, is Dr.

E. L. Fiske, Director of

the Life Extension Institute of New York. Writing

under date of Jan. 21, 1927,

he says:

" I concur in your views that it is unwise to make

any change in the present

law requiring that dextrose should be so labeled.

While it is quite true that

dextrose is just as available a fuel as sucrose,

indeed more available because

of the fact that the action of digestive enzymes is

not required, I feel that

the present consumption of sugar is far beyond the

physiological needs of the

population and tends to narrow the diet. I believe

that food sugars should be

drawn from natural sugars, such as fruit sugars and

sucrose. Statistics would

indicate that diabetes is increasing in this country

and I can see some point

in your caution that the use of a predigested sugar

may in itself not be in

the interest of public health. In regard to no other

food is predigestion

looked upon as a physiological advantage, but rather

the contrary, except in

the emergencies of illness. "

These opinions of these two eminent experts would

be supported by every

competent physiologist and dietitian in the country

not under the influence of

the Bureau of Standards and the Corn Products,

Company. Predigestion of our

foods to the extent indicated would tend to undermine

and destroy public health.

In regard to the quantity of sugar I quoted to Dr.

Mathews the statements

before the committee that if this bill (39 H. R.)

should pass, permitting

dextrose to be used in food. products without notice,

as much as two billion

pounds would enter into the stomachs of the American

public annually. In a book

entitled " What Price Progress? " by Hugh Farrel, page

183, reference is made to

the work of the Bureau of Standards and of the Corn

Products Refining Company,

stressing somewhat gingerly the importance of " If. "

" Did you ever think about the word " if " as a

shock absorber? Probably not.

" If " is usually used as a license for loose talk. If

I couldn't use " if " in

telling you about the probable effects of recent

scientific research on the

sugar industry, I would keep quiet, I wouldn't say

anything. I'm not timid,

not to speak of, but I wouldn't like to. assume the

responsibility for a bald

statement that researches of chemists in the employ

of the Bureau of Standards

and of the Corn Products Refining Company meant the

beginning of the end of

the cane and beet sugar industries, I wouldn't like

to make that a flat-footed

statement even though it might be and probably would

be true. "

This enthusiastic follower of the Bureau of

Standards makes the Bureau's

modest estimate of 2,000,000,000 pounds look like the

prognosis of a piker, by

predicting a possible 40,000,000,000 crop.

It is of interest to know that while the Corn

Products Company was perfectly

satisfied to leave its case with the Bureau of

Standards, it was in deep

sympathy with this measure. In the American Food

Journal of January 1927, Page

24, is an article entitled " Some Facts About Corn

Sugar, " by W. R. Cathcart of

the Corn Products Refining Company, New York City. In

this article Mr. Cathcart

says:

Of course the production of dextrose in

commercial quantities did not

remain hidden under the bushel. Corn sugar soon

figured conspicuously in the

public press, particularly in papers circulating in

the corn growing, states,

and dextrose entered the political arena. It was

clear that an increased

market for corn sugar meant an increased market for

corn. The movement for the

relief of the corn grower was strong in the corn

growing states and several

measures were introduced into Congress to meet the

situation. Identical bills

were introduced by Senator Cummins and Congressman

Cole to amend the Pure Food

Act so that a product could not be deemed misbranded

or adulterated if it

contained corn sugar. Hearings before the House

Committee developed opposition

on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Dr.

Harvey W. Wiley, former

Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry. It was denied by

Dr. Wiley that dextrose is

a wholesome product. * * * The Corn Products Company

is a strong supporter of

the Pure Food Law and has no desire to change from

this position. Speaking as

the representative of that industry, we intend to

work in harmony with the

constituted authorities and obey the prescribed

regulations. We believe in

hard common sense. We will continue to present

arguments which we know to be

economically and scientifically sound. We are

confident that eventually reason

and well established facts will overcome fanaticism

and misstatement. "

The persons who manufacture commercial glucose and

commercial dextrose may

not engage in adulterating foods therewith, but they

do furnish the raw

materials which adulterators use. The predecessor of

the Corn Products Company

manufactured " Flourine " which was used to adulterate

wheat flour. To correct

this abuse it was necessary for Congress to pass the

mixed flour act. This

effectually stopped the use of " flourine " in wheat

flour. It was the Corn

Products Company that secured the change of label for

one of its products,

namely glucose, to " corn sugar, " a clear violation of

the food law. The natural

sugar of corn, both in the stalk and in the ear, is

sucrose and the law forbids

calling any other object or product by the same name

as one already established.

The Bureau of Standards also referred to dextrose as

the ideal filler. To a food

adulterator the ideal filler is a cheaper substance

which he can substitute for

a dearer substance. Mr. Cathcart's statement that the

Corn Products Company does

not desire to misbrand or adulterate any product is

hardly borne out by well

known facts. Glucose and its near relations have been,

are and will continue to

be the champion adulterants.

 

FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE SO-CALLED CORN SUGAR BILL

The committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

rejected the Senate bill

which would open all foods indiscriminately for the

use of dextrose without

limit and without notice to the purchaser. The

committee reported the bill in

which the permission to use dextrose in this way was

limited to frozen products,

such as ice cream, and to bakers' products and meat

products. This bill was

approved by the House of Representatives but only with

a very small majority.

