Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Professor JENKINS thinks that legal standards for certain foods ought to be fixed, though he is not prepared to speak of the method which should be adopted. (455.)

5. Objections to Government guaranty.Professor MITCHELL thinks the standards of foods ought to be fixed by Congress rather than by a board. He thinks it is not desirable for the Government to guarantee pure-food products. Food products generally should be pure, and when they are adulterated it is time for the law to step in. He does not understand that the object of pure-food laws is to permit any department of the Government to be used for the commercial advantage of any one or more firms. (124, 131, 132.)

Professor TUCKER doubts the advisability of attempts to guarantee the quality of particular products by law, so long as adulterants injurious to health are excluded. A law forbidding the sale of oleomargarine is unjust; it may be fit for Russia, but not for the United States. If a man buys a pint of olive oil for 20 cents, Professor Tucker does not know that the State is called upon to protect him against the substitution of cotton-seed oilor peanut oil. It might be proper to forbid the sale of oleomargarine as butter, and to forbid the sale of glucose as honey, and to forbid the sale of cotton oil as olive oil; but he would not consider it a matter of great importance. There are much more important matters that ought to have attention first. (437.)

6. Brosius bill.— Regulation without taxation.-Professor FREAR states that the Brosius bill is essentially that which has been approved by the Association of Agricultural Chemists in 1897. It was accepted in a modified form by the National Pure Food and Drug Congress in 1898, and certain modifications of it were suggested by that organization in January, 1899.

It is patterned after the English law, and prohibits the adulteration and misbranding of food products and drugs. General legislation of this character is considered preferable to any attempt to specify particular articles. Adulteration and misbranding affect practically all classes of foods and drugs, and are so manifold in device that piecemeal legislation could not furnish an adequate remedy. The Brosius bill avoids the tax feature which, if nominal in amount, is often interpreted as approval rather than disapproval of certain food substitutes, and if heavy, may prevent the introduction of valuable cheap foods. Finally, by placing executive control in offices already established, it avoids unnecessary increase of expenditure and the establishment of new political places. (526, 527.)

Oleomargarine, filled cheese, and flour are, according to Dr. WILEY, the only products concerning which there is any Federal legislation to protect the consumer and the honest producer. The laws relating to these articles, when properly enforced, give sufficient protection, but he believes that food laws should not have for their object the raising of revenue. (15.)

[ocr errors]

DIGEST OF ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS CONCERNING BAKING

POWDERS.

(PREPARED BY THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION IN PURSUANCE OF A RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

SENATE ADOPTED JANUARY 6, 1901.)

Page.

117 118 118 118 119

INTRODUCTION..
I. COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF THE BAKING POWDER QUESTION

A. Various acids used in baking powder .
B. Relative economy of alum baking powder
C. Number of manufacturers and amounts produced.
D. Advertising methods of the Royal Baking Powder Company and its

efforts to influence legislation
E. Alum baking powder not controlled by a trust.
II. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALUM BAKING POWDER

A. Alum baking powder not injurious.
B. Physiological experiments of Dr. Smith and Professor Flint
C. Replies to witnesses against alum baking powder.
D. The occurrence of aluminum compounds in nature
E. Injurious effects of cream of tartar baking powder.

F. All baking powders injurious..
III. PROPOSED LEGISLATION

A. General principles
B. Action of State legislatures
C. Senate bill 3618...
D. Amendment to Senate bill 3618

120 124 125 125 129 130 132 132 134 134 134 134 134 136

INTRODUCTION.

By a resolution of the United States Senate passed January 6, 1901, the Industrial Commission was called upon to prepare a digest of the testimony relative to alum baking powder contained in the following publications:

Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, April 23, 1900. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1900.

Memorial of the American Baking Powder Association in the matter of bill S. 3618. Senate Document No.303, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.

Some Interesting Information about Baking Powders. Published by the American Baking Powder Association, 1123 Broadway, New York.

Effects on Digestion of Food Prepared by the Use of Alum Baking Powder. By E. E. Smith, M. D., Ph. D. Reprint from the New York Medical Journal, October 27, 1900. Published by American Baking Powder Association, New York.

