LIEBREICH JOINS VAUGHAN

When I went to my office yesterday one of the young men said: "Have you seen this criticism on your work which has just come out in a German magazine in January?" As I have been pretty busy in the last few weeks, I had not read the magazine. It is an adverse criticism of this report of mine on borax. I am having it translated and typewritten, and I am going to put it in the evidence so that you can read it. Professor Liebreich I know very well. He is a personal friend of mine, a very eminent gentleman, and it is fair to say that he is employed by the borax syndicate; but I don't think -that impugns his testimony at all, and I accept his criticism as if he had been employed by the German Government. One of those is the original report of the imperial board of health and the other the reply to a criticism made by this same Professor Liebreich. And to show how experts disagree, Professor Liebreich came to this country last year to testify in some cases in Pennsylvania on behalf of borax and sulphite of soda, which Professor Vaughan condemns--he would not allow it used in any quantity.

Professor Liebreich appeared before the court in Philadelphia in the case where the hamburger-steak people who had been treating hamburger steak with sulphite of soda were made defendants; and he testified that in his opinion almost any quantity of sulphite of soda could be used with impunity in meat; and the court asked him, "Professor Liebreich, do you use it in your meats at your home I" And he said: "No; I do not." "Would you use it if you wanted to?" was asked; and he replied, "I don't want to," and his whole testimony fell just on that. I was told--I don't know just how true it was-that he received $4,000 for coming over here. One of our young men, who was not nearly so famous as Professor Liebreich, went over to Philadelphia and testified before the same court, and on his testimony the judge and jury found against the testimony of Professor Liebreich, whose criticism of my report I will submit as soon as it is ready. That shows that Liebreich and Vaughan agree on borax. Vaughan and Wiley agree on sulphite, and I differ from both of them on the borax question, and they differ from each other on the sulphite.

That shows the conflict in opinions which you gentlemen are called upon to consider. It is something confusing, but of course you have to rely upon the character of the data after all. If you find that the data which I present are not reliable, have not been obtained in a proper way, my opinion is worth very little, and, as Professor Liebreich says, "I will accept the data as they are, and then I will draw an opinion which is entirely different," just what I told you yesterday could be done.

MR. RYAN: Do you believe a Congressionaf committee, none of whom are chemists, are competent to judge between those opinions of eminent chemists who have formed those opinions after having analyzed the food?

DR. WILEY: I think they are absolutely competent, just as a jury would be upon the same thing in the weighing of evidence.

You see the evidence as the weigher of evidence, and not as experts. You see it as a jury. I think this committee is absolutely competent to decide a question of that kind on the evidence submitted here.

MR. BARTLETT: We have a good many bills before us, and there is where this question must come before the court and the jury.

DR. WILEY: That is true so far as the Hepburn bill is concerned somebody must render an opinion before you can bring an indictment, and then that opinion is subject to review of the court. That is the plain principle of the law, and surely you would never try to bind the court by any statements or anything else which any expert might set up.

MR. BARTLETT: You will find one court and a jury deciding that a certain thing ought to be put in, and another that it ought not.

DR. WILEY: It should be carried up to the highest court.

MR. BARTLETT: In one locality a jury and a judge, with men on trial for not permitting a certain statement, might acquit one man and convict another.

DR. WILEY: Exactly, and you will find when I submit the evidence from the English courts that that very thing happens all the time. You must leave it to the court. Every man can have his opinion, but that must not bind the court; an expert's opinion never can.

MR. ESCH: I noticed that Rost came to the conclusion that the use of borax or boracic acid resulted in almost every case in a reduction of weight. Did you find that true in your experiments?

DR. WILEY: Yes, sir; you will find that in this chart. We never found an exception.

MR. MANN: Before you pass from the subject of borax, I would like to have your statement in reference to the use of borax under the provision of the bill, which in the Hepburn bill was removed by maceration.

DR. WILEY: I heartily approve of that provision in regard to preservatives of food products intended for export. I have a little article that I am going to submit on that, Mr. Mann, in better form. There is a chart here (in Bulletin 84) showing by the position of the lines, the loss of weight which these young men suffered. I don't think it is a very serious matter if a man loses a couple of pounds in weight.

MR. TOWNSEND: You found some of them were gaining weight, as I understood you, and you had to reduce their food.

DR. WILEY: Our foods were constant as long as they could eat. Until they became ill their food was never diminished throughout the preservative period.

MR. TOWNSEND: Didn't you state that you had to watch them closely to see if they were gaining?