The opposition to it had grown to enormous

proportions.

. The bill, as it passed the House, was entered on

the Senate calendar and it

was understood that when it was called up the Senate

would not insist upon its

own measure, but would be content to adopt the measure

as it passed the House.

It was called up on the 2nd of July, 1926, just two or

three days before both

houses of Congress had voted to adjourn. Unless it

could be acted upon on this

occasion there would be no additional time in which it

could be considered by

the Senate.

Senator Neely of West Virginia had become convinced

that this was a vicious

measure. He felt also that if it came to a vote the

Senate, having already

passed a more drastic bill, would probably concur in

the bill as modified by the

House. He therefore determined to defeat the measure

by a lone filibuster. He

secured the floor of the Senate and openly announced

his determination to hold

it until the hour at which the bill could be

considered had passed. He held in

his hand A copy of Good Housekeeping, and read from

time to time paragraphs

therefrom, showing the enormity of the crime intended.

By that time, however, a

large number of Senators had seen the error of their

way and expressed their

sympathy with Senator Neely who was trying to prevent

a national crime.

I addressed to Senator Neely after his successful

filibuster the following

letter:

" The country owes you a vote of thanks for your

heroic and successful

endeavor yesterday to block the approval of the

so-called 'Corn-Sugar' Bill. *

* *

" As determined by Dr. C. A. Browne, the

sweetening power of corn sugar is

only 50% of that of sucrose. It is much more

insoluble. It leaves a very

disagreeable, bitter after-taste. To foist this

sugar upon the American public

without knowledge is a crime of the deepest dye. I

sincerely hope you will be

on your guard if any subsequent attempt is made to

rush this legislation

through the Senate.

To this letter Senator Neely, on the 3rd of July,

replied as follows:

" I regret to confess there are no words in my

vocabulary sufficiently

vigoious to convey to your mind my sincere

appreciation of your more than

gracious letter of the second day of July. Frankly,

whatever service I have

rendered the country's consumers of sweetened food

products, I have been able

to perform solely by virtue of the information

contained in your illuminating

article which recently appeared in Good

Housekeeping.

" Sincerely hoping that the public may be

thoroughly informed as to the

menace of the pending legislation on the subject of

corn sugar before Congress

reconvenes in December, I am, with the best of

wishes and the kindest of

regards, always,

Faithfully yours,

(Signed) M. M. Neely. "

On December 16th, 1926, I wrote Senator Neely as

follows:

" I am writing to ask if there is any immediate

prospect of the so-called

Corn Sugar Bill being taken from the calendar and

considered by the Senate? I

am preparing a document which I wish to submit to

each member of the Senate

when it is likely that such consideration will take

place. Your work last

summer in blocking this legislation was most notable

and successful. I hope

you have not lost any of your enthusiasm in this

case and will be on guard,

with the other Senators who stood by you on that

occasion, to prevent any

mutilation of our food law. "

To this letter Senator Neely on the same day

replied as follows:

'Replying to your very acceptable letter of the

sixteenth day of December,

I regret to inform you that it is quite probable

that the so-called

'Corn-Sugar Bill' will-be 'called up' at almost any

hour of any day.

" Yesterday, a Senator from a western state

inquired of me particularly as

to the possibility of my discontinuing my opposition

to this measure. I told

him, and I now assure you, that I purpose to oppose

the passage of the Corn

Sugar Bill to the limit of my capacity as long as I

continue a member of the

Senate.

" In view of the article on the subject which

appeared in the last number of

'Good Housekeeping,' I feel impelled to tell you

that I have absolutely no

selfish interest of any kind or character in seeking

to defeat this

legislation. I am prompted to the course I have

adopted by a single motive,

and that motive is to preserve, protect, and defend

the Pure Food Law and

thereby protect the health of the people of the

country. "

On December 17th, 1926, I wrote Senator Neely as

follows:

" I hope, even if Congress should pass this

measure, that the President will

refuse to sign it. I feel certain President Coolidge

could not complacently

approve of the perpetration of such a huge.fraud

upon the American public. It

means fraud in every household in this broad land. I

sincerely hope you may be

able again to block this vicious legislation, either

by force of reason, or,

if necessary, by filibuster.

Under date of December 18, 1926, Senator Neely

wrote me as follows:

" Yesterday Senator Ashurst and I conferred at

considerable length about the

subject matter of your communication, and

rededicated ourselves to the task of

preventing the enactment of a measure (despite the

good faith of its

proponents) which he and I believe thoroughly

vicious. "

There was organized, therefore, a number of

Senators into a committee who

promised to guard carefully the rights of the people

by objecting to any

unanimous consideration of taking the bill from its

regular place on the

Calendar. This was particularly true in the last days

of, the session when night

sessions were called to consider bills to which no

objection was made. I wrote

Senator Neely and asked him to organize a

watch-meeting to see that at least one

Senator was always present who would object to taking

the so-called. Corn Sugar

Bill from its place on the. calendar, by unanimous

consent. In this way all

legislation of this kind was blocked until the 69th

Congress expired at noon on

the 4th day of March,1927.

