Senator HEBERT. After the word "drug" you would insert the word "cosmetic"?

Miss WALL. Yes; I would like to see it there, so that that can be supported by substantial medical opinion or demonstrable scientific facts.

Senator COPELAND. That is the thing we have fought, bled, and died over.

Senator OVERTON. What is substantial medical opinion?

Miss WALL. You won't find substantial medical opinion on cosmetics, because the physicians don't know much about it, but you might get some demonstrable scientific facts.

Senator OVERTON. What is substantial medical opinion in reference to drugs?

Miss WALL. I am not a physician--from choice.

Senator OVERTON. Does it mean the weight of authority, or does it mean the respectable number of licensed physicians in good standing? Miss WALL. Sometimes it means the amount of paragraphs you can cull from the literature.

Senator OVERTON. Will one good outstanding reputable physician be regarded as substantial medical authority?

Senator COPELAND. Of course, there were those who wanted to put in here that it was the consensus of medical opinion. Of course, we all of us who know about medicine know there is not any such thing, so that it was determined here that if there were a substantial number of doctors who believed that a certain drug was useful from long experience, that that might be received as testimony to establish the merits of the drug.

Senator OVERTON. Perhaps it is impossible to make it clearer or more definite, but it is rather indefinite.

Miss WALL. It is very difficult, I agree with you, because I have done so much research that I know that you can get anything in the literature you can find something in the literature to support anything you want to say on either side of any case.

Senator COPELAND. Don't let the lawyers know that.

Miss WALL. They know it. I couldn't tell the lawyers anything about that. (Subsequently, Miss Wall asked to have inserted at this point the following note:)

44

[Note on Senator Overton's questions: In weighing substantial medical opinion" on drugs, poisons, medication, etc., it would seem logical to look first to the professional standing and character of the authorities, and then to their attainments and knowledge based on actual experience in the work in question. One leading authority with first-hand, clinical experience and with recognized standing, should be considered more reliable than any number of second-hand opinions of others not actually in the field.]

I made a footnote here that the representative the other day-I must find out the name-read a letter from the National Trade Women's League, in which she spoke about the protection of the consumers' money. She wanted to be assured that money was not being wasted on cosmetic products that are a menace to health. I wish to get her name because I want to know what one she has in mind and where she got her information.

On page 11, in catching a word again about statements on labels. That has been fairly well threshed out, but somebody suggested the other day that it all should be put back. It is true that many per

sons recognize the names of certain dangerous drugs, particularly the alkaloids and the metallic poisons. This section looks backward, because the centuries-old botanical simples and the medieval metallic compounds are rapidly being replaced by the modern organic chemical synthetics, principally the coal-tar derivatives, for which the publication of the name means practically nothing. Even physicians know little of these, and in their prescriptions instead of acetylsalicylic acid we find "aspirin ", which is a trade name. It is

easier.

I have some of those other names. I wouldn't be cruel enough to read them to you. They look like disjointed skeletons.

Here is one. How would you like to see this in a prescription, "Para-ethoxy-acetamino-benzene "?

It wouldn't mean a thing, but if you saw phenacetine, it might mean something.

I will give you just one more. I have some here that are grand ones, but they wouldn't be recognized by the consumer because they are local anesthetics. Here is one, "ephedrine." We know what that is and we know what it is used for. The chemical name is "alpha-hydroxy-beta-, methylamino-propyl-benzene." You don't find the simple names of the metals and of the alkaloids with which people are commonly familiar, but you see these dreadful things.

The section asks for "the common name, if any there be." The common name is often protected by trade-mark rights which a manufacturer owns. I remember cases of that in which the Bayer people fought because they owned the word "aspirin" and other people were using it, evidently mistaking it for a chemical name, and later when they found they could not use it, they did use acetylsalicylic acid, and that is probably the reason why so many more persons know that now.

Most persons who look at those gigantic names just shut their eyes. and shudder.

Another point that the previous speaker emphasized, I feel that people do not read labels, and that applies to everything. It applies to the grading of foods, but it can furnish no guarantee that women consumers are going to buy things by their labels. Everybody is out to protect the woman consumer as if the poor thing were an utter nitwit that couldn't shop for herself at all.

