The import figures presented by the growers need revision. They took 7 months ending March 31, 1946, arbitrarily projected them to an annual rate and made an attempted comparison with the average annual imports during the period 1935-39. The only way to make a comparison, and stay within the facts, is to compare the current 7-month period with the corresponding 7 months in the prewar years. This is what we have done. Following is a summary and attached is exhibit III giving the complete record. I will not take the time to read the figures, but there is shown here a statement of the imports of nuts giving a comparison of 7 months ended March 31, 1946, with the corresponding period in prewar years 1935-39. Imports of nuts: Comparison of 7 months ended Mar. 31, 1946, with corresponding periods in prewar years, 1935–39 [Short tons, shelled basis] We have shown in addition to the averages, the highest annual level of imports for each respective nut in the prewar years and the highest composite total. If any comparison is to be made it seems that the current situation is more closely related to the highest levels attained in the prewar years than to averages. The surpluses which seem to plague the growers are myths of their own creation, and in our opinion, will continue to be myths for many years to come. The slight increase in the flow of imported nuts during the past 7 months has been drawn like air into a vacuum. It has merely supplemented the deficient supply of domestic nuts to help meet current demands. To raise the phantom of surpluses at this time is to stretch credulity to the breaking point. We quote from a letter dated June 14 written by Charles F. Brannan, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture: During the period 1943 through 1945 prices to domestic tree-nut producers averaged from 220 to 265 percent of those received during the period 1935 through 1940. Season average prices received by walnut growers during the 1943-45 period were close to parity. For domestic tree nuts other than walnuts, "comparable prices" have been established to replace parity prices which were found to be out of line with those for the basic commodities. The 1943-45 grower prices for filberts and pecans averaged from 20 to 40 percent above comparable prices and almonds averaged slightly better than 50 percent above comparable prices. The increase in imports results from favorable crops in the foreign producing areas from which the United States historically has drawn part of its nut supplies. From a strictly commercial viewpoint, it is to be expected that such foreign exportable surpluses will tend to be directed to the United States to a greater extent than was true in prewar years as a result of the high price levels prevailing in this country. We cannot agree with Mr. Bailey's statement that many of the countries now receiving relief shipments of American food are themselves exporting unprecedented tonnages of edible nuts. Spain, Brazil, Turkey, and India are the foreign countries which are heavy exporters of tree nuts. None of these countries has received donations of food from the United States Government or the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Under tariff trade agreements shelled almonds bear a duty of 161⁄2 cents and shelled walnuts 15 cents per pound. If our Government through committee action or otherwise in effect put an embargo on these nuts it would be a gross breach of faith. A letter from the Acting Surgeon General of the Public Health Service is filed as exhibit IV showing that the nuts would not replace the need of other food in the exporting countries. I would like to read a paragraph from that letter, which states: There is no question concerning the high nutritional value of nuts, and in reasonable quantities they are desirable additions to the diet. Under famine conditions there are other very important factors which must be given consideration. Although nuts could be utilized as a replacement for or in addition to a relatively small quantity of wheat, it would be impractical both from an economic and dietary viewpoint to substitute them for the bulk of the wheat. Nuts eaten in large quantities as a major component of the diet under famine conditions would, in all probability, result in digestive disturbances, discontent, and unrest because of the great departure from established dietary habits. In feeding large numbers of people even under famine conditions, serious consideration must always be given to established dietary practices. Cereal grains of some type form the basis of the diet of most of the people of the world. It is my opinion that famine relief must be based on this fact. In meeting minimum needs, wheat or other cereals should receive first consideration. Summarizing: Additional nuts are not needed or wanted in the famine areas. The dietary claims of the growers are completely unfounded. International charity must eventually be replaced by normal exchange of products on a commercial basis. Imported nuts, particularly cashews, supplement rather than replace domestic tree nuts. They are the "wagons" which carry salted mixed nuts to market. All branches of the industry who use nuts are opposed to the growers' recommendation. Present surpluses are a myth. Prospective surpluses are only imaginary. World prosperity and world peace are dependent on free international trade, not economic isolation and protection. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to include in my statement the exhibits to which I have referred. The CHAIRMAN. What exhibits are they? Mr. JOHNSON. The letters to which I have referred and the communications to the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record. (The statements referred to are as follows:) EXHIBIT I UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, The Honorable JOHN W. FLANNAGAN, Jr., DEAR SIR: I have been asked by a representative of the Peanut and Nut Salters Association of New York City to comment on the nutritional claims made in a statement of tree nut industry before House Agricultural Committee considering problem of world food supplies on May 27, 1946, and submitted in behalf of growers of tree nuts and certain tree fruits in the United States. I have been further asked to address my comments to you. But, first, I would like to acquaint you briefly with my professional background and qualifications as a nutritionist. I received my doctor's degree in nutrition at the University of Illinois in 1915, and have been associated with that institution and with the agricultural experiment station ever since. My present position is professor of animal nutrition in the college of agriculture and chief in animal nutrition in the agricultural experiment station. From 1910 to date I have been author, or coauthor, of 211 contributions to nutritional literature. The nutritional claims made in the statement cited above seem plausible, but they are based upon information on food composition that is out of date and at times grossly inaccurate. The information has been obtained, according to a statement made on page 6 of the statement, from Bulletin 549 of the United States Department of Agriculture, issued in June, 1940, and from Sherman's Chemistry of Food and Nutrition, the last edition of which (the seventh) appeared in 1946. However, I have not been able to trace any analytical data cited in the statement to this last edition of Sherman's book, so some earlier edition must have been used. Since 1940 an immense amount of information has been accumulated on food composition by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, and particularly by the Committee on Food Composition, Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council, in response to demands from the armed forces for data urgently needed for the proper rationing of their personnel. These results, in average form, have been published in 1945 as Miscellaneous Publication No. 572 of the United States Department of Agriculture. The vitamin values of food products in this bulletin are much more accurate than those earlier available, because of improvements in methods of vitamin analysis and of the much larger number of samples analyzed. The statement under scrutiny implies that foods are interchangeable in nutrition in proportion to their calorie content, a proposition that cannot be defended. Thus, a billion calories in nuts is assumed to be equivalent in nutrition to a billion calories in wheat. However, the value of food calories in human diets, and animal rations, too, depends upon the proportions derived from proteins, carbohydrates, and fats, and upon the contents of vitamins and minerals which aid in assimilation and oxidation in the body. Another misleading practice in the statement is the comparison of the nutrient contents of foods differing widely in water content. This practice would assign to milk a most inferior rank among human foods because of its high content of moisture, 87 percent. However, milk is considered as one of the most nutritious foods available for human use, by competent nutritionists. Foods should rather be compared on an equal moisture basis, or on the basis of a 100 or 1,000 or 3,000 calorie portion. The combination of inaccurate basic data and misleading methods of interpretation in the statement, leads to a grossly distorted picture of the balance of nutrients in nuts, of their value in comparison with other foods, and of their proper place in the human diet. The following criticisms of specific nutritional claims in the statement may be offered. Page 6, table headed "Calories per pound."-The high caloric value of nuts could be more fairly depicted if the comparison were made on the moisture-free basis. Thus, milk and potatoes are important sources of energy in many American diets, a fact that the table would not lead one to suspect. Page 7, first paragraph. This is another instance, but of a more misleading character, of the improper comparison of nutritive values. Here, almonds containing 3.3 percent of water, are compared with meat, containing 47 percent or more, milk containing 87 percent, bread with 36 percent, raisins with 24 percent and oranges with 87 percent. The high water content of the latter foods does not detract from their nutritive value, because it is immaterial whether we consume water in our food or from a glass. A fair comparison would be on the basis of portions of foods providing, say, 3,000 calories. This has been done in the following table: Almonds Bread 2 Raisins. Oranges Food comparisons made on p. 7, corrected to equi-caloric portions Protein per Calcium per 3,000 calories 3,000 calories Foods 1 Journal of Nutrition, vol. 14, p. 597, 1937. 0.35 5. 