All pending bills are now dead. If the 70th

Congress undertakes to enact a

measure of this kind, a powerfully organized minority

at least, will be ready to

interpose all required parliamentary obstacles to such

legislation. It is quite

certain, therefore, that any other bill of a similar

character would have a very

rugged future before it, and it is almost morally

certain that no such

legislation can now be enacted.

ALWAYS THE PROBLEM OF AGRICULTURE

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

" There shall be at the seat of Government a

Department of Agriculture, the

general design and duties of which shall be to

acquire and to diffuse among

the people of the United States useful information

on subjects connected with

agriculture, in the most general and comprehensive

sense of that word, and to

procure, propagate, and distribute among the people

new and valuable seeds and

plants " --Act May 15,1862.

From the very beginning of the investigations of

sugar they were given by

Congress to the Bureau of Chemistry, Department of

Agriculture. Dr. MacMurtrie

in the early 70's, first as an assistant and then as

Chief of the Bureau, worked

upon these problems and particularly carried on

investigations looking to the

establishment of the beet sugar industry. His

successor, Dr. Collier, my

immediate predecessor, made extensive investigations

as to the possibility of

using sorghum as the principal source of sugar.

When I was put in charge of the chemical work in

1883 it was with the

distinct understanding that the sorghum investigations

would be completed. To

that end, in collaboration with A. A. Denton, the

first study of the possibility

of increasing the content of sugar and the percentage

of purity in the sorghum

plant was undertaken and continued for eight years.

Varieties of sorghum were

developed showing an average content of 4% increase in

sugar. All of these

investigations have been published in numerous

bulletins of the Bureau of

Chemistry. My successor, Dr. Alsberg, continued these

investigations. His

successor, Dr. C. A. Browne, has kept the work up.

Thus from 1870 to 1927, a

period of 57 years, Congress has continuously provided

the funds for carrying on

these investigations in the Bureau of Chemistry.

The appropriation for the fiscal year ended June

30, 1926, provided funds:

" To investigate the chemical composition of sugar

and starch-producing

plants in the United States and their possessions.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1928, the

appropriation bill for the

Department of Agriculture contains the following

authorization:

" For the investigation and development of methods

for the manufacture of

table syrup and sugar by utilization of new

agricultural sources. "

If this means anything, it means that levulose is

one of the new sources of

sugar production, which Congress in its regular

session committed to the new

Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. Does not then this

problem by right of possession

and by a continued recognition by Congress for 57

years entitle the Bureau of

Chemistry to carry on all investigations of this kind?

By right of possession,

as well as by ethical considerations. that rule ought

not to be transgressed.

A careful survey of the original act establishing

the Bureau of Standards

fails even to give a hint that any investigations of

this kind should be

assigned to any other department than that of

agriculture. The investigations

which led to the establishment of the beet sugar

industry were given exclusively

to the Department of Agriculture, as the original act

provided. There is one

point, however, in which perhaps it is wise to permit

the investigations of

levulose through another department. The Bureau of

Standards has proclaimed that

when levulose under its initiative is made as cheaply,

as dextrose, then there

is no longer any reason for the existence of either

the beet sugar or the cane

sugar industries. Of course Congress never intended

that the Department of

Agriculture should be used for the destruction of

established agricultural

industries. So, naturally, investigations which would

destroy these industries

would not be germane to the fundamental idea around

which the Department of

Agriculture has been built. It does seem a little bit

strange that Congress

which is now bending all its energies to do something

for the relief of the

farmer should give to the Bureau of Standards a large

sum of money for the

purpose of endeavoring to destroy some of our most

profitable agricultural

industries.

 

DEVELOPMENT OF DEXTROSE AND LEVULOSE INDUSTRIES

Speaking before the committee in favor of a

defieiency appropriation for the

development of the levulose industries, the Director

of the Bureau of Standards

gave glowing accounts of what could be done with the

Jerusalem artichoke. In

answer to a question of the chairman as to the

difficulty of gathering the wild

artichoke economically, it was stated that it would be

cultivated, and he

illustrated the improvement in the content of sugar,

that is levulose, in the

artichoke from what had been done in breeding beets.

He called attention to the

fact that the percentage of sugar in the wild beet had

been, by careful

breeding, more than doubled.

The chairman asked Dr. Burgess (page 279 of the

hearings),

" Is any of this sugar which you have shown it is

possible to produce used

anywhere? "

DR. BURGESS: " Not yet. It has only been actually

produced in sugar form in

our laboratory. The trick was to get it out of water

solution. "

The director enlarged on the problems they were

about to undertake (page 288

of the hearings.)

" The production of sugar is one of the world's

largest industries. A new

industry which threatens to modify this production

is a thing of first

importance to mankind. The Bureau of Standards is

considering not merely the

question of modification, but the possibility to a

great extent of replacement

of ordinary sugar (sucrose) by levalose.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the $50,000 asked

for were given to the

Bureau of Standards, which is a branch of the

Department of Commerce, and not to

the Department of Agriculture, which is immensely

interested in the maintenance

of both the cane and the sugar beet industries. The

purpose of the Bureau of

Standards is to abolish both of these industries.