Extracts from a Letter of Mr. Stanley Stoner, a Lawyer of Recognized High Standing in St. Louis, Mo., Richmond Chamber of Commerce, Richmond, Va.

Two other pamphlets without titles, published by the Chamber of Commerce of Richmond, Va., and dated January 2, 1901.

These pamphlets contain much testimony as to the harmless character of alum baking powder, together with some statements tending to show that all baking powders, particularly those containing cream of tartar, are injurious. They also contain criticisms upon the advertising methods of the principal cream of tartar baking powder company and its alleged efforts to influence legislation. The hearing of April 23, 1900, was devoted chiefly to protests from various persons interested in the manufacture of alum baking powder against the provision of Senate bill 3618, introduced March 15, 1900, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to fix standards of food products and determine the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of preservatives and other substances added to foods, and making his determinations the standards before all United States courts. Dr. Wiley, chief chemist of the Department of Agriculture, defended the objects of the bill, but also approved an amendment suggested by one of the protestants making the findings of the Secretary only evidence instead of binding upon the courts. The section under discussion was in the following terms:

“SEC. 7. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of Agriculture to fix standards of food products when advisable, and to determine the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of preservatives and other substances which are or may be added to foods, and to aid him in reaching just decisions in such matters he is authorized to call upon the Director of the Bureau of Chemistry and the chairman of the committee on food standards of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, and such physicians, not less than five, as the President of the United States shall select, three of whom shall be from the Medical Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine-Hospital Service, and not less than five experts, to be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture by reason of their attainments in physiological chemistry, hygiene, commerce, and manufactures, to consider jointly the standards of all food products (within the meaning of this act), and to study the effect of the preservatives and other substances added to food products on the health of the consumer; and when so determined and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture such standards shall guide the chemists of the Department of Agriculture in the performance of the duties imposed upon them by this act and shall remain the standards before all the United States courts. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Agriculture, either directly or through the Director of the Bureau of Chemistry and the chairman of the committee on food standards of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists and the medical officers and experts before mentioned, to confer with and consult, when so requested, the duly accredited representatives of all industries producing articles for which standards shall be established under the provisions of this act.”

The suggested amendment provides that “ when so determined and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture such standards and determinations shall guide the chemists of the Department of Agriculture in the performance of the duties imposed on them by this act, and may be used as evidence before all the United States courts.”

I. COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF THE BAKING-POWDER QUESTION.

A. Various acids used in baking powder.-Mr. HIGGINS, president of the American Baking Powder Association, says several acids are used to release the carbonic acid gas contained in the soda with which the acid is combined in baking powderalum, cream of tartar, a combination of alum and phosphate, and in one instance phosphate alone. The success of the only concern which uses phosphates alone is not yet known. Hitherto it has never been practicable to use phosphates as the exclusive agent. A great many manufacturers who use alum use acid phosphate also. (Senate committee, 29.)

B. Relative economy of alum baking powder.-Mr. E. L. DUDLEY, of Dudley & Company, Fairport, New York, states that this is a small manufacturing company which has for 5 years been making baking powder with alum in it, which it considers a healthful product. He himself travels on the road, and knows from dealing with the people of New York State that the majority of the people favor the lower-priced goods and buy them. A great many alum baking powders are put up on a 1-spoon formula; the directions call for 1 spoonful to a quart of flour. Some alum baking powders are put up on a 2-spoon formula, calling for 2 spoonfuls to a quart of flour. All cream of tartar baking powders are put up on a 2-spoon formula, because cream of tartar is an extremely weak acid.

