Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-09-07
MONKEYiNG WITH PURE
FOODS?

7 MoNKEYINe WITH PURE
: FOODS?
While It Is not to be presumed
that any human law is perfect that
which has been termed the Pure
Food Law" has been found to be so
strongly entrenched in public opin-
ion that those who wish to weaken
it go about doing so in an under
handed way, If we are to believe
those in a position to know.
The agricultural writer Of the
Agricultural Department, Arthur P.
Chew, has prepared statement,
just issued by that Department.
This treats OF the efforts opponents
of the law are making. Mr.. Chew
says: "They have caused bills to be
introduced in Congress. not to re-
peI or even seriously modify the
priL ciple of the pure food law, but
to water 1t down and to make its
enforcement more difficult"
AS an instance of this he cites the
cora sugar bill which almost got
through Congress but was lost in the
last shuttle in the closing hours, but
which is likely to reappear at the
next Congress. He describes this as
the forerunner of other attempts, as
an entering wedge, which we assume
will not be received gladly by the
public.
The purposes of the pure food law
are of the best Legislation is
needed to protect the consumer. If
it be mistaken in any part the cor
rection should be made openly and
aboveboard. Any indication that a
roundabout method is being resorteu
to is cause for suspicion.
We take tie following from the
statement made by Mr.. Chew:
IF people today are easy in their
minds as to the quality of the foods
and drugs they buy, it is because
they trust the Government in
spection service. They have no
wish to go back to "laissez faire'
methods of preventing adulteratlon
and mishranding. They know that
those methods don't work.
You can't rely on intelligent
self -interest"to protect the public
and the honest manufactures
against unfair trade practices. so
the opponents of effective pure food
law administration have launched a
thanking movement.
"They have caused bills to be IN
troduced in Congress, not to repeal
or even seriously 10 modify the prln :
ciple of the pure food law, but to
water it down and to make it's en-
forcement more difficult. One OF
these measures is the corn sugar DILL
which would remove the necessity
for labelling certain products con-
tanning corn sugar.
This bill was advanced ostensibly
in the interests OF agriculture Actu-
ally, it wouldn't profit the farmer at
all.
Secretary of Agriculture Jardine
has showed that the enactment. OF
this bill would not increase the de-
mand for corn, and would have little
or no effect on its price. Yet the
Senate passed the bill, in form
that would practically have ex-
empted all products containing corn
sugar from the operation of the food
and drugs act.
Naturally the Food and Drugs
Administration objects to this bill.
It is not contended that corn sugar
is unwholesome. On the contrary,
although only about half as SWEEP
as cane or beet sugar, 1T is
meritorious article. The objection
to exempting it from the operation
Of the food and drugs act is that
bad precedent would be set up.
when people buy sweetened
goods, they expect the sweetening
ingredient to be what is ordinarily
known as sugar, or, technically,
sucrose. Corn sugar, however, Is
dextrose.
1T differs in certain respects not
ably in its sweetening power, from
cane, or beet sugar. When some
thing else is substituted for ordinary
sugar, in canned goods for example,
the consumer Is entitled to know 1t.
'The House declined to pass the
bill In the form in which it had been
passed by the Senate. 1t did, how
ever, pass a bill declaring that con-
fectionery, frozen products, meat
products and bakers products shall
not be deemed misbranded merely
because they contain corn sugar.
I'm that form the bill went back
to the Senate, but was caught In the
legislative jam at the close OF the
session and failed to pass. Its en-
actfnent If it passes at the next ses-
siSn probably will be the forerurl-
ner Of other attacks on the integrity
Of the pure food law.
"One good purpose served by the
introduction Of the corn sugar bill
was the effect 1t had in awakening
consumers and manufacturers to the
danger that the pure food law may
be emasculated. Strong protests
were made against the measure by
honey producers who have an OBJ
vious interest in protecting their
commodities against possible adult
Grafton with corn sugar and by the
National Preservers' Association.
Manufacturers of food products
into which sugar does not enter
Joined in the protest against the
bill. They said it might lead to all
sorts Of substitutes of cheap and in
ferior ingredients in food without
notice to the consumer. And when
the corn sugar bill gave place in the
center OF the stage to more drastic
measure proposed in the interest Of
saccharin manufacturers. the chorus
OF protest grew louder still.