DR. WILEY: That was before we began to establish the equilibrium; that was in the fore period.

Now, I have a transcript there which I think will prove. very helpful to you gentlemen. You have heard a great deal about the finding of the English departmental committee. I want simply to quote the evidence of Professor W. D. Halliburton, who is the most distinguished physiologist of the English-speaking people. Professor Vaughan would be very glad to tell you the same thing. He came over here last year and gave a series of lectures. His work is a textbook on chemical physiology and pathology. I want to read you just one or two things, which you might not read, that I have extracted from his testimony.

The English committee forbade the use of preservatives in certain food products, and recommended that a limited quantity, which they mentioned, should be permitted in other food products. While that has never been made a law by act of Parliament, the courts are all guiding their decisions on the report of this committee. For instance, if they do not find any more than one-half of 1 per cent of borax, they do not convict a defendant. If they find less than 1 grain of salicylic acid to the pound, they do not convict a defendant. But they convict any defendant who puts preservatives in milk of any kind. The evidence of Professor W. D. Halliburton is as follows--that part which I wish to read--and it can be verified if anybody wishes to.

I would say at the outset that the kind of evidence that I have to offer is not very largely clinical. The amount of medical practice which I have seen is limited. Very soon after my student days, I took to physiological work, and I have remained at that more or less ever since, so that the actual observations that I have to make are in the nature of physiological experiments, and deal principally with the two chief substances that you have under investigation, as I understand--compounds of boron and formaldehyde. On general principles one would object to the continuous use of antiseptics. The substance which would destroy the life of micro-organisms could not be expected to be beneficial to the life of a higher organism; it would be largely a matter of dose. I mean to say the same dose that would kill a bacterium would not necessarily kill a man, but still it would be hostile to the protoplasmic actions that constitute the life even of a high animal like man.

Q. 7541 (p. 264). Then, as to boric acid, you have made extensive experiments?--A. With borax and borates I have made a fair number of experiments. In the introduction I allude to what is known as "borism." The eruption occurs on the skin of certain individuals as the result of the use of either boric acid or borax. There have been other cases recorded--although here again I can not speak personally--in which dyspeptic troubles have arisen. There have been a fair number of experiments performed upon animals.

Q. 7544. Boric acid is the commoner preservative, is it not?--A. I am not so sure. I think very largely a mixture is used that is called "glacialin"--a mixture of boric acid and borax. In animals the chief advantage, if one may put it so, of the poison is that it is not cumulative; it does not accumulate in the body, but it is rapidly eliminated by the urine.

Now, I put it to the committee this way: Here is an opinion of a man whose fame is far greater even than that of Dr. Vaughan. I believe that every person acquainted with medical and physiological literature in the United States will say that Professor Halliburton is the greatest living exponent of physiological chemistry in English-speaking countries. Could there be a more sweeping indictment brought against these preservatives than Professor Halliburton has stated? He says of borax and boric acid that the chief advantage of these poisonous bodies is that they are rapidly eliminated from the system, and he further states that the continual passage of these foreign bodies through the cells of the kidneys, to put it mildly, as he does, is not likely to do them any good. And yet Professor Vaughan advises this committee to permit the use of boric acid in foods in quantities not to exceed one-half of 1 per cent.

Professor Halliburton says further, in answer to question 7572: " May we take it, then, that in your view you are absolutely opposed to the use of formalin?--Yes.

Q. 7573. And with regard to the other preservatives, if they were labeled that would meet your objection; is that your position generally?--A. No; I feel that the ideal condition of things would be to prohibit them all.

Q. 7574. All preservatives?--A. All preservatives.

Q. 7575. Even salt?--A. No; I am not speaking of substances which are normal constituents of the body.

Q. 7576. Would you prohibit nitrate of potash, too?

A. One knows, even from smoking cigarettes, that nitrate of potash is not absolutely harmless.

So I say to our manufacturers: "Take the American people into your confidence and your business will be placed upon a foundation from which it can not be shaken nor removed." I say, as a plain business proposition, that the men who put preservatives in foods had better stop it for their good and for the good of their business; and they will. And in five years from now (mark my words, Mr. Chairman), bill or no bill, we will not have to come here to argue about this matter, because there will be nothing to argue about--because this ethical principle, aside from any injury to health or anything of that kind, is one which appeals, not only to the people who consume, but to the people who make the goods which they eat. With these remarks, I submit the case to your judgment, saying that whatever your action is I shall heartily support, with what little influence I have, any measure which you bring forth, to have it enacted into law. [Applause.]