manufacturer and dealer against hasty action than is contained in the existing

law.

Senate bill 1944 has the approval of Dr. Carl Alsberg, who succeeded Dr. Wiley as Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, in the enforcement of the existing law. Mr. Campbell, present Chief of the Food and Drug Inspection Service and his associates, long experienced in this work, certify the provisions as needed.

Senate bill 1944 has been considered and has the approval of the Association of State Food and Drug Control Officials; the approval of the American Public Health Association and the American Home Economics Association and has, I understand, the approval of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, who in the main are connected with the State agricultural experiment stations.

These groups make up that sound foundation upon which honest food, drug and cosmetic manufacturers, and dealers can have full and lasting confidence with the consuming public as well as protection to consumers. Honest food, drug and cosmetic manufacturers, and consumers should thoroughly investigate the arguments the opposition make against the bill before they allow this needed protection to honest business and to human health to be delayed, weakened or set aside.

The article by Mr. Charles D. Howard, State analyst and State food-control official of New Hampshire, published in the January bulletin of the board of health of that State, entitled "The Federal Food and Drug Bill", should be widely read. Mr. Howard points out:

"Much of it (the opposition) as is the case with all control legislation, arises from honest misapprehension. So far as the food industry is concerned, this is now for the most part on an honest basis, and the same is true of the manufacture and distribution of official pharmaceuticals. The various elements in these industries are for the most part very well intentioned. They are disposed to do the right thing, and thus far they have voiced comparatively little opposition."

It is seldom that Mr. Howard takes out his sword. He is a man of peace, trying first to persuade people in the trade to do the right thing. He takes his sword out on this occasion with a thrust as follows:

"An outstanding feature of this bill, and the one that is now causing a prodigious hullabaloo in certain quarters, is the seemingly reasonable proposal that we shall have truthful advertising of foods, remedials, and cosmetics. Only Heaven and the enforcement officials have any adequate appreciation of the present pernicious and widespread abuses in this respect and of the crying need for reform. Yet, with peculiar appropriateness-with an opposition running true to form-this proposal is being met by a highly organized campaign the weapons of which are derision, sneers, appeals to prejudice and ignorance, misrepresentation and downright lying."

THE OBJECTIONS TO THE BILL

The circular put out by the "Joint Committee for Sound and Democratic Consumer Legislation" quotes Dr. James H. Beal, chairman of the board of trustees of the United States Pharmacopoeia, as follows:

"The success of the present Pure Food and Drugs Act in accomplishing its purpose has probably been greater than that of any other Federal enactment of equal scope, and that, as the result of the law, misbranded and falsely and fraudulently labeled foods and drugs are practically things of the past."

Consumers are sold by advertising. It should follow that law which has accomplished so much in the labeling of foods and drugs should now be applied so as to eliminate the same abuses in advertising since customers are sold and make their purchase before reading the label.

This committee makes the argument in the main that the existing bill is so good and has accomplished so much that it should be left as it is. They say: "The past 27 years, it is pointed out, have produced a serious of interpretations of the act which were essential to its success, and essential to the wellbeing of public health."

"Opponents of an entirely new law say that in view of the experience of the present act, it obviously would be unfortunate for industry, for the Department of Agriculture, and for the public at large, if the suggested new legislative

enactment has to go through the same testing periods and run into similar or more extensive difficulties."

Those making this argument have evidently not studied closely the system of Federal and State law now in existence. It should be reemphasized that Senate bill 1944 does not change or eliminate anything which has been won and held but it does bring into the Federal act tested means of enforcement long contained in most of the State laws and it extends the Federal act to cover abuses, including false advertising, not now contained in the act of 1906. These new provisions applying to advertising will undoubtedly be the subject of much litigation, just as have the existing provisions applying to the label.

STANDARDS

The existing law makes the United States Pharmacopoeia and the National Formulary the standard for drugs. Products sold under a name recognized in these books and not up to the standard, must make it known on the label.

The opposition made a successful fight to prevent a provision providing for legal food standards in the act of 1906. The opposition came then in the main from those who produce and sell so-called "blended" whisky. Manufacturers and users of preservatives and aniline dyes were opposed to legal standards. The United States Brewing Association, the California Wine Growers Association, and the "bottled-in-bond whisky people supported the act and the provision for standards. The same fight is made against the proposal for legal food standards in the Senate bill 1944.

Obviously full and honest standards will, in the end, be the measure of the truth or falsity in food advertisements, with a new and still more powerful opposition insisting that if there are standards they shall be "minimum standards.

The Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, the food chemists of the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, and the State food analysts have been working some 35 years to establish fair and uniform methods of analyses and fair standards for foods. They established the standards for fertilizer and feeds. Power exists in practically all of the State food control laws for the legal adoption of these standards for guidance in the enforcement of the law. Chemical and bacteriological standards for meats, meat products, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, flavoring extracts, cereals, flour, baking powder, bread, and most other foods have been established.

