FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

357

We recognize that we have to know what we are saying. We think it exceedingly important for 125,000,000 people in America that proceedings of this character should be carried on under auspices which are so unmistakably impartial that there can be no question raised about it either now or hereafter.

In order that the ultimate consumer should receive the safeguards he has every right to be afforded under this bill, the members of this committee or subcommittee which handles the hearing must represent, neither indirectly or directly, neither inferentially nor by their conduct of their discussion, any interest whatsoever save that of the general public.

I recognize that it is an unprecedented thing for a representative of the general public to speak in this way. I recognize that he usually held, properly, perhaps, in the light of the very clever men of law and of science who speak here, very properly regarded as the victims of the operation of commercial machinery.

I think the time may have come, gentlemen and ladies, when that process may no longer be safely carried on.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Dr. Schlink. Dr. Schlink spoke at my invitation, as he had not sent in his name. The next speaker is Mrs. C. I. Hendrickson, of Washington, of the District of Columbia Home Economics Association.

STATEMENT OF MRS. G. I. HENDRICKSON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION

Mrs. HENDRICKSON. Senator Copeland and members of the Committee, opponents and proponents, I am Gladys Irene Hendrickson, a home maker, representing the District of Columbia Home Economics Association, which is a member group of the American Home Economics Association.

It, like the national association, is composed of elementary and secondary school, college, and university teachers of home economics, dietitians, nurses, members of scientific and journalistic staffs within the District and Federal Governments, and in industrial and business organizations throughout the District of Columbia, together with a large group of home makers.

This association most heartily endorses Senate bill 1944 as an instrument of protection for consumers in their purchases.

We are endorsing the bill in its entirety, Mr. Chairman, not because we believe it to be a perfect instrument, but rather that we regard it as a starting point for the regulation of a situation which we now feel is absolutely hopeless, and we hope from the extremes of the opposition and the support that we may expect a reasonable mean.

It is the belief of our association that the provisions of the bill regarding advertising are mutually helpful to all concerned, producers, distributors, and consumers alike. In "distributors" we include advertisers.

Since the provisions of the bill preclude the possibility of misleading statements in advertising, consumers' confidence in the products advertised and the descriptive material used should be immeasurably strengthened.

358

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

Since reduction of waste through member purchasing is one of the major objectives of the association, it believes straightforward nonambiguous advertising can be most helpful in realizing this objective. Every consumer desires adequate protection against harmful ingredients in all articles for both internal and external use and therefore welcomes the extension of prerogative and function given the Food and Drug Administration in the provisions of the bill regarding drugs and cosmetics.

It is most reassuring to us to have our Government arranging its legislation to meet the constant changes in manner and practices of living such as are to be found in the provisions of the bill regarding mechanical therapeutic devices, as it gives us cause to believe that the unscrupulous may not expect to exploit the public at the expense of its health.

As in the instance of the reduction of economic waste, and as a means toward that end, the extablishment of definite standards in all products purchased for household and personal use has long been a major objective of the association, especially in the home makers' group.

We are, therefore, desirous that this portion of the bill, together with the provisions regarding labeling, be made as extensive as possible in its scope.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me; you would not favor any change particularly in those items of the bill?

Mrs. HENDRICKSON. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. HENDRICKSON. Since in the understanding of the members of the association the bill as written offers so much protection to honest ethical producers and distributors, and also offers such excellent opportunities for the practice of fair business methods, this group feels such business organizations have much to gain and little to lose under its enactment.

The District of Columbia Home Economics Association wishes. therefore, to go on record as endorsing all the provisions of S. Bill 1944 as protective of the best interests of its members and needful to the well-being of all as consumers.

It urges that the committee recommend the speedy enactment of the bill into law.

Mr. Chairman, may I at this time read the concensus of opinion of a group which met at my home yesterday and discussed the bill. I had not requested the time for that.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mrs. HENDRICKSON. In addition, I wish to express the opinions of 40 women meeting informally to discuss this bill, and, while some of these may seem very curt, very abrupt, and even rude to some of you advertisers, nevertheless I shall offer them:

That in the opinion of this group to which I refer, any manufacturer who refuses to subject his products to the scrutiny of the bill is thereby automatically admitting soine inferior or harmful quality in that product, and that, therefore, we, as consumers, can have no confidence in any sales appeal regarding it;

That no action proposed by the Government with the protection of public health as its objective could be considered too drastic or too costly;

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

359

That we can have no confidence nor understand the motive of a manufacturer or advertiser who is willing to abide by the letter of the existing law regarding labeling, and insists upon creating other impressions through other forms of advertising;

That we urge the formulation of legislation which will give the consumer-Dr. Campbell particularly-the greatest sense of protection against the unscrupulous, unprincipled manufacturer.