There are many serious difficulties in the way of

developing an economical

levulose industry. It is stated by the Bureau of

Standards that the present

price of levulose is approximately $100 a pound. They

proposed to make it as

cheaply as they have been able to manufacture

dextrose. The director promised

the committee that the experimental work would be

finished in.1927. This time

has come and gone but no publication of levulose at 5

or 2 cents. a pound has

yet been issued. The wisdom of the proverb, as it is

read in Boston to the

effect that it is undesirable to enumerate the number

of progeny arising from

the incubation of the ova of gallinaceous birds until

the process is entirely

completed, is a matter which the Bureau of Standards

should take under careful

consideration. It is quite evident that if this policy

of the Standards Bureau

be carried out any further the original intent of

Congress will be entirely

lost, sight of. Evidently there is nothing going on in

this world which,

following out the plan already adopted, may not come

within the limits of

investigation of this all embracing Bureau. Meanwhile,

the work which it was

intended to do must of necessity be neglected in order

to gather in all these

miscellaneous activities which plainly are foreign to

the purpose of the

original act. An unbiased study of these activities

magnifies to colossal

proportions the dangers which Professor Rowland

pointed out.

 

NO DELAY IN STARTING WHAT ROWLAND FEARED

From the first the Bureau of Standards immediately

began a system of

accretion from all sources, which it has practiced

ever since. The following

year, 1903, it was transferred to the Depaxtment of

Commerce. It took over at

once the supervision of polarizing imported sugars,

which for many years had

been a function of the Bureau of Chemistry. This was

its first offense of

scientific ethics, the cardinal canon of which is,

" Don't butt into any problem

already in charge of some one else. This was followed

by the invasion of fields

fully occupied by the Bureau of Chemistry in studies

of leather, paper, farm.

wastes, and other strictly agricultural problems. This

was followed by occupying

the field of specifications for civil and military

supplies, establishing new

definitions for Castile soaps, and finally an assault

on the Food and Drugs Act.

 

TRADE PRACTICES

The encroachments of trade practices on the

enforcement of the Food Law will

be shown in the last chapter.

I refer solely to the illegal and unethical

practices. They are also likely

to be dominant in the activities of the Bureau of

Standards in the case of

scientific associates. It is even possible that

activities of the Food and Drugs

Act, or the investigations of the Federal Trade

Commission may be invoked to

restrict the scientific investigations of the Bureau

of Standards. One of the

dangers which attend the exploitation of trade

practices is illustrated by the

attitude of the Bureau of Standards in regard to

Castile soap. The methods

employed by the manufacturers of so-called Castile

soaps are thoroughly outlined

in Circular No. 62 of the Bureau of Standards devoted

to this subject. The trade

practices are set out in detail. Brands of Castile

soap are made which are

entirely foreign to the original idea universally

accepted of this article. In

the data below it will be noticed that the principal

chemist who has been

consulted in this matter, and whose suggestions have

appaxently been adopted, is

the chemist of a firm making so-called Castile soaps

of different kinds without

any olive oil whatever entering into their

composition.

The Food and Drugs Act was passed for the purpose

of correcting trade

practices. Now the efforts of the Bureau of Standards

seem to be directed toward

establishing them as ethical processes. This, of

course, means great danger to

the consuming public. A great government organization

ought not to aid

fraudulent trade practices and try to foist them upon

the public, even by

mentioning them approvingly.

" Castile Soap was originally made from low-grade

olive oils. The name now

represents a type of soap, the term 'castile' being

applied to a soap intended

for toilet or household use, sold usually in large,

unwrapped, unperfumed

bars, which are cut up when sold or when used. It is

often drawn directly from

the kettle without 'crutching,' but is sometimes

crutched a little or even

enough to make it float and is sometimes milled. It

is also sold. in small

bars both wrapped and unwrapped. The type is not one

easily defined, so now

when made from olive oil it is invariably sold as

olive-oil castile. There are

soaps made entirely from cocoanut, oil which are

sold as cocoanut castiles or

hardwater castiles. Many other castiles are made

from a mixture of cocoanut

oil and tallow. " (Dept. of Commerce--Circular of the

Bureau of Standards, No.

62--SOAP--p. 9, Jan. 24, 1923.

NOTE: Previous Edition of Standard Circular No. 62

(Second Edition June 17,

1919, p. 7) reads as follows:

'Castile soap, otherwise known as Marseilles or

Venetian soap, is prepared

from low-grade olive oil.

A letter from Director of the Bureau of Standards,

dated September 22, 1924,

explains the change in language note above:

" As stated in our letter of Sept ember 9, the

statements made in paragraph

© page 9, of the third edition of our circular No.

62 were intended to give

information as to conditions as they are at the

present time rather than as to

what they should be.

" The Bureau has not issued a specification or set

up a standard for Castile

Soap, nor has the bureau intentionally, in a passive

way or otherwise, injured

any existing standard or trade practice regarding

this commodity. Our sole aim

in circular 62 was to state the facts as we found

them. " * * * (Signed F. C.

Brown, Acting Director; George K. Burgess,.)

A further explanation by Dr. Burgess, Director, in

letter to T. R. Lockwood,

March 27, 1926, is as follows:

" The statements were approved by the Soap

Committee of the Soap Section of

the American Specialty Manufacturers Association, as

indicated by the

following quotation from Circular No. 62 (page 4):

'The Bureau has received much valuable assistance

in the preparation of

this circular from the Soap Committee .of the Soap

Section of the American

Specialty Manufacturers Association, and especially

Messrs. A. Campbell and C.

