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).

ROBERT M. ALLEN

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.