I take issue there with the man who spoke this afternoon on the small percentage of those people. It is always the small percentage against whom we have to protect ourselves, because, by and large, we all like to believe we are fairly decent people.

I want to second the statement of Mr. Thomas Elliott that at any social or economic cost which may ensue as a result of the effect upon the unscrupulous, that cost is infinitesimal beside the continuance of the present practices of the people who would be involved in that situation.

Finally, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist asking Mr. Parlin of the Curtis Publishing Co. how he reconciles his vehement attack upon the rating of products which all we home makers have welcomed, with the wide-spread campaign of the Dole pineapple people to educate the public at large to use their second- and thirdgrade products.

Thank you.

Mrs. Hendrickson later secured permission to insert the following documents at this point in the record:

THE MONEY-CHANGERS IN THE TEMPLE-AN ANALYSIS OF THE GOODWIN PLAN [By Robert C. Dexter, in the Christian Leader, Dec, 16, 1933]

Many of our churches have inquired of officers of the American Unitarian Association regarding the so-called Goodwin plan. It has, therefore, been thought advisable by the adininistrative council to request the secretary of the Department of Social Relations to prepare a statement outlining the plan. Further than that, it has been considered desirable that this statement shall also include pertinent cominents and criticisms on the plan for consideration by our churches. It should be borne in mind that Unitarian churches are congregational in polity and that any statement only represents the opinion of its author. Some of our churches, in common with many others, have already committed themselves to the support of the plan as outlined.

In this connection it is interesting to note that at the last meeting of the General Alliance Board on November 10 the matter of endorsing money-raising schemes was discussed. The alliance board felt that this was not its function and the following vote was passed:

Voted: That the executive board feels that the alliance is organized to stress the religious and spiritual side of our churches, and that it does not endorse the exploitation of the branches by business organizations.

While the officers of the association take essentially the same position as that taken in the alliance resolution just quoted, they feel that they are bound at least to present their point of view to our churches for their consideration.

THE PLAN

The Goodwin plan was conceived by Adolph O. Goodwin, a business and advertising executive of Chicago, Ill. It is worked in the following manner: The Goodwin Corporation is approaching all churches in the United States, both Protestant and Catholic, generally making its contact through the women's organizations, although this is not al the case. It asks that each organization appoint at least 10 representat.es, whom it calls broadcasters. These broadcasters are instructed to approach the purchasers in the church, particularly the women, and ask them to sign an agreement to purchase a certain brand of nationally advertised products. The products cover practically every con

360

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

ceivable field "from chewing gum to automobiles", to quote the Goodwin plan prospectus. There is, however, to be only one brand or make in each field. The individual products have not as yet been selected, but the selection will be made in the near future, probably by January 1. The individual purchaser also agrees to keep certain evidences of her purchase, labels or coupons, which she is to turn in to the broadcaster once a month, and the broadcasters in turn in each church pool their evidences and send them in to the main office of the Goodwin Corporation. The Goodwin Corporation then turns in the evidences to the manufacturer, who returns to the Goodwin Corporation 3%1⁄2 percent of the retail sales price, and the Goodwin Corporation sends 2 percent of the retail sales price to the broadcasters for the use of their church or church society.

In announcing the plan the Goodwin Corporation claims that it will select only goods of "a high quality." It, therefore, must of necessity stand back of the type of goods selected. It also states that the plan is "definitely dedicated to upholding the principles of social justice for working men and women, as advocated by all church denominations." These principles of social justice as stated in the prospectus are the following:

1. The maintenance of a living wage to working men and women.

2. Reasonable working hours.

3. Reasonable working conditions.

4. A willingness to work toward a permanent maintenance of employment.

The Goodwin Corporation, therefore, not only gaurantees the one brand which it endorses to be of high quality but it also guarantees that the firme manufacturing this product shall abide by the principles as stated.

RECEPTION OF THE PLAN

The plan has received highest endorsements from leaders in the religious and social field, ainong them being some of our own people. It must be especially gratifying to the promoters of the plan to find the names of such men as Father John A. Ryan and Father James Fogarty of the Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame among the endorsers. Literally thousands of church organizations have already "signed up" with the Goodwin Plan and are awaiting the publication of the selected list. The latest information which we have from the Boston area is that 126 churches of various denominations in Greater Boston are cooperating in the plan, among them two Unitarian churches, and the response in other parts of the country has been equally great.

On the other hand, there have been church leaders who have been critical of the plan. Especially outstanding has been the criticism of the plan in The Christian Century, which has published two articles, one by Georgianna Merrill Root in the issue of November 8 under the title "Are Church Women Being Exploited?" and the second an editorial entitled "The Goodwin Plan" in the issue of November 22. The Christian Century criticizes the commercialization of religion in an editorial, as well as the monopolistic aspects of the plan. It contends that despite its apparent success the plan will not be permanently successful, as the churches for 30 years have been gradually "developing a conscience on methods of raising church money."