P. Long, chairman and secretary of the soap and soap

products committee of the

American Chemical Society, for which it wishes to

express its grateful

appreciation.

Further explained by Dr. Percy H. Walker, U. S.

!Bureau of Standards, in his

testimony at Trade Practice Submittal at the office of

Federal Trade Commission,

March 30, 1926 (Transcript, Page 31).

" The gentleman sitting near me has asked me to

read from a circular of the

Bureau of Standards. I may preface this by saying

that THIS IS A PIECE OF

INFORMATION FOR WHICH WE ARE INDEBTED TO THE SOAP

TRADE. I SUBMIT IT AS A

PIECE OF INFORMATION. IT IS AS FOLLOWS: " (Then

follows the quotation from

Circular No. 62, 1923, Ed. p. 9, quoted above.)

C. P. Long, referred to as a source of information

for Bureau of Standards

Circular No. 62, is, or was, Chemical director of the

Globe Soap Company,

Cincinnati, which manufactured or manufactures four

brands of " Castile " referred

to as " Castile in combination, " namely, GLOBE CASTILE,

GLOBE LION CASTILE, GLOBE

WHITE CASTILE, and LION CASTILE.

The statement above that true Castile is

" invariably sold as olive-oil

Castile " is a gross error. This statement is

undoubtedly due to the regrettable

mistake of the revisers of the tenth decennial

pharmacopoeia, for the first time

in its history of defining Castile soap as olive oil

Castile. This gives no

warrant for calling other soaps, not made wholly from

olive oil, Castile.

 

DUPLICATION OF WORK OF BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY

BY THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The work of the Bureau of Chemistry on tanning

materials, hides, tanning, and

leather which is conducted under the appropriations

for agricultural

investigations, has been and is being duplicated in

part by the Bureau of

Standards of the Department of Commerce. Work along

those lines has been done in

the Department of Agriculture almost since its

organization in 1862, and was

specifically provided for in 1904, 23 years ago.

Investigations on leather,

according to the annual reports of the Bureau of

Standards, were inaugurated as

a new line of work in that Bureau in 1917, but 12

years ago. The attention of

the Bureau of Standards has been called to this

duplication which several times

has been the subject of conference between the two

Bureaus. Nevertheless the

more recent annual reports of the Bureau of Standards

continue to outline a

program on leather which involves a striking and

extensive duplication of lines

of work plainly within the scope of the following long

established and published

projects of the Bureau of Chemistry:

Investigation of the Wearing Quality of Sole

leather.

Investigation of the Composition of Leather and

Tanning and Finishing

Materials.

Deterioration of Upper, Bookbinding and Other

Light Leathers.

Tanning Sole and Harness Leather on a Small

Scale.

These projects were known to the Bureau of

Standards not alone through annual

reports, program of work, and other publications, but

also through the fact that

before the Bureau of Standards had organized and

equipped its laboratories the

courtesy of the laboratory of the Bureau of Chemistry

was extended to them and

its force was temporarily housed in the laboratories

devoted to the leather,

tanning and related work of the Bureau of Chemistry.

Nevertheless, the Bureau of

Standards later entered these fields despite this

knowledge and ignored the

usual customs of scientific bureaus to referring

inquiries and work within the

province of other bureaus to those bureaus. In other

words, the Bureau of

Standards has, without discussing the subject with the

Bureau of Chemistry,

duplicated and started to build up on this work,

knowing that it was already

organized and had been in operation for some time in

the Department of

Agriculture.

Moreover, with the view to eliminate the

duplications which had become

intolerable and indefensible, the Bureau of Chemistry,

in July, 1914,

transferred to the Bureau of Standards and itself

discontinued the work it had

been doing for many years, and before the existence of

the Bureau of Standards,

on paints, varnishes, inks, oil, and miscellaneous

supplies for the Government

departments with the distinct verbal understanding

between Dr. Alsberg, then

Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, and Dr. Stratton

that work in certain fields,

among them leather and tanning, should remain in the

Bureau of Chemistry.

Authority for the Work. Authority for the work on

tanning materials, hides,

tanning and leather, which the Department of

Agriculture has been doing, is

contained:

(a) In the organic act creating the Department of

Agriculture, which act

defines its duties as " to acquire and to diffuse

among the people of the

United States useful information on subjects

connected with agriculture in the

most general and comprehensive sense of that word,

(b) In subsequent annual appropriations made for

work on these and related

subjects after statements by the several bureau

chiefs before Congressional

committees, describing the work being done;

© In a special order, by the Secretary of

Agriculture, on July 1, 1904,

as follows:

" There is hereby established in the Bureau of

Chemistry a laboratory to be

known as the Leather and Paper Laboratory to which

are to be committed the

analyses and investigations relating to the

following subjects:

" Investigations of tannins and tanning materials

and their effects upon the

strength and properties of leather with a view to

promoting the agricultural

industries relating to the production of tannins and

tanning materials and

leather of a high quality.

" All technical problems of a chemical nature

relating to the production of

tannins and tanning products and of leathers.

" All technical problems of a chemical nature

relating to the production of

leather, * * *. "

(Signed) James Wilson, Secretary.

