I think that I should comment briefly on that in order that the committee may appreciate the significance of this change.

Section 305 is precisely what the caption of that section declares it to be. It is a provision for the control in an emergency by license or a system of permits for plants engaged in the production of food products that have been found to be adulterated as a result of bacterial contamination.

This power will be exercised at most only infrequently. I know of one instance, and there are others, where it would have served the public well. I dare say that the committee is familiar with the fatalities that occurred a great many years ago as a result of botulinus poisoning from the consumption of ripe olives. The causative organism infects the soil. When it first appeared, the olive producers were quite anxious that there be some sort of control of their operations which would make effective guaranties against the fatalities and at the same time make possible the survival of the industry. The industry is now under control of the State.

It is contemplated here that where an emergency of that sort develops that then, and only then, as the language of the section says, will the Secretary have power to require the procurement of permits. Now, unfortunately an oversight which attended the entire consideration of this bill occurred in the language to which I have just referred. Section 703 provides for a committee on health and it is with the advice of that committee that the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to formulate and promulgate regulations putting into effect provisions like that set forth in this emergency food control permit situation; but the conventional procedure required by that committee is first an announcement; 30 days following that announcement a public hearing; the promulgation of a regulation, and 90 days following its promulgation it becomes effective, so there would be from 4 to 5 months inevitably that would intervene between the occurrence that would call for the exercise of this extreme authority and the date it could be made effective. It would then be too late; its purpose would not be realized.

With that in mind we have suggested the change I have just read on page 11, line 17, and suggest, Mr. Chairman, a corresponding change; in fact, a companion amendment on page 25, line 15:

Change the period to a colon and add at line 15:

"And provided further, That public hearing on emergency permit control regulations under section 305 may be held within any reasonable time after notice thereof, and the Secretary may fix the effective date of such regulations at any reasonable time after promulgation thereof."

Now, I know that the purpose of these amendments is not only in line with proper protection of public health but is likewise in line with the purpose of the producers of such products. They would welcome the sort of control that has been indicated here. Provision could be made for the promulgation of such regulations to become effective promptly without this hiatus through which untold fatalities could occur.

There is an amendment on page 21, line 8; insert after "drug" the word "device."

As I told you Monday, provision for the definition of device and corresponding provision in the definitive sections of the act for device

was a last-moment change made in the Senate. Some two score changes in the measure as it existed before then were required and inevitably some omisssions occurred.

On page 27, line 21, we propose the following change:

Change the period to a colon and insert:

"Provided, That in the case of food packed in a Territory or possession of the United States, the Secretary shall attempt to make inspection of such food at the first point of entry within the territorial limits of the United States when, in his opinion and with due regard to the enforcement of all the provisions of this act, the facilities at his disposal will permit of such inspection.

And as a companion to that amendment we suggest, on page 28, lines 17 to 22, inclusive, striking the proviso there found.

The purpose of that is this: To declare as a legislative policy the desirability of the Department of Agriculture making examinations of food produced in the Territories and at the first point of entry. To make that concrete it would apply to salmon produced in Alaska and brought annually at the close of the season in large quantities to Seattle and San Francisco and from those points distributed throughout the country.

Senator Schwellenbach was the author of this amendment. There is no objection to it on the part of the Department, because that is precisely what we try to do now. But it did seem to me that this proviso as it is to be found in section 706 on page 28 might impose a burden upon the Department that would interfere with the effective protection of the public.

Assume that we are unable to make the examinations, because of the scantiness of our force, that are contemplated at Seattle, and assume that salmon unfit for consumption is distributed before an appropriate examination could be made to the interior or to eastern points and that we were to proceed against it under the provisions of this bill at such points. The question then arises, would there be created by this language an issue which must be determined before the real merit of this case could be tried; would not the question arise, in all probability, that this salmon should have been examined in Seattle and not in St. Louis or not in New York?

It was the opinion of the solicitor that it might impose that burden, and might require us to bring witnesses from Seattle in connection with every case, at considerable expense, merely to dispose of that incidental issue.

I discussed the matter with Senator Schwellenbach after the measure had passed the Senate and told him what our apprehension was and suggested the modified language that is to be found in the previous amendment, inserting a proviso in section 755, page 27. He authorized me to say to you in presenting this that it had his entire approval; that he was quite agreeable to that change. Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Kenney.

Mr. KENNEY. Was that offered in the Senate?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; and was accepted by the Senate-not the alternative, but the Schwellenbach amendment, was offered in the Senate and passed the Senate.

Mr. CHAPMAN. As I understand then, Senator Schwellenbach is perfectly agreeable to have the amendment made.

30598-35-6

Mr. CAMPBELL. Absolutely. The probable significance of it, the likelihood of the creation of a burden was not anticipated in the form in which it was presented.

Senator Schwellenbach, without necessarily agreeing with my thought that it might be held to be such a burden by some court, was quite willing to obviate that particular difficulty by a modification of that provision and its transfer to section 755.

Mr. REECE. This amendment is a substitute for the Schwellenbach amendment?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Exactly; it is the same thing differently worded. Mr. REECE. If it is accepted, the Schwellenbach amendment should be eliminated.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right.

The companion to it is the elimination of the Schwellenbach amendment.

The next is on page 34, line 2. Let me first read the amendment. This amendment proposes to strike the words "distribute or sell " and insert in lieu thereof "introduce into or receive ".

To get the significance of that amendment, Mr. Chairman, it will be necessary to read the entire sentence beginning on page 33 which states that

“No retail dealer shall be prosecuted under this section for the dissemination, in good faith, of any advertisement offering for sale at his place of business any article which he does not distribute or sell in interstate commerce.

The history of that amendment, briefly, is this: It was represented to the committee considering the measure in the Senate that, in the absence of some such provision, the sections of the act that proscribe the interstate delivery of false advertising would occasionally, if not frequently, work a hardship upon rural papers. The statement was, in effect, that in small towns where some local merchant has some product of local manufacture or of his own creation to advertise and sell he will go to the editor of that paper, who is not only its business manager, but also its advertising agent, and enlist the services of this editor to write the advertisement. Neither of them may know anything whatever about the requirements of this law and probably unwittingly may make some false statement that would be in contravention of its terms.

Now, it is not the intention of the merchant to engage in interstate commerce. As I understand it, it is not the intention to sell that product across State lines, but if some distinguished son of the town happens to be a Member of Congress and this paper is sent to him in Washington, that merchant has violated that law by that type of false advertising. To make an exemption in such circumstances this insertion was put in, and at the time that it was put in it provided that the exemption would apply where the dissemination in good faith was otherwise than by radio broadcast.

At the final hearings on this bill in the Senate, broadcasters took the position that that was a discrimination against the use of radio for local advertising purposes and insisted upon its elimination. It was eliminated.

Let us see the net result as it stands now. There is an exemption of false advertisements offering for sale at the place of business of the dealer products which that dealer does not undertake to ship

into interstate commerce. There is a loophole involved in that, Mr. Chairman, which must be obvious, that will enable a very effective circumvention of all of the provisions against false advertising.

By resorting to the simple expedient of having the product shipped from the manufacturing point to a group of distributors who would be called dealers in various States and then having false advertisements disseminated by radio and otherwise, all for the purpose of selling the product in that locality, there would be a sum total of local false advertisements equivalent to a national broadcasting or advertising campaign.

So, we are proposing, and I think this is thoroughly consistent with the initial purpose of that amendment and is, as I understand it, thoroughly consistent with the purpose of the Senate committee in granting it, that the exception to dealers be restricted to the advertising of products which he neither receives in nor introduces into interstate commerce. His false advertising that goes in the United States mails or in interstate commerce by radio broadcast or otherwise would be confined to articles that are produced and sold locally only.

Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Chairman

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Kenney.

Mr. KENNEY. Is that amendment based on the assumption that the Food and Drug Administration will have jurisdiction over false. and misleading advertising?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The provision of this bill is that the Food and Drug Administration will have jurisdiction over false advertising. Mr. KENNEY. And that amendment is directed to that assumption? Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right. This amendment, of course, relates to an exemption.

Mr. KENNEY. Now, does the Food and Drug Administration now have jurisdiction over advertising?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Over advertising?

Mr. KENNEY. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It does not.

Mr. KENNEY. The Federal Trade Commission does have, I suppose. Mr. CAMPBELL. The Federal Trade Commission, Mr. Kenney, has jurisdiction over advertising, not as a result of any legal grant by Congress to regulate advertising

Mr. KENNEY. Well, is there not provision in the act creating the Commission giving it the right to jurisdiction under the fair-competition clause of that act?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act empowers the Federal Trade Commission to suppress unfair trade competition, but that does not give it exclusive power over advertising. There is no more reason why the Federal Trade Commission should claim, as it has claimed and as opponents of the Copeland bill have claimed, that regulation of advertising under the Copeland bill by the Food and Drug Administration is duplication than that all phases of the work of the Food and Drug Administration under the present law are a duplication of the Federal Trade Commission's work.

Mr. KENNEY. Is it not a fact that the question of advertising in the newspapers of the country today that they are cooperating with the

Federal Trade Commission to wipe out false and fraudulent advertising?

Mr. CAMPBELL. And some are cooperating with the Food and Drug Administration, and did even before this matter was taken up with the Federal Trade Commission. Coming specifically to your query, I will say yes", because there are a great many newspapers that are doing that.

Mr. KENNEY. How could they cooperate in the matter of advertising, when you have had no jurisdiction over advertising? Are you going far afield or are you going out of your jurisdiction?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Not at all, sir.

Mr. KENNEY. What do you mean by that statement?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will explain the whole thing, if you will permit, Mr. Kenney; anticipating the comments I intended to make, I will go into that question right now.

Let us start with the postulate that there is a great deal of false advertising, and so long as Congress

Mr. KENNEY. I do not entirely agree with you that there is at the present moment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. You do not?

Mr. KENNEY. I do not think that there is so much as there used to be, unless you have some facts that will bear that statement out.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I did not think that there would be any controversy on that at all.

Mr. KENNEY. I think that it is very much less than it used to be. Mr. CAMPBELL. That is quite right. Within the past 2 years it has very materially diminished.

Mr. KENNEY. Very largely through the cooperation of the newspapers?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think in large part that has been due to the public. I am not discounting what the Federal Trade Commission has done.

Mr. KENNEY. What do you mean, public reaction?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I mean that the agitation that has attended proposals for the enactment of a law like this bill for the regulation of advertising, and recognition on the part of the public that by radio, by newspapers, by bill boards, there have been extravagant and unwarranted claims made, all have operated to create an unfavorable reaction which naturally has registered with the advertising interests themselves. And I think that you will find now that there is support for this bill on the part of advertising agencies in recognition of the fact that advertising needs some further rehabilitation.

Mr. KENNEY. You mean then that the public on its own is discouraging false advertising?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think it is building a resistance against all advertising because of the obvious falsity of some.

Mr. KENNEY. And it has not been due to prosecution?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not aware of many prosecutions which have been brought.

Mr. KENNEY. Very few.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Very few. Do you wish to discuss the matter of advertising? If you wish to, I shall be glad to do so.