CHEMICALS IN FOOD PRODUCTS

433

public interest to permit the use of any hormone or hormonelike drug in the fattening of animals. If this practice becomes widespread we may be able to paraphrase, and say "The vegetarians will inhert the earth."

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Dr. Enders, in your statement at the top of page 2 you state that a former student of yours published the first paper on the effect of diethylstilbestrol on chickens and you say that—

In addition to his published results he noted a gain in weight chiefly through water retention and that at least one animal bled to death from a small scratch.

In what part of the bird was the water retained?

Dr. ENDERS. Water is retained largely in the fat, which is largely stored in the subcutaneous tissue.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Would you say, then, that the fat of the treated fowl contains more water than the normal fowl!

Dr. ENDERS. It contains a great deal more water than the normal fowl.

Dr. GOTTLIEB. Does that make the bird heavier!

Dr. ENDERS. It makes the bird a great deal heavier.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Has anyone else, to your knowledge, made that observation?

Dr. EXDERS. I think probably Dr. Hartman has made that observation.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Referring to this death by bleeding, have there been any reports of similar findings by anyone else!

Dr. ENDERS. Yes; the blood picture is entirely changed when small, repeated doses are given. It affects the erythrocytes, and also, the clotting. This was a bird that lived in a pen with other birds and it received a small scratch which would, in ordinary circumstances, not bother the fowl at all, but the animal bled to death because the blood would not clot.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Doctor, did that occur in only one instance? Dr. ENDERS. The man was experimenting with a small pen of fowls, and this was the only case.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Did he subsequently scratch or lacerate other fowls in an effort to reproduce that same result!

Dr. ENDERS. No, sir; he was working on the effect in behavior. Mr. ABERNETHY. Since it made such an impression on him and since he evidently attributed it to the use of this drug I wonder why he did not immediately attempt to reproduce the effect.

Dr. ENDERS. He was studying behavior, and funds in colleges are too limited to extend a study.

Mr. ABERNETHY. All he had to do was scratch another chicken! Dr. EXDERS. Yes; and every chicken he loses would spoil his results in behavior.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I do not want to be misunderstood. I have been deeply impressed with your paper, but I cannot be too deeply impressed with that point. Here is a man who is making certain tests, his chicken was scratched and it bled to death, and he evidently becomes tremendously concerned about it. He suggests or intimates or maybe positively states that the use of this drug caused the chicken to bleed to death on being scratched, yet he did not pursue it and evidently he had a pen full of fowls.

CHEMICALS IN FOOD PRODUCTS

425

stilbestrol, perhaps dienestrol diacetate, types of estrogens that will be absorbed completely during the normal feeding period, then pos sibly a licensed use with date of initial treatment and date of terminal treatment, with sufficient margin of safety to know that the tissues cannot contain an effective amount of estrogenic activity at the time the animal is marketed and slaughtered. Such animals could be identified when treated and could be identified when slaughtered and it would be possible for inspection procedures to identify it.

Dr. MILLER. In the case of cattle, the dosage would be considerably larger than for a chicken, would it not?

Dr. BYERLY. Yes, but not proportionately larger. I believe a response is obtained, in 900-pound animals, with from 80 to 100 milligrams.

Dr. MILLER. Now, let me ask you, Doctor, do you think that any doubt relative to the effect such a substance might have upon the human being when it is used in the production of food ought to be resolved in favor of the consumer!

Dr. BYERLY. I believe that the meat offered to the market should not contain an excessive amount of estrogenic activity. I believe the permitted procedure should be such that the meat coming into the market cannot, in normal expectation, contain abnormal amounts of estrogenic activity.

Dr. MILLER. How are we going to prevent the farmer or the chicken raiser from using three pellets in one chicken rather than one, if the fellow wants to, or taking cattle, using two or three times the amount that might be recommended?

Dr. BYERLY. I know of no ready way of preventing people from occasionally doing such things. There is cost, of course, involved in treatment. There is the nuisance of treatment. These are normal deterrents.

