352

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

next day when he called on this man he saw that he was in a rather serious condition and he asked him if he took the medicine to the quantity that would be able to stay on a dime and the man said that he had no dime so he used two nickels. This illustrates very clearly what happens when otherwise innocent drugs are used improperly. We are not looking for scarecrow nor for corkscrew interpretations. We want them to be straight and definite. Under the definition as we have it now, if you sell something, anything to be used externally, if it is taken internally, or if it goes in your eye, the person who makes that can be liable for injury if this provision were incorporated in the law.

I should like to see the words "or cosmetics" taken out. I think that is what it really means, spray residue and insecticide.

I should like to suggest also taking over the adulteration of cosmetics and I refer now to page 6, section 5. Dr. Beal objected to that when he was brought forward, and I shall be very glad to offer a concrete suggestion in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. You are offering some language for that?

Dr. WALL. Yes; I can offer you language for a definition, and I can clear this up so it will not be so vague.

The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to have you do so.

Dr. WALL. This section 5 has to do with the adulteration of cosmetics. We will pass everything that has to do with material medical because that has changed so frequently since 20 years ago, when we started the chemical research, and if I may coin the term "material. cosmetica" has changed just about as frequently.

Years ago everything was in connection with plant substances and then metallic substances, and then 20 years ago the metallic substances in drugs have been replaced by modern chemical synthetics and very little is known about them. The one thing that must be covered is the question of personal idiosyncrasy. It is unsound to exclude a whole group of substances because a few individuals might be susceptible, and the matter of determining tolerances can only be determined after a long and severe undertaking for years and years. I hope it will be done, and when done, properly.

Misbranding: We have goods taken care of and we have drugs taken care of, but we have no misbranding of cosmetic accounted for. That has been omitted. The industry is one which justifies the protection against misbranding, which is frequently possible in our industry. It deserves the protection against misbranding certainly as much as the other two industries. I have listened with great interest to all the discussion of the publication of formulas. You owe it to the legitimate manufacturer to protect him. The man who has pirated that has simply taken the hard work of another manufacturer and gained all the benefit of it. This, of course, brings in a class of people who are not professional-the amount of pirating that is done is something appalling and they feel that all one must do is to simply analyze a substance and duplicate it, that is not the point. The control of food and drugs bring in, largely, manufacturers of some size, but the control of cosmetics brings in every little beauty-shop operator who if she or he wants to pay $5 for an analysis can become a manufacturer. Every person who manufactures cosmetics should be protected. The big houses who have spent so much time and money on research work

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

353

every year should be protected. I would like to suggest, and I can also suggest some words for that.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have that.

Dr. WALL. In summing up I would like to say that I feel it is to be regretted that there is so much hysteria about cosmetics. I lay that largely to the dread mystery in which it has been shrouded so long. The physicians dropped it and it was taken up by very improper people for a long time. It was not until the chemists took it up that it became respectable again.

In September I had the privilege of serving as chairman of a committee working in connection with the New York Health Department to get up a display of the Chamber of Horrors in connection with cosmetics. The first release that went out-but first let me go back and give you the history of that:

