The History of a Crime Against the Food Law

Chapter 1: The fight for the food and drugs law

It would be impossible and perhaps unnecessary to survey the whole field of effort which led to the enactment of the Food and Drugs Law. It will be sufficient to take the last of the hearings as typical of all those that had gone before. If the Latin motto is true, ex pede, Herculem, we can judge the whole of this opposition by its last expiring effort, just as we can recreate Hercules if we have a. part of his big toe.

The final hearings were before the committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, beginning on Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1906. This was just before the time the bill was completed in the Senate and after an agreement had been made to vote on it the 21st of February. These hearings are printed in a volume containing 408 pages. Pages 1 to 40 are taken up with testimony that benzoate of soda is a perfectly harmless substance. These witnesses were made up of both manufacturers and experts. The experts were Dr. Edward Kremers, of the University of Wisconsin, Professor Frank S. Kedzie of the Agricultural College of Michigan, and Dr. Victor C. Vaughan, Dean of the College of Medicine of the University of Michigan. The manufacturers who testified in this case unanimously said that the business of keeping food could not be carried on without the use of some preservative and that eminent scientific men had declared that benzoate of soda, borax, etc., in the proportions used were entirely harmless. Ex-Senator William S. Mason was also before the committee in the interest of a bill prepared by Mr. Meyers, editor of the American Food Journal, ostensibly offered by food manufacturers. This was a publication devoted to the propaganda of rectified whisky.

Excerpts from final hearings

Although food bills of various kinds had been continually before Congress for a quarter of a century, the character of the opposition thereto had not changed. The excerpts here given are typical of the whole struggle.

Inasmuch as this closing testimony was the final effort to block the passage of the food law, it is summarized at some length. Testimony of Walter H. Williams, President of the Walter H. Williams Company, of Detroit, Michigan. (Page 19 of the hearings.)

In the most palatable foods that we can find there are traces of benzoic acid, and it seems to me if the Almighty put it there, the manufacturer ought to be allowed to use it, if he don’t use it in the same quantities as put in the fruit by nature. * * *

We went to three men, each of them connected with one of the largest universities in the United States, men who stand at the very top of their class in the chemical and physiological world.

MR. TOWNSEND: Who were they?

MR. WILLIAMS: Dr. Victor Vaughan, who is dean of medicine and physiology at the University of Michigan, a man whom I do not believe any one can speak too highly of, a man right at the top of his profession. Another gentleman, Dr. Kremers, dean of chemistry of the University of Wisconsin. Another man who has given the subject the very closest attention is Dr. Frank Kedzie of the Michigan Agricultural College. * * *

MR. TOWNSEND: Do you know of any manufacturer of these goods who does not use some form of preservative?

MR. WILLIAMS: I do not.

MR. TOWNSEND: As a manufacturer, do you know of any way to manufacture these goods and keep them as they have to be kept for sale, without a preservative?

MR. WILLIAMS: I do not.

MR. BURKE: Have you had any trouble in any of the states by reason of the state laws interfering with your using this preservative?

MR. WILLIAMS: Our firm has not. We have been told that as soon as this committee gets through with the hearings on this subject there is going to be trouble in Pennsylvania. That is all we know about it.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: We understand that the use of benzoic acid will be condemned, and we also know that as soon as this bill becomes a law, if it ever becomes a law, it will be condemned by the Bureau of Chemistry. * * * Now, the only point is — and all I wish to bring out now — that I don’t think this committee ought to recommend any legislation that will give one man the absolute power to say what the manufacturers of this country shall do and what they shall not do. There is a difference of opinion as to what is injurious and what is not injurious. We can show that the best scientific thought in this country will differ with the present Bureau of Chemistry. Now, gentlemen, do not understand for a moment that I am attacking Dr. Wiley or the Bureau of Chemistry or the Department of Agriculture. I am simply pointing out, or trying to point out, the principle of this bill. The principle is wrong. It is not fair; and I think before you allow anyone to condemn any preservative about which there is a question that you ought to investigate the subject fully by a committee of scientists — the best that we can find-appointed by the President or by Congress.

In this connection it is interesting to know that the bill subsequently passed by the House of Representatives contained, a clause, with my full approval, and written by myself, in which such a committee was recognized. Its composition was one eminent chemist, one eminent physiologist, one eminent pharmacist, one eminent bacteriologist, and one eminent pharmacologist. In view of the attitude which the Secretary of Agriculture held toward me at that time I was very certain that he would consult me in regard to the personnel of this committee which was to be appointed by him, and that not only eminent, but fair-minded members would be appointed on this committee. When the bill went to conference with the Senate bill the conferees on the part of the Senate would not consent to encumbering the bill with an additional authority paramount to that of the Bureau of Chemistry. The Senate conferees contended that the whole matter of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness of ingredients in foods would go before the Federal Courts for final determination. The House conferees yielded on this point and the food bill was passed without the nucleus of the Remsen Board. This view of Mr. Williams was shared by practically all the objecting witnesses, both scientific and legal, as well as all of those interested in commercial matters throughout the whole course of the discussion of the various food bills before the committees of Congress. It was also voiced on the floors of both the Senate and the House. In spite of all this publicity and opposition the Congress. of the United States conferred upon the Bureau of Chemistry the sole function of acting as a grand jury in bringing indictments against offenders or supposed offenders of the law. The Congress specifically provided that all these indictments should have a fair, free and open trial before the Federal Courts for the purpose of confirming or denying the acts of, the Bureau of Chemistry.

Testimony of Professor Kremers

Professor Kremers at the close of his testimony before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee disclosed the fact that Mr. Williams was the party who secured the participation of Professors Kremers, Kedzie and Vaughan in this hearing. I quote from page 39:

MR. KREMERS: I would like to state just what I have been invited to do. I have been asked as a plant chemist, for that is my specialty in chemistry, to find out what could be learned about the occurrence of benzoic acid in the vegetable kingdom, and also to find out what the best literature, the physiological and therapeutic literature on the subject, has to say with regard to the administration of benzoic acid to the human system and with regard to the course that it took in the human system. That is the extent of my knowledge on this particular subject. I have not gone outside of that.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there an employment in connection with this matter by you I?

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

THE CHAIRMAN: By whom?

MR. KREMERS: By Mr. Grosvenor.

THE CHAIRMAN: What Mr. Grosvenor?

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

THE CHAIRMAN: Was there a compensation fixed?

MR. KREMERS Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to stating it?

MR. KREMERS: No.

Mr. Kremers in detail stated in the testimony the amount he was to receive for the work and the amount he was to receive in reporting the results of his work to the committee. In his testimony, which I was asked to summarize by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Mr. Kremers gave the results of his many investigations into natural food products in which he found traces of benzoic acid and related bodies. I quote from his testimony, page 33:

MR. KREMERS: Gentlemen, I don’t want to take up more of your valuable time unless you desire to ask some questions of me, for I fear I may not have made myself perfectly clear. I will admit that I am accustomed to talking technically on technical subjects, and that I am not an expert in the popularization of scientific subjects. I trust you will pardon my shortcomings in this respect. But briefly let me summarize the facts I have tried to make clear to you. Benzoic acid is found in the vegetable kingdom; it is fairly widely distributed in the vegetable kingdom. We find it among others in the products of the vegetable kingdom which we use for food purposes. We find it even more widely in food products which are used by herbivorous animals. In addition to benzoic acid, we find closely related compounds, namely, benzaldehyde, commonly known as bitter-almond oil, cinnamic aldehyde and quinic acid.

I have tried to make plain the fact that benzoic acid is formed in the human system and that the amount of hippuric acid eliminated from the system is increased whether we administer benzoic acid as such or whether we add it through certain food products; in other words, that benzoic acid is a natural product of the human economy.

Finally, I have tried to make clear to you, gentlemen, that whether it seems desirable to you or not to prohibit the use of benzoic acid from any artificial source rather than the natural source, and there is no bitter-almond oil which, after it is a day old, but that contains some benzoic acid, — that benzoic acid directly or indirectly will be administered to the system through the bitter-almond flavor, as I have explained.

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

MR. KREMERS: I am not.

MR. TOWNSEND: Are you able to answer as to whether benzoic acid has an injurious effect upon the body?

MR. KREMERS: I told you that I am not a physiologist, but I have prepared myself for a question of that sort, because it occurred to me that it would be a natural question for you to ask. I have here, in order that I might not be compelled to rely entirely upon my memory, a copy of the National Dispensatory, one of the standard commentaries on the United States Pharmacopoeia, a statement concerning the physiological action of benzoic acid. This statement is written by Professor Hare, one of the most prominent writers in this country on therapeutic subjects (reads):

Ordinary doses cause a sense of warmth over the entire body, which feeling increases with the amount ingested, large quantities causing severe burning pain, etc. The drug increases the acidity of the urine as it is eliminated by the kidneys as hippuric acid.

Now, lest the statement might be misunderstood, let us read the last paragraph; but it will be apparent to you that Mr. Hare does not speak of benzoic acid here in quantities such as have been under consideration before you, but in totally different amounts.

It may be given with benefit in certain diseases due to alkalinity. Benzoic acid is given in the dose of from ten to thirty grains.

Those amounts may be administered by a medical man, and they are very much larger than any amount that is necessary to bring about the preservative action.

MR. TOWNSEND: Does any antiseptic that is taken into the system interfere with digestion?

MR. KREMERS: I dare say it does.

MR. TOWNSEND: In that respect it is injurious?

MR. KREMERS: Not necessarily.

I thought it would be better for me to quote the summary that Mr. Kremers himself made of his testimony rather than to attempt any condensation of it myself. I may add here for the further information of the reader of this story that Dr. W. D. Bigelow, my first assistant in the Bureau of Chemistry, repeated many of the investigations reported by Mr. Kremers, as to the wide distribution of benzoic acid in food products, and failed to confirm them.