In the portions of the country where the consumption of baking powder is largest per capita, as in his own State and the section south of Maryland, 1-spoon baking powderis universally used, with the result that the humblest negro or poorest white man has a cheap and efficient material with which to leaven his bread. He buys a 1-pound can of baking powder for 10 cents. For Royal Baking Powder or any other 2-spoon cream of tartar baking powder he would have to pay 50 cents à pound; in some instances 40 or 45 cents, never less than 40 cents except when there is a trade war between retail grocers. The directions on the outside require 2 spoonfuls to a quart of flour, but the directions on a slip inside the can require 3 spoonfuls to a quart of flour. Taking the quantity prescribed on the outside label it requires $1 worth of that powder to go as far as 10 cents' worth of the alum baking powder. Taking the quantity prescribed inside the can it requires $1.50 worth, or 15 to 1. This is what has gradually injured the business of the Royal Baking Powder Company. (Senate committee, 30, 31.)

The memorial of the American Baking Powiler Association asserts that the cost of leavening bread with Royal Baking Powder equals 80 per cent of the cost of the flour, while the cost of leavening bread with alum baking powder equals 8 per cent of the cost of the flour. These estimates are based upon the assertions that, first, the leavening power of 1 pound of alum baking powder is equal to the leavening power of 2 and in some cases of 3 pounds of cream of tartar baking powder, and, second, that the price of alum baking powder to the consumer is 10 cents a pound and the cost of cream of tartar baking powder is 50 cents a pound. (Memorial, pp. 4, 5.)

Mr. A. C. MORRISON, secretary and treasurer of the American Baking Powder Association, says that the price of alum baking powder is 10 cents a pound, never above 25 cents a pound, and that of cream of tartar baking powder is between 45 and 50 cents a pound. The cheapness of the alum product has made it a strong competitor, and while the alum baking-powder business has been growing enormously, the cream of tartar interest has been retrograding. (Senate committee, 15, 16.)

The Richmond Chamber of Commerce declares that the prohibition of the use of aluin in baking powder would destroy 525 manufacturing plants in the United States. Moreover, it would immensely increase the cost of baking powder to the public. It is estimated that the State of Virginia alone would have to pay $4,500,000 yearly for baking powder as compared with the present expenditure of $300,000, and that for the United States the cost of cream of tartar baking powder would be $150,000,000 yearly as against $10,000,000 for alum baking powders. (Pamphlet issued by Chamber of Commerce.)

C. Number of manufacturers and amounts produced.—The memorial of the American Baking Powder Association says that the manufacture of cream of tartar baking powder began about 35 years ago, that of alum baking powder about 25 years ago, and that of phosphate powders later. There are 524 inanufacturers of alum and alum phosphate powders. There are only 8 or 10 manufacturers of cream of tartar baking powders, and 3 of them are in a combination known as the Royal Baking Powder Company. This company puts out considerably over 90 per cent of the whole product of cream of tartar powder. It controls virtually all the cream of tartar manufactured in this country. Straight phosphate baking powder is made by only one firm. About 100,000,000 pounds of alumn and alum phosphate powders are sold yearly in the United States, about 18,000,000 pounds of cream of tartar baking powder, and not more than 500,000 or 600,000 pounds of phosphate powder. (Memorial, pp. 3, 4, 10.)

Mr. DUNCAN EDWARDS says the alum baking powder companies of the United States produce more than 100,000,000 pounds annually, against about 18,000,000 pounds of cream of tartar powder. (Senate committee, 7.)

Mr. JAQUES estimates that about 20,000,000 pounds of cream of tartar baking powder are manufactured in the United States, of which 18,000,000 pounds, on a conservative estimate, are manufactured by the Royal Baking Powder Company and associated companies. The manufacture of powder containing alum amounts to about 100,000,000 pounds, of which the American Baking Powder Association represents about 75,000,000 pounds. The 61 members of the association include the large manufacturers; the other 450 or so are manufacturer 3 who make the baking powder as a side line. (Senate committee, 27.)

Mr. HIGGINS and Mr. STEELE estimate that the Royal Baking Powder Company manufactures 90 per cent of the cream of tartar baking powder of this country. (Senate committee, 5, 32.)

Mr. Coyne estimates that the ratio of use of alum and cream of tartar baking powders is about 8 to 1. (Senate committee, 26.)

