STATEMENT OF A. B. CHILLUM. REPRESENTING THE FOOD ADMINISTRATION OF MASSACHUSETTS. Mr. CHILLUM. Mr. Chairman, if I might say a word right there. The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to catch a train, Mr. Chillum? Mr. CHILLUM. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We have been proceeding rather informally, letting everybody do about as they please here, but if you are obliged to leave to-night we will hear you now. Mr. CHILLUM. The situation in Massachusetts and, in fact, throughout New England, is very serious in the matter of this feed situation. It was last winter. It is true now and we are looking forward to a very serious situation next year. Now, if the law, or this amendment as now written, goes into effect there is going to be very serious trouble. In fact, we will have an entire upsetting of the feed situation in Massachusetts, making it much worse than it is now. The CHAIRMAN. Will you point out how that will happen? That is what we want. Mr. CHILLUM. Now, we don't have any objections, of course, to telling the farmer exactly what he is getting. We want him to have that. In going into this thing we asked the experiment station down at the agricultural college regarding it, and Mr. Smith, of the agricultural station, is here, and since he is a technical man and understands this thing, I would like to have him speak on that subject, because that is where we got our information, and he has also to catch a train, and I hope you will be willing to hear him. The CHAIRMAN. All of these trains seem to be leaving about the same time. Representative HAUGEN. The gentleman didn't state how it would. affect the situation in Massachusetts. I think we ought to call on him to explain that. Representative LEVER. Mr. Smith is going to state that. STATEMENT OF MR. PHILLIP H. SMITH, OF THE MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHEMIST IN CHARGE OF THE FEED-CONTROL WORK OF MASSACHUSETTS. The CHAIRMAN. Under whose auspices do you appear, Mr. Smith? Mr. SMITH. Under the auspices of the Director of Experiment Stations. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in Massachusetts those in charge of feeding stuffs legislation have always taken the attitude that it is allowable to sell any product having a food value, providing it is not injurious. We assume that the amendment would allow the interstate shipment of articles mentioned, provided they were unmixed with other materials. This, in our estimation, would not materially improve the situation, and it is our belief that it would be much better for the continued sale of such products blended in such a manner as to allow their use to the best advantage. It has repeatedly come to our attention that low-grade products sold by themselves are used by uninformed people in the place of better material, especially where I am speaking, gentlemen, from my own experience especially where a low price is an incentive to purchase. The lowgrade material in the mixtures offered must be kept at a minimum on account of the competition with high-grade material. The adoption of the amendment would simply help to confuse an already perplexing situation, especially from the northeastern section of the country, where a sufficient quantity of feeding stuffs is to be the problem during the duration of the war. We would like to know what is to be done with these residues left at the place of manufac ture, and what will be the effect on the price of human foods from which most of the products are derived. We believe that the injurious effects of such an amendment at the present time are much broader than its context would indicate. The assertion has been made that there has been a constant deterioration in mixed feeds during the past two years. My experience as feedstuff inspector over a period of 18 years leads me to question the accuracy of this statement. The only two products that I know of that have really deteriorated certainly are products which probably, if a strong plea were put up to the Secretary of Agriculture. would be exempted under the provision in the second section, and those are peanut cakes mixed with peanut hulls, and cottonseed cakes mixed with cottonseed hulls, if the manufacturers could demonstrate that in their process of manufacture those materials-that it is necessary to press those materials together. In conclusion, we believe that the preservation and utilization of any product having feed value is a vital question in conservation and that the blending of all such products so that they can be utilized to the best advantage is a legitimate business. Now, I have heard it said here several times that it is largely a question of relative values. To my mind there is one side of the question which has not been brought out, and that is that if it is a question of relative values, the feeding-stuff manufacturers on the one side claiming that their products are sold for a price which does not give them an excessive profit, the opposition on the other hand claiming that these feeds are sold at an exceedingly high price-I believe the Food Administration has ample authority to investigate that point, and at this time when we enter another complication into the utilization of every product which is absolutely necessary, it is a bad procedure to have legislation along that line, and that with the ample power of the Food Administration to investigate this matter they can regulate the matter so that these feed stuffs will not be sold, when sold in combination as mixed feeds, at excessive profits, if that is the case. The CHAIRMAN. You think the Food Administration has that power? Mr. SMITH. I believe they do. They have power to do most anything but take a man out and shoot him at sunrise. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Chapman, of the Food Administration, here? Mr. SMITH. He is a member of it, and I think he can interpret the rules and powers under which they work. The CHAIRMAN. Have you made your statement in full? Mr. SMITH. I might add that probably about 35 per cent of feeding stuffs of this character are used in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Agricultural College uses them and they get mighty good results. Lots of farmers use them and get good results, and they come back and buy again. The CHAIRMAN. What are you speaking of now? Mr. SMITH. The mixed products containing oat hulls and various other things. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by "various other things"? Of course, farmers are buying mixed feeds all over the country. Mr. SMITH. Oat hulls, screenings, material which you have designated as having a low feeding value. The CHAIRMAN. Now, do you think that anything ought to be sold to a farmer as highly concentrated feed, or any other sort of feed, that is mixed with those things that detract materially from its feeding value? Mr. SMITH. Why, Mr. Chapin has made the contention here—and others that you can not mix two feeds without bringing that about. The CHAIRMAN. That is splitting hairs. That is an evasion of the question. There have been a good many things enumerated here that obviously detract from the feeding value. You take cottonseed hulls and mix them with cottonseed meal, and the mixture is not as good as cottonseed meal, of course. It is not as high, I mean, in certain values. But there are mixtures here referred to that detract materially from the feeding value. Now, you say they do not? Mr. SMITH. They may detract to a certain extent, but they are used in a very small volume that forms an outlet for that kind of material. The CHAIRMAN. If they don't detract materially from the value. they won't be prohibited under this law, will they? Mr. SMITH. I don't know. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it says only those that detract from the value, and where they don't detract materially from the value the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized under this rule to permit this interstate shipment. Now, if they don't detract materially from the feeding value, they wouldn't be prohibited; that is, I think, certain. Now, if it would, it ought to be prohibited, ought it not? Mr. SMITH. Well, they are sold for what they are, under a guaranty and a statement of the ingredients. The CHAIRMAN. Is that your law? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that relates to stuff shipped in from the outside? Mr. SMITH. For local manufactured stuff and interstate material. The CHAIRMAN. Now, you hear no complaints, then, from dairymen of your State about inferior feeds? Mr. SMITH. We hear occasional complaints. We had a complaint from a man the other day because he bought oat hulls or oat feed in place of some other feed, and he said that he wanted to have me go out and arrest the man, but the man had sold him stuff for just what it was and he had used that material in place of something of a rather high feeding value. The CHAIRMAN. So the man sold it to him for what it was? The CHAIRMAN. Then that can be done, can it not? Mr. SMITH. You can sell anything having a feeding value. The CHAIRMAN. There is no reason why a man should not sell stuff for what it is, but I understand it is not your contention that the stuff ought to be sold to farmers for something else than what it is. Mr. SMITH. No; I don't think it is. I think we agree on that point. The CHAIRMAN. How old is your feedstuffs law? Mr. SMITH. It was, as originally passed, one of the first feedstuffs inspection laws in the United States, that, and the State of Maine, and the State of New York, and Connecticut, came in, I think, about the same time. The CHAIRMAN. Has it been amended? Mr. SMITH. It has been amended twice. The CHAIRMAN. Was its enactment based upon some sort of necessity to protect the consumers of feeds against adulteration? Mr. SMITH. We felt that it was. The CHAIRMAN. Now, you speak generally. Have you made a chemical analysis of these specimens of foodstuffs to see that they contain only valuable ingredients? Mr. SMITH. We have. The CHAIRMAN. Have you got some of those with you? Mr. SMITH. The bulletins? The CHAIRMAN. Have you found stuff in the specimens that was not of value? Mr. SMITH. Why, we found material in it; we have found material in feeding stuffs, material of unequal feeding values, different feeding values. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, well, of course, that is true. Does anyone wish to ask Mr. Smith any questions? If not, you can catch your train now. Mr. SMITH. On this matter of catching trains, Senator, there is another man in the party. Mr. Hepburn, who is a practical farmer, I haven't heard any practical farmer here today. Representative HAUGEN. Just one question. A gentleman preceding you made a statement to the effect that it was necessary to adulterate foods in order to save the food situation What is your explanation of that? Do you believe it is necessary to permit the adulteration of foods to save the present food situation? Mr. SMITH. I do not believe, sir, that the feeding stuffs are generally adulterated. Representative HAUGEN. But I was asking you the question. That is a question involved in this amendment, and if effected, will the prevention of the adulteration of food, or deception in the sale of it, affect the food situation? Is it necessary to adulterate and deceive in order to save the food situation? Mr. SMITH. I understand, sir, it is not adulteration as long as they state what they are selling. Representative HAUGEN. Have you listened to the evidence before you came on, the evidence here to show that there is deception? I think the statement made by Dr. Jordan proves that there is deception in the sale of feed, and you couldn't expect anything else. The action of one dealer is not indicting all of them, and I assume there are just as many honest people engaged in the production of feed as there are in any other line of activity, but there are those possibly that may be dishonest, and the purpose of this bill, as I understand it, is to overcome this very thing. Now, do you seriously contend that it is necessary to deceive in order to save the present feed situation? Mr. SMITH. I don't think it is necessary to deceive, sir. Representative HAUGEN. Then what is your reason for the statement made by the gentleman who preceded you? How will it affect the feed situation in your State? Mr. SMITH. In the first place it will throw a large quantity of lowgrade by-products unmixed onto the market. Representative HAUGEN. No; I don't think it will do any such thing. Mr. SMITH. Then you are going to create a feed shortage. Representative HAUGEN. I don't think you would question the integrity or judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture. I think it is safe to leave it to him, and it isn't fair, I think, for anybody to appear before this committee questioning the integrity of the Secretary. It is left to his discretion, and we simply assume that he will do the right thing by all, and that all will have a square deal under this law as under every other law. Of course, if you take the position that we are not going to have an honest administration by the Secretary, why I presume we will have to yield to your contention. I would like to have you explain-you have been called upon here to explain why it would effect a different situation. Mr. SMITH. I think because, in a way, we have had a certain line of mixed food coming into the State. We have had these mixed rations and mixed feeds in a proportion of possibly 30 to 35 per cent an old established business. A large proportion of the men that are buying those feeds are satisfied. In selling other kinds of feeds, bringing a large amount of feed into the State in different forms, you are certainly going to create an element of confusion. Representative HAUGEN. Assuming that the Secretary would not permit the use of these feeds of lawer value Mr. SMITH. He would permit the use of them; I know he would. Representative HAUGEN. Then it will not affect you. It is left to the discretion of the Secretary, is it not? Mr. SMITH. We are going to have it in another form. Representative HAUGEN. How do you know it will be in another form? Do you assume that an honest product would not be permitted to be shipped into the State under the permit issued by the Secretary? Do you assume he is going to take advantage of you? Mr. SMITH. No. I confess I do not quite see your point, but I contend that the feedstuff shipped into the State containing oat hulls Representative HAUGEN. You think it is necessary to deceive them in order to sell it? The contention here is that everything should be labeled, that every man should know exactly what he buys. We have had the same thing to contend with all these years; as to oleomargarine, for instance. The manufacturers contended that they should be permitted to sell it for what it was not. That seems to be the contention here, that you should be permitted to sell something, not for what it is but for what it is not. Now, is it necessary to |