Professor Kedzie’s testimony

Dr. Kedzie testified that he is the son of Professor Kedzie, the distinguished chemist of the Michigan Agricultural College. He was associated with his father as professor of chemistry at that institution, that he undertook these investigations under the same auspices and practically for the same remuneration as was given to Professor Kremers and Professor Vaughan. I quote from page 58:

MR. KEDZIE: I took up this matter of finding where benzoic acid was distributed among materials which I could purchase in the market. I will read these articles in about the order in which I found the greatest quantity of benzoic acid: cranberries, huckleberries, plums, grapes (the Malaga grape), grapefruit, oranges, pineapples, carrots, parsnips, cauliflower, rhubarb, and green peppers. The amount of benzoic acid which I found present in cranberries, taking the dry material, we find the dried substance of the cranberry contains about, on the average, 1/2 of 1% of benzoic acid, but when we calculate it as to the wet substance, it then falls to 5/100 of 1% on account of the water present, or, to put it differently, it is one part in two thousand. * * * In analyzing the sample of catsup in the Michigan market I have found that the amount of benzoic acid varies from one part in twelve hundred to one part in two thousand. These are the first class goods, such as Heinz sells in Michigan, and also sold by Curtice Brothers.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you find any benzoic acid in catsup made by Heinz?

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

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

MR. KEDZIE: The Michigan law requires that it shall be labeled with the preservative used.

MR. MANN: Was it so labeled?

MR. KEDZIE: I believe that it was, but I am not absolutely certain. Living at the capital, I would expect that the law would be complied with. The commissioner’s office is right where I live.

MR. MANN: I have been told that it never had been done, and wondered whether it had or not.

MR. KEDZIE: I am sorry that I can not be absolutely certain in regard to that.

MR. WAGNER: How recently have you examined Heinz’s goods?

MR. KEDZIE: I collected a sample about three weeks ago, and I inquired particularly in getting the bottle, whether it had been long in stock, and was told that it had just been received about two or three days before.

MR. MANN: Have you a memorandum showing the percentage of benzoic acid in these other fruits?

MR. KEDZIE: I made a thorough test of each one and I am prepared to say that in the grapefruit and the pineapple the amount of benzoic acid present there will not probably be far from 1/100 to 2/100 of 1 per cent in the fresh fruit.

MR. MANN: Did you ascertain in each of these fruits just how much benzoic acid was there?

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

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hepburn): What would be the effect of a large dose of benzoic acid upon the human stomach?

MR. KEDZIE: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I am not a physiological chemist. My work is analytical and what I know about that question is not much. I never took a large dose of benzoic acid-that is, a large dose, of course, would be 60 or 100 grains or more. I never took it and know nothing about it. I am not a doctor of medicine.

THE CHAIRMAN: From your knowledge of the properties and qualities of the acid, what would be the probable effect of benzoic acid upon the human stomach?

MR. KEDZIE: I should expect that if it were taken in very large doses up to 100 grains that it would have an inflammatory action on the stomach.

THE CHAIRMAN: It would be an irritant?

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

THE CHAIRMAN: You regard it when used as a preservative, in the proportions that were spoken of by Mr. Williams yesterday, as entirely harmless, do you?

MR. KEDZIE: That is my opinion; yes.

Perhaps the wisest comment I can make upon the testimony of these experts is that they were honestly of the opinion that because some of these preservatives were found in natural food products it was perfectly proper to imitate nature and increase these amounts. The weakness of this argument is so apparent that only a few of the causes of the fallacy need be mentioned. Hydrocyanic acid, perhaps one of the most poisonous organic acids known, exists in minute traces in the fruit of peaches and plums, associated often with benzaldehyde, a flavoring agent. It exists in some varieties of cassava in such proportions that fatal effects have resulted from eating the cassava starch. Salicylic acid is present in a flavoring product known as oil of wintergreen and may exist, in traces, also in other food products. Passing from the ranks of organic poisons, arsenic is a widely distributed poisonous material which is often found in our foods, due to absorption from the soil. The presence of these bodies, instead of being a warrant for using more of them, points to the necessity of reducing their quantity to the minimal amount possible.

Another point in this connection is worthy of mention. These experts were paid for the work they did and for the expense of laying it before the committee. I mention this without even a suspicion of criticism. I think payment of this kind is perfectly ethical and proper. On the other hand, during the twenty-five years in which food bills of various kinds were discussed before committees of Congress, not a single expert appeared before these committees urging the enactment of the good sort thereof who received any compensation whatever for his services. Probably officials of the various states who appeared frequently before committees of Congress to urge the passage of these bills had their expenses paid by their respective states, but received no other compensation. In the twenty-five years of active opposition to the use of preservatives it never occurred to me to think of any compensation save that of my regular salary.

Summary of the Testimony of Victor C. Vaughan

MR. VAUGHAN: I am thoroughly desirous that something should be done to regulate the use of preservatives in foods.

MR. BURKE: Where would you draw the line? Where would you fix the point beyond which it would be dangerous to go in the use of benzoic acid, as to quantity?

MR. VAUGHAN: That brings up a very interesting point. * * * It seems to me that that ought to be settled by a commission of experts, as to what preservatives could be used and in what amounts they could be used, and in what foods they might be used.

MR. STEVENS: In other words, you want a board or bureau of standards?

MR. VAUGHAN: I think so.

MR. BURKE: Have you not an opinion of your own in regard to the matter?

MR. VAUGHAN: Yes; I have an opinion of my own, but that opinion might be changed by further study of the subject. I am sure that benzoic, acid in the quantities in which it is used in tomato catsup, sweet pickles, etc., does not do any harm. I should be opposed to the use of formaldehyde in milk in any quantity, or the use of any other preservatives in milk. I have testified repeatedly against the use of sulphite of soda on Hamburger steak. I am thoroughly in sympathy with the Hepburn bill. It does seem to me, however, that it is the part of wisdom not to say that preservatives shall not be used at all, but to find out what foods need preservatives, and in what quantities they might be used with safety.

MR. BURKE: Is not formaldehyde used very generally now in preserving cream and milk?

MR. VAUGHAN: I do not think it is used generally. It is used to some extent.

MR. BURKE: Where cream is gathered up and shipped some distance to a creamery they use some preservatives, and usually formaldehyde, do they not?

MR. VAUGHAN: I do not know. I have not found much formaldehyde in cream. Borax is used some, and one-half of one per cent of boric acid is used. Formaldehyde is used to some extent.

MR. MANN: Do you understand that the Hepburn bill absolutely forbids the use of preservatives?

MR. VAUGHAN: No, Sir; but I find that it puts into the hands of one man, or of one Department, at least, the question of deciding as to the harmfulness of preservatives.

MR, MANN: You say in the hands of one man or of one Department. Eventually it must be put into the hands of somebody to decide the question, in your opinion, I take it?

MR. VAUGHAN: Certainly, certainly.

MR. TOWNSEND: Right there I want to ask you this question; as I understand, some experiments have been made with benzoic acid to determine whether it is harmful or not, by giving doses of pure benzoic acid to patients. What have you to say in regard to that method of determining the safety of benzoic acid — whether it is harmful or otherwise?

MR. VAUGHAN: The experiments upon benzoic acid, I understand, have been finished by Dr. Wiley, but there is no report on them up to the present time. Dr. Wiley has made a report on boric acid as to preservatives, and while I am a personal friend of Dr. Wiley’s, appreciate him very highly and think greatly of him, his experiments have shown that boric acid in large amounts disturbs digestion and interrupts good health, but they have not shown that boric acid in the small quantities which would be used as a preservative, if used at all, has any effect on the animal body.

MR. ADAMS: About what do you mean by small quantities?

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

Dr. Vaughan then engaged in a somewhat animated discussion with members of the committee in regard to what kind of board should be provided for in the law to decide all these questions. At the end of this discussion the following questions were asked:

MR. BURKE: When benzoic acid is taken in excessive quantities what is the effect?

MR. VAUGHAN: In large quantities it irritates the stomach. In very large quantities it causes acute inflammation of the mucous membranes of the stomach, nausea, and vomiting.

The maximum medical dose of benzoic acid is about ten grams, or one hundred fifty grains, and larger amounts are likely to cause inflammation of the stomach.

MR. MANN: How much benzoic acid could one eat, day after day, year after year, without injury?

MR. VAUGHAN: I could not answer that.

MR. MANN: Have you any idea about it? How much can you eat wholesomely without injury?

MR. VAUGHAN: I should say certainly that the amount that is found in your own body, which is from one to ten grains a day.

MR. MANN: That is formed in addition to your own body. I asked how, much can you eat?

MR. VAUGHAN: I would have to answer only in a general way and say a grain or two, I am sure, taken day by day for one’s life, would not do any harm.

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

MR. VAUGHAN: One grain.

MR. MANN: Would two grains do any harm?

MR. VAUGHAN: Well, I do not know. I would not like to set up my dictum. I do not know enough about it.

MR. MANN: I appreciate your position, Doctor; but still, as far as you can, we would like to have your opinion.

MR. VAUGHAN: Well, I should say one grain would be perfectly safe. I do not know whether two grains would be or not.

It is not at all surprising that at the end of this examination by Mr. Mann, Dr. Vaughan had put himself in a most ticklish position. He was arguing for some amendment to the bill which would permit the use of benzoic acid in food products, but he, was under the impression that even one grain a day for every day would be safe, but by eating two grains a day for all one’s life it might not be safe. As two grains a day is a most minute quantity of benzoic acid, a quantity which would be exceeded if benzoic acid were used in foods in general, it is evident that such a course of reasoning could have little effect upon a deliberative body.

Testimony of Dr. Eccles

The most spectacular of the witnesses who appeared against the bill was Dr. Eccles of Brooklyn. Dr. Eccles describes himself as a physician residing in Brooklyn and he appears at the invitation of the National Food Manufacturers’ Association. There was evidently a period approaching when some kind of food law would be enacted. To protect the manufacturers a bill was introduced by Mr. Rodenberg, of Illinois. Mr. Lannen, a lawyer in the interest of this measure, who had been actively opposed to the pending bill, was also present at the hearing. Dr. Eccles stressed the fact that instead of trying to prevent the addition of preservatives to foods their use ought to be encouraged. Quoting (from page 131):

MR. RICHARDSON: Is vinegar deleterious?

