FOODS, DRUCS, AND COSMETICS 163 enactment has to go through the same testing periods and run iuto similar or more extensive difficulties." Those making this argument have evidently not studied closely the system of Federal and State law now in existence. It should be reemphasized that Senate bill 1944 does not change or eliminate anything which has been won and held but it does bring into the Federal act tested means of enforcement long contained in most of the State laws and it extends the Federal act to cover abuses, including false advertising, not now contained in the act of 1906. These new provisions applying to advertising will undoubtedly be the subject of much litigation, just as have the existing provisions applying to the label STANDARDS The existing law makes the United States Pharmacopoeia and the National Formulary the standard for drugs. Products sold under a name recognized in these books and not up to the standard, must make it known on the label. 66 The opposition made a successful fight to prevent a provision providing for legal food standards in the act of 1906. The opposition came then in the main from those who produce and sell so-called blended" whisky. Manufacturers and users of preservatives and aniline dyes were opposed to legal standards. The United States Brewing Association, the California Wine Growers Association, and the "bottled-in-bond" whisky people supported the act and the provision for standards. The same fight is made against the proposal for legal food standards in the Senate bill 1944. Obviously full and honest standards will, in the end, be the measure of the truth or falsity in food advertisements, with a new and still more powerful opposition insisting that if there are standards they shall be 'minimum" standards. The Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, the food chemists of the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, and the State food analysts have been working some 35 years to establish fair and uniform methods of analyses and fair standards for foods. They established the standards for fertilizer and feeds. Power exists in practically all of the State food control laws for the legal adoption of these standards for guidance in the enforcement of the law. Chemical and bacteriological standards for meats, meat products, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, flavoring extracts, cereals, flour, baking powder, bread, and most other foods have been established. A biscuit company uses the standard methods of analyses and standards for quality and composition in the purchase of milk, eggs, flavoring extracts, chocolate, cocoanut, sugar, molasses, nuts, fruit, and other materials which go into the make-up of a cracker or biscuit. Why not continue these standards when the biscuit is sold for human consumption? Shall the Federal Food and Drug Control Administration continue to be legally deprived of that basic means for food law enforcement which has been adopted in the pure food laws of practically all the States? As it is, the standards are used as evidence, but they must be expensively proven to each court in a suit in equity or to each jury in a criminal prosecution. Mr. George C. Parlin, of the Curtis publications and who represents, as he states, some 120 national magazines and newspapers, has insisted that the word "minimum be placed before the word "standards." I have not gotten at the real intention of Mr. Parlin and others in this. Undoubtedly there is some misunderstanding. Food standards should be full and fair standards; honest standards. With strict bacteriological, chemical, and sanitary standards for milk, the infant death rate in most American cities has been cut to a half or less of the deaths of former years. Shall we go back to the "minimum" standards? Not even those who would make and sell more of little white coffins would argue for it. How then can those in advertising do it? In addition to certified milk, New York City, for example, has grade A, grade B, and still a lower or "minimum standard. Shall we make this "minimum" standard the only Federal standard? The instances of other foods and in many cases of equal importance to human health, even human life, can be multiplied. 164 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS PERMITS Senate bill 1944 provides for two kinds of permits: (a) A permit where the circumstances are such that the food or other product is being prepared of materials or in a way which may endanger health; (b) a voluntary permit for food, drug, or cosmetic manufacturers who wish the Government to inspect their premises and products and certify the facts to the consuming public. The joint committee for sound and democratic legislation objects to the first (a) in section 12 of the bill because (1) the Secretary can suspend the permit, if the danger to health reoccurs, until it is corrected; (2) because judicial review is not permitted until after the permit is revoked; and (3) fear that "it will tend greatly to weaken the State health authorities." There is nothing in the section which differs from power already exercised under State and municipal public health laws. It proposes to establish the same power over interstate commerce. It is needed. During recent years products have gone into interstate commerce which have been responsible for a number of deaths. A product caused botulism. People died. Under the proposed provision, as soon as the outbreak became known, the Department of Agriculture would have put the growers and packers of the product under a permit and would have held shipments up until the facts were plain that the danger to human life was ended. The members of this joint committee and associates surely cannot understand the reason for this provision. Radium water, poisoned ginger extracts, have caused deaths and eyelash preparations caused blindness. It has been recognized throughout all the years of American constitutional and statutory law that the governments do and should have the power to stop and stop, at once, any and all thinks known to endanger human life. The State and municipal health departments want the Government to control the thing when it crosses or is intended to cross a State line just like the police departments of the cities want the Government to shut the open interstate