The Christian Čentury's faith in the churches of the country is gratifying, but one cannot but be somewhat doubtful in view of the large number of churches which have promised to adopt the plan.

WHY THE CHURCHES YIELD

The reasons for which the churches have taken up the plan are various. In the first place, there is the financial inducement. There is no question that if the plan succeeds there is a huge financial reward to the churches and incidentally to the Goodwin Corporation. The Goodwin Corporation prospectus indicates this by stating that 10 broadcasters in an average church with 10 families apiece and each family spending a minimum of only $5 per week on goods shown in the Goodwin catalog, would mean a $520 income for the church, for 20 broadcasters it would be $1,040 and for 50 $5,200 a year. The present financial burdens which many churches are carrying make it quite understandable that this amount of money is a tremendous inducement.

A second reason, and a much more laudable one than merely financial need, is the ethical standard promulgated in the plan. On the surface it seems to present a way by which the churches can make their social ideals effective. To quote an advertisement of the Goodwin Plan in The Christian Century written by Dr.

FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

361

Walter Macpherson, of Joliet, Ill., "The social-justice program is the only prac tical means * whereby the Christian women of America can make effective their instinctive abhorrence of their silent partnership in the profit wrung from the masses by exploitation."

That there is something appealing in this aspect of the Goodwin Plan there is no doubt.

CRITICISMS OF THE PLAN

The various criticisms of the Goodwin Plan have been foreshadowed in what has already been said. First of all, there is the general criticism, clearly brought out in The Christian Century editorial, that it is a commercializing of the churches. It is perfectly true, as advocates of the plan may well claim, that this is nothing new. The church fair or the solicing of adverisements and donations from local merchants is also a commercialization of the church. The difference is in degree rather than in kind. This is a wholesale commercialization. It definitely and specifically ties up the church and church people to certain manufacturers to the exclusion of their competitors. That there are practical difficulties of this kind, the advocates of the plan themselves admit. They agree, for example, that any church or any individual may cross off from their catalog list certain goods in which they desire to have another choice than that listed. This is to prevent the difficulty that might arise, for example, if one of the leading members of the church were the dealer in Chevrolets and the Ford happened to be the car that was chosen by the Goodwin Corporation. But even so there is no question but that the plan will be criticized from this point of view. The church, after all, is a specially privileged institution; it is free from taxation. The reason for these special privileges is that the church is assumed to be rendering a broad community service. If the church in place of rendering this broad community service to all becomes a center for propaganda of certain articles to the exclusion of others, it may well be contended that it is betraying its trust. While the temple may not become a den of thieves, it will certainly be considered to be usurping the place of the market. The manufacturers whose goods are not placed on the preferential list will not hesitate to criticize organized religion if in any large number of churches continue to support this plan, and such criticism will be exceedingly difficult to meet. The 2 percent commission in this case might well be compared to the mess of pottage for which the church has surrendered its sublime inheritance.

The second criticism which can be leveled at the plan has to do with the claim that the goods selected are of high quality. A careful reading of the Goodwin plan literature fails to disclose any method by which this quality is to be tested. It is true that the Goodwin plan reserves the right to change the brand selected if the quality falls off. Anyone who has studied the difficulties with which an impartial organization such as the Consumers' Research has met in trying to determine quality of goods, or anyone at all conversant with the careful studies made by the Government Bureau of Standards in Washington, knows that a determination of the quality of goods is no slight task.

The essence of the Goodwin plan is that the goods selected shall be nationally advertised, and it may well be that the highest quality goods are not nationally advertised. The temptation, too, for the Goodwin plan promoters will be to select goods which have the widest public sale, and that does not necessarily mean they are of the highest quality. The Goodwin plan does not anywhere claim that the goods selected will be the very best, and in using the term "high quality", its promoters undoubtedly escape any legal criticism, but, practically speaking the only way by which quality can be determined is by careful, continuous, scientific research, and there is no indication so far that the Goodwin Corporation has made careful provision for such objective study of the quality of the goods selected.

A third criticism, and one which should appeal most of all the the churches, is that regarding the ethical standards under which the goods selected are to be man ufactured. This qualification for inclusion in the Goodwin catalog is one which its churchly defenders fall back on. It is, therefore, worth examination. Originally the qualifications were those outlined above:

1. The maintenance of a living wage to working men and women.

2. Reasonable working hours.

3. Reasonable working conditions.

4. A willingness to work toward a permanent maintenance of employment. These very general statements The Christian Century calls "nothing but sentimental selling talk." Impelled by such criticism, the Goodwin Corporation has recently issued a bulletin clarifying its position. The basic wage which the