In my own experience, I went to my grocery store not long ago and complained about one of three cans of salmon that I had bought. I said I didn't like that salmon at all. The man said: "Who sold you that?"

I told him which of the clerks had served me.

He said, "I would never have sold you that; that is only for cats." I said, 'Why wouldn't you have sold it to me?"

He said, "You know too much about these things."

I said, "I don't know anything about that ", and I said, "In buying things in your store, I am merely here as a purchaser, and I want no more protection than anybody else has."

That, of course, is functioning under the present law. There is some reason why cat salmon should not be sold to individuals.

Senator HEBERT. I take it that you are not a member of the Consumers' Research, else you would have known about that cat salmon.

Miss WALL. No; I am not.

Senator HEBERT. Don't you think that would have been an advantage to you?

Miss WALL. To belong to it?

Senator HEBERT. Are you a subscriber?
Miss WALL. No; I am not.

if I may.

I will say something about that later,

On page 13, section (i), my note

Senator COPELAND. Do not give us much on that.

Miss WALL. There are complaints against germicides and antiseptics, undoubtedly due to flamboyant and moronic advertising. The rigidity of the requirements seems due to the fine Italian hand of some of the department's collaborators on the outside. This should stimulate some real research by manufacturers who want to make the claims, and good will undoubtedly come from it.

Senator COPELAND. You believe that we could safely leave out (i) and (j), and simply deal with them under the general provisions of the drug features of this bill?

Miss WALL. I haven't thought of it in just that way. I would not want to give you an opinion offhand. I don't like this one thing, this proviso on page 14, but I think that it is an unfortunate wording. I sent some notes on that. It is very unfortunate to imply that a drug is misbranded if its label is made to say something in one place, and then when it goes to the medical profession it is not misbranded. I very much disapprove of that. But that is just the same idea as we have in the advertising section later.

Here on page 15 we should have the section on the misbranding of cosmetics. I feel that this industry deserves one as well as do the foods and drugs. It has been suggested that this omission shows a discrimination against the cosmetic industry. I charitably concede it to be due to ignorance of actual conditions.

In the Dunn bill they are covered, and it takes them all in so very efficiently, because everything about food is in one section, everything about drugs is in another section, and cosmetics in another, and misbranding is treated equally.

A section on misbranding should be like 7 and 8, which now cover the food and drugs, conditions under which a substance is going to be used, the contents of labels, imitations of labels or products, warning about prohibited and regulated substances and idiosyncrasies again, and so on.

Page 16, again we have that silly wording about an ad. It is false if it is in one magazine, and it is not false if it is in the medical magazine. That should be expressed more happily. We know what you mean, and the question has been brought up that the physicians learn too much now from labels. It will be ideal when they learn only from the editorial matter of the text and not from the ads. Senator COPELAND. Now, you are up to section 10?

Miss WALL. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. How many more witnesses have we, Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. This will be the last for the day.

Mr.

Miss WALL. Section 10, we see nothing about drug tolerances. I suggest putting the word in and taking care of it in the section. Senator CoPELAND. On line 5?

Miss WALL. No; on the first line in the heading. This is one of the sections to which I objected at the first hearing, because I feelSenator HEBERT. Put in "drugs" there?

Miss WALL. Yes; put in "drugs" there, because I feel that the words "or cosmetics" have just been dragged in here. I would like to leave section (a) as it is, if those words are taken out.

Senator HEBERT. Which words?

Miss WALL. "Or. cosmetics ", in the three places where they occur. Senator COPELAND. That is, you would leave out

Miss WALL. I would just leave out the words "or cosmetics "

Doctor.

Senator COPELAND. You mean on line 5?

Miss WALL. Yes, line 5. It would read, "If an added poisonous or added deleterious substance in or on food is or may be injurious to health ", and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. What page is that?

Miss WALL. Page 17. Let us have a section "b" covering the tolerances, prohibitions, and regulations for drugs and a section (c) covering the same topics for cosmetics.

Senator COPELAND. You want to give emphasis to cosmetics?

Miss WALL. I want them all to have consideration. The drugs are omitted entirely in it.

Senator COPELAND. If you had on line 5, drugs, food, and cosmetics

Miss WALL. No; not in line 5. I want the word "drugs" put in the heading, and then add two paragraphs.

Senator COPELAND. That is, you want a separate paragraph for cosmetics?

Miss WALL. A separate paragraph for drugs and a separate paragraph for cosmetics.

Senator COPELAND. You are having exactly the same sort of control, are you?

Miss WALL. This is the complicating thing in that paragraph (5): From line 10 on, it says, " Taking into account the extent to which the use of such substance is required ", and so forth, and other ways in which the consumer may be affected by the same or other deleterious or poisonous substances, that is what I don't like. I feel that there may be a great deal of misinterpretation in that from the harm that might follow from eating something that is meant to be used for cosmetic purposes. For instance-not meaning to be facetious, but somebody might deliberately drink a permanent wave solution, a strongly alkaline solution. They might want to eat a hair dye or eat a depilatory. Why should the burden of responsibility go back then for that, because the use of those is specified, and this says, "Taking into consideration other ways in which the consumer may be affected by those same substances." This wording allows for all possible misinterpretation.

Senator COPELAND. It would not, if you put drugs in along with it? The way it is now, how would you accomplish your purpose?

Miss WALL. Because I think too much depends here on the understanding of what may happen if a thing is taken internally by accident. All know that some of these substances that may be used externally in short contacts or in small percentages are harmful.

if they are taken internally or used in longer contact or in higher percentages.

Senator COPELAND. That is the reason why if these poisonous things are there, there should be regulation of them.

Miss WALL. I haven't any objection at all to regulation of those substances when you have fairly considered them. I feel that that was the principal source of the viciousness in the propaganda of the Chamber of Horrors, this "may be absorbed." That is why I object to "may be ", because it was followed with a lurid account each time, of the internal disturbances caused by that substance in known cases of industrial poisoning.

Now, this is a fact, that frequently when a manufacturer wants to claim something beneficial from absorption alleged absorption the claim is denied, and the authorities say that there is no absorption through the skin. Now, when something that is considered to be harmful is used, and supposed to be used only externally, then we have great scareheads about the dangers of absorption. It may be absorbed and then they get you all disturbed about the dreadful things that will happen when that substance is taken internally. I refer specifically to the metals here, because of lead and those industrial poisonings. The line of demarcation right there is that question of absorption. I have yet to see sufficient proof that substances which are used externally are absorbed enough to cause the dreadful conditions that result from directly taking them internally in industrial conditions.

Now, on publicity, page 33, all this ties right in with the problems of publicity, because judging by propaganda for Senate 1944, it would be most unwise to encourage publication of findings until the facts are proved. Once proved, let the publicity be widespread, especially as Dr. Copeland said the other day, in cases that deal with a known contaminated thing like the ripe olives we had. So much of this is being done. Careful as they undoubtedly try to be, even the A.M.A. occasionally makes a mistake. This is usually published, but those who quote the first information frequently do not see the second when that is corrected, or else deliberately ignore it so as not to spoil their story. I have stated before how I stand on metallic hair dyes. I don't like them, but I must be fair. All the ballyhoo about lead, on the assumption of absorption

Senator COPELAND. You are complaining now about line 13, where it begins: "The Secretary shall cause to be disseminated"?

Miss WALL. No; I said that the section on publicity is all right, provided there will be fairness in holding up the findings.

Senator COPELAND. That is exactly what it says, that no such information shall be disseminated before rendition of final judgment except in cases of imminent danger to the public health.

Dr.

Miss WALL. That is why I object to all that about the lead and the silver hair dyes, and the chamber of horrors. And then I must make a positive statement on that. This is known to be so. Copeland will remember that years ago when there was a bill to be introduced-it was the labeling bill-certain substances were specifically mentioned as positively forbidden in cosmetics. A certain manufacturer of a silver hair dye who was making about 700,000 bottles of that preparation a year and who had been in business over 30 years, found that they were going to be very much affected.