The substance of this order has been made public in

Bureau of Chemistry

Circular No. 14, 1904, on " The Organization of the

Bureau of Chemistry. "

History of the Work. Work on tanning materials,

hides, tanning and leather,

began in the Deparment of Agriculture in the early

days of its existence, and

has been described in the various annual reports as

far back as 1872. The nature

and results of this work were laid before Congress not

only in these annual

reports but in the hearings before the appropriation

committees. This work had

progressed so that by 1900, that is before the

establishment of the Bureau of

Standards, it was definitely organized and a

cooperative basis between the then

Divisions of Forestry and of Chemistry. The work on

all these lines has

continued uninterruptedly. Since the specific

organization of this work the

Bureau of Chemistry has developed an experienced and

informed personnel which

has done much valuable work in the conservation and

development of raw

materials; in the development and improvement of

methods of examination to

determine quality: on the care and serviceability of

leather; and in an advisory

capacity to the Government, the public and the

industry, the results being

published from time to time either as Government

bulletins or in scientific

journals until the publications now number in all more

than eighty-five.

It has been the claim of the Bureau of Standards

that all standardization

work and even all scientific work of the Federal

Government should be done

there. Obviously this Teutonic, imperialistic

viewpoint can not be admitted by

any of the Federal Departments, first because it is

not fair, economical or

efficient, and second, because such has never been the

intent nor practice in

government work. It would seem clear that from any

reasonable point of view each

Department should, so far as feasible, standardize

those materials which fall

within its functions, and this has been the practice

until the Bureau of

Standards has constantly encroached upon the fields of

other bureaus of the

several departments.

This ruthless and expensive duplication of fields

of work has actually, as is

to be expected, resulted in needless duplication on

specific problems, as

strikingly shown by the duplication of the work done

by the Bureau of Chemistry

on the wearing quality of shoe leather, published as

Department Bulletin 1168 in

1923, which work was duplicated even to the

conclusions and published by the

Bureau of Standards in 1925 as Technological Paper

286, " Comparative Durability

of Vegetable and Chrome Sole Leathers. "

The last and most astonishing encroachment of the

Bureau of Standards on the

functions of the Department of Agriculture is found in

the appropriation to

investigate agricultural wastes. These studies

heretofore have been almost

continuously conducted by the Bureau of Chemistry. It

will result in useless

repetition of many studies in the past thirty years

looking to utilization of

cornstalks, salvaged fruits and watermelons, waste of

canning factories,

unmerchantable marketable products, and various other

agricultural wastes. These

may not rise to the dignity of crimes but they afford

striking instances of bad

ethics.

 

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

The most objectional feature of the activities of

the Bureau of Standards,

aside from the attempt to mutilate the Food Law, is

seen in employment of

research assistants. This activity seems to fly

directly in the face of the

statements of President Coolidge, at the beginning of

this chapter.

In Circular No. 296, Bureau of Standards, Page 3,

is the following statement:

" Devices developed during the research are for

the free use of the

industry, the government, and the public and will

not be patented unless the

patents are dedicated free to such use. "

Immediately following this statement is another to

this effect:

" The work of a research associate is one of

peculiar trust, often

confidential, on problems of concern to an entire

industry. "

It is thus seen that much of the research work done

may be of this

confidential character and if so would not be

published in any manner to,

prejudice the interest of the industry concerned.

While associate scientists

conform to government regulations in regard to

conduct, hours of work and leave

of absence, they are paid by the industries interested

in their work. I can find

no statement in Bulletin 296 as to the total amount of

compensation of these

workers. Correspondence with the industries is sent

free of postage, and all

facilities of every description for the work are

provided by government

appropriation. No estimates of the total value of

these contributions by the

government are given. The total number of research

associates in 1926 is given

at 62. On page 8 the amounts saved by the researches

of the Bureau in many

instances are stated. From study of brakelining

methods fifteen million dollars,

from tire studies forty million dollars, and from

motor-fuel investigations one

hundred million dollars are saved annually. With such

savings as these the

pitifully meager $2,000,000 appropriation granted to

the Bureau of Standards

proves Uncle Sam a. piratical piker.

The limit of activities seems. to have been reached

in the following case

copied from the Washington Star, April 4, 1927. It is

an illustration of one of

the experiments of the Bureau of Standards with a

machine intended to measure

the shock absorbed by the driver of an automobile. The

description is as

follows:

" To find out how much shock the driver of an

automobile absorbs through the

bumping and rolling of his car on the road is the

purpose of this delicate

measuring device designed by the Bureau of

Standards. The information will be

given to manufacturers for its bearing on driving

efficiency.

The following pertinent suggestions find an

appropriate place here:

From " YOUR MONEY'S WORTH, " by Stuart Chase and F.

J. Schlink, published by

The Macmillan Company, comments on the Bureau of

Standards.

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The Bureau of Standards was set up by legislative

enactment in 1901. It was

placed under the control of the Secretary of

Commerce and Labor (now

Commerce), but has always functioned with a

considerable degree of

independence. Its director is appointed by the

President, upon nomination by

the Secretary of Commerce; its staff is under civil

service regulations and

protected to an almost unique degree from political

pressure.

Its original duties were simple--the erection of

suitable scientific

standards for weights and measures. Page 198.