DR. ECCLES: No, Sir; I do not think anything is. I would compel them to use substances less deleterious than vinegar. I would not let them go below vinegar. I would allow them to use substances the dose of which is smaller than a dose of acetic acid or vinegar. Substances of larger doses than vinegar I would allow them to put in a certain fraction of the dose, and I would make the fraction the same for every substance, with no exception. I would have those gentlemen fixing the Pharmacopoeia say that no substance could be used that is stronger than the acid of vinegar under any circumstances. * * * In other places, where the preservatives have been stopped, the death rate has risen. Two notable illustrations have occurred lately — exceedingly notable. In North Dakota, the state of pure food — Senator McCumber’s state — they tried the experiment. In Germany, particularly in Berlin, in the same year they tried the experiment. These two places were put up as tests. I predicted that the death rate in both those places would rise fifty per cent in that year. Now, what are the official figures? The official figures given by the Board of Health of the State of North Dakota and the :figures of the German Government in their own publications show that they transcended my prediction; that the deaths were nearly three times as many as they were during the same period the year before.

THE CHAIRMAN: From what cause?

DR. ECCLES: I predicted it would occur if they stopped the use of preservatives, and it did occur just as I predicted from the stopping of the use of preservatives. In no other place in the world did the death rate rise as in Berlin, and in no other state in the United States did it rise as it did in North Dakota.

THE CHAIRMAN: The use of what preservatives was stopped?

DR. ECCLES: All.

Other Witnesses

Mr. Lannen followed Dr. Eccles with a long tirade against the pending measure and in favor of substituting the Rodenberg bill therefor. Warwick M. Hough, attorney for the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers Association of America, endeavored to have the pending measure changed so that deleterious substances in compounded and blended whiskies should have the same protection that similar substances had in straight whisky. Mr. Hough had appeared many times before the committees endeavoring to secure immunity for the artificially compounded whiskies. He evidently saw clearly what would happen to artificial whisky if the pending measure should become a law. His foresight was prophetic. After the law became effective and the definitions of the Bureau of Chemistry for whisky went into effect, Mr. Hough carried the case to several United States Courts. In all about eight different suits were instituted, the purpose of which was to declare the standards of whisky established, by the Bureau of Chemistry illegal. In every single instance Mr. Hough’s clients were defeated.

Favoring Witnesses

Appearing in behalf of the pending measure Mr. Edward W. Taylor, of Frankfort, Kentucky, reviewed Mr. Hough’s arguments and showed to the committee their fallacy. On page 173 he says:

MR. TAYLOR: This investigation in 1893 of the whisky trust showed that the people of the United States were being imposed on to such an extent that this committee recommended to Congress that it incorporate into law a suggestion made by the deputy commissioner of Internal Revenue, Mr. Wilson, which was the origin of what is known as the Bottling in Bond act — a national law which enjoys so much disparagement that it is a pleasure to me to have the opportunity to explain it. The reason it has such disparagement is because the other 95 per cent of the so-called whisky on the American market today is the spurious article and can not get the guarantee stamp which is put over bottled in bond whisky. * * * And I have here the report of the Ways and Means committee in the House, in recommending the bill for passage — approving the bill. Here is the official report. It is all very well for Mr. Hough or myself to come up here and express an opinion as to the intention of the law, but I think it is to the advantage of this committee if we can produce some official expression as to the purpose of the law, and take the matter out of contention. * * *

The obvious purpose of the measure is to allow the bottling of spirits under such circumstances and supervision as will give assurances to all purchasers of the purity, of the article purchased, and the machinery devised for accomplishing this makes it apparent that this object will certainly be accomplished.

Statement of Robert M. Allen, of Lexington, Ky.

Mr. Allen was the militant administrator of the food laws of Kentucky. As a state official he realized most keenly the need of a national law. He had heard the arguments against adopting this measure most patiently. The impression he gained from listening to this testimony is thus illustrated by his own words (page 20-5).

I want to say in this connection right here that there are two sides to this food proposition. There is the side which agitates and clouds the issue, brings up this point and that point, which, perhaps, does not materially affect the question; but when you come specifically down to these questions: Should glucose be sold as glucose or as honey or maple syrup? Should any synthetic product be sold under the name and trade terms of the genuine product which it is designed to imitate? Should a preservative be allowed use without any control or restriction? — when you come down to those propositions I think that not only the food commissioners, but the majority of the reputable manufacturers are agreed. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that I can take a committee from food manufacturers which would meet good men like yourself and others in Congress who are interested on this subject and cut aside from all of these issues that have been clouding and confusing the main central idea, and I believe that you could all agree upon a bill which would be fair and equitable to all and which would accomplish the purposes for which we are working along the lines of national pure-food legislation. In our Kentucky work we are not only the food commissioners of the people, the consumers, but we are also the food commissioners of every reputable manufacturer, and he has a hearing, a frank man-to-man hearing, whenever he wants to come in and discuss the subject.

At that time the chairman of the committee, the Hon. W. P. Hepburn of Iowa, gave notice that the hearings in favor of and against a food law preventing adulterations of the kind described were closed. Thus those who had for twenty-five years favored all kinds of adulterations and misbranding were finally shut out of any further participation in forming a food and drug act.

Closing Address of Dr. Wiley

The Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry had been informed by Mr. Hepburn and his lieutenant, the Hon. James R. Mann, that he should have the final summary of the evidence both for and against preservatives in foods. Accordingly he was given ample time to summarize the principal arguments for and against preservatives as affecting the public health. His testimony begins on page 237 and extends to the end of the report on page 408.

DR. WILEY: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: At the request of your chairman and in harmony with the terms of the resolution passed by your honorable body, and with the consent of the Secretary of Agriculture, I appear before you for the purpose of summing up the expert testimony which has been offered in the hearings held before your committee during the past fortnight on the pending measure concerning the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce in foods. Numerous expert witnesses have appeared before your body, mostly in opposition to the pending measure, and a few witnesses have appeared in favor thereof. I appear before you not as the advocate of any particular measure, but as an advocate of legislation of some kind controlling interstate and foreign commerce in adulterated and misbranded foods and drugs. I shall support with what influence I may possess any bill which your honorable body in its wisdom may report, although it might not, and probably would not, meet with my entire approbation. I do not believe it is possible to draw any measure of this kind which would receive the unqualified support of all parties. It becomes necessary, therefore, in measures of this kind to keep in view the principle of the legislation and to regard as of minor importance the various details which may be devised to obtain the end in view.

In the discussion of some of the principal points which have been presented, I wish to be understood as according to each witness the same sincerity, the same desire to present the facts, and the same freedom from bias in interpreting them that I shall hope may be attributed to me. The cause of truth is never hurt by unjust attacks and its citadel never reached by the devious ways of unworthy foes, but it is sometimes weakened by the unguided enthusiasms of its defenders.

I therefore accord honesty of purpose and sincerity of effort to those whose contentions I feel impelled to resist. I desire to point out wherein I think they have fallen into errors of statement followed by fallacious reasoning leading to wrong conclusions. I want to point out how they have misunderstood the efforts which have been made to ascertain certain facts relating to the effect of preservatives, coloring matters, and other substances added to foods on health and digestion; how they have misinterpreted the purpose and scope of the food standards which have been proclaimed by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with an. act of Congress, and have, as a result of these erroneous views, created what seems to them a demon of future dangers, but which is nothing more than a phantom of a perturbed imagination.

In doing this I shall speak frankly and freely, without any bias or rancor, without any feeling of resentment for the many denunciations and anathemas which have been published all over this broad land and in Europe during the past two years.

I hope you may not conclude from the necessary trend of my argument that I oppose all use of preservatives and coloring matters in foods. On the contrary, there are doubtless often conditions when the use of preservatives is indicated. In countries which are unable to produce their own foods, as for instance England, on journeys to distant or difficultly, accessible places, such as mines and logging camps and long journeys on the sea, and in other exigencies, preservatives may be indicated. I also think that the consumer who prefers them should not be denied that preference. My argument, therefore, applies to the usual conditions which obtain in this country and especially to the apparent fact that the great majority of our people seem to prefer their food untreated with noncondimental preservatives.

As it has appeared to me from listening to a part of the testimony and reading a part thereof, the character of the opposition to the pending measure may be described as follows:

1. Opposition to the cardinal principles of the bill.
2. Opposition to some of the prohibition principles of the bill.
3. Opposition to the method of enforcing the bill.
4. Opposition to the officials who may be called upon to enforce the bill.
5. Opposition of special interests engaged in certain industries which apparently may be affected to a greater or less extent by the provisions of the bill should it become a law.

I will begin by a statement of the grounds of the opposition of the first class of objections. This opposition has not been brought out by any of the witnesses who have been called upon to testify; but is based upon broad Constitutional grounds and is of a character to command profound respect and careful consideration. I refer to the views which are held by many distinguished and earnest men to the effect that the cardinal provisions of the bill are unconstitutional. This is a matter, therefore, which does not call for any further consideration on my part.

The second class of objections to the bill: The prohibition principles of the pending bill consist in the elimination of harmful and injurious ingredients which may be added to foods. I may say, and the statement is rather a broad one, that there is no opposition to such a prohibition, as no one has advocated, in so far as I have been able to find in the testimony, a permission to add harmful, deleterious, or poisonous substances to foods, except Dr. Eccles.

The objections have rather lain against the possible decisions as of the courts in such matters, and especially against the, method of collecting evidence for the prosecution. It is, of course, self evident that no prosecution could be brought, under these prohibition provisions unless some one should certify that any given added substance was harmful, deleterious or poisonous. The opposition, therefore, to this provision of the bill has voiced itself in an argument that the committee. should insert prohibitive provisions in the bill against this prohibition. Plainly stated, the contention has been made that the Congress of the United States should declare by act that certain substances in certain proportions are not harmful, deleterious, or poisonous substances.

The only expert testimony which has been submitted on this question, which is worthy of any consideration by your committee, is that which was offered by Professor Kremers, of the University of Wisconsin, Professor Kedzie, of the Agricultural College of Michigan, and Professor Vaughan, of the University of Michigan. The high character and attainments of these experts entitle their views to the most profound and respectful consideration.

