for their services. But, even if it be fair to impose such a requirement on manufacturers of proprietary remedies, this is not a practical matter. In many instances where medicines are composed of several ingredients it is absolutely impossible to determine what particular ingredient or ingredients are responsible for the beneficial result or exactly how that result is achieved. A medicine may contain no ingredient that is recognized by the medical profession as particularly effective in and of itself, yet that ingredient in a compound may be the very therapeutic agent that makes the medicine effective.

Another serious objection to S. 2800 is that, in subsection 9 (c), it in effect would amount to legislative finding or decision that all self-medication is dangerous and contrary to public health, but "especially" or "patently " so in the 42 enumerated diseases, many of which diseases either are not of a communicable nature or ordinarily present no serious danger of contagion or epidemics. Throughout the history of the United States and up to the present time both the legislative and judicial branches of our Government have always respected the inherent right of the individual to treat his own ordinary ailments with remedies of his own choice, save only in cases where the facts warrant reasonable apprehension as to danger to the public through the spread of disease.

The passage of Senate bill 2800, containing the present subsection 9 (c), would establish the principle that a citizen may be deprived of the opportunity to buy a proprietary medicine for self use in the relief of a noncontagious ailment, or to purchase a proprietary remedy for a contagious disease in a case in which there is no reasonable ground for anticipating the spread of disease, thus making it possible for the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of this bill gradually to extend the application of that principle until all proprietary medicines were driven from the market and the right of self-medication thereby rendered empty and valueless. What the Secretary would be likely to do in this connection is revealed by the fact that while the first draft of the Copeland bill or S. 1944 enumerated 34 diseases as outside the permissible scope of self-medication, S. 2000 mentions 38 diseases and S. 2800 lists 42. Thus the forbidden list of diseases has jumped from 34 to 42 in a few weeks, making it possible for one to forecast the life expectancy of self-medication under this proposed law with almost mathematical certainty.

Senator VANDENBERG. Could he increase this list under the terms of the bill?

Mr. ROBB. He could.

The third and perhaps most serious of the many objections that may be made to Senate bill no. 2800 is with respect to the committee on public health created by subsection 22 (b). This committee would consist of five members designated for their "distinguished scientific attainment and interest in the public health" and, as explained by Senator Copeland in introducing this bill, would consist of physicians interested in public health."

Inasmuch as the interests of the medical profession necessarily conflict in some degree with those of manufacturers of prepared medicines, and since the profession under the leadership of the American Medical Association is publicly committed to the theory

that all self-treatment is inherently dangerous unless under the supervision of some physician, the average physician naturally is more or less prejudiced against the sale of prepared medicines to laymen, although that prejudice may be unconscious. Therefore, and since it is fundamental that no man should be the sole judge of cases in which he has even an indirect interest, it is respectfully submitted that any committee or board of review created by new legislation pertaining to drugs and medicines should not be composed exclusively of physicians. Specifically, it is felt by the industry that such a committee or board should include a physician, a chemist, a pharmacist, a person with practical experience as a manufacturer, and an attorney.

The discrimination in this connection against manufacturers of drugs and medicines is emphasized by the fact that under the provisions of subsection 22 (c) two of the seven members of the "Committee on Food Standards" are to be selected from the "food producing, processing, and manufacturing industry " and three from the public. The provisions for representation of the industry in the case of foods and the absence of such a provision in the case of drugs and medicines indicates an intention on the part of the authors of Senate bill no. 2800 to place the future of the proprietary medicine industry entirely in the hands of the members of a profession whose representatives have publicly declared that all selfmedication is dangerous unless under the supervision of physicians. Accordingly, the enactment by the Congress of Senate bill no. 2800 containing the subsection 22 (b) would have the effect of dooming to certain destruction a great industry which represents the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars and employs many thousands of men and women.