A biscuit company uses the standard methods of analyses and standards for quality and composition in the purchase of milk, eggs, flavoring extracts, chocolate, cocoanut, sugar, molasses, nuts, fruit, and other materials which go into the make-up of a cracker or biscuit. Why not continue these standards when the biscuit is sold for human consumption?

Shall the Federal Food and Drug Control Administration continue to be legally deprived of that basic means for food law enforcement which has been adopted in the pure food laws of practically all the States? As it is, the standards are used as evidence, but they must be expensively proven to each court in a suit in equity or to each jury in a criminal prosecution.

Mr. George C. Parlin, of the Curtis publications and who represents, as he states, some 120 national magazines and newspapers, has insisted that the word "minimum" be placed before the word "standards." I have not gotten at the real intention of Mr. Parlin and others in this. Undoubtedly there is some misunderstanding.

Food standards should be full and fair standards; honest standards. With strict bacteriological, chemical, and sanitary standards for milk, the infant death rate in most American cities has been cut to a half or less of the deaths of former years. Shall we go back to the "minimum" standards? Not even those who would make and sell more of little white coffins would argue for it. How then can those in advertising do it?

In addition to certified milk, New York City, for example, has grade A, grade B, and still a lower or "minimum" standard. Shall we make this minimum" standard the only Federal standard?

The instances of other foods and in many cases of equal importance to human health, even human life, can be multiplied.

PERMITS

Senate bill 1944 provides for two kinds of permits:

(a) A permit where the circumstances are such that the food or other product is being prepared of materials or in a way which may endanger health; (b) a voluntary permit for food, drug, or cosmetic manufacturers who wish the Government to inspect their premises and products and certify the facts to the consuming public.

The joint committee for sound and democratic legislation objects to the first (a) in section 12 of the bill because (1) the Secretary can suspend the permit, if the danger to health reoccurs, until it is corrected; (2) because judicial review is not permitted until after the permit is revoked; and (3) fear that "it will tend greatly to weaken the State health authorities."

There is nothing in the section which differs from power already exercised under State and municipal public health laws. It proposes to establish the same power over interstate commerce. It is needed.

During recent years products have gone into interstate commerce which have been responsible for a number of deaths. A product caused botulism. People died. Under the proposed provision, as soon as the outbreak became known, the Department of Agriculture would have put the growers and packers of the product under a permit and would have held shipments up until the facts were plain that the danger to human life was ended. The members of this joint committee and associates surely cannot understand the reason for this provision.

Radium water, poisoned ginger extracts, have caused deaths and eyelash preparations caused blindness. It has been recognized throughout all the years of American constitutional and statutory law that the governments do and should have the power to stop and stop, at once, any and all thinks known to endanger human life.

The State and municipal health departments want the Government to control the thing when it crosses or is intended to cross a State line just like the police departments of the cities want the Government to shut the open interstate commerce gates to fire arms; just like the Government has exercised similar control over narcotics.

Strong objection was made to section 22 which provides for voluntary permit and inspection, at cost, by the Department of Agriculture with a certificate that the product has been so inspected and passed. The opposition to this was strong enough to have it eliminated in substitute Senate bill 2000.

66

There is nothing new in it. Municipal and State pure food and public health control use a permit system. Meats and meat products for interstate commerce are inspected and passed" by the Department of Agriculture. Genuine whisky aged 4 years is certified to the consumer under the "bottled in bond" stamp. Steamboats going from our ports and plying on our lakes and rivers have permits that they are safe. Airplanes and pilots are inspected and licensed by the Department of Commerce.

Mixed feeds and fertilizers are sold under a State system of licensing with the ingredients and analyses certified from the State agricultural experiment station.

Such permit system will be of vast benefit to fruit and vegetable growers and poultry raisers. It will give local abattoirs opportunity to concentrate meat packing, poultry dressing, and egg handling, under either private enterprise or cooperative agricultural associations, to get a trained Government inspector, pay for him and have purity and quality of the product certified to consumers in distant cities.

Apple and vegetable growers can have inspection controlling spray residue and with a stamp which will carry more confidence to the city consumer. The plan will attach more confidence to our food products when sold in the foreign markets. It will directly increase advertising out of the urge to get the important fact of being inspected and passed to the consuming public. It will add a constructive activity and get things done before it becomes necessary to use the penalty sections of the law.

There can be only one objection to this permit section. It is the objection against full and honest standards. It comes, however, it may sound like the voice of Jacob, from the Esaus who know that adulterated and falsely advertised products will not get a permit.

It will not build up an uncontrollable bureaucracy. Farming organizations and food industries will see to it that the fees are not in excess of the actual costs.

Out of the 15 years' experience in State food and drug control and out of the other 15 years' experience in food-industry management, I earnestly urge that the American Pure Food League stand for and fight for the retention of this permit section. Put it into the law, and within a few years we will stop hearing about adulterated and misbranded foods.

THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DRUGS

During a trip through the rural sections of Kentucky in the summer of 1909 I noted the wide sale of “consumption" and other cures in the stores on the crossroads.

A boy in his early teens wanted the "pure-food man" to see his mother. She was in the last stages of tuberculosis. An empty bottle and a half-filled bottle of "consumption cure" were on the mantle. In the same room was a half-filled basket of eggs. The butter and eggs were being traded at the store for the "consumption cure." The mother had trusted the advertisement in the local weekly newspaper.

I drafted and the legislature of 1910 passed a law which prohibits the sale of a medicine, "if it be labeled or branded or in any manner misrepresented or sold so as to deceive or mislead a purchaser or consumer with respect to purity, quality, or medicinal value."

The pharmaceutical and medical associations and the State Federation of Women's Clubs backed us in securing the unanimous passage of this law. It is more comprehensive than the similar section in Senate bill 1944.

The State of Kentucky needs the power of the Federal Government to stop the broadcasting and advertising originating outside of the State, yet influencing purchases within the State. It is unnecessary to involve this vital need in a controversy between whether prosecution shall be had on facts or opinion. In the end it must be upon facts.

COMMITTEE ON APPEALS

The provision for the committee on appeals against regulations proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture in the form presented should be opposed. It is set over the Secretary, even over the President. Three of the five can set a regulation aside and there is no appeal.

The Secretary of Agriculture should be given full authority to appoint com mittees from both the professions and the food industries, to aid him in arriving at the facts. In the end responsibility should be fixed upon the Secretary and his Chief of the Food and Drugs Inspection Service.

A Cabinet member, and if necessary the President, should have the last say in all matters of administration, after which any and all aggrieved may have their day in court.

I would suggest in lieu of this that where the Secretary, after hearing proposes a regulation, opportunity be given to appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in the same way that decisions of the Patent Office are taken for review by that court.

So much of current advertising has fooled, with so much profit, a large part of the people continuously that the advertisers and advertising agencies feel that the same misrepresentation about Senate bill 1944 will prevail.

But they have not considered the individuals among the groups who know, whose leadership the people follow and who support President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his plan to have a "new deal" for public health in the same way as for public wealth and employment security.

I reviewed last evening Dr. Harvey W. Wiley's autobiography and some of my files when Secretary of the Association of Food Control officials during 1902-10. Practically all of the argument used by the opposition against Senate bill 1944 was used against the act of 1906. The argument in opposition to honest advertising is the same as was the opposition to the honest label.

R. M. ALLEN,

AMERICAN PURE FOOD LEAGUE, CRANFORD, N.J., FEBRUARY 13, 1934

Memorandum: To the officers and members of the advisory board of the American Pure Food League:

Mrs. Wiley and myself asked Mr. R. M. Allen, who was food commissioner of Kentucky and secretary of the Association of Food Control Officials and who worked closely with Dr. Wiley to secure the act of 1906, to review Senate bill 1944 and the substitute Senate bill 2000.

Mr. Allen also served as a Special Assistant to the United States Attorney General in pioneer litigation under the act of 1906. A copy of his statement is enclosed.

Also enclosed is a copy of the statement of Mr. Charles D. Howard, State analyst and State food and drug control official of New Hampshire.

The Tugwell bill is the only bill so far which does not seem to be compromised and weakened. I understand that the committee is to report a bill which will have the approvel of the administration, and particularly of the Food and Drugs Administration. You will be advised on this as soon as definite information is obtained.

The fight against this legislation is fully covered by Mr. Howard. It is unnecessary to repeat it.

Some food manufacturing opposition, headed by Mr. Charles Wesley Dunn, an attorney of New York, and some of the publications headed by Mr. George C. Parlin of Philadelphia, want to get the word "minimum" introduced before the word "standard" in the section providing for standards.

• Minimum (Century) means of the smallest possible amount or degree, least, smallest." "Minimum " food standards would mean watering and skimming between the farmer and consumer, unfair trade to honest food manufacturers and minimum truth in food advertising. "Minimum" nutritional value means minimum growth for children and minimum individual and national vitality, to the extent that these depend on food.

ALICE LAKEY, Executive Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. J. D. Miller.

STATEMENT OF J. D. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to present a few matters to the committee, but I will not have time to do it before the closing hour. I want to leave the city this afternoon or this evening, and I would like to know if I might have permission to appear before the com

mittee this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; you will be granted that privilege.

Mr. MILLER. I will not take much time, because I haven't time to put in what I have now.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other person here who can conclude in 10 minutes?

Mrs. WILEY. I could conclude in 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, please. I understand there is a gentleman here who can conclude in 1 minute. Supposing we hear him.

Mr. NORMAN DRAPER. Is he in the room? All right, we will hear the lady then.

STATEMENT BY MRS. HARVEY W. WILEY, PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. WILEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been most interested in this hearing. You have had now 9 hours nearly of hearing, of which 25