The wide distribution of benzoic acid in vegetable products, as described by Professor Kremers, is well known to physiological and agricultural chemists. He says that in the destruction of certain proteins in the human economy benzoic acid is formed, which is then changed into hippuric acid. There is no evidence that I have been able to find to show that hippuric acid may not be formed from the benzol radical without its passing through the benzoic acid state. But this is of little importance, because even if benzoic acid should precede the formation of hippuric acid it could only exist in the most minute quantities and for a relatively very short period of time. Hippuric acid is one of the natural toxic or poisonous bodies produced in catabolic activity, which, like urea and other degradation products of proteins, must be at once eliminated from the system to avoid injury. Uremic poisoning at once supervenes on the suppression of the excretive activities of the kidneys, and unless this condition is removed death speedily results.

This brief summary of the opposition to the food and drugs act during the time it was before Congress accentuates the fact that it is essentially a health measure, as has been officially confirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

There had been little discussion during the whole twenty-five years of the subject of misbranding. This was such an apparent and unnecessary evil that it had few defenders. During all this time the chief discussion was the effect upon health of certain preservatives and coloring matters, and as to the selection of officials for carrying the law into effect. It was the unanimous opinion of all opponents of the law that the Bureau of Chemistry should have nothing to do with its enforcement. It was well understood that the attitude of the Bureau of Chemistry was distinctly hostile to the use of chemical preservatives of any kind in food and that all such manipulations threatening the health of the American consumer would be frowned upon. In spite of many attempts to prevent it, Congress deliberately and overwhelmingly decided to submit the execution of the law to the Bureau of Chemistry.

Sources of Information

In the future the student of history who may wish to review all that was said and done during the fight for the enactment of the pure food law will find all, the hearings in the libraries connected with the various committees in Congress in charge of these hearings. They are a thesaurus of interesting facts which the future historian ought not to overlook.

Further Excerpts From the Closing Summary

MR. BARTLETT: I would conclude, then, that you think benzoic acid as a preservative is not necessary.

DR. WILEY: I think you forecast my argument very well.

MR. ADAMSON: Before you became a chemist, you saw women make catsup and put it up hot in sealed bottles and keep it a long time, didn’t you?

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir.

MR. ADAMSON: Without putting anything in it?

DR. WILEY: Excepting the ordinary spices and condiments. I want to call the especial attention of this committee to this argument which I am presenting. I will state it again without reading from my manuscript, so as to make it perfectly distinct.

The human body is required to do a certain amount of normal work. That amount of normal work is a beneficial exercise of these organs. If you diminish the normal work of an organ you produce atrophy — lack of functional activity. If you increase it hypertrophy ensues, and increase of functional activity. Nearly all of the organs that wear out do so from one of those causes, not from normal exercise of their functions. Therefore, assuming that the food of man, as prepared by the Creator and modified by the cook, is the normal food of man, any change in the food which adds a burden to any of the organs, or any change which diminishes their normal functional activity, must be hurtful.

MR. ESCH: If the organs were always normal, death would not ensue?

DR. WILEY: I will not go so far as that, Mr. Esch. I do, refer to longevity, though, and I believe this with all my heart, that when man eats a normal food normally the length of human life will be greatly extended. That is what I believe. But if we consume abnormal food abnormally we shall lessen the length of human life.

MR. TOWNSEND: Who is going to define normal food; there is a great difference of opinion about that?

DR. WILEY: I will admit that.

MR. MANN: Doctor, do you think the action of eating cranberries with turkeys is detrimental to health in any way or to any degree?

DR. WILEY: I will answer that as categorically as I can. I do not believe that a healthy organism is going to receive any permanent injury or measurable injury by eating cranberries because they contain benzoic acid. And I want to add this, that it is not because they contain benzoic acid that they are wholesome, but that if they did not contain it they would be more wholesome than they are.

I want to accentuate this point: I noticed very many questions from many members of the committee which lead me to think that you have this feeling, that if a substance does not hurt you so that you can measure it it is not harmful. That does not follow at all. Take this one substance of benzoic acid. Benzoic acid never takes any part in the formation of tissue, and its. degradation product is hippuric acid, which is a most violent poison. If the kidneys should cease to act for twenty-four hours there is not a man on this committee who would not be at death’s door from the hippuric acid and the urea which would be in the blood. Hippuric acid is perhaps far more poisonous than urea; it is a deadly poison. Therefore nature gets rid of it directly it is formed, otherwise health would be destroyed.

Now, is there force in the argument, gentlemen, that in view of the fact that this degradation product comes from the natural foods which we eat — and I am not criticizing the Creator at all for putting them in the food — then benzoic acid, which occurs in natural foods and of which the degradation product is a violent poison if increased by an infimitesimal amount, and although we may not be able to note any injury coming from it, yet should we be advised to use it? There is a subtle injury which will tell in time. For instance, a mathematician desires to make a curve to express inflnitesimally small values which only the mathematician can consider, and to do that he has to have experimental evidence. He can not experiment at the small end of his curve; it is impossible. He experiments upon the part of the curve that he can measure, fixes the ordinates and the abscissas with the points that he can measure. Then he draws his curve, passing into the infnitesimally small values. And it is the same with the substances added to food. You must construct your curve on data which you can measure, and then you draw your curve down to the inflnitesimally small. That curve is a curve the moment it varies from zero, although you can not see it or measure it. If you add any substance to food — add, I say — which produces a poisonous degradation product, or adds one additional burden to the secretory organs, you have changed that infinitesimal small part of your curve that you can not measure, but the change is there all the same.

MR. MANN: Take the case of cranberries. Does benzoic acid in the cranberries to the extent that the benzoic acid exists injure cranberries as a food?

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

MR. MANN: But to the extent that it exists at all; or that the other values in cranberries as a food in the normal use of them overcome the injurious effects of benzoic acid. If that be the case, might not that be the case of other preservatives in other foods?

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

MR. MANN: But with artificial preservatives. Might not the case arise where, although the food is injured to the extent in which the preservative exists, yet it has preserved the food so that it is better food, the total product is better than the food would have been without the preservative. That is what we want to get at here.

DR. WILEY: I stated that particularly in my introduction. I said there were many places where preservatives were indicated. Wherever you can make food better, where it is impossible to have it without having a preservative, certainly the preservative is indicated.

MR. ADAMSON: I am curious to ask you, before you leave the subject of cranberries, about the effect of berries, in which I am locally interested. I can give up cranberries, but I can not give up blackberries and huckleberries. * * *

MR. BARTLETT: Did you see the account in yesterday’s Herald about the dinner that some chemist gave to a friend in New York, at which everything they ate was made out of acids and things of that kind?

MR. MANN: Synthetic products?

MR. BARTLETT: Yes.

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir; I saw the account, and I know the gentlemen very well. I don’t believe any of them would care to eat that kind of a dinner every day. It is like my very distinguished friend, Professor Chittenden, perhaps the most distinguished physiological chemist in this country, who proved conclusively to himself that man in his natural tastes ate too much protein. The average man instead of eating 17 grams of nitrogen in a day, as he does, ought not to eat more than 10 or 11. But almost every man taught to do that, I understand, has gone back to the old way, although apparently it was beneficial at the time.

MR. TOWNSEND: Professor Chittenden does not agree with you in regard to the use of preservatives.

DR. WILEY: I think not; I think he does not agree with me. I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, that experts never think the less of each other because they disagree; it is the natural condition of humanity.

MR. ADAMSON: You did not really run a boarding house on pills, paregoric, and other things, did you?

DR. WILEY: I ran a boarding house something of the kind you describe for four years, and I am running it to-day; and would be pleased to have you come down and take a meal with us.

MR. ADAMSON: I think I would prefer to have a colored woman do the cooking for me.

DR. WILEY: We have a colored cook. You will hear more about that boarding house later on.

MR. BARTLETT: I understood you to say you knew these gentlemen in New York who gave this dinner that we were speaking about a moment ago?

DR. WILEY: I know them very well.

MR. BARTLETT: They are reliable gentlemen?

DR. WILEY: Oh, yes; perfectly so. In fact, I have a very high opinion of the chemists of this country. Just as high when they differ from as when they agree with me.

MR. ADAMSON: While you have such a high opinion, yet you do not take their judgment in these instances?

DR. WILEY: Certainly not; I should not occupy such a position. I do not want anybody else to judge for me the results of my own work. I want to do that myself.

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

DR. WILEY: Not only disclaim it, but I never have put myself in any such position and never intend to.

Now I will go on with my statement.

Because nature produces an almost infinitesimal quantity of substances in foods which add to the quantity of these poisonous excreta appears to me to be no valid argument for their wholesomeness. Could even the small trace of substances in our foods which produces hippuric acid be eliminated, the excretory organs would be relieved of a useless burden and the quantity of work required by them be diminished. This would be conducive to better health and increased longevity. I fail to see the force of the argument that a deliberate increase of the work required by the adding of substances capable of producing poisonous degradation products is helpful and advisable. Granting, for the sake of the argument, the grounds of a trace of benzoic acid and its analyses in all the substances mentioned by Professor Kremers, we do not find that this is a warrant to add more of these bodies, but, on the contrary, a highly accentuated warning to avoid any additional burden. That benzoic acid is a useful medicine, no one who has ever studied medicine will deny, but I think almost every practicing physician will tell you that the exhibition of drugs having a medicinal value in case of health is highly prejudicial to the proper activity of these drugs when used in disease. The excretory organs of the body become deadened in their sensibilities by the continued bombardment to which they are subjected and do not respond at the proper time to the stimulus which a medicine is supposed to produce. Keeping the hand in cold water constantly would unfit it to be benefited by the addition of a cold application for remedial purposes.

I think that I need only call the attention of the committee to the wide distinction between a drug used for medicinal purposes and a food product to show them that all reasoning based on the value of drugs as medicines is totally inapplicable to their possibly beneficial effects in foods. I further think I shall be sustained almost unanimously by the medical profession of the United States when I say to this committee that the drug habit, which is so constantly and so unavoidably, I am sorry to say, formed in this country is one of the greatest sources of danger to the public health and of difficulty in the use of remedial agents that can well be imagined. Professor Kremers, on page 33, seeks to justify the statement he reads from Professor Hare respecting the properties of benzoic acid by saying that benzoic acid is useful in diseases of the urinary organs which produce alkalinity. I will show this committee later on that small doses of borax bring about this abnormal condition of the urine, and therefore it might be advisable in using borax, which has been pronounced harmless by some experts here, to be able to counteract one of its particularly certain effects by administering a remedy at the same time that you supply the cause of the disease. For this reason your committee might well say in the bill that whenever borax is used in foods benzoic acid should also be used as a corrective of its dangerous influences.