The idea was to fit in right along with the Food and Drugs Act and the Health Department was commissioned to collect up a display that would show to the public all of the harmful and dreadful things, things against which they should be warned. I went away for 10 days and Dr. Barker had been commissioned to collect these dreadful things. I came back and called him on the phone and when I called him and asked him what had been done he said, "We cannot find enough to make a decent show." I said, "That is fine." When the releases came out, they had evidently already gone to press and it had been written by some representative who evidently had written it up in the future tense, and it stated that this display was a display of all the harmful things that could be used by the public. As a matter fact, the display that was there was a splendid exhibit of the raw materials that the various creams were made out of and it told why the value of the cream bases helped in some measure to account for the prices of the product. That was entirely good propaganda. At another corner there was a display by the department where I gave a lecture on hair dyes. My objection to similar things that appear here are purely esthetic. I have never known of anybody being killed by hair dye, but some of it is certainly not very flattering, although the better grades are. I was on the committee that helped to revise the sanitary code of the city of New York; I was invited merely as a chemist to sit in on the meetings of the committee as a whole, in connection with the protection of the public. I decided that if people are still in business who have been in business for the last 75 years, it cannot be so deadly the product which they manufacture-but if they have products which contain certain things they should be stated. They should put informative labels on them so the public can decide whether they want to buy that particular thing and use that particular thing or not. As the ideal solution of this I would like to suggest that our present law, as it stands, be extended to cover the advertising; that, we need to improve, to bring in corrections that are most urgently needed at the moment. The cosmetic industry has had some trade-practice conferences, and perhaps can take care of its own troubles. That was their idea, but the N.R.A. came along, and I think they are going to function under that. The ideal thing would be to have foods and insecticides where they belong, under the Secretary of Agriculture, and I think the Secretary would have troubles enough with them. I would like some time, it cannot happen day after tomorrow, but I would like to see drugs and cosmetics taken out of the administration

354

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

by the Department of Agriculture, and it should be treated as a new administration of drugs and cosmetics in which we shall include all therapeutic appliances, drugs and cosmetics in the new National Institute of Health where they would be subject to the Surgeon General, and with an advisory board consisting of physicians and pharmacists and chemists who can be assumed to know something about these questions and would be specilaists in this line. They would know about things that pertain to our business, and they will not be determined by people who have their troubles already with food and insecticide.

I suggest the establishment of an advisory board to serve as grievance committee to protect against unwise publicity before facts are ascertained. But, publicity and prosecution should follow any complaint or finding toward them.

Re: Publication of formulas: I also want registration of formulas with a competent bureau-I suggest the advisory board-so that questions of advertising claims can be settled before copy goes out and publications could also apply to such a bureau to see if advertisement is acceptable and truthful in substance. This will work towards higher standards because if advertisement is refused and refusal is based on actual knowledge itself it may prompt manufacturers to improve products and bring them up to standards that will be acceptable.

A list of "harmful or deleterious substances" should be carefully defined to include

A. Substances forbidden at all times. These would be very few.

B. Partially harinful substances that are allowable up to defined percentages. C. Substances specifically for external use, generally harmless.

D. Substances generally harmless, that can affect predisposed persons-and this protection should apply to labels as well as all accompanying literature.

It is not suggested that these lists are to be included in the law. They should be for the information of the bureau, available at request. Lists can be made for food, drugs, and cosmetics, impartially, and I can supply much valuable information on these categories.

But, I still say that these medical, drug, and cosmetic matters belong more properly to some other administrative body than the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Agriculture. Section 9 (e) at the foot of page 13 should be revised. The wording is amusing in its implication. An advertisement is false in one magazine but not false if it is in a medical magazine. If you mean that curative properties can be stated more explicitly to the medical profession, say it in some other way. After all, the medicos need to keep up with the new things just as well (even more) than the laity.

Contemporary medical opinion. This is especially important on cosmetics because so few physicians know about them at all and practically all the medical literature is against them based on troublecases only; hence, exaggerated. They are learning that their newer ideas are worth more.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate the remarks by Dr. Wall, and we think they will be of value in the consideration of this bill. We will call on Mr. Arthur Kallet, Secretary of the Consumers Research Incorporated, Washington, N.J.

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

355

STATEMENT of arthur kALLET, SECREtary consuMERS RESEARCH, INC.

Mr. KALLET. My name is Arthur Kallet, and I am Secretary and one of the representatives of Consumers' Research, a nonprofit organization with 50,000 ultimate consumer subscribers, and interested solely in the protection of the ultimate consumer, and supported solely by ultimate consumers.

We had prepared a detailed analysis of the proposed bill from the consumers' point of view, but we shall not present that analysis.

With respect to the bill, I wish merely to say that while we believe the bill far too weak to give the consumers the adequate protection to which he has every right, it is nevertheless infinitely superior to the present act, and if a stronger law cannot be obtained, this at least should be passed.

