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.