Gradually the Bureau began to take on other

duties. Its scientific staff

provided a nucleus for further investigations on the

Government's behalf, (and

later on behalf of industry at large.) On account of

its excellent equipment

and expert staff, other departments got into the

habit of referring dubious

materials and devices to it for analysis and test.

Page 198.

Which brings us to ask a blunt and necessary

question. Why does a service

run by taxpayers' money refuse information covering

competitive products--to

that same taxpayer? The answer is obvious but not

altogether convincing. It is

argued that the general release of test results

covering competitive products

by the name of maker will promote commercial

injustice. Page 203.

In the long run would not the great savings which

the Government achieves

through the Bureau's work be multiplied a hundred

fold if all could take

advantage of its findings-both ultimate consumer,

manufacturer and dealer?

Page 204.

Furthermore there is no reason why the citizens

who pay for the Bureau and

the other Government laboratories should not have

the right to initiate a

series of tests when the field is important and the

known information either

inadequate or non-existent. Manufacturers and

promoters can now secure all the

results of competitive tests (maker's names

deleted); and they have initiated

thousands of new tests which the Bureau has

conducted often without cost to

themselves. Has not the ultimate consumer an equal

right? Page 204.

The Bureau of Standards meanwhile has ruled that

proper coöperation of the

federal authorities with state and other

governmental bodies, justifies the

release to the latter of technical information. It

is willing to approve or

condemn commercial products by name in a table

giving comparative quality or

performance. Local governments can thus secure what

the taxpayer can not. If

any state or city government wishes to know what is

the best typewriter ribbon

or lubricating oil to buy, its officers need only

write the Bureau to learn

the detailed results of tests that have been made

upon the product before its

acceptance or rejection for Government purchase

under specification. If the

article has not already been tested by the Bureau,

it is likely that the

needed analysis can be arranged for without charge.

Page 216.

It is clear from the foregoing that a real start

in the testing technique

has been made in American Government--federal, state

and municipal. There is

the beginning of solid ground Under our feet. It is

equally clear that an

.enormous amount remains to be done, both in the

direction of coördinating and

making available the results of present activities,

and in the development of

new activities. Uniform state laws and city

ordinances would seem to be

essential next steps. Another is the release to

taxpayers of the invaluable

information of the Bureau of Standards, and of the

other federal, state and

municipal bureaus. Page 217.

During 1926 sixty-two associates representing

various industries were

stationed at the Bureau of Standards. The Portland

Cement Association maintains

a corps of eight chemists and physicists at the

Bureau. The Natural Terra Cotta

Society has two, the National Dyers and Cleaners has

three, the Society of

Automotive Engineers four. Circular, No. 296,

describes in part the gigantic

association of the Bureau with big business. Such

intimate union as this justly

merits the condemnation which President Coolidge has

pronounced against

collaboration of government with business.

 

AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLABORATION OF REPRESENTATIVES

OF BIG BUSINESS WITH THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS

In a circular of the Bureau of Standards, No. 296,

which describes the

activities of the research associates of that Bureau,

on page 1 is given the

authority for such collaboration.

On April 12, 1892, Congress passed a joint

resolution for the promotion of

learning in the City of Washington, for the express

pupose of opening Government

scientific exhibits and collections to students of

higher education. The joint

resolution provided as follows:

" Whereas, large collections illustrative of the

various arts and sciences

and facilitating literary and scientific research

have been accumulated by the

action of Congress through a series of years at the

National Capital; and

" Whereas it was the original purpose of the

Government thereby to promote

research and the diffusion of knowledge, and is now

the settled policy and

present practice of those charged with the care of

these collections specially

to encourage students who devote their time to the

investigation and study of

any branch of knowledge by allowing to them all

proper use thereof; and

" Whereas it is represented that the enumeration

of these facilities and the

formal statement of this policy win encourage the

establishment and endowment

of institutions of learning at the seat of

Government, and promote the work of

education by attracting students to avail themselves

of the advantages

aforesaid under the direction of competent

instructors; Therefore,

" Resolved, That the facilities for research and

illustration in the

following and any other governmen al collections now

existing or hereafter to

be established in the city of Washington for the

promotion of knowledge shall

be accessible, under such rules and restrictions as

the officers in charge of

each collection may prescribe, subject to such

authority as is now or may

hereafter be permitted by law, to the scientific

investigators and to students

of any institation of higher education now

incorporated or hereafter to be

incorporated under the laws of Congress or of the

District of Columbia, to

wit: 1. Of the Library of Congress. 2. Of the

National Museum. 3. Of the

Patent Office. 4. Of the Bureau of Education. 5. Of

the Bureau of Ethnology.

6. Of the Army Medical Museum. 7. Of the Department

of Agriculture. 8. Of the

Fish Commission. 9. Of the Botanic Gardens. 10. Of

the Coast and Geodetic

Survey. 11. Of the Geological Survey. 12. Of the

Naval Observatory. (Approved,

April 12, 1892.) "

It will be observed that this joint resolution was

passed about ten years

before the Bureau of Standards was established. In

1901 another authority is

quoted. It is entitled:

 

GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE RESEARCH

AND ENCOURAGE STUDENTS

This is found in a Deficiency Appropriation Bill

which became a law on March

3, 1901. The provisions of this bill are as follows:

" That facilities for study and research in the

Government departments, the

Library of Congress, the National Museum, the

Zoological Park, the Bureau of

Ethnology, the Fish Commission, the Botanic Gardens,

and similar institutions

hereafter established shall be afforded to

scientific investigators and to

duly qualified individuals, students, and graduates

of institutions of

learning in the several States and Territories, as

well as in the District of

Columbia, under such rules and restrictions as the

heads of the departments

and bureaus mentioned may prescribe. "

This legislation also was enacted before the Bureau

of Standards was

established. It provided facilities for study and

research along the line of the

joint resolution above mentioned. There is no

indication of any collaboration

with big business of any kind but only with students

who were seeking

opportunity for education and research.

