Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:36:35.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strategic Use of Public Policy: Business Support for the 1906 Food and Drug Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Donna J. Wood
Donna J. Wood
Affiliation:
Donna J. Wood is associate professor of business administration at the Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1906 Food and Drug Act is widely believed to be an early example of federal legislation designed entirely to protect consumers. Professor Wood shows that in fact many Progressive Era food and drug manufacturers had substantial interests in achieving passage of such a law and that they worked actively toward this end. In particular, the desire of businesspeople to secure advantage over domestic competitors and to expand markets to interstate and foreign commerce played a significant role in businesses' support for federal food and drug regulations. The article shows that the strategic use of public policy by business—a relatively recent development in theories of business-government relations—is by no means a new development in practice.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1985 , pp. 403 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Temin, Peter, Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peltzman, Sam, Regulation of Pharmaceutical innovation (Washington, D.C., 1974).Google Scholar

2 Cavers, David F., “The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938: Its Legislative History and Its Substantive Provisions,” Law and Contemporary Problems 6 (Winter 1939): 2–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, Richard, The Real Voice (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

3 The data in this study are drawn largely from primary documents of the Progressive Era, including books and periodicals; records of congressional hearings and floor debates; autobiographies of principal actors; and other publications of the federal and state governments, industry and professional associations, and individual businesses. Secondary sources, including biographies, histories, statistical compilations, and government and industry analyses, were used to supplement primary data where necessary.

4 For chronological accounts of the 1906 controversy, see Wiley, Harvey Washington, An Autobiography (Indianapolis, 1930)Google Scholar, and Anderson, Oscar E. Jr, The Health of a Nation (Chicago, 1958).Google Scholar For the outcomes of congressional bills during this time, see Bailey, Thomas A., “Congressional Opposition to Pure Food Legislation,” American Journal of Sociology 36 (July 1930): 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry, Bulletin 13, “Foods and Food Adulterants.” The eight parts and their publication dates are: “Dairy Products,” “Spices and Condiments,” “Fermented Alcoholic Beverages, Malt Liquors, Wine and Cider” (1887); “Lard and Lard Adulterations,” “Baking Powders” (1889); “Sugar, Molasses and Syrup, Confections, Honey, and Beeswax,” “Tea, Coffee and Cocoa Preparations” (1892); and “Canned Vegetables” (1893). Part 9, “Cereal and Cereal Products,” appeared in 1898; part 10, “Preserved Meats,” in 1902.

6 Wiley, Autobiography; Anderson, Health of a Nation, 122–23.

7 Anderson, Health of a Nation, 128; Mason, Harry B., “The Vital Question of Pure Food,” American Monthly Review of Reviews 21 (Jan. 1900): 67–70Google Scholar; ‘The Pursuit of Pure Food,” Nation, 15 Dec. 1904, 472–73.

8 A full report of the hearings is given in Investigation of Adulteration of Food and Drink Products, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 1900, S. Rept. 516; a condensed version appears in Adulteration of Food Products, 56th Cong., 2d sess., 6 Feb. 1901, S. Doc. 141.

9 “Senatorial Investigation of Food Adulteration,” Science, 9 June 1899, 793–95.

10 “The Poison in Our Food,” Nation, 25 May 1899, 390–91.

11 See “Food Adulteration,” Journal of the American Medical Association [hereafter, JAMA] 34 (3 March 1900); “Our Food Products,” Current Literature 27 (June 1900):306–8; Brooks, R. O., “Food Science and the Pure-Food Question,” American Monthly Review of Reviews 33 (April 1906): 452–57.Google Scholar State officials also testified before the U.S. Pure-Food Investigating Committee.

12 See, e.g., “Food Adulteration Scares, “Independent, 16 May 1901, 1148–50, and “The Exaggeration of Food Adulteration,” Independent, 5 Jan. 1905, 49–51.

13 Wiley, Autobiography, and Wiley, Harvey W., The History of a Crime Against the Food Law (Washington, D.C., 1929)Google Scholar describe the intent, methods, and outcomes of the experiments. Technical descriptions are provided in U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry, Bulletin 84 (1904).

14 “The Pursuit of Pure Food,” 472–73; “Our Chaotic Food Laws,” Nation, 30 July 1903, 88.