I am somewhat surprised also at the reference that Professor Kremers makes to salt, on page 34. Salt is not only a delightful condiment, but an absolute necessity to human life, and the fact that excessive doses of salt are injurious has no more to do with this argument than the fact that you can make yourself ill by eating too much meat. It seems to me astonishing in these days of rigid scientific investigation that such fallacious reasoning can be seriously indulged in for the sake of proving the harmlessness of a noncondimental substance. Yet this is the argument advanced by Professor Kremers on page 34 in respect of salt, wood smoke, and other useful, valuable, and necessary condimental bodies. The argument in regard to benzaldehyde in ice cream is on the same plane. The substance known as ice cream, as usually made, is an inferior food product at best, and how it could be improved by the addition of a substance which increases the quantity of poisonous principles in the excrements is a matter entirely beyond my comprehension. I am perfectly familiar with the argument that this small quantity would not produce any harm. It is doubtless true, Mr. Chairman, that a slight increase for one day or even oftener of these bodies in the food would produce practically no measurable effect upon a healthy individual for a long time, but that in the end it would produce no harmful effect is contrary to all the rules of physiology and logic.

The body wears out and death supervenes in natural order from two causes: First, from a failure of the absorptive activities of the metabolic processes, and, second, by an increased activity of the catabolic processes, producing increased amounts of poisonous and toxic matters in the system, while the excretory organs are less able to care for them. Thus the general vitality of the body is gradually reduced, and even old age, which is regarded as a natural death, is a result of these toxic activities carried through a period of time varying in extreme old age from eighty to one hundred years. This process is described by Professor Minot, of Harvard University, as the differentiation and degeneration of. the protoplasm. On the contrary, it is not difficult to show that .every condimental substance, by its necessary and generally stimulating effect upon the excretory organs which produce the enzymes of digestion, produces a positively helpful result, while its preservative properties are incidental merely thereto. Condiments are used not simply because they are preservatives, but because without them the digestive organs would not respond to the demands of nature, and therefore I ask your very careful consideration of the arguments based upon a comparison of noncondimental preservatives added to foods and the use of the condimental substances which are natural and necessary. I do not believe that your minds will be misled in the consideration of this important and radical distinction.

A careful review of other parts of the argument of Professor Kremers shows that he unwittingly admits the poisonous and deleterious properties of benzoic acid by calling attention, on page 35, to the fact that when doses of it are added to an kinds of stock, so called, preserved in large quantities, it is boiled out or disappears by sublimation during subsequent treatment. If benzoic acid is a. harmless substance, as suggested, why should so much importance be attached by its advocates to the fact that it is practically eliminated? Thus the advocates of benzoic acid at once, by their own words, show the insecurity of the platform on which they stand.

MR. TOWNSEND: Did you understand him to testify in that way as showing that that was the reason it was not harmful?

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

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

MR. ESCH: The use of it more particularly with reference to the preparation of the stock.

DR. WILEY: Yes; I have mentioned that in large quantities, in relation to the stock.

You are asked to insert in this bill a provision which will allow the use of one-fourth or one-fifth of 1 per cent of benzoic acid in food products, which is practically ten times that found, as stated by Professor Kremers, in the cranberry, which, of all known vegetable substances used as foods, contains the largest quantity. Fortunately, cranberries are not an article of daily diet. Do not, I beg of you, lose view of the fact that because a single dose of benzoic acid does not make you ill its daily consumption is wholly harmless. This is a non-sequitur of the most dangerous character.

Professor Kremers says that he has searched through all literature and has not found a statement that benzoic acid administered even in medicinal doses would produce harm. I would like to compare this with his own quotation of Professor Hare, in which it is said:

Ordinary doses cause a sense of warmth through the entire body, which feeling increases with the amount ingested, large quantities causing severe burning pain.

Asked by Mr. Richardson, Professor Kremers acknowledged that there might be many persons who would be injuriously affected by benzoic acid. Now, when anyone is accused of a crime it is no defense to prove that the crime was not committed against a hundred or a million individuals. It is sufficient to prove that it was committed against one. Professor Kremers acknowledges that benzoic acid may be harmful, therefore Professor Kremers has convicted benzoic acid as being a harmful substance; and, therefore, his argument that it should be used indiscriminately in foods, or, as asked when before this committee, be permitted to the extent of one-fourth of 1 per cent, being ten times the quantity produced in its most abundant natural substance, seems wholly illogical.

MR. TOWNSEND: That would be true of any article; that not only applies to a preservative, but it applies to all kinds of foods as well.

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

MR. BARTLETT: There are people who can not eat food ordinarily regarded as harmless. There are certain people who can not drink sweet milk; and I know people who can not eat eggs of any description, nor anything that has an egg in it. Now, do you think that everybody ought to be prevented from eating eggs or drinking milk if a half a dozen people in a thousand are injuriously affected by them?

DR. WILEY: Certainly not; nor would I prevent anybody from using benzoic acid who wanted to do it, but I certainly would help persons from using it who did not want to use it. I am not advocating the prohibition of the use of benzoic acid by anybody who wants to use it. I would be in favor of putting benzoic acid in a little salt-cellar, the same as is used for salt and pepper, and letting the people use it if they want to. I think benzoic acid would not hurt me, or be injurious to my system, if I used it one day —

MR. BARTLETT: You know some people have tried to eat a quail a day for thirty days, but they get sick.

MR. ADAMSON: Is there not a great difference between the occasional use of these poisons medicinally, in cases of emergency, and the use of them in any quantities in food?

DR. WILEY: I think that is a great point. I will come presently to the statement of Professor Vaughan, which covers that case beautifully in the testimony he gave here.

There are two points that I wanted to call to the attention of the committee. One is that we have examined a number of substances in which Dr. Kedzie testified that he has found benzoic acid, and we have found none.

MR. BARTLETT: What substances are those?

DR. WILEY: Dr. Kedzie testified that he had found benzoic acid in cranberries, huckleberries, plums, grapes, grapefruit, oranges, pineapples, carrots, pears, cauliflower, rhubarb, and green peppers.

We have obtained from the open market samples of the following fruits and vegetables, said by Professor Kedzie to contain benzoic, and tested them for benzoic acid:

Malaga grapes, grapefruit, oranges, pineapples (two varieties), carrots, parsnips, cauliflower, rhubarb, and green peppers. We were unable to obtain any indication of benzoic acid in any of these fruits with the exception of pineapples, where in one test of one variety there was a reaction which might have been caused by a trace of benzoic acid. On repeating the test on a fresh portion of the sample, however, the test could not be confirmed. The test obtained, however, even if caused by benzoic acid, was so slight that the substance could not have been present in greater quantity than one part per million, or one ten-thousandth of 1 per cent. It is certain from our analyses that benzoic acid is not present in this substance in the quantities stated by Doctor Kedzie, viz., from one one-hundredth to two one-hundredths of 1 per cent.

In 1904 1 obtained samples of huckleberries grown in three regions of the United States and did not succeed in obtaining the slightest indication of benzoic acid in any of them.

Professor Kedzie also dwells upon the fact that in the process of cooking a great deal of the benzoic; acid escapes. Inasmuch as he contends that it is harmless, the object of enforcing this view of the case is not apparent, although I do not doubt its accuracy.

Professor Kedzie found catsup made by Heinz, when sold in Michigan, to contain benzoic acid. Mr. Allen finds that when sold in Kentucky, it does not contain any benzoic acid. Professor Kedzie states that he has determined that the amount of benzoic acid in grapes is not far from one one-hundredth to one two-hundredths of 1 per cent. It requires, of course, very delicate manipulations to quantitatively determine these small quantities and very large quantities of samples must be taken. We feel certain that Professor Kedzie has utilized much more delicate methods than we have been able to develop in our own laboratory and I regret that he .did not disclose the methods employed to the committee.

Professor Kedzie testifies that the artificial product added to a food does not differ from the article naturally present in food. He testifies that it is present as pure benzoic acid in either case. This statement would mean that if you should take some butter and skim milk and beat them up together the product will be exactly. the same as that of the original full-cream milk. This is a remarkable doctrine in physiological chemistry, and upon this doctrine could be established the perfect wholesomeness of all synthetic foods. This will be strange doctrine to the makers of champagne. For instance, a still wine having practically the same composition as champagne, when artificially carbonated with the same quantity of carbonic acid which would be found in the natural champagne, is exactly the same substance as the article made naturally by fermentation in the bottle by the slow and tedious process employed. Every physician who prescribes champagne and every man who drinks it will without hesitation doubt this statement.

Professor Kedzie testifies that he is not a physiological chemist and not a doctor of medicine. On the same page, however, he testifies that between 60 and 100 grains, a large amount, a teaspoonful or a tablespoonful or something like that, would have an inflammatory action upon the stomach. When asked in regard to its specific effect in small doses, he said:

I eat cranberries right straight through the season. I like the cranberries, and I see no untoward effects whatever from their use. I never took benzoic acid except in that form and in the form of catsup.

He therefore testifies, as he says, from his own personal experience, and. at the same time says that he never took any except that which was natural to certain foods and introduced in catsup. Professor Kedzie has already testified that cranberries contain only five one-hundredths of 1 per cent of benzoic acid. The amount which he took daily he does not state, but it evidently must have been quite small in quantity, and, more than that, it was in the form in which the Author of Nature had placed it and not in an artificial or adulterated form. From this remarkable metabolic experiment Professor Kedzie says that he can testify from his own experience that benzoic acid is not harmful. I ask you, gentlemen, to consider in all seriousness expert testimony of that description and compare it with the elaborate trial and continued experimental work conducted in the Department of Agriculture on similar lines of inquiry which I have mentioned.

