FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 75 on the President or various officials in the Government, as has been done in the past. In a speech which he made in the Senate last May, Senator Copeland said: There has not been a day since its introduction on the 15th of March when I have not been personally in conversation and discussion and debate with persons interested in future changes in the measure. And a statement in an advertising publication, Advertising and Selling, told how, "as a result of many a long and secret conference which representatives of the industries concerned held with the Senator, with officials of the drug and food administration, and even with the President himself" many things in the bill were changed. Mr. Chairman; the consumer does not have those privileges and opportunities. He is not able to go to the President and Congressmen and Senators and have his case taken care of. If this bill is to protect the public, discretion on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture or any other official must be absolutely eliminated and control placed in the hands of the board of technologists who have no commercial interests, who are not subservient to political pressures. That can be done, and that is the only way in which the consumer can get any kind of protection. At the last hearing there were some statements made that I would like to correct. As I understood from you, you are going to use the hearing of the previous bill in your consideration of this bill. Senator CLARK. They are certainly available to the committee. Mr. KALLET. I think it is important that these corrections should be made. The first relates to a statement I made during the course of my testimony at the last hearing that Senator Copeland was Senator CLARK (interrupting). Mr. Kallet, I warned you in the giving of your testimony that the committee did not desire to hear you indulge in personalities. Mr. KALLET. I am not indulging in personalities. I am merely correcting the record. I am not indulging in personalities. Senator CLARK. Your statement was immaterial in the first instance and does not require correction. Mr. KALLET. It was not immaterial. Senator CLARK. That may be omitted from the record. Mr. KALLET. Mr. Chairman, these things which you are striking from the record and which you object to, I feel are extremely important to the consumers. Senator CLARK. Mr. Kallet, the committee is not concerned in hearing you tell about your feelings at greater length at present. There are other witnesses who wish to be heard. Mr. KALLET. I realize that Senator CLARK (interrupting). There are other witnesses to be boord Mr. KALLET. If you want to act like American prototypes of Hitler and disregard the welfare of the public and let some thousands of American citizens be poisoned and injured, you can do that. Senator CLARK. Mr. Kallet, you will either conduct yourself in an orderly and peaceable manner or you will be ejected from the hall. The Chair will note that Mr. Kallet has been extended 50 minutes for his statement. Mr. KALLET. I have not been able to make my whole statement. wich it to go into the record that you have prevented that. 76 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS (Subsequent to his testimony, Mr. Kallet presented the following for inclusion in his testimony.) Mr. W. G. CAMPBELL, CARE OF CONSUMERS' RESEARCH, INC., Federal Food and Drug Administration, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CAMPBELL: During the course of the recent hearing on the Copeland food and drugs bill, you stated that Crazy Crystals was removed from the "Chamber of Horrors" because "* * the manufacturers modified their advertising * * * they intended to remove ali misleading advertising." Enclosed is an advertising folder received by a drug store in New York City and distributed by it since the hearings, and also a photograph of another advertisement sent by the Crazy Water Co. with a letter dated March 26, 1934. In view of the nature of this advertising, will not Crazy Crystals be returned to the so-called "Chamber of Horrors" exhibit? Yours very truly, Mr. ARTHUR KALLET, ARTHUR KALLET. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEAR MR. KALLET: I have your letter of April 21 enclosing an advertising folder issued by the Crazy Water Co. You ask whether in view of the nature of this advertising, Crazy Crystals will be returned to the so-called "Chamber of Horrors." We have all along been aware of the various changes made by this firm in its advertising circulars and radio announcements. The present advertising is unsatisfactory and will continue to be so long as claims are inade, even by implication, for the product in excess of what could be accomplished by a cathartic and mild diuretic. Whether the feature on Crazy Crystals will be restored to the "Chamber of Horrors" for such further use as may be required of our exhibit has not been determined by the Department. That decision, I assume, will depend upon the availability of other material to illustrate more effectively the need for control of advertisements of food and drug products. Very truly yours, W. G. CAMPBELL, Chief. [From Congressional Record, House, April 23, 1934, p. 7386] Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to any of Mr. Tugwell's philosophy going in the RECORD. In my opinion, his so-called "Tugweli bill" would have