15 Independent, 5 Jan. 1905, 51 [emphasis added]. The Independent began publication in New York City in 1848 as a religious weekly circular associated with Henry Ward Beecher's Congregationalist Church. During the antebellum period and the Civil War, emancipation was a constant theme, and Harriet Beecher Stowe became a leading contributor after the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin. By the 1890s The Independent had been converted to a secular magazine concerned with current issues. It ceased publishing in 1928. (Mott, F. L., A History of American Magazines, 1850–1865 [Cambridge, Mass., 1938].)Google Scholar

16 Hinich, Melvin J. and Staelin, Richard, Consumer Protection Legislation and the U. S. Food Industry (New York, 1980).Google Scholar

17 S. Rept. 516; S. Doc. 141; Harry B. Mason, “Question of Pure Food”; Senator Mason, W. E., “Food Adulteration,” Current Literature 27 (June 1900)Google Scholar; Senator Porter McCumber, J., “The Alarming Adulteration of Food and Drugs,” Independent, 5 Jan. 1905, 28–33Google Scholar; Science, 9 June 1899.

18 The Adulteration, Misbranding, and Imitation of Foods, etc., in the District of Columbia, etc., 56th Cong., 1st sess., 10 May 1900, H. Rept. 1426, 8.

19 McCumber, “Alarming Adulteration,” 29; Brooks, “Food Science.”

20 See, for example, Harry B. Mason, “Question of Pure Food“; W. K. Ghent, “The Cure of Graft,” Independent, 24 May 1906, 1189–95. The quote is from the Nation, 30 July 1903, 88.

21 Crampton, Charles A., “Food Preservation and Food Adulteration,” Independent, 19 April 1900, 942–44.Google Scholar

22 The phrase is from Edward Bok, “A Diabolical ‘Patent Medicine’ Story,” Ladies Home Journal, April 1905, 20.

23 Relevant JAMA articles in 1900 (vol. 34) were: S. C. Busey, “The Code of Ethics” (3 Feb.); “En dorsed by Physicians” (3 Feb.); “What Shall We Class as Ethical Preparations?” (31 March); “Tablet-Triturates and Ready-Made Prescriptions” (14 April); an eight-part series entitled “Relations of Pharmacy to the Medical Profession,” beginning 21 April and concluding 14 July; “Secret Nostrums and the Journal” (2 June); J. A. Witherspoon, “Oration on Medicine: A Protest Against Some of the Evils in the Profession of Medicine” (23 June); “Danger from the Use of Proprietary Remedies” (21 July). JAMA published the following in 1901 (vol. 35): J. P. Remington, “The U.S. Pharmacopeia of 1900” (16 March); A. R. L. Dohme, “What Drug Standardization Means for the Physician” (13 April); “Testimonials and Patent Medicines” (13 April). American Medicine published in 1901 “Lay Manufacturers and Physicians” (6 July); “The Taxation of Nostrum Advertisements” (2 Nov.); “Success in Advertising Quackery” (23 Nov.); “Caveat Emptor” (21 Dec). American Medicine articles in 1902 included “The Market Price of Patent Medicine Testimonials” (31 May); “The Dating of Canned Foods” (12 July); “International Standard for Patent Remedies” (8 Nov.); “The Sale of Poisons and Narcotics” (8 Nov.); and “Drug Habits and Some of Their Cures” (8 Nov.).

24 See “Alcohol as a Food, “JAMA 34 (3 Feb. 1900); “Shall Alcohol Be Recognized as a Food?” JAMA 34 (31 March 1900); and in American Medicine (all 1902): “Bad Physiology and Bad Temperance” (12 July); “Governmental Encouragement of Intemperance” (8 Nov.); “Why Do Not the Temperance People Fight the Patent Medicine Enemy?” (8 Nov.); “The W. C. T. U. and Real Temperance” (29 Nov.); “The W. C. T. U. and ‘Patent Medicines'” (13 Dec); and the W. C. T. U.’s response to editorial criticism in “What the Women's Christian Temperance Union is Doing to Fight the Patent Medicine Enemy” (13 Dec).

25 The Ladies Home Journal series consisted of the following: Maud Banfield, “About Patent Medicines” (May 1903); Edward Bok, “The ‘Patent Medicine’ Curse” (May 1904); “How the Private Confidences of Women Are Laughed At” (Nov. 1904); “Why ‘Patent Medicines’ Are Dangerous” (March 1904); “Pictures That Tell Their Own Stories” (Sept. 1905); “To You: A Personal Word” (Feb. 1906); Mark Sullivan, “The Inside Story of a Sham” (Jan. 1906); “Did Mr. Bok Tell the Truth?” (Jan. 1906); and “How the Game of Free Medical Advice is Worked, as Told in Two or Three Actual Instances” (Feb. 1906).