I quote Professor Kedzie’s experiments with boric acid and salicylic acid:

I investigated bulk oysters, for instance, and found the presence of boric acid in a small amount. We investigated shrimps, also, which I found at the market and brought to the laboratory. That is my way of teaching. I investigated the shrimps and found in the shrimp liquor, on evaporating it, that there was a considerable amount of boric acid. Then, I took a sample of pickles from my grocer — pickles that I eat myself — and tested them and found in the vinegar of the pickles sulphurous acid to prevent that little growth of mold that is so objectionable to the consumer.

MR. BURKE: To what extent did you find sulphurous acid in the vinegar that you have just spoken of?

MR. KEDZIE: I did not estimate the exact amount, but it was very small. It takes very little to inhibit the growth of a mold in the vinegar.

MR. ESCH: What determination did you reach in regard to cranberries?

DR. WILEY: His analysis and ours agreed almost exactly.

MR. TOWNSEND: Did you examine more than one specimen of the cranberries?

DR. WILEY: We examined a large number. That is only a question, however, of analytical detail. I only present that, not to throw any doubt on the fact of the wide distribution of benzoic acid, which no one denies.

I also want to call the attention of the committee to Doctor Kedzie’s expert testimony to the effect on his health, and ask you to compare the few samples of cranberries that he has eaten, and few samples of ketchups, with the careful determination which we have made. That is all. The rest is confirmatory of what Professor Kedzie says.

I say here that I am sorry that Professor Kedzie did not submit his methods of examination; and I would like to incorporate in the minutes the methods which we have used so he can review our work if he desires.

MR. EXCH: Do you know of any other analysts who have found benzoic acid in these fruits?

DR. WILEY: No; I do not. I have never seen any results excepting these of Professor Kedzie and Professor Kremers.

Dr. Vaughn’s Testimony

Now I come to the most important testimony, that of Dr. Vaughan, and I shall ask the indulgence of the committee to speak at some little length on that point.

DR. VAUGHAN’S thorough training and large experience and scientific methods of work have fitted him particularly well to speak on a subject of this kind. I quote, therefore, with pleasure from his testimony.

I want to say, and I should have said in the beginning, that I am very anxious that Congress should do something to regulate the use of preservatives in foods. I think that the use of preservatives in foods may be and often is overdone and that great harm may come from their excessive use. The law requires of a physician before he can prescribe benzoic acid or sulphurous acid or anything of that kind a certain degree of education and that he must pass a State examination.

I am willing to stand with Dr. Vaughan on this one proposition, which I indorse in every word. Of course he must agree with me that if a physician, who of all men knows the responsibility which rests upon him in connection with his profession, is not allowed to prescribe benzoic acid until he has studied four years or longer in a medical college, received a diploma, and passed an examination before a State board of examiners, then surely no manufacturer without any education of a medical character, without ever having passed any examination, without having a single faculty of knowledge respecting the use of drugs, should be allowed to put any benzoic acid or any other drug of any kind in his foods. I think I might omit any mention of the rest of Dr. Vaughan’s testimony with that simple statement of his, which covers the ground so absolutely and effectively.

MR. TOWNSEND: He was testifying, was he not, as an expert who had had experience with benzoic acid, and he stated, as an expert, as a physician, who was trained and experienced in administering this drug, that such an amount was not harmful. That is what he stated, is it not? He did not state that they should be allowed to use all that they saw fit; in fact, the trend of his whole examination was that this should be passed upon by a board of experts as to the amount that should be used. That was his conclusion.

DR. WILEY: That is true. I only call attention to the basic proposition. He says in the beginning — I do not think it is unfair to quote Dr. Vaughan’s words, word for word.

MR. BARTLETT: Oh, no, I did not say that; but people can take a Bible and prove by words and quotations from it that they are justified in believing that there is no God.

MR. KENNEDY: A doctor would not be permitted to prescribe anything as a doctor until he had been licensed, but I can prescribe if I do not charge for it. I can advise the use of meats and other things to be eaten, and so on, with profit and benefit, and I would not come within any prohibition of law, would I?

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

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

DR. WILEY: The manufacturer charges for his goods; he does not give them away; and the doctor receives pay for his prescription.

MR. ESCH: If a physician prescribed the amount which could be used without detriment, would it be dangerous to the manufacturer to use, that or a less amount?

DR. WILEY: I think so.

MR. ESCH: Provided you could be sure?

DR. WILEY: Yes; because the physician prescribes constantly very poisonous substances. A drug and a food are quite different things. The physician prescribes after his training and after an examination of the patient. The manufacturer asks legal permission to use the same drug that the physician does in his practice and to put it in the foods with certain restrictions, which, of course, would be proper if he is permitted at all. But I want to contrast the difference in the position of the trained man who uses a drug and the untrained man who uses a drug. I think it is perfectly fair, Mr. Chairman, to call the attention of the committee to that important distinction.

MR. MANN: There is no difference of opinion between you and Doctor Vaughan on that subject, as I understand his testimony; you both agreed.

DR. WILEY: We agreed in almost every particular. I indorse almost every word he said to this committee, absolutely.

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Vaughan’s statement, you will remember, was made after a manufacturer had testified that he put 6 ounces of benzoic acid in powder in a barrel of catsup and trusted to oscillations from the ordinary movement of that as freight to distribute it.

DR. WILEY: Yes, Sir.

MR. CUSHMAN: As I understand your position, then, you agree with Dr. Vaughan’s statement on technical points, but disagree with his conclusions?

DR. WILEY: Yes; I don’t think they are logical in those particular instances. I think all of his statements and his facts are without question so far as his examinations have gone.

MR. BARTLETT: Do you agree with him that each one of us, in eating our daily food, consumes from 1 to 10 grains of benzoic acid? That is one statement that he made.

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

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

DR. WILEY: I have never measured the amount of benzoic acid that may be formed by metabolic activity. We surely do not eat ten grains a day in ordinary foods, or even one. It is only in rare cases that you would eat one grain a day.

MR. TOWNSEND: Where does it come from if his conclusion is correct that it is in the system?

DR. WILEY: It is claimed by some physiologists that the benzol ring that I showed you yesterday — the product of destructive metabolism — that small quantities of the benzol radical might be formed in the system or unite with glycocol and form hippuric acid.

MR. TOWNSEND: And would be eliminated by the kidneys?

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

Will Congress pass a law permitting physicians to prescribe a quarter of 1 per cent benzoic acid, or 10 grains or 30 grains of salicylic acid, or any quantity of boric acid, or any quantity of strychnine or of arsenic in patent medicines, without medical education and medical training and without studying the character of the condition of the patient to which it is to be given? I really do not believe that any claim of that kind would meet with a single vote of this committee or on the floor of the American Congress. And yet Dr. Vaughan, after having laid down a principle of ethics, broad, comprehensive, and indestructible, immediately proceeds to claim for a manufacturer, without any technical knowledge of medicine, the right to do exactly the thing which he says no physician by law should be allowed to do. Dr. Vaughan was asked about the proper law in regard to the use of preservatives, and very promptly says:

That brings up a very interesting point. If you will permit me, I would like to say just a word about that. I do not know that I am prepared to answer the question just now. It seems to me that that ought to be settled by a commission of experts, as to what preservatives could be used and in what foods they might be used.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask, if Dr. Vaughan, with all his extensive experience, with all his work in pharmacology and physiology and chemistry, has not yet reached an opinion, where can you expect any commission or anybody else to be able to reach one? And, in view of that fact, can Dr. Vaughan or any other man logically come before your committee and ask to be allowed the use of a definite amount of certain medicines of the highest value, of which Dr. Vaughan himself says he does not know what quantity can be used, and which can not be used by a physician in any quantity without a license?

Then Dr. Vaughan goes immediately on and says, on the same page, that he has an opinion, that he is sure that benzoic acid in the quantities in which it is used in catsup, :sweet pickles, ete. — 1 part to 1,200 or 2,000 — does not do any harm. He immediately says: I should be opposed to the use of formaldehyde in milk in any quantity, or the use of any other preservatives in milk. Why, may I ask? If it is harmless in catsup, is it harmful in milk? If it is harmful in milk, is it not harmful in catsup?

DR. VAUGHAN also says: I have testified repeatedly against the use of sulphite of soda on hamburger steaks. I am thoroughly in sympathy with the Hepburn bill. I desire the particular attention of the committee to this part of the testimony. Dr. Vaughan has said that a physician should only prescribe benzoic acid after training and license. He then says that he himself, with all his vast experience, has not reached any conclusion in the matter. He next says that he believes that the quantity used in tomato catsup does no harm. Then he says he is opposed to its use in milk in any quantity. I should think a jury would be somewhat confused by expert testimony of this kind. I believe, with Dr. Vaughan, that a physician should not be allowed to prescribe benzoic acid until he has shown the necessary qualifications. I believe, with Dr. Vaughan, that no preservative of any kind should be used in milk. I agree With him, — that sulphite of soda, should not be used on hamburger steaks — three points on which we agree. I agree with Dr. Vaughan that I have not yet reached any conclusion as to the minimum quantities of benzoic acid which are harmless. Four points, logical, sequential, and on which perfect agreement is certain. Just what there is in tomato catsup which should except it from the logical sequence I beg some one to enlighten me.

It is impossible for me in any way to discover it. Dr. Vaughan states that nobody but a bacteriologist can decide how much of a preservative must be used to preserve a food, and therefore objects to the results of the experiments authorized by Congress. I beg to state to the committee that Congress never authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to determine how much preservative was necessary to preserve foods. All it did was to authorize him to study the effect of preservatives, coloring matters, and other substances added to foods upon health and digestion. In so far as I can see, bacteriology has nothing in the world to do with it. It is a question of physiological chemistry and pharmacology only, and it has been answered solely by the methods of those sciences.

I will explain in full these methods when I speak of the effect of borax. Dr. Vaughan states that the experiments with borax did not prove that it was injurious in small quantities, and when asked what he meant by small quantities he said, One-half of 1 per cent. I suppose he means by that, in the foods. That is all he can mean. I will show you gentlemen that the amount of boric acid which we used and which produced most disturbing effects upon the health was far less than one-half of 1 per cent of the weight of the food used. Dr. Vaughan’s statement in this respect is hardly the statement of an expert. It is his opinion of another expert’s findings, and he adduces no evidence on which to base his opinion.

I may say to you that the Secretary has never taken up the subject of determining what preservatives shall be used in foods and in what quantities, as he is authorized to do by act of Conaress. When he does, he will, under the authority of Congress, be able to call experts on these subjects who shall be able to help him to a just decision. All the Secretary of Agriculture has done so far is to determine the effect of preservatives, coloring matters, and added substances to foods upon health and digestion. These experiments have been conducted in the manner which I shall soon relate to you.

No board of experts could come in and help another expert decide what his own experiment taught him. That would be quite an impossible thing to do. Dr. Vaughan would resent five men going into his laboratory and telling him what the result of one of his own experiments was. He, being a man of judgment and tact and knowledge, alone can decide what his own experiments have taught him, and then when he submits the data on which his judgment is based the board of experts can come in and criticize the data and reach another conclusion. The data on borax, which was used in the experiments which I will soon describe, are here before you. Every fact in connection with that investigation is set forth, every analysis has its data, every event connected with the conduct of the experiment, which lasted nine months on twelve young men, is set forth in detail. Dr. Vaughan did not attack a single fact nor deny its accuracy in all this mass of material, and then, without doing this, says:

Dr. Wiley has made a report on boric acid as to preservatives, and while I am a personal friend of Dr. Wiley’s and appreciate him very highly and think greatly of him, his experiments have shown that boric acid in large amounts disturb digestion and interrupts good health, but they have not shown that boric acid in the small quantities which should be used as a preservative, if used at all, has any effect upon the animal body.

Now, Mr. Chairman,. I do not see how Dr. Vaughan, after reading my report, could make a statement like that. He certainly did not read it carefully. I therefore take this opportunity to lay before this committee at this opportune moment a synopsis of the results of the work which has been accomplished under authority of Congress in feeding borax and boric acid to. young men in splendid health and to place before you the proof of the deletrious effects which even small quantities — far less than one-half of 1 per cent-produce. I will supplement this also by a similar statement from the chemists and physiologists of the imperial board of health at Berlin, which fully confirms in every particular every conclusion reached by my own experiments, and candidly ask the consideration of this committee of these two reports.

Now, that shows how close our agreement is, as I have already stated to the committee, and I would like to repeat it here: That if benzoic acid is harmful in milk, and Dr. Vaughan admits it, in any proportion, there is no logical reason that I can see why it is not harmful in any other food. I admit the argument, however, that it may be placed there and produce a benefit. Then we could say that it was placed there to correct some other and a greater evil, and on that ground alone would I advocate the use of preservatives in food, and not that they are harmless. I do not see, gentlemen, how anybody can ever admit the use of preservatives in food on such testimony as Dr. Vaughan has given, and I will rest it right on his words, on the ground that it is harmless. But you could very justly, as I said yesterday, admit it on the ground that it is less of two evils. That is the point that I wanted to insist upon.

MR. TOWNSEND: Have you changed your mind on that subject in the last few years?

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir; very materially. I formerly believed that certain preservatives could be used, as Dr. Vaughan believes now, simply by having its presence mentioned on the label. I was strongly convinced of the truth of that proposition. I have, before committees in Congress and in public addresses, stated those sentiments. I was converted by my own investigations, Mr. Chairman, and by nobody else’s in this matter. My former opinion was based upon the weight of expert testimony. I read the opinions of men that I respected, and the weight of that opinion was in favor of the position which I have just stated. I inclined to that view. And I will state that Dr. Vaughan’s association with me was one of the things that led me largely to adopt that view.

Liebreich Joins Vaughan

When I went to my office yesterday one of the young men said: Have you seen this criticism on your work which has just come out in a German magazine in January? As I have been pretty busy in the last few weeks, I had not read the magazine. It is an adverse criticism of this report of mine on borax. I am having it translated and typewritten, and I am going to put it in the evidence so that you can read it. Professor Liebreich I know very well. He is a personal friend of mine, a very eminent gentleman, and it is fair to say that he is employed by the borax syndicate; but I don’t think that impugns his testimony at all, and I accept his criticism as if he had been employed by the German Government. One of those is the original report of the imperial board of health and the other the reply to a criticism made by this same Professor Liebreich. And to show how experts disagree, Professor Liebreich came to this country last year to testify in some cases in Pennsylvania on behalf of borax and sulphite of soda, which Professor Vaughan condemns — he would not allow it used in any quantity.

Professor Liebreich appeared before the court in Philadelphia in the case where the hamburger-steak people who had been treating hamburger steak with sulphite of soda were made defendants; and he testified that in his opinion almost any quantity of sulphite of soda could be used with impunity in meat; and the court asked him, Professor Liebreich, do you use it in your meats at your home? And he said: No; I do not. Would you use it if you wanted to? was asked; and he replied, I don’t want to, and his whole testimony fell just on that. I was told — I don’t know just how true it was — that he received $4,000 for coming over here. One of our young men, who was not nearly so famous as Professor Liebreich, went over to Philadelphia and testified before the same court, and on his testimony the judge and jury found against the testimony of Professor Liebreich, whose criticism of my report I will submit as soon as it is ready. That shows that Liebreich and Vaughan agree on borax. Vaughan and Wiley agree on sulphite, and I differ from both of them on the borax question, and they differ from each other on the sulphite.

That shows the conflict in opinions which you gentlemen are called upon to consider. It is something confusing, but of course you have to rely upon the character of the data after all. If you find that the data which I present are not reliable, have not been obtained in a proper way, my opinion is worth very little, and, as Professor Liebreich says, I will accept the data as they are, and then I will draw an opinion which is entirely different, just what I told you yesterday could be done.

MR. RYAN: Do you believe a Congressional committee, none of whom are chemists, are competent to judge between those opinions of eminent chemists who have formed those opinions after having analyzed the food?

DR. WILEY: I think they are absolutely competent, just as a jury would be upon the same thing in the weighing of evidence.

You see the evidence as the weigher of evidence, and not as experts. You see it as a jury. I think this committee is absolutely competent to decide a question of that kind on the evidence submitted here.

MR. BARTLETT: We have a good many bills before us, and there is where this question must come before the court and the jury.

DR. WILEY: That is true so far as the Hepburn bill is concerned somebody must render an opinion before you can bring an indictment, and then that opinion is subject to review of the court. That is the plain principle of the law, and surely you would never try to bind the court by any statements or anything else which any expert might set up.

MR. BARTLETT: You will find one court and a jury deciding that a certain thing ought to be put in, and another that it ought not.

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

MR. BARTLETT: In one locality a jury and a judge, with men on trial for not permitting a certain statement, might acquit one man and convict another.

DR. WILEY: Exactly, and you will find when I submit the evidence from the English courts that that very thing happens all the time. You must leave it to the court. Every man can have his opinion, but that must not bind the court; an expert’s opinion never can.

MR. ESCH: I noticed that Rost came to the conclusion that the use of borax or boracic acid resulted in almost every case in a reduction of weight. Did you find that true in your experiments?

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir; you will find that in this chart. We never found an exception.

MR. MANN: Before you pass from the subject of borax, I would like to have your statement in reference to the use of borax under the provision of the bill, which in the Hepburn bill was removed by maceration.

DR. WILEY: I heartily approve of that provision in regard to preservatives of food products intended for export. I have a little article that I am going to submit on that, Mr. Mann, in better form. There is a chart here (in Bulletin 84) showing by the position of the lines, the loss of weight which these young men suffered. I don’t think it is a very serious matter if a man loses a couple of pounds in weight.

MR. TOWNSEND: You found some of them were gaining weight, as I understood you, and you had to reduce their food.

DR. WILEY: Our foods were constant as long as they could eat. Until they became ill their food was never diminished throughout the preservative period.

MR. TOWNSEND: Didn’t you state that you had to watch them closely to see if they were gaining?

DR. WILEY: That was before we began to establish the equilibrium; that was in the fore period.

Now, I have a transcript there which I think will prove. very helpful to you gentlemen. You have heard a great deal about the finding of the English departmental committee. I want simply to quote the evidence of Professor W. D. Halliburton, who is the most distinguished physiologist of the English-speaking people. Professor Vaughan would be very glad to tell you the same thing. He came over here last year and gave a series of lectures. His work is a textbook on chemical physiology and pathology. I want to read you just one or two things, which you might not read, that I have extracted from his testimony.

The English committee forbade the use of preservatives in certain food products, and recommended that a limited quantity, which they mentioned, should be permitted in other food products. While that has never been made a law by act of Parliament, the courts are all guiding their decisions on the report of this committee. For instance, if they do not find any more than one-half of 1 per cent of borax, they do not convict a defendant. If they find less than 1 grain of salicylic acid to the pound, they do not convict a defendant. But they convict any defendant who puts preservatives in milk of any kind. The evidence of Professor W. D. Halliburton is as follows — that part which I wish to read — and it can be verified if anybody wishes to.

I would say at the outset that the kind of evidence that I have to offer is not very largely clinical. The amount of medical practice which I have seen is limited. Very soon after my student days, I took to physiological work, and I have remained at that more or less ever since, so that the actual observations that I have to make are in the nature of physiological experiments, and deal principally with the two chief substances that you have under investigation, as I understand — compounds of boron and formaldehyde. On general principles one would object to the continuous use of antiseptics. The substance which would destroy the life of micro-organisms could not be expected to be beneficial to the life of a higher organism; it would be largely a matter of dose. I mean to say the same dose that would kill a bacterium would not necessarily kill a man, but still it would be hostile to the protoplasmic actions that constitute the life even of a high animal like man.

Q. 7541 (p. 264). Then, as to boric acid, you have made extensive experiments? — A. With borax and borates I have made a fair number of experiments. In the introduction I allude to what is known as borism. The eruption occurs on the skin of certain individuals as the result of the use of either boric acid or borax. There have been other cases recorded — although here again I can not speak personally — in which dyspeptic troubles have arisen. There have been a fair number of experiments performed upon animals.