commerce gates to fire arms; just like the Government has exercised similar control over narcotics. Strong objection was made to section 22 which provides for voluntary permit and inspection, at cost, by the Department of Agriculture with a certificate that the product has been so inspected and passed. The opposition to this was strong enough to have it eliminated in substitute Senate bill 2000. There is nothing new in it. Municipal and State pure food and public health control use a permit system. Meats and meat products for interstate commerce are inspected and passed" by the Department of Agriculture. Genuine whisky aged 4 years is certified to the consumer under the “bottled in bond” stamp. Steamboats going from our ports and plying on our lakes and rivers have permits that they are safe. Airplanes and pilots are inspected and licensed by the Department of Commerce. Mixed feeds and fertilizers are sold under a State system of licensing with the ingredients and analyses certified from the State agricultural experiment station. Such permit system will be of vast benefit to fruit and vegetable growers and poultry raisers. It will give local abattoirs opportunity to concentrate meat packing, poultry dressing, and egg handling, under either private enterprise or cooperative agricultural associations, to get a trained Government inspector, pay for him and have purity and quality of the product certified to consumers in distant cities. Apple and vegetable growers can have inspection controlling spray residue and with a stamp which will carry more confidence to the city consumer. The plan will attach more confidence to our food products when sold in the foreign markets. It will directly increase advertising out of the urge to get the important fact of being inspected and passed to the consuming public. It will add a constructive activity and get things done before it becomes necessary to use the penalty sections of the law. There can be only one objection to this permit section. It is the objection against full and honest standards. It comes, however, it may sound like the voice of Jacob, from the Esaus who know that adulterated and falsely advertised products will not get a permit. FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 165 It will not build up an uncontrollable bureaucracy. Farming organizations and food industries will see to it that the fees are not in excess of the actual costs. Out of the 15 years' experience in State food and drug control and out of the other 15 years' experience in food-industry management, I earnestly urge that :he American Pure Food League stand for and fight for the retention of this permit section. Put it into the law, and within a few years we will stop hearing about adulterated and misbranded foods. THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DRUGS During a trip through the rural sections of Kentucky in the summer of 1909 I noted the wide sale of "consumption" and other cures in the stores on the crossroads. A boy in his early teens wanted the "pure-food man" to see his mother. She was in the last stages of tuberculosis. An empty bottle and a half-filled ' bottle of "consumption cure were on the mantle. In the same room was a half-filled basket of eggs. The butter and eggs were being traded at the store for the "consumption cure." The mother had trusted the advertisement in the local weekly newspaper. I drafted and the legislature of 1910 passed a law which prohibits the sale of a medicine, "if it be labeled or branded or in any manner misrepresented or sold so as to deceive or mislead a purchaser or consumer with respect to purity, quality, or medicinal value." The pharmaceutical and medical associations and the State Federation of Women's Clubs backed us in securing the unanimous passage of this law. It is more comprehensive than the similar section in Senate bill 1944. The State of Kentucky needs the power of the Federal Government to stop the broadcasting and advertising originating outside of the State, yet influenc ing purchases within the State. It is unnecessary to involve this vital need in a controversy between whether prosecution shall be had on facts or opinion. In the end it must be upon facts. COMMITTEE ON APPEALS The provision for the committee on appeals against regulations proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture in the form presented should be opposed. It is set over the Secretary, even over the President. Three of the five can set a regulation aside and there is no appeal. The Secretary of Agriculture should be given full authority to appoint com mittees from both the professions and the food industries, to aid him in arriving at the facts. In the end responsibility should be fixed upon the Secretary and his Chief of the Food and Drugs Inspection Service. A Cabinet member, and if necessary the President, should have the last say in all matters of administration, after which any and all aggrieved may have their day in court. I would suggest in lieu of this that where the Secretary, after hearing proposes a regulation, opportunity be given to appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in the same way that decisions of the Patent Office are taken for review by that court. So much of current advertising has fooled, with so much profit, a large part of the people continuously that the advertisers and advertising agencies feel that the same misrepresentation about Senate bill 1944 will prevail. But they have not considered the individuals among the groups who know, whose leadership the people follow and who support President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his plan to have a "new deal" for public health in the same way as for public wealth and employment security. I reviewed last evening Dr. Harvey W. Wiley's autobiography and some of my files when Secretary of the Association of Food Control officials during 1902-10. Practically all of the argument used by the opposition against Senate bill 1944 was used against the act of 1900. The argument in opposition to honest advertising is the same as was the opposition to the honest label. R. M. ALLEN. 166 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS AMERICAN PURE FOOD LEAGUE, Cranford, N.J., FEBRUARY 13, 1934 Memorandum: To the officers and members of the advisory board of the American Pure Food League: Mrs. Wiley and myself asked Mr. R. M. Allen, who was food commissioner of Kentucky and secretary of the Association of Food Control Officials and who worked closely with Dr. Wiley to secure the act of 1906, to review Senate bill 1944 and the substitute Senate bill 2000. Mr. Allen also served as a Special Assistant to the United States Attorney General in pioneer litigation under the act of 1906. A copy of his statement is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of the statement of Mr. Charles D. Howard, State analyst and State food and drug control official of New Hampshire. The Tugwell bill is the only bill so far which does not seem to be compromised and weakened. I understand that the committee is to report a bill which will have the approvel of the administration, and particularly of the Food and Drugs Administration. You will be advised on this as soon as definite information is obtained. The fight against this legislation is fully covered by Mr. Howard. It is unnecessary to repeat it. Some food manufacturing opposition, headed by Mr. Charles Wesley Dunn, an attorney of New York, and some of the publications headed by Mr. George C. Parlin of Philadelphia, want to get the word "minimum" introduced before the word "standard" in the section providing for standards. "Minimum (Century) means of the smallest possible amount or degree. least, smallest." "Minimum" food standards would mean watering and skimming between the farmer and consumer, unfair trade to honest food manufacturers and minimum truth in food advertising. Minimum " nutritional value means minimum growth for children and minimum individual and national vitality, to the extent that these depend on food. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. J. D. Miller. ALICE LAKEY. Erecutive Secretary. STATEMENT OF J. D. MILLER Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to present a few matters to the committee, but I will not have time to do it before the closing hour. I want to leave the city this afternoon or this evening, and I would like to know if I might have permission to appear before the committee this afternoon. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; you will be granted that privilege. Mr. MILLER. I will not take much time. because I haven't time to put in what I have now. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other person here who can conclude in 10 minutes! Mrs. WILEY. I could conclude in 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, please. I understand there is a gentleman here who can conclude in 1 minute. Supposing we hear him. Mr. NORMAN DRAPER. Is he in the room? All right, we will hear the lady then. STATEMENT BY MRS. HARVEY W. WILEY, PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS Mrs. WILEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been most interested in this hearing. You have had now 9 hours nearly of hearing, of which 25 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 167 minutes have been for the consumers. We have heard mostly fron representatives of the drug industry and the advertisers. I represent the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, a federation of 30 clubs in the city of Washington, numbering about 5,000 members. We represent the consumers' class about which Miss Edwards spoke yesterday. Miss Edwards brought to your attention yesterday what represented the opinions of thousands of women back in the States. On November 27, 1933, the present inadequacy of the Food and Drug Law, drafted under the leadership of Dr. Wiley in 1906, was explained to us, as well as the provisions of Food and Drug bill S. 1944 at our regular meeting. A month later, on December 18, after we had secured all possible information on this subject, we voted to endorse the principle of bill S. 1944 and to recommend its passage without substantial modification. We believed in the administration's food bill to be the best bill, the most disinterested, and the best from the standpoint of the consumer, because it had been drawn by food experts devoted to the interests of the consumer. On January 13, at the midwinter board meeting of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, at the instance of our federation, a motion was passed, as follows: The board of directors of the General Federation recognizing the necessity of amending the present Food and Drugs Act, enacted in 1906, and now inadequate, recommends to the State federations of the study of Senate bill 2000 with a view to its passage without substantial amendment. According to the State federation bulletins which came in February, the clubwomen all over the country are forming committees, and are studying the administration's bill. Mrs. Grace Morrison Poole, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, has accepted the position of honorary vice president of the American. Pure Food League, of which I am acting as president. The General Federation of Women's Clubs will definitely vote on this measure in May, next, at its council meeting. If, after these 5 months of study, these 2,500,000 women vote to endorse the administration's bill, one of the greatest armies of consumers in the country will work for its enactment. Dr. Wiley gave much of the credit for the passing of the first food law to the organized women of the country, to the women of the General Federation. The point which the consumer always bears in mind in considering this bill is that it is a consumers' measure, and that the primal idea of the old law and of this new bill is to favor the consumer in any case where there is a dispute between the welfare of the consumer or the profit of the manufacturer. In speaking as president of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, I may say we endorsed the principles of S. 1944. I do not see the need for the two super committees of food and health provided in bills S. 2000 and S. 2800. The two committees provided in S. 2000 have 5 each, and of 5 and 7 in 2800 would a great burden on the taxpayer, and I doubt if the consumer would have any greater security than he has with honest officials in charge of the adminis tration of the law. The administration bill as originally drafted contains all of the provisions of the old law, but it aims to stop the gaps and eliminate |