Document 70MEbNbq0eVnmErJQNZeazaqa

Chicl e Devel opment Co.,inc. 500Pift h Avetue Ne w Yo r k PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMUNI CATI ONS TO THE COMPANY November 17th 1936 Messrs Kelson L Buck JC* Cox Y/C Arkell PL Becker JS Ellithorp y* CIf? Bunn S'* SC Prescottjr EIL Eehoe.U GentlemenI enclose herewith copy of &letter from Dr George E Ccragill# dated November 16th* vdth reference to the method of removing Xfrommaple products# as provided by Mr 'Wharton* In this same letter Dr. Cowgill comments on the proper procedure for the next steps in our problem I shall be glad to have your oomments Tours very truly CHICLE DEVEL SSY-W os GRC Enel. 0C6394 CHICLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 500 FIFTHAVENUE Ne w Y o r k November 16th 1956 Mr* SS Yates, Pres Chiole Development Co 500 Fifth Avenue NewYork City Dear 'Mr. Yates, Y\\\ I have studied the' description'of a method for removing Xf1rp\mmaple syrup, as provided by Mr`Wharton, and have the following reaction to report* On purely theoretical grounds, it is highly questionable""whether this method will also work when applied to chicle, but experimentation alone.can give us a definite answer. Without being extremely technical in explaining/why I think the method will fail to work with chicle/ let me say]that the method doubtless depends upon the presence of the metal/iir ionic form? and this requires that the product in question be in a solution! a. syrup could doubtless meet these fundamental conditions# In the case of a product like chicle, this is most questionable. If it should be found to workNsrith a molten chiole, I would almost be willing to venture the assertion^that an unusually long time would be required for the reaction to take place'' As stated above, however, only experimentation can give us the final answer'I suggest that a few pioneer experiments be per formed sufficient to determine the feasibility of this method when applied to chicle, not merely in order to satisfy oursieIves on this point, but to be able to showthe government sooner or later ( see no. 5 below) that their suggestion does not meet the situation,', should this indeed prove to be the case Since the governmeht refuses to sendrlts technical men to inspeot the centri fugation process developed >y Dr* Kehoe and associates, some other procedure must be devised* It is myconsidered opinion that whatever procedure is decided upon, it must include a description of. the technical work that has been done in attempting tp "clean up" contaminated chiole* Such a statement should give essentially X^)_the principle and the plan followed in the experimentation (b) represnhtatiVe^xperimdntal data, (o) the conclusions which they seemto warrant and (d) the metiio&-o~plant control finally developed based thereon* In my opinion, the government is not going to be satisfied until it has been given suoh a report and had a chance to study it* Let us suppose that suoh a report has been received and studied by the government and has made a favorable impression* If, now, the interested companies should ask for the release of the chicle in question, under guarantee that it will be processed so as to reduce the Xcontent to below the established tolerance, and only that which is so reduced allowed to enter as rawmaterial in oertain manufacturing processes, then the likelihood of favorable action on this request is very great* In the absenoe of the proposed soientifio 000395 t 500 FIFTHAVENXJE NEW YORK page two* report* however* I feel oertain that the government will not release the ohiole* beoause it would regard suoh aotion ae not being in the public iinnteersesesnt*ce bIesufoglgloewst*ed*therefore* that the following plan of procedure 1* Ascientific report of the researoh conducted by Drs* Kehoe* Thamann et al*, be prepared in form sufficiently detailed to permit governmental chemists to understand clearly and to appreciate the significance of what has been done in a scientific way to develop a method for "cleaning up" oont'pminated chide* 2* This scientific report should be made part of a\t\m) ore general report on what might be oalled the present status of our pro blem- PART11* - PART 1 having already^lseen-dealt, with by Mr* Dunn i.; his report on the field investigation'inTlfexicoxand elsewhere* \ S* The general report on PART 11 shpuld'include a request for release of the detained ohiole^following a;study by the government of the scientific report here .eubmittedi pW if such release cannot be granted* an invitation for suggestions from the government Tashetogewnhearatlthreeypocrotnoskid-PeArRtTo,,1b1e\\m^riegqhut/,iwreedllinintchluedeciracuremmsitnandecres that the units of,-the'industry here,, involved consider they have solved the problem of conteumination oftchicle in the field* and therefore entertain a reasonable expectation that no more ohiole to be imported by themwill be detained by the govern ment beoause of contamination/with X* Even in the face of this expectation* and. when using chicle passed by the government* the industrial units.,here anvo1ved have established plant control procedures*./The attitude-revealed to the government by a state ment of this type would indicate unquestioned sincerity of purpose on the part of the industry, and voluntary action which goes even beyond the minimumthat might be expected* This would help to secure favorable* aotion on the request for release of detained 11 might well include a brief statement concerning trials with chicle of the method for removing X found effective with maple syrups in order to show that we have tried out even this suggestion* As indicated above* I feel reasonably oertain that this method will be found experimentally to fail with chide* In view of the uncertainty on this point, however* these experiments should be performed as soon as possible, beoause upon the results will depend in some measure the line of action to be taken next Very truly yours, George R* Cowgill* oon.^e