On Page, 20 of Circular No. 296 it is stated, under

the caption, 'Actions by

Congress " :

" The full text of the two actions by which

Congress opened the way for the

admission of qualified individuals to the use of the

research facilities of

the National Bureau of Standards is given below. "

It seems rather strange that this statement should

be made by reason of the

fact that there was no National Bureau of Standards in

existence at the time of

either of these Congressional authorizations. It is

plain that only students of

universities and higher institutions of learning were

included in this

authorization.

That it should be the basis of linking up

Government activities with

corporations who desire research for their own

individual benefits or that such

activities as scientific associates could by any means

be included in either one

of these enactments is not even to be inferred. It is

a well known principle of

nearly every kind of business that research is

absolutely necessary to keep pace

with the progress of science. A business that does not

conduct research is

likely to go upon the rocks. Those corporations which

have the most extensive

research laboratories are those that are making the

most progress and securing

the best results from their activities. In most

instances these great

corporations conduct their own researches. In some

instances they appeal to such

institutions as the Mellon Institute of the University

of Pittsburgh, or to such

scientific institutions as the A. D. Little

Corporation of Cambridge, Mass. In

all cases where new processes are devised and new

products perfected, the

corporations protect themselves by letters patent. In

the Mellon Institute,

according to, the official report (1925) it is stated

that about 300 patents on

industrial procsses have been the result of their

investigations. When we turn

to the activities in the Bureau of Chemistry in which

new discoveries are

patented for common benefit, we find that 81 patents

have been taken out.

The number of investigators and importance of the

investigations at the

Bureau of Standards almost equals those of the Mellon

Institute of the

University of Pittsburgh.

" At the close of the Institute's fiscal year on

February 28, 1927, as shown

in the accompanying chart, fifty-eight industrial

fellowships were operating,

employing one hundred and two research chemists and

engineers. The sum of

$598,493 was paid during the year in support of

research in the Institute by

the fellowship donors--an increase of $70,942 over

the payments of the

preceding year. The total amount of money

appropriated by companies and

associations to the Institute, for the sixteen years

ended February 28, 1927,

was $4,318,397, all of which was disbursed in

sustaining fellowship research.

" The extent and variety of the Institute's

scientific investigations on

behalf of industry are shown in the appended list of

the industrial

fellowships in operation during the entire fiscal

year, February 28, 1926, to

February 28, 1927. There were sixty-seven

fellowships--twenty-two multiple

fellowships and forty-five individual

fellowships--on which 124. scientists

and engineers were occupied in research.

The Mellon Institute and the A. D. Little

Corporation of Cambridge, Mass.,

are doing the same kind of work. as that conducted by

the Bureau of standards

and are in direct competition therewith. This is

unfair competition.

Apparently all of the expenses of the Scientific

Associates in the Bureau of

Standards and in addition their postage are paid by

the tax-payers of the United

States.

No statement is made of the amounts paid by the

industries to the sixty-two

associates employed in the Bureau of Standards in

1926, nor of the number of

experts belonging to the Bureau or cooperating with

them. If the industries paid

the representatives $2,500 a year, their contribution

amounted to $155,050 per

annum.

SUMMARY

While I have called attention to only a very few of

the activities of the

Bureau of Standards, and chiefly those that belong by

all right and custom to

the Department of Agriculture, at least I have shown

the ground work of the

indictment against this Bureau. It has attempted to

repeal some of the most

important features of the Food and Drugs Act. It has

claimed as its own the

inventions of others. It has broken deeply into the

activities already started

by the Bureau of Chemistry and some of the other

Bureaus of the Department of

Agriculture, violating the fundamental principle of

ethical standards. The

Bureau of Standards should violate no standards. It

has undertaken collaboration

with great industries in such a way that the extent of

its activities have not

been disclosed, nor do we know, from any reports that

have come to my notice,

just how great a contribution is made by these

industries in the way of paying

the salaries of the scientific associates. In this

respect it is in competition

with the Mellon Institute and other organizations of a

similar character

specifically intended to conduct this research work in

an open and proper

manner. The Mellon Institute has given information of

the amount contributed by

those industries. I have not been able to discover any

such information in the

reports of the Bureau of Standards.

No kind of investigation seems to be foreign to the

Bureau of Standards. It

has departed so widely from its fundamental conception

as to be no longer

recognized chiefly for the purpose for which it was

specifically designed,

namely, the determination and preservation of all

standards of measures of all

deseriptions for all legal and technical purposes.

Either the original act

establishing the department of Agriculture should be

repealed, or any further

incursions of the Bureau of Standards into the domain

of Agriculture " in the

most general and comprehensive sense of that word, "

should cease.