EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE MOSS COMMITTEEDr. Remsen's Testimony Page 257. MR. FLOYD: What is saccharin, Doctor? DR. REMSEN: I can explain that if you want a scientific lecture. I happen to be the discoverer of that substance. I could not explain it in a few words very well. MR. FLOYD: Did you say you were the inventor of saccharin? DR. REMSEN: No; I would not say I was the inventor. The substance was discovered in the laboratory under my direction in an investigation carried out way back, over 30 years ago. A young man was associated with me in the work, and his name is generally connected with "saccharin." That man is Mr. Fahlberg. MR. FLOYD: Is it a patent? DR. REMSEN: He patented it. I did not. Incidentally he made a good deal of money out of it. I did not. MR. FLOYD: For what reason, if to your knowledge, was saccharin referred to your board for investigation? DR. REMSEN: I have no idea why it was referred except the general idea that in every case it was desired to know whether the substance mentioned in the reference is or is not harmful That is the main point. MR. FLOYD: When used in food? DR. REMSEN: When used in food; yes. MR. FLOYD: Is saccharin a food within itself or is it a preservative used in foods? I do not want you to go into a long scientific explanation, of course. DR. REMSEN: It is not a food; it is to a slight extent a preservative. But the purpose for which it is used is as a sweetening agent. It is about 500 times sweeter than ordinary sugar and can be made at a rate which renders sweetness per unit very much cheaper than ordinary sugar. MR. MAYS: Is it harmful? DR. REMSEN: That was the question. MR. MAYS: And have you decided it? DR. REMSEN: Yes; we have made our report. MR. FLOYD: Their opinion is printed in the record. DR. REMSEN: I may say also that it is used as a medicine in diabetes. I believe it is very useful in that disease, as diabetic patients cannot take sugar, but can take saccharin and thrive under it. MR. FLOYD: Do you know whether any members of the board selected by you previous to their appointment had taken any special interest in or expressed any opinion of chemical preservatives of food? DR. REMSEN: I can not answer that question fully, but I can give an answer to the best of my knowledge. They had all been interested in the general problem of the use of preservatives. Two of them--possibly only one; I know Dr. Chittenden was interested in the effect of saltpeter on meat and was engaged in an investigation on that subject until quite recently. He also, I believe, although I am not sure about that--I have seen this in the newspapers and have not followed it in detail otherwise--was interested at one time in the investigation of the effects of borax* or boracic acid as a preservative. I think Dr. Long was on that same committee that investigated saltpeter. I am not sure. *Dr. Chittenden appeared before a legislative committee and declared borax a harmless preservative. MR. FLOYD: Did you attend the convention of State and National dairy and food departments at Denver, in 1909? DR. REMSEN: Yes, sir; on the way back from California I stopped there. Page 262-263. MR. FLOYD: Did you attend on your own volition, or were you directed by the department to attend? DR. REMSEN: I was not directed; I was requested. MR. FLOYD: You were requested to attend? DR. REMSEN: Yes. MR. FLOYD: How long did you remain at Denver during that convention? DR. REMSEN: Two or three days; I am not sure just exactly how long. MR. FLOYD: What was the purpose of that convention, and what were the questions discussed there? Did they relate to pure foods? DR. REMSEN: Well, I do not know much about the association. I do know that I was asked by the president of the association to give an address on the subject of the work of the referee board, I think, or, at least it had reference to the benzoate question, and after finding I could stop there conveniently on the way from California and that the other members of the board could do the same, I accepted the invitation. The association discussed all sorts of questions pertaining to things of which I have no knowledge, but I do know that they took up this benzoate question in rather an active way, and I suppose it was felt by the Secretary that it was desirable to have some one there to explain what it all meant. They seemed to be going on the wrong track, so far as we could gather. They got some wrong impressions of the thing and the nature of the work, or what we were appointed for, or what we were doing, and it did seem wise not to let them go too far that way without some explanation from us, which we gave in a dignifled way, I think I can safely say. MR. FLOYD: And the expenses of yourself and the other members of the board for this trip to California and this trip to the convention in Denver were paid by the department? DR. REMSEN: Yes. Of course, the trip to the convention amounted to very little. That was simply stopping over. MR. FLOYD: You state that you addressed the convention yourself. Did any of the other members of the board address the convention, and if so, who? DR. REMSEN: Dr. Chittenden, Dr. Long and Dr. Herter all addressed the convention, at the request of the president of the association, Mr. Emery. MR. FLOYD: I will ask you to state if in the address you made before the convention on the question of benzoate of soda you made a defense of the use of benzoate of soda? DR. REMSEN: No, sir. MR. FLOYD: You just discussed the findings? DR.. REMSEN: I discussed the general method of procedure which we had followed. I have nothing to do with the use of benzoate of soda. We were not asked to decide whether it was,a good thing to use or not, and we have never expressed ourselves upon that point. THE CHAIRMAN: Your expenses at Denver were also paid by the Department of Agriculture? DR. REMSEN: We went, as I said yesterday, to California for an important purpose, looking into the sulphuring process, and on our way back we stopped there. We did make a little effort to time our trip back so that we could attend the meeting, because we had been asked to give addresses. We were asked by the president of the association. We stayed there possibly three days. I am not sure whether it was two or three, but not more than three. The slight expense of the board during that period in the way of traveling expenses was paid by the-- THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): You gave an address there? DR. REMSEN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And the purpose of that address was to explain and defend the report you had made to the Secretary of Agriculture? DR. REMSEN: I did not defend the work. I didn't think that was my business. The report had been made. But I did do this: I explained, somewhat as I have explained to this committee, how the board came into existence, and very little else. I don't think that the address was ever published. Then, I may say, that after that the work of the board was attacked very violently by Dr. Reed, of Cincinnati, which was most astonishing to me. After that attack I felt it my duty to respond, which I did in measured manner, and I didn't say anything I would not repeat. I will add that to what I said yesterday, because I made really two addresses there. The other members of the board I think did not answer the attack. I think they were satisfied with my answer. THE CHAIRMAN: In making either one of those addresses did you go beyond the official work of your board and defend the use of benzoate of soda as a preservative of food? DR. REMSEN: No, Sir. Dr. Reed's address was solely in the interest of public health. The criticism he made of the Remsen Board was for its open support of adding benzoate of soda and saccharin to foods. If it was "violent" it was because of Dr. Reed's indignation that a law passed, as the Supreme Court has said, for the protection of public health, was so flagrantly flouted by the Remsen Board in the two cases then decided, namely, benzoate of soda and saccharin.
DR. C. A. L. REED Who led the fight against the Remsen Board at the Denver Convention
|