Mr. Davis states that the manufacturers of alum baking powder and alum phosphate baking powder produce fully 80 per cent of the baking powder consumed in the United States, and the manufacturers of cream of tartar baking powder perhaps 20 per cent. The powders containing alum go to the consumer at such low prices and are so much more economical and efficient that they are in the ascendant. There were originally three cream of tartar baking powder companies-Price, Cleveland, and Royal—who built up a business of such immense proportions and such immense earnings on a small capitalization that they were consol. idated, bringing in also the companies producing or refining cream of tartar, and the aggregated corporations were capitalized at $20,000,000, $10,000,000 preferred stock, and $10,000,000 common stock. To pay a dividend on that stock requires about $600,000. The alum baking powder companies do not make $300,000 net in a year, though they supply 80 per cent of the consumption. The law of competition has worked among them so efficiently that most of them are working for the benefit of the consumer. The Royal Baking Powder Company is the only concern that does any business that amounts to anything at all in opposition to alum. (Senate committee, 25, 26.)

Hon. LEVI WELLS, State dairy and pure-food commissioner of Pennsylvania, estimates that from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 pounds of baking powder are consumed annually in the United States, and that if the cream of tarter baking powder people had the entire trade of the country their profits would not be less than $20,000,000 annually. Memorial, p. 30.)

Mr. HIGGINS says the Royal Baking Powder Company has found its business gradually dissipating, the fierce competition of the alum baking powders with their lower prices gradually taking the trade away. It asks the protection of the Government to perpetuate a condition which will enable it to increase its profits. (Senate committee, 29.)

D. Advertising methods of the Royal Baking Powder Company, and its efforts to influence legislation.-Mr. STEELE testifies that sulphate of alumina enters into the manufacture of the baking bowder used by 50,000,000 people in this country. The forces at work against this industry are stupendous, sufficient to spend more than $1,000.000 a year for a series of years in advertisements, to compel consideration of a bill to suppress the industry in every legislature in the country, and to induce one United States Senator to recommend that the industry be suppressed. The bill was passed in but one State, Missouri, where it was passed without any hearing. (Senate committee, 5.)

Mr. DUNCAN EDWARDS, in a statement on behalf of the American Baking Powder Association, says there is a great contest between the cream of tartar powders, represented by the Royal Baking Powder Company, a trust, and the various alum powders. The cream of tartar baking-powder companies, by advertising and by a skillful use of scientific testimony, really directed not against the use of alum in baking powders, but against its use as food, have created a sentiment against the use of alum in baking powders. They have done this for business purposes, in order to keep up their prices by making it appear that the use of alum is harmful and should be prohibited. (Senate Committee, 7, 8.)

Hon. LEVI WELLS says the cream of tartar baking-powder people, through skillful advertising and a vast amount of deceptive literature circulated through the press, have led the public to believe that only their powders are safe to use. (Memorial, 30.)

Mr. DUDLEY says the Royal Baking Powder Company is the only baking-powder concern whose methods are such and whose profits are so large that it can use advertising space extensively. It makes contracts almost universally with the papers inserting its advertisements that no advertisement shall be inserted in reply. The Senate Committee on Manufactures recommended that the alum baking-powder companies should be completely legislated out of business on the testimony of two chemists in the employ of the Royal Baking Powder Company. The committee took a large amount of evidence which was purely fictitious, gotten up in the interest of one great baking-powder concern. Mr. Dudley admits that some of the chemists of the alum baking powder companies also volunteered to go before the committee. He says that the commercial aspect of using Senator Mason's committee appealed immediately to the Royal Baking Powder Company. When the committee assembled in Chicago the company instructed distributing crews to go through Illinois and other States and represent that they were under the pure-food commission of which Senator Mason was chairman and not employed by a baking-powder company; They were instructed to tell the housekeepers on whom they called that alum baking powder was injurious, that Senator Mason's committee had condemned it, and that the desirable and pure baking powders were Cleveland's, Royal, and Price's. All this was done secretly. (Senate Committee, 31, 32.)

Mr. CHARLES LATCHEM, of Wabash, Ind., says the Royal people had been using in the Wabash paper a single-column 8-inch advertisement. When his firm got

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »