that such sort of regulation is futile. The whole record-and I do not impugn any individual of the Pure Food and Drug Administration-shows the futility of the foolish sort of thing they are trying to do. You might just as well say that you can poison so far but no further. We have passed that stage. The principle involved in this bill is the principle about which the Government of every major country except Russia is tottering today, of whether the Government shall continue to protect people under exploitation or whether the Government shall take an active aggressive and intelligently constructive attitude. What this bill has got to do, or a substitute for this bill, in our judgment, is this: It has to prohibit the sale of food or drugs or medicament unless the Government positively state that those things are safe, and what they purport to be. In other words, our Government has got to stop protecting gentlemen who sell things which are not what is claimed for them. Oh, I know they are big contributors to both political parties, but this is the "new deal", under which we are immune from those influences, and the Govern ment has got to take an aggressive, practical step. This bill does not do it. I am going to continue with an analysis of it. In bill 2800, page 9, section (c), line 3, it says that If it is an imitation of another food, except that no imitation shall be deemed to be misbranded under this paragraph Senator COPELAND. Where are you reading? Mr. MARSH. Page 9, section (c), line 3. If it is an imitation of another food, except that no imitation shall be deemed to be misbranded under this paragraph if its label bears the word "imitation" in juxtaposition with and in type of the same size and prominence as the name of the food imitated. The average consumer does not give a hang which of the profiteers gets his money. All you are trying to do here is to say that one branch of profiteers possibly they belong to the party in powerare not going to be infringed on in their profiteering by somebody by else. What does the consumer care whether it is an exploiting Democrat or an exploiting Republican? I am not going to stress the food so much because the Department of Agriculture has just drafted a bill to create a Government marketing corporation. It is a private print. I have not been able to see it as yet. But it is here in this building. Unless that bill provides that the Federal Government shall now take over the purchase and distribution and processing of all essential food products from the farmer to the ultimate consumer-a bill doing that will be introduced and will be a test of the sincerity of the present administration in trying to protect the American people, so that I am not going to go into detail in foodstuffs except to state that the description of the foodstuffs served the American people, which I read earlier this section from this bill is one of the very best arguments for the futility of trying any more to regulate profiteers in human hunger. I now come to page 15, section 9 (a). It reads: An advertisement of a food, drug, or cosmetic shall be deemed to be false if it is false or misleading in any particular relevant to the purposes of this act regarding such food, drug, or cosmetic. Any representation concerning any effect of a drug shall be deemed to be false under this paragraph if that representation is not supported by substantial medical opinion or by demonstrable scientific facts. In that connection I want to read the findings of President Hoover's commission on medical care for the American people. The chairman of that commission was then Secretary of the Interior, Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur. Here is what they say, and I am quoting, first, from page 15. It reads: Of the 3,656 million dollars spent annually for medical service, 125 million dollars is spent for the services of osteopaths, chiropractors, naturopaths, and allied groups, and faith healers, and 360 million dollars for "patent medicines." Much of the former sum and practically all of the latter are wasted. The latter being patent medicines. On page 29 of this report the statement is made: The development of the drug store into a department store for many commodities has made the services of pharmacists readily available to the people without unduly high costs for prescribed medicines. But it has surely not retarded the growth of sales of secret-formula medicines, purchased by the patient for a self-diagnosed disease or condition. The annual sales of such 66 patent medicines amount to $360,000,000, most of which is money wasted. This is 10 percent of the total spent for all medical services and commodities. You will notice that twice this commission-and I do not want to take time to read the list of the names-twice this commission states that all these proprietary medicines practically are wasted, the money spent for them by the poor people, $360,000,000 a year is wasted. Many of the manufacturers of those proprietary medicines are jackals and ghouls, and you will have no business to legalize any method under which the American people are exploited in that way. Do they want to be controlled at all? I should like to read here a reprint from the January 22 issue of the Drug Trade News, "The Newspaper of the Drug Industry ", printed in New York City. The caption is "$500,000 war chest to fight Copeland act. Drug, chemical, and food houses to unite against Tugwell bill substitute." These gentlemen want to be murderers on the installment plan. You members of the Senate and of the House of Representativesand I am going to read from the report of the Pure Food and Drug Administration to confirm that in just a few minutes—you gentlemen of the Senate and the House, the men and women of the Senate and the House, have got to decide whether you are going to let this sort of licensed slaughter go on. I cannot vote in Congress. I would like to have that go in. It reads as follows: Chicago, Ill.-Supported by a half-million-dollar war chest, a new publicity and advertising campaign against the Copeland substitute for the Tugwell bill is expected to be launched by a group which includes drug, chemical, cosmetic, and food houses and which may be supported by the National Canners' Association. The proposed campaign was discussed at a meeting held in the Sky Room at the Palmer House, this city, on last Tuesday. Representatives of the National Canners' Association attended and it is understood that the halfmillion-dollar fund will be contributed by an industry closely affiliated with the canners. The gathering, attended by over a hundred trade leaders, was presided over by George W. McFatrick, president of the Murine Co., while the speakers included Carl Palman, former lecturer at the University of California and at 66 present with the Merriwell Co., sponsoring the radio personality The Old Apothecary" for the National Retail Druggists Association; George Carroll, well-known publicity and public-relations man; and John S. Hall, counsel and secretary for Flavoring Extract Manufacturers of the United States, National Manufacturers of Fruit and Flavoring Syrups, National Manufacturers of Soda Water Flavors and of the National Association of Bakers' Supply Houses. ANSWER TO WOMEN The meeting was in reality an answer and a challenge to a meeting in the same hotel on the preceding Saturday of the Cook County League of Women Voters, at which the principal speakers were Charles E. Merrian, of the Uni-versity of Chicago, and Paul Douglas, formerly of the same university, but now an N.R.A. official. It is alleged that at this meeting, Mr. Douglas asked that women voters throughout the country be enlisted to support pending Government legislation, particularly as affecting consumers in connection with food and drugs. In an adjoining room the well-known drug "chamber of horrors" was on exhibition. After making the definite statement that the Copeland measure is just as vicious as the original Tugwell bill, Mr. Hall pointed out the specific objections to the provisions directed to misbranding, the regulation of permits for factories, regulations for factory inspection, intended seizure plan, penalties, liability of corporations and their officers, the new procedure in injunction proceedings, court review of regulations and advertising. Mr. Hall declared that the measure would, if adopted, place in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture authority for a dictatorship without precedent in this country and not only of the most sweeping character, but in every particular of a nature inimical to the industries affected. He said further that it would mean the destruction of the industries involved and make operation on a sound economic basis utterly impossible. Mr. MARSH. You were yesterday asking Mr. Kallet if he would enter some facts as to how they spent their money, how much they got, and I think that is all right. I wish you would go ahead and do a whole lot of investigating. I would like to read this statement signed by John W. Darr, in a letter of February 2, 1934. He is secretary of the so-called "Joint Committee for Sound and Democratic Consumer Legislation." It sounds beautiful. Lee H. Bristol is vice president. The committee is Lee H. Bristol, S. B. Colgate, and so forth, and "a statement of vital interest" by the same outfit, a photograph of their circular. JOINT COMMITTEE FOR SOUND AND (Address physically cut out of photograph.) I am writing you because you are a leader in your field and vitally interested in all matters affecting public health. This question has been brought into national focus by the so-called “Tugwell-Copeland bill", now before Congress. This bill has as its purpose the protection of public health, but it contains-in the opinions of many-dangerous, bureaucratic, and other unsound elements. This committee, organized from within industry, is concerned with developing public-health legislation which will protect the public without bureaucracy or the dangers resulting therefrom. We are writing you First, in order that we may have an opinion from you in writing, for possible publication, against the bureaucratic elements in the bill, and Second, for constructive suggestions from you for legislation that will protect both the public health and the public interest. With this letter we are sending you a folder outlining some of the shortcomings of the present bill, and a digest of those elements which we believe sound and democratic legislation must have. Won't you read these and let us hear from you? Your opinion is very important at this stage of our activity. JOHN W. DARR, Secretary. Yours very truly, A STATEMENT OF VITAL INTEREST TO ALL THOSE WHO DESIRE TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE AMERICAN SYSTEM 66 The so-called Tugwell-Copeland bill" now pending in Congress raises an issue of vital interests to all who desire to protect and maintain the American system. This bill, which has for its ostensible purpose the protection of the public health, is dangerous to the public interest and opposed to the broad principles of democratic government. Manufacturers and consumers are in hearty accord with the intent of the bill to protect the public and reputable manufacturers and dealers from fake nostrums, adulterated foods, and harmful cosmetics. They are opposed to the form of the bill which places bureaucratic control of three vital industriesfood, drugs, and cosmetics-in the hands of an appointive governmental employee and his subordinates. Calm thinkers are opposed to the rushing through of legislation of such great importance as an emergency matter. They cannot agree with Prof. Rexford G. Tugwell, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, that our civilization is in imminent danger of destruction unless this measure (or a similar measure) is adopted forthwith. They believe that through careful deliberation, government officials, manufacturers, and consumers can work out a pure food and drugs act which will embody the principles of sound and democratic legislation, in the interest of all concerned. A bill, based on these principles of sound and democratic legislation, should: (1) Protect public health by keeping high standards of purity in food, drugs, cosmetics, and all other items of human consumption. (2) Encourage research and laboratory experimentation by private industry. (3) Protect the interests of industry which has always taken the initiative in raising standards. (4) Preserve the American system of legal procedure, in order that the legitimate shall not suffer through uncertainty due to the possible transgressions of the illegitimate. (5) Preserve the profit motive in business in order that more efficient methods of distribution may result in decreased cost to the consumer. (6) Leave the making and administering of law in the hands of the duly elected representatives of the people. NO EMERGENCY EXISTS The questions raised by the pending Tugwell-Copeland proposal: (1) Are the American people willing to have a system of arbitrary regulation " imposed permanently upon so important and essential group of industries? (2) If these industries are to be subjected to such czar-like whims and regulations, what is to protect all industry from similar governmental encroachment? (3) Do the American people desire to abandon the reasonably democratic policies under which industry (in which every citizen has a part directly or indirectly) has thriven in this country, and to substitute despotic industrial control by politically appointed Government officials? The public is amply protected by the present Pure Food and Drugs Act, until a satisfactory measure can be written which will afford complete protection— with a minimum of injustice. To substantiate this statement, Dr. James H. Beal, chairman of the board of trustees of the United States Pharmacopeia, recently declared that the operation of the present Pure Food and Drugs Act has given us the highest. quality of food and drugs of any nation. A committee of the British House of Commons, after a prolonged study of food and drug legislation some years ago, rendered a report in which it referred to the United States Food and Drugs Act as the most efficient law of its kind in existence. This committee recognizes the importance of sound and democratic consumer legislation to protect the public health wherever the old law has been found to be inadequate. It urges further deliberation in the fulfillment of this objective: To supplant completely the present act with emergency legislation would wipe off the statute books all the laws and decisions accumulated during 27 years. It would wipe out the series of interpretations which have been essential to the success of the exising law and essential to the public health, and demand new interpretations of "ambiguities and inferences" which are bound to exist in any hurried legislation. The Tugwell-Copeland bill is dangerous and un-American because of the unprecedented powers it places in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture-any Secretary of Agriculture, no matter how competent or incompetent he might happen to be. It is unwise and inexpedient from the public interest to rush through legislation of the contemplated sort. A BRIEF LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TUGWELL-COPELAND BILL The following points are made as to the legal content of the Tugwell-Copeland bill, and are reasons why this committee urges further study before any measure is approved: (1) The Tugwell-Copeland bill, under the guise of protecting the public health, retains the un-American and bureaucratic factory permit system which is not justified by any existing or contemplated emergency, placing in the hands of one Government officer and his department the existence and life of every business in the three industries. (2) The Tugwell-Copeland bill sets up, in some matters, control between the Secretary of Agriculture and a group of departmental advisers, who can pronounce life or death over what is or what is not adulterated food, over what is or what is not sound advertising, over what is or what is not sound method of manufacture, placing in the hands of this group legislative and judicial function. FACTORY PERMIT SYSTEM If the Secretary of Agriculture deems distribution of any drugs, foods, or cosmetics injurious to public health, he may formulate regulations and require affected manufacturers or packers to obtain permit conditioned on compliance with such regulations. Therefore, the same officer who determines conditions allegedly detrimental to health has the power to govern the future conduct of the business regulated. As the result of this provision of the new bill, judicial review is not permitted until after the manufacturer is deprived of his right of shipment in interstate commerce. This is primarily a matter for State authorities, with Federal authorities cooperating, instead of exercising arbitrary control. DUAL CONTROL The committees provided to cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture in his decisions may not be composed of persons having financial interest in any drug, food, or cosmetic. Yet such members inexperienced in the affected industries have the power to veto over the acts of the Secretary and are given influence to enforce their views upon the department. STANDARDS OF FOOD The provision authorizing Secretary to establish minimum standards of quality, identity, and fill for foods would strip the Federal Trade Commission of much of its power and influence, which has been built up over a period of 20 years. If the Federal Trade Act needs strengthening, teeth should be placed there. We can see little point in creating another governmental bureau to take the place of an experienced commission. I should also like to ask, Mr. Chairman, that I should have read into the record from page 11, of this book, Medical Care for the American People, the list of outstanding physicians and those representing institutions and special interests in the public, something like 50 in all, who make the statement that practically all of this $360,000,000 a year taken by these patent-medicine purveyors-I was trying to think of a word that would express my judgment of them and still not be libelous-purveyors will cover the situation-what they |