WHY WAS IT DONE?

It seems rather strange that after attention has been called to the fact that the law confides the examination of samples of foods and drugs to the Bureau of Chemistry, the Congress of the United States should immediately proceed to destroy that organization. This accentuates the discussion of how the Bureau of Chemistry was destroyed. Even granting that the Bureau wanted to be hanged does not legalize the crime. That may be an extenuating fact when the criminals are sentenced.

If it was a desirable thing to change so radically the instrumentalities of enforcing a law, it should have been brought before the Congress in a legitimate way. There was no reason why a bill should not have been drawn making these changes and repealing the existing law. I am far from saying that there might not be a better method of enforcing the law than the present one. In fact, I do not think there could be a worse.

The promoters of the destruction of the Bureau of Chemistry took a desperate chance in their illegal attempt. They hoped that no one in the House of Representatives would kill their efforts by making a point of order on this legislation on an appropriation bill. The bluff was not called. Not a member of the House objected. That the legislation could have been prevented by one member is shown by the following statement of Mr. Lehr Fess, the House Parliamentarian:

"In reply to your letter of January 10th (1928) 1 am writing to advise you that the item referred to was subject to a point of order at the time it was under consideration in the House. However, no question of order was raised. The question of order not having been raised at the time the matter was under consideration it can not be subsequently presented."

The Secretary of Agriculture in his report for 1927 states on page 61 that:

"The Federal food and drugs act, designed to prevent the sale of adulterated or falsely labeled foods, drags, and feeding stuffs, is a benefit to consumers and producers alike. Through its enforcement the consumer may feel confident that the products he buys are what they are represented to be on the labels and the producer need fear no competition with low-grade goods masquerading as high-quality goods. Cooperation with the various industries in an effort to keep their products in conformity with the law and action against producers found guilty of deliberately adulterating or misbranding their goods were continued during the fiscal year just ended."

The Secretary seems to forget that strenuous efforts were made pending the time the bills were before Congress to insert the. word "knowingly" into the Act. All of these efforts were defeated. For this reason the dealer who unwittingly violates the law is just as guilty under the law as the one who knowingly and deliberately violates the law. The most destructive vice that has for many years been gnawing at the vitals of proper enforcement of the food law is the effort now making to protect the producer. There is no warrant for this erroneous conception anywhere in the law. Every reference to the producer in the law is punitive.

Thus it is clearly seen that the chief activities of the present administration are proper branding. The purpose of the law as a health protector is of no importance whatever.

Mr. W. G. Campbell, Director of the Regulatory Service, justifies the abolition of the Bureau of Chemistry and the transfer of the Regulatory Service therefrom, in an article published in the American Food Journal, January, 1928, page 24:

"But no effective concerted action against adulterated and misbranded food was possible in the United States until the Federal Food and Drugs Act became a law in 1907, after some forty years of investigation and twenty years of agitation. The Bureau of Chemistry had framed it and actively endorsed. its passage for many years. Naturally enough, then, Congress entrusted its enforcement to this unit. * * *

"Whenever it became apparent that for lack of funds or shortage in personnel one of the two must be temporarily neglected it was usually the research work that gave way."

It was the regulatory work that was provided for instead of. research. It was this condition of affairs which resulted in the destruction of the Bureau of Chemistry and the creation of a new enforcement unit. This was exceedingly drastic action to change what Congress had established after twenty years of discussion in the open forum of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The cruelty of this punishment and its wickedness is indicated by the fact that it was legislation grafted on an appropriation bill, the consideration of which was limited to a few hours debate, with no hearings having been called on the proposed measure, and no opportunity given to any one opposing it to be heard.

To continue from Mr. Campbell's article:

"The work of administering the Food and Drugs Act has in no way been upset by the recent change in machinery."

If the work has not been upset nor changed in any way, why was it necessary to destroy a great bureau and transfer the enforcement of the act to an entirely new unit?

This is a sad story which will be discussed in another place. In point of fact, at the very beginning successive attempts were made to nullify this provision of the law, placing its enforcement in the Bureau of Chemistry. During the debates in Congress on food legislation, on numerous occasions attempts were made to divorce the Bureau of Chemistry entirely from any part in the enforcement of the law. In every case the proposals made for this purpose were overwhelmingly defeated in both Houses of Congress. It was the plain intent of the law-makers, after full and free discussion, that its enforcement should be in the Bureau of Chemistry. The purpose now is to show that the present administration of the Food Law is entirely different from that intended by Congress. The death of the Bureau of Chemistry is a clear case of mob violence. It was lynched.

The Secretary also refers to the fact that this is the proper time to lynch the Bureau of Chemistry in the following statement:

"This is the logical time to make some changes which could not have been made before without hurting somebody or doing an injustice to somebody, which we did not want to do. But now we must get some new heads and if we effect this reorganization before these changes are made, they will work in with the new changes and we shall not have to work an injustice on anybody."

This means, of course, bringing in more heads of bureaus. There will have to be a head and subheads for the new Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, and there will have to be a new head for the Food and Drugs Administration.