The Cranberry Scare of 1959
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CRANBERRY SCARE OF 1959: THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE DELANEY CLAUSE A Dissertation by MARK RYAN JANZEN Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2010 Major Subject: History THE CRANBERRY SCARE OF 1959: THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE DELANEY CLAUSE A Dissertation by MARK RYAN JANZEN Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Jonathan Coopersmith Committee Members, Harold Livesay Charles Brooks Anthony Stranges Barbara Gastel Head of Department, Walter Buenger December 2010 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT The Cranberry Scare of 1959: The Beginning of the End of the Delaney Clause. (December 2010) Mark Ryan Janzen, B.A., Texas A&M University; M.A., Texas Tech University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Jonathan Coopersmith The cranberry scare of 1959 was the first food scare in the United States involving food additives to have a national impact. It was also the first event to test the Delaney clause, part of a 1958 amendment to the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act prohibiting cancer-causing chemicals in food. Although lasting only a few weeks, the scare significantly affected the cranberry industry and brought the regulation of chemical residues in food to the national stage. Generated by a complex interaction of legislation, technology, media, and science, the scare had far-reaching effects in all areas of the cranberry industry, food legislation, and the perception of the public toward additives and residues in their food. The ripples caused by the scare permanently altered the cranberry industry and, after numerous subsequent scares and challenges to the law, eventually resulted in the repeal of the Delaney clause. The goal of this investigation was to demonstrate how the social, scientific, and political climates in the United States interacted and led to such an event. It shows how iv science, politics, and contemporary social anxiety combined, with technology as a catalyst, and how the resulting scare left significant marks on the development of both legislation and industry. It also improves our understanding of this seminal event in American social history by exploring the events surrounding the scare, as well as by comparing the perspectives and reactions of the public, the Eisenhower administration, the cranberry industry, and other industries affected by the scare and its aftermath. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank all of the people whose patience and support made this research possible. My committee chair, Dr. Jonathan Coopersmith, and my committee members, Dr. Charles Brooks, Dr. Barbara Gastel, Dr. Sylvia Grider, Dr. Harold Livesay, Dr. James Rosenheim, and Dr. Anthony Stranges have all played invaluable roles in the completion of this work. Thanks to my family and friends who have supported my efforts throughout all of the intervening years and events. My mother and father, Myron and Betty Janzen, were instrumental in my completion of the project. Thanks also to the faculty and staff of Wichita State University and the Ulrich Museum of Art for their generous time and support. Finally, special thanks to Amy for her stubborn encouragement and love. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………….………… iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………..……….……… v TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………….……………………………… vi LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………. viii LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………..……. ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION …...………………………………………… 1 II ENVIRONMENT AND CULTIVATION OF THE AMERICAN CRANBERRY………………………………..………………… 8 Biology and environment………………………………… 8 Consumption and cultivation…………………………….. 14 Technology in cranberry production, 1930-1959………… 27 III UNITED STATES FOOD LEGISLATION AND THE SCIENCE OF CHEMICAL TESTING…………………………………….. 36 Early food concerns and legislation…………………….. 38 Progress toward the 1906 Food and Drug Act………….. 40 The 1958 Food Additives Amendment and the Delaney clause……………………………………………………. 49 Science and the development of chemical testing………. 60 IV FEAR, TECHNOLOGY AND THE MEDIA…………………. 72 Societal fear……………………………………………… 73 Shifting food patterns……………………………………. 75 Food fear and other fears………………………………… 77 Technology and media…………………………………… 78 V THE CRANBERRY SCARE OF 1959………………………… 84 vii CHAPTER Page VI NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND OFFICIAL RESPONSES THROUGH NEWSPAPERS……………………………….. 101 Magazine coverage……………………………………… 116 Political responses………………………………………. 117 Secretary Flemming and the scare……………………… 125 Industry responses……………………………………… 131 VII CONCLUSION - EPILOGUE…………………………………. 141 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………. 158 APPENDIX A – CRANBERRY SCARE TIMELINE………………………… 171 APPENDIX B – SUBSEQUENT CANCER SCARES BASED ON THE DELANEY CLAUSE …………………………………….… 174 VITA…………………………………………………………………….……… 175 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 Map of the main cranberry growing regions in the United States …… 9 2 Regional cranberry productivity, 1940-1965…………..……………… 21 3 Combined number of cranberry scare articles, November 1959……… 114 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Cranberry producing acreage by state, 1947-1969……………….…... 11 2 Cranberry production by state, 1948-1969…………………………… 12 3 Cranberry crop carryover statistics, 1948-1968……………………… 34 4 Amendments to 1938 Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1938-1960…. 49 5 Number of articles by topic, November through December 1959…… 104 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The risk of disruption of agriculture and the food industries if the recognized health hazard gets blown out of proportion by ‗scare journalism‘ before sound answers from all points of view can be found.1 The cranberry scare of 1959, a nationwide food scare concerning contamination in cranberries by the synthetic chemical aminotriazole (C2H4N4), was an important historical event for several reasons. As the first major food scare involving chemically contaminated food, it served as a model for social and governmental interaction on such issues. The scare was also a first test of the functionality and acceptability of the 1958 Delaney clause, a specific clause in the 1958 Food Additives Amendment that banned any use of cancer causing chemicals in food for human consumption. The clause was named for Congressman James Delaney (D-NY) who, as a staunch supporter of the protection of food from chemical contamination, was the primary force behind its passage. Although the immediate impact of the cranberry scare on American minds was brief and there was no known physical harm resulting from aminotriazole exposure, the event demonstrated a critically important combination of several social factors generating a broad, society-wide response. ______________ This dissertation follows the style of the Journal of American History. 1 Untitled memorandum, January 31, 1959, Don Paarlberg Files, box 5, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Papers (Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene Kansas), 1. 2 Administrative and public responses, as well as media characterizations, placed the notion of a ―food scare‖ into the American public consciousness and helped set the tone for media, administrative, and public interactions in future scares. Scares involving adulteration of food, chemical contamination, and technological misunderstanding became common in American society. General distrust of chemicals and their presence in food, as well as distrust of the motivations of government and industry, generated cranberry scare-like responses into the 21st century. The cranberry scare was an early manifestation of that collective concern, and the combination of circumstances surrounding it remains a good example of why scares continued to occur.2 The cranberry scare was the beginning of the end of the Delaney clause. As the first test of the clause‘s complete restriction against the use of carcinogens in food, the cranberry scare demonstrated that the no-tolerance concept was politically and scientifically controversial and its administrative handling needed improvement. Consideration of the problem took 40 years, encompassed numerous carcinogen scares, and witnessed the creation of several new regulatory bodies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in 1972, and the Food Safety Quality Service (FSQS) in 1977, which became the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in 1981. The repeal of the Delaney clause in 1996 altered Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and EPA 2 Julian Morris and Roger Bate, Fearing Food: Risk, Health and Environment (Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann, 1999), 141-67. 3 regulatory procedures to allow for scientific judgment in setting tolerances, supporting the original scientific arguments against its addition to the Food Additives Amendment. The Eisenhower administration dealt with the cranberry scare. Well before the scare, the Eisenhower administration was aware of the potential problem of chemicals in food as well as the possible consequences to the public and industries. The White House predicted the panic caused by the scare while discussing potential problems with the discovery of harmful chemical residues in milk, but offered no immediate solutions to the problem.3 This analysis is divided into several chapters designed to demonstrate the interaction of the historical forces generating the scare. In Chapter II, a history of the cranberry industry provides background for the