26 Several articles from Ladies Home Journal and JAMA, cited above, addressed this problem. The quote is from Wood, Horatio C. Jr, “Facts About Nostrums,” Popular Science Monthly, June 1906, 105.Google Scholar

27 Wiley, History of a Crime, 31.

28 Stigler, George J., “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2 (Spring 1971): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The quote is from Mitnick, Barry M., The Political Economy of Regulation (New York, 1980), 113.Google Scholar

29 Posner, Richard A., “Theories of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 5 (Autumn 1974): 335–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The quote is from Mitnick, Political Economy of Regulation, 117.

30 David Vogel discusses the nature of consumer interests and movements then and now in “The ‘New’ Social Regulation in Historical and Comparative Perspective,” in Regulation in Perspective: Historical Essays, ed. McCraw, Thomas K. (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 155–85.Google Scholar

31 Brooks, “Food Science,” 453.

32 Ibid.

33 “Pursuit of Pure Food,” 472.

34 “Our Chaotic Food Laws,” 88.

35 S. Doc. 141, 19.

36 Crampton, “Food Preservation,” 943.

37 Brooks, “Food Science,” 452.

38 19 Feb. 1906, Congressional Record, 56th Cong., 2d. sess., 1653.

39 Ibid., 21 Feb. 1906, 2764.

40 S. Doc. 141, 20.

41 Carosso, Vincent P., The California Wine Industry: A Study of the Formative Years, 1830–1859 (Berkeley, Calif., 1951), 34–35.Google Scholar

42 Robert M. Allen, “Pure Food Legislation,” Popular Science Monthly, July 1906, 5.

43 For further evidence of business support on these grounds, see “Pure-Food Bill,” Congressional Record, 59th Cong., 1st sess., House of Rep. Floor Debate: 23 June 1906, 9048–77; 29 June 1906, 9655; Senate Floor Debate: 10 Jan. 1906, 894–98; 16 Jan. 1906, 1129–35; 18 Jan. 1906, 1173, 1216–21; 23 Jan. 1906, 1414–17; 19 Feb. 1906, 2643–66; 20 Feb. 1906, 2719; 21 Feb. 1906, 2747–73; Allen, “Pure Food Legislation,” 52–64; Brooks, “Food Science,” 456–57; and “Our Chaotic Food Laws.”

44 Wiley acknowledged support from some businesses, although he believed that business was largely against passage. See also Anderson, Health of a Nation; S. Doc. 141; H. Rept. 1426; Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (Glencoe, Ill., 1963), 108–10Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert H., Businessmen and Reform (Cambridge, Mass., 1962).Google Scholar

45 Hampe, Edward C. and Wittenberg, Merle, The Lifeline of America: Development of the Food Industry (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

46 Frasure, William Wayne, “Longevity of Manufacturing Concerns in Allegheny County, 1856–1873 (With Special Reference to Those Surviving the 1873–1947 Period)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1949)Google Scholar; Potter, Stephen, The Magic Number: The Story of ‘57’ (London, 1959).Google Scholar

47 Alberts, Robert C., The Good Provider: H. J. Heinz and His 57 Varieties (Boston, 1973), 171.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., 176.

49 Ibid., 166. The full text of Wiley's letter, along with other testimonials, can be found in A Golden Day, a commemorative volume published by the Heinz Company to mark the dedication of the founder's statue.

50 Cochran, Thomas C., The Pabst Brewing Company: The History of an American Business (New York, 1948), 204–5.Google Scholar

51 Ibid., 206.

52 See Kolko, Triumph of Conservatism, 98–107 on meat import restrictions; see also H. Rept. 1426; Harry B. Mason, “Question of Pure Food,”67–69; “Pursuit of Pure Food, “473; Brooks, “Food Science,” 456. Clough, Shephard B. and Marburg, Theodore F., in The Economic Basis of American Civilization (New York, 1968)Google Scholar, maintain that European restrictions on U. S. food imports were intended to protect European agriculture.