closed up every country drug store in the United States, and would have put out of business every country newspaper. He did a great injustice to a high-class, highly respected mineral-water business in my district, at Mineral Wells, Tex., which has been curing afflicted people from all over the United States for nearly a hundred years. He had this product in his "chamber of horrors" at Chicago until we forced him to take it out. I do not like his philosophy. Sanator CLARK. Henry A. Bellows. STATEMENT OF HENRY A. BELLOWS, CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. BELLOWS. If the committee desires, I will file a list of the membership of the association I represent for the record. I have not got it here. mator CLARK. You have that permission if you desire. FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 77 Mr. BELLOWs. The National Association of Broadcasters does not at this time desire to appear in support of, or in opposition to, any particular piece of legislation relating to foods, drugs, and cosmetics. With the principle underlying the various proposals to amend the Food and Drug Act, as distinct from the enactment of wholly new legislation on the subject, the broadcasters are heartily in sympathy. It is entirely natural that an industry which is operated under specific legal requirement to meet the public interest, convenience, or necessity should be actively concerned to see that the public is fully and completely protected against any form of fraudulent exploitation. The record of the broadcasting industry during the past year in its active cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission, as shown in the Commission's published statements, is the strongest evidence of the desire of every broadcaster to cooperate fully with governmental agencies in protecting the public. Our purpose in coming here is, first of all, to point out certain features of S. 5 which appear to us unjust, unreasonable, or unworkable and, second, to comment briefly on the special problem which this bill would apparently create for an industry which already is operating under strict Federal regulation and only by virtue of licenses granted by the Government. The specific detail to which I particularly want to call the committee's attention appears on page 39, lines 9 to 10, of the revised committee print of S. 5. The inclusion in this provision of the words "other than by radio broadcasting" is a deliberate, and, as it seems to us, wholly unwarranted discrimination against radio broadcasting in favor of all other forms of advertising. It says, in effect, that a dealer doing a purely intrastate business may freely use any other advertising medium he desires, including the United States mails, but he cannot use radio broadcasting without rendering himself liable to the special penalties provided in this act. The futility of such a provision seems to us apparent. If, in fact, the use of radio broadcasting by such a dealer results in a single interstate sale, he immediately becomes liable to the penalties provided for false advertising in interstate commerce. If he does no interstate business, there seems to be absolutely no legal or social justification for having the Federal Government undertake to tell him what advertising media he should and should not use. Senator COPELAND. Would you mind if I interjected a word? You are referring to the language on page 39, beginning at line 8? Mr. BELLOWS. Yes, Senator. Senator COPELAND. That relates wholly to a retail dealer who has, for example, his store in Suffern, N. Y., which is on the border of New Jersey. We desire to relieve hiin from difficulties so far as his purely local business is concerned, but he might be employed by some heartless concern to make use of the radio in Suffern or nearby to promote his own sales, but, of course, those waves go everywhere, so this item is intended only to relate to that particular problem. Mr. BELLOWS. Isn't that case parallel to the Suffern newspaper, which I happen to know is read extensively in Mahwah across the border? Isn't it exactly a parallel case? I see no reason why broadcasting should be singled out for consideration of this kind since, as a 120089-85 78 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS matter of fact, the case that you bring up works out if your radio station in Suffern--I do not know whether you have one there or not yet. Senator COPELAND. We have not one. Mr. BELLOWS. If it results in sales being made by the dealer in Suffern or across the border in Mahwah, obviously he comes right under the penalty of this act. Senator COPELAND. If that particular retailer does, but there is nothing in the bill to prohibit legitimate advertising over the radio which goes the country over, but this applies to the retail dealer and what he can do, and it relates largely to the products which he himself makes. He might have a face cream which had in it some poison, and we knew we could not reach him so far as this bill is concerned, which relates to interstate commerce, but if he went on the radio and advertised a wonderful face cream and it resulted in great harm to the consumer Mr. BELLOWS (interrupting). Would not the same thing apply if he advertised in the newspaper? That would go into interstate commerce. Would not the same thing apply if he advertised on a local billboard and people driving by from other States did business exactly in the same way? We have no objection to any form of protection that you want to give in general. We do object, for the reasons which I shall bring out very shortly, to the specifiction of radio broadcasting as the one form of advertising which the local dealer may not use. We think it is an unjust discrimination. That is the whole point. It is not that we are not in full sympathy with what you are trying to do in this section. Senator COPELAND. Don't you think that is rather captious because certainly a retail dealer would not be one merchant in 10,000 that would ever make use of the radio. Even a little station like ours up there might reach half way across the continent. Mr. BELLOWS. On the other hand, retail dealers do make extensive use of the radio in the average small station. The retail dealer advertising for local business is the backbone of the small station's business. They are exactly the people that we contend are discriminated against in this. They can go in the local newspapers or use any other form of advertising, but they cannot use the radio. The minute they get to using radio they ar told that they are liable to the penalties of this act. We cannot believe that it is a proper function for Federal legisla tion to dictate to advertisers, and above all to advertisers in intrastate commerce, regarding their choice of media. We cannot but see in this provision an illustration of the tendency which appears to run through every part of S. 5, the tendency to put all phases of the food, drug, and cosmetic business under the strictest sort of Federal regulation. This theory of far-reaching regulation is a long way removed from the principle of protecting the public against injurious or fraudulent merchandising. The broadcasting industry, already subject to stringent general regulation by the Federal Communications Commission, and to equally strict regulation as to its advertising by the Federal Trade Commission, naturally looks with some misgiving at the prospect of further regulation, based on the broadest possible grant of authority, by another branch of the Government. When the bill setting up this new form of regulation contains a provision specifically discriminating against broadcasting, although FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 79. under the circumstances such discrimination seems absolutely unwarranted, this misgiving is necessarily much increased. The objection of the broadcasters to this particular provision can be overcome by the elimination of the words "other than by radio broadcast" in lines 9 and 10 of the bill in the committee print. The provision just mentioned is the one specific discrimination against radio broadcasting which appears in S. 5, and consequently it is the one point on which the broadcasters at this time feel it necessary to present a definite protest. On the many sections of the bill which have nothing to do with advertising, we have, indeed, no immediate comment to make. This does not imply either approval or disapproval; it simply means that in general we feel that the subject matter of those sections concerns the manufacturers and distributors far more directly than it concerns us. There are, however, certain matters affecting radio in this bill regarding which we welcome the opportunity to place our suggestions before your committee. The first of these is the definition of the term "advertisement" on page 3, lines 14 to 16. Even with the slight modification made in the revised draft, we feel that this definition is still so broad as to be practically unworkable if literally or exactly applied. It covers every form of verbal statement and would certainly apply to any public medical discussion in which the properties of any drug might be mentioned. Senator ČOPELAND. Commissioner Mr. BELLOWS (interrupting). That was a long time ago, Senator. Senator COPELAND. Well, you know you never get over a crime you have committed in your youth. Mr. BELLOWS. I certainly believe that is so. Senator COPELAND. We thought that by the insertion of that language that we had guarded against that sort of thing. Mr. BELLOWS. We are grateful for small favors. Senator COPELAND. If you have better language, I would like to hear it. Mr. BELLOWS. I have just one suggestion. Senator COPELAND. We sought hard to find the language. Mr. BELLOWS. We have one proposal. Such a definition is manifestly inaccurate, and we urge that the word "commercially" be inserted after the word "opinion" in line 15. If that word is put in, then I would entirely agree, and I agree that you have immensely improved it over the original draft, and I say we are very grateful, but I think that word ought to go in. While we are on this matter of definitions, permit me to point out that the definition of "drug" on page 2, lines 13 to 15 of the committce print, is so broad as to include eyeglasses, corsets, and almost any device that may be worn. This is the point that Senator Clark brought up, and I would like to comment on it. Since it seems utterly absurd to include, for example, orthopedic shoes as "drugs", it seems apparent that this definition ought to be modified, or else that there should be a proviso making specific exclusions. In other words, there should be a specific definition. As the bill stands, orthopedic shoes would be drugs, and anything else can be anything else under this bill. |