There is also, of course, the possible threat of seizure of the materials. And I can see where a farmer may do that occasionally, but if the man persists in such practice, I believe it would not be long before he came under surveillance.

Dr. MILLER. I believe that this has a great field in the future, and the whole subject is interesting. Whether we have gone far enough to let it be used indiscriminately, I am not sure. And I am convinced that not only these estrogens but new drugs which continually come out of the laboratories will be used, perhaps widely; new drugs not only for animal but plant food for human beings. The whole subject is very important.

Dr. BYERLY. That is correct.

Dr. MILLER. Particularly the effect upon those consuming that food. Dr. BYERLY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Horan?

Mr. HORAN. Do you know whether, Doctor, this Canadian refusal or prohibition was the result of turn-downs of Canadian poults or of poults that were shipped in?

Dr. BYERLY. I am not sure I understand your question.

Mr. HORAN. In other words, was the determination on the part of Canada to prohibit the use of these estrogens and to refuse transportation to treated poults, did that originate with their poults?

Dr. BYERLY. As far as I know, the action of the Canadian Government was based on research conducted in Canadian institutions by

CHEMICALS IN FOOD PRODUCTS

427

that a wholly adequate assurance can be given, just by the very nature of the material.

Mr. HORAN. I have just one more question, and then that will be all. I am very much interested in the term "antibiotic." That means "against life."

Dr. BYERLY. That is correct.

Mr. HORAN. And still we use that term in connection with aureomycin, streptomycin, terramycin, penicillin, all of which products we call antibiotics, and the use of which is increasing.

Dr. BYERLY. That is correct.

Mr. HORAN. Now, what do you mean by this "against life"!

Dr. BYERLY. Mr. Horan, I think that the term with respect to each of the antibiotics you have named is somewhat more limited than the word implies.

In other words, they are effective, they do stop the development of bacteria and viruses, mostly bacteria but some viruses, of many, many sorts. "Antibiotic." In other words, they stop the development of a whole list of organisms. They do not stop the development of all organisms. No one of them so far is universal in its effect. The antibiotics have been applied largely to bacteria and viruses and to a certain extent to molds.

Now, with respect to these products, that term is not so broad, "antibiotic." They are not antibiotic to higher forms of life, in the proper dosages they will have the effects for which they are used, but that is going far beyond their antibiological effect.

Mr. HORAN. They are beneficial, then, in spite of their name?

Dr. BYERLY. Yes, sir. I think they are among our most beneficial. Mr. HORAN. That was the reaction that I had, I am frank to admit. Now, what is the action of terramycin ?

Dr. BYERLY. Do you mean when used therapeutically or in feedstuff?

Mr. HORAN. Feedstuff.

Dr. BYERLY. In feedstuff it has obtained an increase of the rate of growth of pigs, when used in compounded diets, of-well. in the order of 10 or 15 percent with good diets, or with a poor diet. as much as 50 to 100 percent. Terramcyin and aureomycin have produced phenomenal rates of growth.

Now, we have still to learn whether this increase in the rate of growth results from an antibiotic effect in the intestinal tract or whether there may be a nutrient value in the antibiotic itself. The picture is not clear. It may be that it kills off the toxic organisins and induces or permits the growth of the beneficial organisms, so that we have a happy combination of good bugs and bad bugs, with the good bugs growing and the bad bugs being eliminated.

Mr. HORAN. In which of those antibiotics is the Department of Agriculture entitled to credit?

Dr. BYERLY. I do not know that the Department of Agriculture is directly entitled to credit for any of them. I do know that at the Northern Regional Research, Laboratory at Peoria, Ill., the commercial production of penicillin was much augmented by research there. The use of aureomycin in feedstuff was based upon research developed in the Department of Agriculture in the use of cow manure, which had a feed effect and was found to be a good source of vitamin B1.

82943-51—pt. 1—28