Q. 7544. Boric acid is the commoner preservative, is it not? — A. I am not so sure. I think very largely a mixture is used that is called glacialin — a mixture of boric acid and borax. In animals the chief advantage, if one may put it so, of the poison is that it is not cumulative; it does not accumulate in the body, but it is rapidly eliminated by the urine.

Now, I put it to the committee this way: Here is an opinion of a man whose fame is far greater even than that of Dr. Vaughan. I believe that every person acquainted with medical and physiological literature in the United States will say that Professor Halliburton is the greatest living exponent of physiological chemistry in English-speaking countries. Could there be a more sweeping indictment brought against these preservatives than Professor Halliburton has stated? He says of borax and boric acid that the chief advantage of these poisonous bodies is that they are rapidly eliminated from the system, and he further states that the continual passage of these foreign bodies through the cells of the kidneys, to put it mildly, as he does, is not likely to do them any good. And yet Professor Vaughan advises this committee to permit the use of boric acid in foods in quantities not to exceed one-half of 1 per cent.

Professor Halliburton says further, in answer to question 7572: May we take it, then, that in your view you are absolutely opposed to the use of formalin? — Yes.

Q. 7573. And with regard to the other preservatives, if they were labeled that would meet your objection; is that your position generally? — A. No; I feel that the ideal condition of things would be to prohibit them all.

Q. 7574. All preservatives? — A. All preservatives.

Q. 7575. Even salt? — A. No; I am not speaking of substances which are normal constituents of the body.

Q. 7576. Would you prohibit nitrate of potash, too?

A. One knows, even from smoking cigarettes, that nitrate of potash is not absolutely harmless.

So I say to our manufacturers: Take the American people into your confidence and your business will be placed upon a foundation from which it can not be shaken nor removed. I say, as a plain business proposition, that the men who put preservatives in foods had better stop it for their good and for the good of their business; and they will. And in five years from now (mark my words, Mr. Chairman), bill or no bill, we will not have to come here to argue about this matter, because there will be nothing to argue about — because this ethical principle, aside from any injury to health or anything of that kind, is one which appeals, not only to the people who consume, but to the people who make the goods which they eat. With these remarks, I submit the case to your judgment, saying that whatever your action is I shall heartily support, with what little influence I have, any measure which you bring forth, to have it enacted into law. [Applause.]

Previous Legislation

Congress enacted a law conferring plenary power on the Secretary of Agriculture to exclude adulterated and misbranded foreign articles from entry several years ago. Its terms are as follows:

The Secretary of Agriculture, whenever he has reason to believe that such articles are being imported from foreign countries which are dangerous to the health of the people of the United States, or which shall be falsely labeled or branded either as to their contents or as to the place of their manufacture or production, shall make a request upon the Secretary of the Treasury for samples from original packages of such articles for inspection and analysis, and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to open such original packages and deliver specimens to the Secretary of Agriculture for the purpose mentioned, giving notice to the owner or consignee of such articles, who may be present and have the right to introduce testimony; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refuse delivery to the consignee of any such goods which the Secretary of Agriculture reports to him have been inspected and analyzed and found to be dangerous to health or falsely labeled or branded, either as to their contents or as to the place of their manufacture or production or which are forbidden entry or to be sold, or are restricted in sale in the countries in which they are made or from which they are exported.

DR. WILEY: I will say that the Germans no longer attempt to send boraxed sausages to this country. They were making them and sending them to this country when they were not permitted in their own country; but our law says that anything that is forbidden in any country can not be sent from that country here, and so we simply excluded those goods because they were excluded in Germany; not on account of any decision respecting their health.

The same way with salicylic acid. You can not import anything into this country from Germany or France that contains salicylic acid because that is forbidden in those countries but you can from England.

MR. TOWNSEND: We do not propose to be as liberal as they are. We forbid their manufacturing and selling it here but allow them to sell it abroad.

MR. MANN: Is the amount of borax in these duck eggs of such a percentage as to be, without question, injurious to health?

DR. WILEY: If consumed as food, absolutely without question; and we are not required, I think, to say that we will follow a man and see whether he tells the truth or not as to what he is going to do with it. I do not think that this firm in this case would have done anything but what they said,. because they are most reputable and honorable men; but suppose some other person had done it?

MR. MANN: If this provision in the Hepburn bill had been in the law, you would have been required to take some action of that sort, I suppose?

DR. WILEY: Yes; and I hope the committee will read the paragraph where I have spoken about that. I think it is a very unfortunate thing that we are required to go into a man’s kitchen and supervise his cooking, and I think that when you come to look into that thing you will find it would be the one unconstitutional thing in it, because it is a pure police regulation, which is solely committed to the States.

MR. TOWNSEND: In what bill is that?

DR. WILEY: The Hepburn bill — the clause which says that the thing must be judged when it is fit for consumption. Now, the preparation of a food for consumption is certainly under the supervision of the police powers of the States, and it is not in the unbroken packages which the law specifies as the only goods to which this law shall apply.

MR. MANN: The provision of the Hepburn bill is not quite that, Doctor.

DR. WILEY: But I want to say to you, gentlemen, that I am not frightened about that clause of the bill at all. That is just a little principle of ethics and constitutionality. Not being much of a constitutional lawyer I only suggest it; but I would like to have my distinguished friend here [Mr. Bartlett] look into that point of it particularly.

MR. ESCH: Is saltpeter still used as a preservative anywhere, Doctor?

DR. WILEY: I do not think saltpeter was ever used as a preservative. It was used to preserve color, but not to preserve food.

MR. MANN: Is it injurious?

DR. WILEY: I think saltpeter is a very injurious substance. It acts specifically on the kidneys very injuriously, and Professor Halliburton, whom I quoted this morning, agrees perfectly with that statement.

MR. ESCH: Corned beef is colored with the use of saltpeter, is it not?

DR. WILEY: That is just the same principle again. I would not be afraid to eat a piece of corned beef, because the amount of injury would be immeasurably small. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it should not be used in corned beef. I would be sorry to see it left out. But if you put it on the principle of harmlessness, it could not go in. And that reminds me that I did not show you the thing which is most indicative of my argument. I am glad you mentioned that just now. I want that chart that was made this morning. A little graphic representation of an argument sometimes helps a great deal.

The suggestion has been repeatedly made here that because food was injurious we should legislate against it. Now, I have drawn here my argument in a graphic form. This is a graphic chart showing the comparative influence of foods and preservatives. Of course we have to assume the data on which this chart is constructed. You will understand that.

We will suppose that a normal dose of a drug in a state of health is nothing. We do not need it at all. Now, imagine that the lethal dose of a drug — that is, the dose that will kill — is 100; and then we go to work and measure at three points — at 75, at 50, and at 25. There are points at which we can measure. We can not measure up toward the right there, because the line almost coincides with the basic line, and the deviation is so slight that no method of measurement that we know of could distinguish them.

Then, if we use a little drug I can measure it here. I can measure it again here [indicating], and I can measure it again here [indicating]. Now from those three points I can construct a curve and calculate the lethal dose, which we will assume to be 100. That much drug would kill; no drug would not hurt at all.

The relative injury of a drug can be calculated mathematically from a curve constructed like that on experimental data, and I could tell you mathematically, by applying the calculus there, just what the hurtful value of that drug would be at an infinitely small distance from zero. You have doubtless, an of you, studied calculus, and you know how you can integrate a vanishing function. I used to know a good deal about calculus myself, and I could by integral calculus tell you the injurious power of a drug at an infinitely small distance from zero — that is, an infinitely small dose.

Now, see what a contrast there is between a food and a drug.

The lethal dose of a food is none at all. What kills you? You are starved to death. The normal dose is what you eat normally, 100. I starve a man, and I measure the injury which he receives at different points. I can mathematically plat the point where he will die.

That one chart shows to this committee in a graphic form, better than any argument could, the position of a drug in a food as compared with the food itself. They are diametrically opposite. The lethal dose of one is the normal dose of the other, and vice versa. Therefore the argument de minimis as far as harmlessness is concerned is a wholly illogical and unmathematical argument, and can be demonstrated by calculus to be so.

When the committee went into executive session to put this bill into its final shape, I was asked to sit with them. This is as near to being a member of Congress as I ever reached.

Final Activities

Thus ended the struggle for legislation controlling interstate commerce in foods and drugs. It had been going on nearly a quarter of a century. In the beginning the efforts were feeble and attracted very little attention. As the work continued more and more interest was taken in the problem. Many of the state authorities were keenly alive to the importance of national legislation. They felt that without some rallying point their own efforts in individual states would be lacking in completeness. The state officials who were most active in this crusade were Ladd of North Dakota, Sheppard of South Dakota, Emery of Wisconsin, Bird of Michigan, Abbott of Texas, Frear of Pennsylvania, Barnard of Indiana, Hortvet of Minnesota, Allen of Kentucky, and Allen of North Carolina. Many other food officials were interested and helpful, but these were the outstanding members of the state food commissioners who took the most active part in the matter. All the great organized bodies interested in the health of the people, namely, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, together with the Patrons of Husbandry, and the Federated Labor organizations of the country were actively engaged in promoting this measure. Perhaps the greatest and most forceful were the Federated Women’s Clubs of America and the Consumers League, They took up the program with enthusiasm and great vigor. Two of the leaders of this movement were Mrs. Walter McNab Miller, representing the Federated Women’s Clubs, and Miss Alice Lakey, representing the Consumers League. Their services were extremely valuable.

Finally the movement received the approval of President Roosevelt in a one-line sentence in his message to Congress at the opening of the fifty-ninth Congress in December, 1905. The stage was set for action. The force of the movement had passed beyond all restraining influences. The opposition of the vested interests had lost all momentum. Victory was in the air. People talked about the food bill on the streets, discussed it in clubs, passed resolutions in favor of it in their meetings. It was evident the day of success so long looked for and so eagerly awaited was at hand. It remained only for the Congress of the United States to compose the differences between the Senate and the House bills and put the final touches on legislation. It was a foregone conclusion that a measure so popular and so universally acclaimed would receive without hesitation the approval of the President.

The bill passed the Senate February 21, 1906, yeas 63, nays 4. The House passed a similar bill June 23, 1906, yeas 241, nays 17. The conferees agreed soon thereafter and President Roosevelt signed the bill June 30, 1906.