This subsection 22 (b) is further objectionable in that it makes provision for the review by the committee it creates of only the promulgation of new regulations and leaves out of consideration the review of administrative acts. If any committee or board of review is to be created by the Congress, it is respectfully urged that such committee or board be given authority to review and make summary decision of questions of dispute between manufacturers and the Food and Drug Administration growing out of alleged violations of the Food and Drugs Act, thus correcting a very serious fault in the present statute. Under the Food and Drugs Act now in effect the provisions for judicial review are inadequate in that in a case involving honest differences of opinion between representatives of the Department of Agriculture and of a manufacturer valuable good will may be destroyed while the manufacturer is vindicating his position in the courts. In such cases it should be possible either for the Department or the manufacturer to appeal to a board of review, constituted as just outlined, and secure summary decisions which should be binding upon both parties unless and until set aside or modified by the courts.

The so-called "Dunn bill ", or Senate bill 2858, provides a board of review with power to pass upon administrative rulings and decisions, as well as new regulations, but the bill makes no mention of the qualifications of the five members of that board. For reasons already set forth, section 19 (1) (a) of the Dunn bill should be

amended to provide that this board of review shall include a physician, a chemist, a pharmacist, a person with experience as a manufacturer of drugs and medicines, and an attorney.

Other objections to Senate bill no. 2800 may be summarized in the statement that the authors of this bill have attempted to effect a complete rewriting of the Food and Drugs Act instead of the addition of amendments to that statute. The underlying principles and general plan of the original statute have been abandoned entirely, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. 95 Barrels, 265 U.S. 438, said of the present Food and Drugs Act:

The statute is plain and direct. Its comprehensive terms condemn every statement, design, and device which may mislead or deceive. Deception may result from the use of statements not technically false, or which may be literally true. The aim of the statute is to prevent that resulting from indirection and ambiguity, as well as from satements which are false.

Senator VANDENBERG. What year was that decision rendered? Mr. ROBB. I think it was in 1925. I am not sure. I think so. Senator VANDENBERG. What is the Drug Institute, Mr. Robb? Mr. ROBB. The Drug Institute is a general trade association, and I may explain that I was asked to speak here today, presumably because I happen to be counsel for the United Medicine Manufacturers of America, many of whose members are also members of the institute, and supposedly with some practical experience in connection with food and drugs, too.

Senator VANDENBERG. Is the Institute thoroughly representative of all organizations?

Mr. ROBB. It is thoroughly representative of the industry; yes. Senator VANDENBERG. You mentioned one objection to the McCarran bill. Have you endorsed, or are you satisfied with the subject in that respect?

Mr. ROBB. Well, Senator, I would like to see the right of appeal made to the board of review absolute. In its present form the bill provides that there may be review where an appeal is granted. I appreciate the necessity of heading off frivolous appeals, but upon reflection I am convinced that the right of appeal should be absolute. I think it should be a matter of right on the part of the manufacturer.

Senator VANDENBERG. Would you concede that the existing Food and Drug Act requires any amendments in behalf of consumer protection?

Mr. ROBB. I think, Senator, that the present Food and Drugs Act-and I speak with all sincerity-has been unusually effective. Frankly, I am unable to think of any other statute that has been more effective. Perhaps something should be done about advertising, but it seems to me that it is questionable whether the Congress should single out manufacturers of foods and drugs, and cosmetics, and impose restrictions as to advertising upon them and make no general provisions as to the advertising of other commodities. It seems to me that such action would be justified only if the manufacturers of these three classes had shown a greater propensity in that direction, but the facts are to the contrary.

The records of the Federal Trade Commission, which as you know, now has jurisdiction over the advertising of foods, drugs, and cosmetics, indicate that manufacturers of foods, drugs, and

cosmetics have been no more given; in fact, they have been less given to exaggeration in their advertising than the manufacturers of some other classes of commodities.

Senator OVERTON. What other consumptive products have you in mind besides foods, drugs, and cosmetics?

Mr. ROBB. Well, it seems to me, Senator, that there are many things which have to do with a man's comfort and well being other than those which he puts in his stomach which have great importance to him, and it seems to me that if you are putting restrictions on advertising you ought to make those restrictions general and apply to clothing and to everything else. That is my point.

Senator MURPHY. Is it a possible justification in this case, that health is apparently involved?

Mr. ROBB. Well, health is pretty well taken care of now, under the provisions of the present statute, Senator, in my judgment. Perhaps I should, in all frankness, say that it seems to me, with all respect to those that are responsible for S. 1944, S. 2000, and S. 2800, that if they had taken all the court decisions that have been against the Government in the last 27 years and set about deliberately to get around them they could not have done a better job than they have in these bills.

It seems to me that the Government has been pretty successful in the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act, and that while some amendments may be in order, that the history of the act affords no justification for its complete revision. In view of the language of the Supreme Court in the case to which I referred, and in other decisions the statute has been effective. If the Congress, in its wisdom, sees fit to amend it I think there will be adequate protection to the public. Frankly, I see no necessity or justification for throwing the present Food and Drugs Act into the wastebasket and departing from its principles, as would be the case in the enactment of S. 2800.

Senator MURPHY. Except that you do think that deception in advertising ought to be corrected?

Mr. ROBB. I think there is exaggeration. I am bound to admit there is exaggeration in the advertising of practically all commodities. I do not mean that it is general, but there are some instances. The manufacturers of foods, drugs, and cosmetics are no worse than the others, but there are, of course, certain manufacturers who do abuse the truth. That ought to be stopped. They ought to be stopped in respect to all commodities, but unless the Congress is prepared to impose Federal censorship on all advertising, I do not think foods, drugs, and cosmetics should be singled out.

Senator MURPHY. We just persist in thinking that the foods that our children eat, or the medicine that we give them, is much more serious than the cigarettes we smoke, and that representations made as to food and drugs is attended with possible serious consequences that misrepresentation regarding an automobile or a cigarette or something else does not involve.

Mr. ROBB. There should be the highest degree of care, Senator. I am with you there.

Senator MURPHY. Yes.

Mr. ROBB. I certainly am.

Senator VANDENBERG. Where do you find the authority that would permit the Secretary to increase this list of diseases for which self medication is prohibited?

Mr. ROBB. Well, of course, there have been changes, Senator, from 1944 and 2000 in that respect, but still, through the promulgation of new regulations, in which, under the present form of 2800, the manufacturer would have no share, it would be quite possible to extend that list.

Senator VANDENBERG. You think that is part of the general powers that are conferred?

Mr. ROBB. Yes; I think so. Now, Senator, let me make myself clear, if I haven't already. I am not arguing that those enumerated diseases should now be permissible to the manufacturer of proprietary remedies. I am objecting to the ground, the principle by which they may be excluded at this time. If it be found that the medical profession has not yet developed a successful treatment for some disease, then it is perfectly proper to exclude that disease for the time, and until there is improvement in the medical profession, from the permissible range of proprietary medicines, but let the exclusion be upon that ground, not upon the ground of self medication being inherently dangerous or "patently so." That is the language of the act, in connection with each of these particular diseases.

Senator VANDENBERG. And you do not want the decision left to a jury that is predisposed in advance against self medication?

Mr. ROBB. That is it. That is it. We are perfectly content to argue the question before a jury of disinterested persons. If there are no other questions, I appreciate the courtesy which has been shown me.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John W. Darr.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DARR, REPRESENTING THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR SOUND AND DEMOCRATIC CONSUMER LEGISLATION, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. DARR. Mr. Chairman, and Honorable Senators, there have been many presentations made here since this hearing was called into session yesterday morning

Senator VANDENBERG. Whom do you represent, before you start? Mr. DARR. I represent the Joint Committee for Sound and Democratic Consumer Legislation. I want to go into that a little more fully, just a few minutes later. You listened long and patiently to the criticism of this bill from those who represent the consumers. and from those who represent the manufacturers. I have the honor to come to you on behalf of an organization that, at a glance, may appear to be an anomaly. I speak for a group of prominent manufacturers from among the industries which come within the purview of this bill, and some others whose products are in no way touched upon by any of the three bills, 1944, 2000, or 2800.

The group of manufacturers whom I represent have associated themselves together for the purpose of interesting themselves in this and other legislation, and they have chosen for themselves the title of which I have just quoted, the joint committee for sound and democratic consumer legislation.