13 Iron per 3,000 calories Grams 0.0090 .0207 .0332 .0240 1 Choice, grade AA beef, very fat. Enriched white bread. Calculated from analyses contained in U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 572, 1945. Compared on this basis, almonds are less important suppliers of protein, calcium, and iron than any of the foods with which they are compared, and this is a fair verdict. But it does not take into account all pertinent facts, especially those relating to the availability to the body of the nutrients in different foods. For example, we have shown in our laboratory at the University of Illinois that almond protein is only 63 percent as available to a growing animal as is the protein of beef, this is due to the relative indigestibility of almond proteins and to their relatively low value in supplying the protein needs of growth. Of similar significance are the experiments of Rose and MacLeod comparing the utilization of calcium in milk and in almonds by 12 women. The almond calcium was definitely less well used than the milk calcium, more being wasted in the excreta. It is of particular significance that when a very high proportion of the dietary calcium comes from almonds, conditions in the digestive tract "may not be quite so favorable for economic utilization," and disproportionately large losses occur in the excreta. In other words, as the proportion of dietary calcium supplied by almonds increases, they become less and less valuable as calcium carriers as compared with milk. Page 7, table in center of page.-This table purports to show the good balance of nutrients in walnut kernels, illustrated by the fact (?) that "A pound of nut kernels comes remarkably close to 1 day's adequate ration for one person, in calories and in nutritive balance * * *"" The sources of data for this table are not given, neither the cited "Requirements for daily diet of normal adult," nor the nutrients "Found in 1 pound of walnut kernels." The former values are not current among nutritionists, in this country, at least, and the latter values do not correspond with food composition figures in the references cited as sources of such data at the bottom of the table on page 6. However, I would like to submit the following table of definite antecedents. The recommended dietary allowances for an adult man, moderately active, were formulated by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council, and represent the latest revision issued in the September 1945, issue of Nutrition Reviews. These values admittedly are liberal allowances, not minimal requirements, but in an argument favoring the nonexportation of nuts from the famine areas of Europe and Asia, such as this statement presents, liberal nutrition should be the goal. Rehabilitation of undernourished populations cannot be achieved by feeding merely just enough food to maintani life. The values given in the second column of figures are taken from Miscellaneous Publication 572 of the United States Department of Agriculture. The table follows: Recommended dietary allowances for adult man, moderately active, compared with nutrients contained in 1 pound of walnut kernels 3 Lancet, vol. 1 (1945), p. 375. Nutrition Reviews, vol. 3, p. 301, October 1945. 352 47 143 79 3 147 30 36 18 The picture presented here is more complete and more authoritative than that shown in the table on page 7 of the statement. It brings out the unique lack of balance among the nutrients contained in 1 pound of walnuts, especially in the right-hand column of the table where I have computed the percentages of the recommended allowances of the different nutrients provided by 1 pound of walnuts. This amount of walnuts supplies the calorie and protein allowance almost exactly It supplies considerable excess of phosphorus and thiamins (vitamin B1) and a great excess of fat. On the other hand, the quotas of iron and calcium are distinctly inadequate, those of riboflavin and niacin (nicotinic acid) even more so, while the nuts would furnish practically no vitamin A and very little carbohydrate or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The high content of fat in the walnut, and in other tree nuts, is particularly noteworthy, especially when one considers the nutrition of an undernourished people. A recent editorial in an English medical journal3 discusses "Partial Starvation and Its Treatment." The following quotation from an abstract of this editorial indicates the dangers in refeeding partially starved people on highfat foods, as revealed by conditions now prevailing in Belgium and France: "Nutritional edema due to a combined deficiency of calories and protein has been reported from Europe, and it is pointed out that when this is accompanied by gastrointestinal trouble the patient is in danger. Children do not develop the typical edema, but look pale and soggy. The best method of treatment in mild cases is a diet of easily digested foods, including milk, eggs, meat, fresh fruit, and cereals, without much fat at first." The abstract refers also to clinical observations on Dutch children: "Experience with almost 500 Dutch children who were brought to England in February 1945, for relief was recorded by Tauber (Brit. Med. J. 1, 486 (1945)). There were no severe hospital cases in this group which had subsisted for a long time mainly on bread, potatoes, and cabbage. The patients were from 7 to 16 years old, and the chief impression which they gave was of general undersize rather than of wasting; they were pale and many were weak. No specific signs or symptoms of vitamin deficiencies were noted, but some thickening and dryness of the skin was observed, occasional swollen gums were noted although the dental state was fairly satisfactory. Such individuals who have been starved of fat for a long time may become very sensitive to it and react with violent gastric disturbances if suddenly given large or even moderate amounts.' "2 In the same vein, a colleague of mine at the University of California, under date of June 30, 1945, writes of the physical condition of the people coming to San Francisco from the prison camps in the Philippines. She reports "that most of them were of the impression that the high-fat content of the Army ration which they received at the time of liberation made them sick." |