Oiemîcai tngineerlng News
WALTER J. MURPHY, Editor
W h a t Is the Truth About Chemicals in Food? A T MAY only be a coincidence, b u t t h e July issue of the American Magazine presents a cover-featured lead article "Peril on Your Food Shelf" b y Rep. James J. Delaney ( D.N . Y. ). T h e July issue of Pageant magazine h a s a lead feature article entitled "Bread: Our Phony Staff of Life" by one Michael Bakalar, a n d t h e July issue of Consumer Reports strangely e n o u g h contains a feature article "Chemicals in Foods" written b y Harold Aaron, M.D., medical adviser to Consumers Union of U . S., Inc. I t may also just b e a coincidence that these three articles appear just as Rep. Delaney and his committee investigating t h e u s e of chemicals in food products will hold hearings on t h e West Coast a n d later in New York City. T h e Kefauver committee demonstrated that congressional committees on tour create more news and interest than they do in Washington. There may o r m a y not be some significance to t h e fact that t h e three articles referred to have appeared as the Washington hearings conclude and before " t h e show" hits the road. Rep. Delaney refers to " a tragic legal joker that permits us t o become a nation of 150 million guinea pigs guilelessly testing o u t chemicals that should have been tested adequately before they reached o u r kitchen shelves." Dr. Aaron introduces his comments with t h e comforting statement that " O n e hundred and fifty million Americans are today serving as guinea pigs for the chemical industries of this country," while Bakalar's introduction reads: " O u r daily bread—undeniably photogenic, soft, 'enriched'—is a phony right from t h e start." Congressman Delaney in his article asks t h e question, "What can the average housewife do t o protect herself against a growing use of chemicals which eminent nutritionists have called alarming?" Of course Congressman Delaney asks the question so h e coidd answer it in t h e following words: " I n t h e opinion of most, t h e solution is not for t h e housewife t o become an amateur chemist, b u t to insist that Congress give t h e Food and Drug Administration a d e q u a t e legislation t o handle the problem before the product gets on the market. W o m e n played a prominent part in pushing through the legislation which guaranteed t h e pre-testing of drugs. T h e General Federation of Women's Clubs was solidly behind t h e amendment a n d exerted enormous pressure. It is not too much to expect that the same thing will happen with food. Individuals, of course, can write their congressmen, b u t organized groups of individuals are much more effective." Anyone reading t h e three articles referred to cannot help hut believe that t h e great chemical industry of t h e United States is callously determined to poison the nation in order to increase its earnings. T h e reader also will very definitely conclude that it is t h e chemical industry that is diabolically plotting against t h e health of America by forcing the food industry to u s e products dangerous to man. It is very apparent that it is t h e chemical industry that has been selected t o be castigated a n d scourged. By implication, of course, t h e chemists of America are t h e instruments b y which profit-hungrv chemical executives produce the poisons which are slowly killing Americans. Very skillfully quotations are furnished in all three articles, along with a very liberal use of t h e word "may" in order to arouse the fear of t h e American public, while nothing is quoted from the testimony of those w h o have represented the chemical industry at t h e Delaney committee hearings.
VOLUME
2 9,
N O . 32 » * » AUGUST
Chemists consume food, t o o , a n d rear families. W e have yet to meet a member of the chemical profession who has h a d any desire to poison himself, his family, and t h e American public through t h e introduction of harmful chemicals in food. Chemical executives a n d research chemists are just as anxious as their neighbors and friends not to poison t h e population. But one would never suspect they h a d any such feelings after reading the articles appearing in t h e July issues of American Magazine, Pageant, and Consumer Reports. There is nothing comforting a b o u t t h e fact that the chemicals in food issue has spread to Great Britain. T h e editorial comment of our contemporary, The Chemical Age (July 14, 1951, page 3 7 ) , is strangely familiar: "A subject that should be discussed with scientific objectivity or not debated at all has been mauled by prejudices a n d polemics. I t is regrettable that this should have taken place in t h e House of Lords, usually a n d traditionally a more responsible a n d less emotional debating chamber than t h e Commons. Even more regrettable was t h e immediate result of t h e debate—brief accounts of it in many newspapers with alarmist headlines that concentrated upon t h e more sensational antichemical statements that h a d been made. Readers of one highly popular newspaper were, for example, told that even mother's milk n o w contains D D T ! " T h e editor of our British contemporary summarizes very succinctly t h e situation in b o t h countries w h e n h e states: " F o r political topics it may b e reasonable t o list all t h e cons of t h e case a n d ignore every pro, b u t when this m e t h o d of discussion is applied to subjects essentially technical or factual an atmosphere impossible for clear thought a n d judgment is created. No one would deny that the use of some chemicals in food production or distribution h a s led to secondary troubles, b u t it is not constructive to list all such cases, n o matter where they have occurred in the world a n d irrespective of their statistical significance, and to present this as a general case against t h e use of chemicals." The chemical industry of t h e United States a n d its counterpart in Great Britain are confronted with a gigantic task of public education. T h e chemical industry will b e pilloried as a soulless Frankenstein unless the t m t h is told t o the public in a manner in which it can understand. T h e chemical industry, chemists, a n d chemical engineers producing chemicals used in foods welcome any revision of existing laws that will intelligently approach t h e problem realistically, b u t t h e industry a n d the profession justifiably resent being pictured as t h e enemies of mankind. T h e chemical industry a n d the chemical profession a r e responsible for a host of products that daily are saving thousands of lives and prolonging the span of man. T h e chemical industry can b e proud of i t s record—but it must begin to tell that story more effectively to the public; otherwise t h e impressions created by the articles in the American Magazine, Pageant, and Consumer Reports and probably others of similar nature, will b e accepted as gospel truth b y t h e lay public. We would like to make o n e suggestion. W h y not extend to t h e Delaney committee an invitation while on t o u r to visit many of the laboratories where chemical research is being conducted. L e t them see at first h a n d h o w t h e chemical industry carries on research; let them g e t an intimate insight into the chemical industry. There are n o skeletons in t h e closet, rather there is even' reason to b e nroud of t h e manner in which t h e industry conducts itself in matters touching t h e p u b l i c welfare.
6, 1 9 5 1
3151