We do, however, wish to place a brief statement on record which we feel is an unpleasant but unavoidable necessity if this legislation is to receive proper consideration from the present moment until it passes the Congress.

Before reading the statement, I wish to point out that it is now & few hours within the close of the hearings, and no ultimate consumer has yet been heard. Nor has even a modicum of consideration been given to his interests by the speakers or by the formal or informal expressions of the Committee, yet it is or should be evident to everyone that except as this bill serves, aids, and safeguards ultimate consumers, these deliberations have no meaning of value, except a few pitiful

remarks.

It is difficult at best for consumers to obtain a fair and full hearing before a congressional committee dealing with legislation which would dislodge strong vested interests of manufacturers of cosmetics, quack medicines, and adulterated and misrepresented foods and drugs of every sort. The preponderance of commercial interests present and speaking at great length for the protection of their profits makes it absolutely essential that the fairest possible dealing with every ultimate consumer interest should be assured. As representatives of the consumer we do not believe it possible to receive such fair dealing, not only in the hearings but also in the committee's deliberations, when the chairman of the Committee is, we are informed, receiving pay for broadcasts on behalf of a nationally advertised product the claims for which will be adversely affected as being untrue and misleading under the terms of the pending legislation. These broadcasts, on behalf of Fleishman's Yeast, were started after the introduction of the pending bill. The Senator's fourth broadcast in the series took place last night, following the close of the first day's hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you observed any unfairness on my part? Mr. KALLET. Yes. I have. I should want to discuss that with you after I close this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. By all means proceed.

Mr. KALLET. During the course of that company's broadcast statements were made which were gross exaggerations and which find no support among reputable American physicians. Because reputable American physicians are not permitted by their code of

356

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

ethics to testify directly or indirectly on medical nostrums, Fleishman's have been found to buy their testimony abroad. Much of this purchased testimony has been repudiated by the medical faculty at Vienna.

In view of this commercial activity for a concern which will be affected by the pending legislation, we protest on behalf of the consumers for whose protection this bill was drawn, and we request that the hearings be reconvened under a new committee and an unquestionably impartial chairman.

This statement is made by the secretary and is signed by myself and Mr. Schlink.

To answer Dr. Copeland's statement, we do not find that very hard, because I merely listened to those that came forward to press their claims by taking up what otherwise would have been time for the consumers, and the two have banded together in the considered effort to prevent the ultimate consumer from being heard. I have sat here and listened to those that have come forward all day yesterday and today up until 2 hours ago and no consumer had been heard.

One of the representatives of the ultimate consumer, I noticed, received a great amount of applause from the commercial interests represented here.

If the consumer is to receive adequate protection, we believe that a more aggressive spirit must be displayed in seeing that the clause is properly described, and that his necessities are properly placed before the Committee, for, after all, this is an appeal designed to protect the public, to protect the ultimate consumer, and not to protect the commercial interests concerned, as one might gather from listening to the two days of testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged, Mr. Kallet. (Applause).

The CHAIRMAN. The next speaker is Dr. Schlink, of the Consumers' Research.

STATEMENT OF DR. F. J. SCHLINK ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMERS' RESEARCH

Dr. SCHLINK. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

Like Mr. Kallett, I spent many days in preparation for these hearings, in an earnest attempt to represent, so far as they could be represented, the interests of 50,000 ultimate consumers.

We really speak for those ultimate consumers, and we know that we speak for them.

Hundreds of them have written to members of the Senate and the House and to President Roosevelt himself, in support of this bill, and we have copies of the letters which many of them have sent.

Through our work 50,000 consumers, at least, know that they have a stake in this bill, and we propose to tell them, as often as may be necessary, that that stake is not being protected under the system which is set up for hearings of this type.

I am not going to make a speech.

I am going to close very briefly by saying that I reenforce the statements of Mr. Kallett. We prepared those statements together. We have made them with a clear consideration of our responsibility.