53 See Hampe and Wittenberg, Lifeline of America, 55, for a general statement of foreign and do mestic trade conditions. Overall food price stability is demonstrated by indices in Fabricant, Solomon, The Output of Manufacturing Industries, 1899–1937 (New York, 1940).Google Scholar Annual figures (1899–1910) on production, exports, imports, and domestic consumption of manufactured goods appear in Shaw, William Howard, Value of Commodity Output since 1869 (New York, 1947), 30Google Scholar, 273, 280, 290.

54 Historical Statistics of the United States, series K, 251–55, “Exports and Imports of Farm Products: 1901 to 1970.”

55 S. Doc. 141, 20.

56 Carson, Gerald, The Social History of Bourbon (New York, 1963), 167–68.Google Scholar

57 Cochran, Pabst, 168–69; Anderson, Health of a Nation.

58 Mahoney, Tom, The Merchants of Life (New York, 1959), 43–61Google Scholar; see also the debates on the pure food bill cited in note 43; Beal, James H., “Introduction,” in Fighting Disease with Drugs: The Story of Pharmacy, ed. Krantz, J. C. (Baltimore, 1939).Google Scholar

59 Kogan, Herman, The Long White Line. The Story of Abbott Laboratories (New York, 1963), 27–69.Google Scholar

60 Mahoney, Merchants of Life, 133–35.

61 Darrah, Juanita E., Modern Baking Powder: An Effective, Healthful Leavening Agent (Chicago, 1927).Google Scholar

62 Ibid., 32.

63 Memorial of the American Baking Powder Association in the Matter of Bill S. 3618, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 20 April 1900, S. Doc. 303, 5; on red clauses for patent medicines, see Young, James Harvey, The Toadstool Millionaires (Princeton, N. J., 1961), 211.Google Scholar

64 Darrah, Modern Baking Powder, 26–29.

65 S. Doc. 303, 14–15, 20.

66 S. Doc. 141, 4.

67 “Pure Food Laws for Private Purposes,” Independent, 21 May 1903, 1224.

68 Darrah, Modern Baking Powder, 29–32; Finding of Fact, Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Baking Powder Company, docket no. 539.

69 S. Doc. 303.

70 Ibid., 10–11.

71 Wiley, Autobiography; Wiley, History of a Crime.

72 Wiley claimed that patent medicine associations were critical in delaying passage of a food and drug law. See also Representative James R. Mann's comments after the House approved the conference committee report on S. 88, 29 June 1906, Congressional Record, 59th Cong., 1st sess.

73 See Riepma, S. F., The Story of Margarine (Washington, D. C., 1970)Google Scholar; House Committee on Agriculture, Oleo Margarine, 56th Cong., 1st sess., 31 May 1900, H. Rept. 1854; Allen, “Pure Food Legislation,” 56; Wright, Carroll D., The Industrial Evolution of the United States (New York, 1895), 175Google Scholar; 21 Feb. 1906, Congressional Record, 59th Cong., 1st sess., 2765.

74 Wood, Donna J., Strategic Uses of Public Policy: Business and Government in the Progressive Era (Boston, 1986).Google Scholar

75 Stigler, “Theory of Economic Regulation“; see also Nordhauser, Norman, “Origins of Federal Oil Regulation in the 1920s,” Business History Review 47 (Spring 1973): 53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harbeson, Robert W., “Railroads and Regulation, 1877–1916: Conspiracy or Public Interest?” Journal of Economic History 27 (June 1976): 230–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hilton, George W., “The Consistency of the Interstate Commerce Act,” Journal of Law and Economics 9 (Oct. 1966): 87–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Purcell, Edward A. Jr, “Ideas and Interests: Businessmen and the Interstate Commerce Act,” Journal of American History 54 (Dec. 1967): 561–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 See, for example, Hays, Samuel P., The Response to Industrialism, 1855–1914 (Chicago, 1957)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform; and Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900–1918 (Boston, 1968).Google Scholar

77 McCraw, Thomas K., “Regulation in America: A Review Article,” Business History Review 59 (Summer 1975): 182.Google Scholar

78 See, for example, Phillips, David Graham, The Treason of the Senate (1906; reprint, Chicago, 1964).Google Scholar

79 See Kolko, Triumph of Conservatism; Wiley, Autobiography; Wiley, History of a Crime. On public agendas and agenda setting, see Cobb, Roger W. and Elder, Charles D., Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building (Baltimore, 1972).Google Scholar

80 H. Rept. 1854, 51.