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.