Opponents mocked federal food standards as sumptuary regulation by ignorant experts

Evidence

A long minority report was subtkitted by members of the committee, signed by Adamson and Bartlett of Georgia and Rusebl1 of Texas. The whole contention of the minority report was that the federal government had no right to extend its police powers into the states. This was also the import. of the speech which Adamson, as leader of the opposition, made on this occasion. “The truth about it is,” he claimed, “the bill from first to last, violates every principle of our government by proposing to go into sumptuary legislation for the regulation of the table menu, and I suppose the next step will be to prescribe the table etiquette and dress.* Applause greeted him when he said, “I believe there are millions of old women, white and black, all over my country, who know more about victuals and good eating than my friend Doctor Wiley and all of his apothecary shop.” — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1030

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the dress/norm-regulation thread of the immodesty article — sumptuary framing links food regulation to prior moral-panic scholarship. — connects to: Congressional opponents framed pure-food regulation as an unconstitutional federal police power — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1027; Mises rejected nutritional minimum standards as tools of despotic control — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 212; Propaganda campaigns backfire by insulting audiences assumed ignorant

Broader Connections

• Mises rejected nutritional minimum standards as tools of despotic control #corroborates (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 212
• Propaganda campaigns backfire by insulting audiences assumed ignorant #corroborates (0.72)