Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
enrichment legislation during the war years and immediately thereafter. In 1950, when the last report on the progress of enrich- ment was published", 26 states, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico had passed flour and bread enrichment legislation patterned after the levels discussed in the Food and Drug Administration hearings. Kansas and Okla- homa passed enrichment legislation in 1947, Massachusetts and Rhode Island in 1948, and Colorado, Nebraska, and Ohio in 1949. New Mexico is the only state that has passed legislation on enrichment since 1950. Vigor- ous campaigns were waged in Minnesota and Michigan, but opposition developed and the legislation did not pass. In the states where enrichment legislation has not been enacted, bread and flour en- richment is voluntary with the baker and the miller. Fortunately, nearly all of the bread and flour is enriched in the states not having legislation. Nearly all the large producers of bread and family flour who ship in interstate commerce produce dnly enriched products. A good many small bakeries and some small flour mills are prone to neglect it, but their total volume of production is a minor fraction of the entire output. It is estimated that 80 to 90 per cent of all white bread and white fam- ily flour produced is now enriched, although exact figures are not available. Seventeen years have now passed during which great progress has been made in improving the staple food of the American people. Renewed efforts should be made to make enrichment of all white flour, bread, and rolls in the United States an accomplished fact. Weakness and criti- cism of one food product reflect on all others. All food industries should adopt policies that will reflect their interest in giving the consumer the benefit of scientific discoveries tending to promote better and more nutritious foods. STANDARDS FOR ENRICHED BREAD Proposals for standards of identity for enriched bread were published10 October 14, 1948, but the ensuing hearings were protracted for months and became highly controversial; as a result, standards were not issued until May 15, 1952, and became effective August 13, 195211. Following the publication of the proposed standards, a public hearing was held to discuss objec- tions to items in the proposals. During the hearings, testimony covering every item entering into the various bread formulas under consideration was presented by rep- resentatives of the industries affected. Suit- ability of ingredients for food and their safety for human use had to be demon- strated. In certain cases, ingredients could be included in the standards solely because of their functional value. When the hear- ings were concluded, the Hearing Officer and his staff prepared the standards on the basis of evidence given at the hearings, and published them. After 90 days they were legally in effect. (By later amendment of the Food and Drug Act, standards of iden- tity are now issued more expeditiously. No hearings are held unless there is protest to the government proposals, and the hear- ings when held are limited to protested matters12). There is no provision in Federal law requiring the enrichment of any cereal product, but there is authority given by Congress to establish standards of identity. There are "required" and "optional" ingre- dients for enriched products. Thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and iron are required ingredients and all four must be included 'Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council. Flour and Bread Enrichment, 1949-50. October 1950. "Federal Register 13: 6024 (1948). 11 Federal Register 17: 4453 and 4613 (1952). UU. S. Code Annotated 21: 260-261 (1956).
public. No doubt one of the greatest weak- nesses of the enrichment program is that the practice of enrichment is so frequently ignored or neglected by small neighborhood bakeries. Though the total volume of bread produced by such bakeries is small, the number of bakeries looms large in statistics of violations. This brings enrichment into discredit, especially in states where enrich- ment legislation is poorly enforced. Despite these weaknesses, the generally splendid support of the enrichment program is exemplified by the fact that it was con- tinued when millers lengthened the flour extraction to 80 per cent from April through August 1946 to conserve food during the postwar world shortage. Enrichment wafers are compounded on the basis of supplying 100 pounds of flour with enrichment ingredients at levels to conform with the standards for enriched bread. The tablets contain thiamine, niacin, riboflavin, and iron. A one-pound loaf of enriched bread must contain: if the product is labeled "enriched". Cal- cium and vitamin D are optional ingredients and may be included or omitted at the option of the producer. The wrapper and label declaration on "enriched" products informs the consumer of the amount of enriching ingredients which the product contains and the percentage of an indi- divual's minimum daily requirements sup- plied by a given weight, e.g., 8 ounces, of the product. The definition of enriched bread13 is such that the exclusive use of enriched flour in making it will fulfill the legal levels of enriching ingredients. Consistency between the definitions for enriched bread and en- riched flour was deemed important for legal reasons. However, enriched bread is rarely actually made from enriched flour. The usual practice is to use wafers containing the vitamins and iron in preparing the dough in the bakery. It has been considered repeatedly that the use of enriched flour by all bakeries might simplify the process of enforcing enrichment, since there are only about 200 mills in the United States which make bakery flour, while there are nearly 19,000 bakeries requiring inspection. En- richment of all flour would provide almost automatic enforcement in all bakeries, be- cause nearly all bakery flour moves in inter- state commerce and is subject to Federal inspection. However, bakery flour is also used for sweet goods, crackers, and other products for which no enrichment standard exists. A few large bakeries have tried the use of enriched flour but the practice has not been maintained. The principal objection to its use has been the slightly higher cost. In view of the present lower costs of the enrichment ingredients, it is suggested that the bakers and millers again review ways and means of making more practical the inspection and standards control, thereby bringing about more general enrichment of bread and flour and assuring the nutritional benefits of enriched bread to the entire " Federal Register 6: 2574-2582 (1941) and Federal Register 8: 9115-9116 (1943). "Federal Register 22: 3841 (1957). Thiamine Niacin Riboflavin Iron Minimum 1.1 mg. 10.0 mg. 0.7 mg. 8.0 mg. Maximum 1.8 mg. 15.0 mg. 1.6mg. 12.5 mg. The label must contain a statement such as the following: "8 ounces of this bread supplies at least the following percentages of adult minimum daily requirements: thia- mine 55$; riboflavin 30$; niacin 50$; iron 40?." The minimum daily requirements of 1 milligram of thiamine and 10 milligrams of iron for an adult, established by the Food and Drug Administration, have long been in effect. Recently a requirement of niacin has been established14 and that for ribo- flavin has been changed. The new levels are as follows: Riboflavin Milligrams Infants 0.6 Children 0.9 Adults 1.2 Niacin Children under 6 years 5.0 Children 6 years or older 7.5 Adults 10.0
