side of life as distinguished from the more serious side of drugs and foods; but, nevertheless, we have the same ideals that other gentlemen have who testified here, and we are trying to run a clean house; we are trying to build businesses that are permanent; and the best evidence that we are succeeding is that our association is 40 years old.

There is one other matter that was placed on the record. I do not want to reflect upon the professional standing or knowledge of the man that made the statement, but I am sure he will be fair enough to let me say this in rebuttal. He mentioned the fact that lard is put out in 4-ounce packages with some perfume and sold at $3 a jar. There are suits of clothes costing $150 and automobiles costing $10,000; and there are all sorts of high-priced luxuries for people who have money with which to buy them; but in our industry by far the largest part of the face cream does not contain lard unsuitable to the face, and it is sold in packages ranging from 10 to 35 cents per package. It is sold in every country on the face of the globe. That is why the American manufacturers of cosmetics have been successful.

When I entered this industry as a comparatively young man we stood fifth among the nations of the world in the production of this particular line of product. In the last 15 years we have outstripped them all.

Take products like face cream and face powder compacts. They outstrip in volume the products of any other nation, not even excepting France or England or Germany. We are rather proud of the fact that when our people go to other places on the globe they find our products there.

There is one thing that I would like to say, and that is that if this were to be a general public health measure; and, as one speaker suggested yesterday, it was to be brought within the scope of this bill, the protection of the public from all sorts of household appliances, such as silver polishes and cleaners, then I should say that cosmetics should rightly be included in the bill. My doubt about that is that I do not see where you are going to stop if you put cosmetics in, because they have not so much relation to public health as many other articles that are used in a person's daily life. Where are you going to draw the line between cosmetics, between furs, and between textiles, which constantly touch human skin; also cleaning compounds that are used by housewives every single day?

If the department is going to embark upon a program which includes everything that a person may need in the home, the American home, as a speaker said yesterday, then it was undertaking an enormous task; and somewhere in deference to the taxpayers that job has got to stop.

Senator COPELAND. You spoke about furs. As a matter of fact, the Public Health officials have had occasion to give consideration to furs. You will remember the possibility of the conveyance of anthrax from furs. So from time to time it has been necessary for publichealth officials to go very far afield from the original purpose of health supervision.

Mr. WARREN. Thank you, Senator. And is it not true out of your experience as a Public Health official that paraphenyline-diamine has sometimes been used in fur dye, which renders the fur as dangerous as that product which makes people blind?

Senator COPELAND. To one who has sensitivity to that particular chemical, of course, there would be indeed more danger from the fur than from the occasional use of it as a hair dye. I can quite understand that.

Mr. WARREN. I am nearly through, and I just want to bring up two other questions that have arisen in our minds in connection with this bill.

In the first place, there is the difficulty of enforcing a rigid ban against some cosmetics that might be affected by this bill. We have just undertaken one social experiment and it has failed. Anything of this sort that attempts to legislate against people's private pet habits, the things that they like in their daily life, is apt to become a cropper. I want to show the difficulty that the Department may encounter. One of these instances is Russia. You all know of the experiment that is going on over there. The Government has been discouraging the use of luxuries. Every member of our association has some experience in that regard. We have a very large_Polish business. Poland is a point of departure for toilet articles into Russia. Anybody going there will find what the conditions are. It is bootlegging.

Take another instance. Take Germany. Germany has been, through the press bureau, discouraging the use of cosmetics because of the fact that they do not seem to be associated with the serious purposes of the present regime. What is the result? I can testify that today the toilet articles business in Germany is excellent. The ban against cosmetics; not the ban but the discouraging propaganda put out, has only caused a determination on the part of the German women to use their favorite face powder or lipstick. So when we attempt to draw this too close we may interfere with people's private habits.

There is one other thought that will conclude the objections that have arisen in our minds, and that is the question of export. We need the world in the export of toilet articles. We see a good business in that respect. It is not only good business to have an American product above others in every field, but it also provides employment for hundreds of thousands of people.

We do not want to see, and I do not suppose it is within Dr. Campbell's plan, that this legislation shall be shaped in such a way that it is going to prevent the marketing of harmless products here which are still permitted in foreign countries, because the production in our line of business will then come to a stop. That is an important point from an industrial standpoint.

I still maintain that we have a sympathetic attitude toward the purposes of this bill, and on one point particularly, and that is advertising. I have a deep sympathy for the people who are nervous about the effects on advertising. Our association comprises some of the largest advertisers in America. I have figures about it, but I do not think I will put them in the record, because I do not want to have it broadcast just how much we do spend. Nevertheless, it is a substantial amount.

But our advertising dollar is worth a little less today than it was some time ago, because we have to compete with fraudulent, false, misleading claims in connection with nostrums. I am not saying this as any reflection upon the publishing interests; they are our

friends; but we do not believe that advertising as an economic force can ever reach its full value unless it is purified from some of the practices existing today. Pick up you favorite magazine and see if I am right.

If, in spite of these arguments, the committee still feels in its wisdom that cosmetics should be included within the scope of this legislation, then our association would like to see 2 or 3 simple amendments which will make it appear a little less hard in some of the administrative features and in some of the definitions upon our industry, without in any way affecting the high purposes which Dr. Campbell has in protecting the public health.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask our counsel, Mr. Hugo Mock, to address the committee now?

Senator COPELAND. You presented the matter in such good spirit, Mr. Warren, that we are glad to hear from Mr. Hugo Mock.

STATEMENT OF HUGO MOCK, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURERS OF TOILET ARTICLES

Mr. Mock. Mr. Chairman, if it is possible I would like to inject a new note into this duscussion, and that is to lead it away a little from the characteristics of a debate in which the Government is trying to get as much as it can and the industry which we represent is trying to get as little as possible.

I think there are obvious defects in the bill. I have here, Senator Copeland, an interlineated copy of the bill with the suggested amendments which are referred to in the brief, and I will ask you to follow me for a moment on the interlineated copy.

When I say that the Government may get more than it wants, I will refer you specifically to the very broad definition of advertising on page 12. I studied that. I have not even any substitute for it because I could not work out any better language. I do not think the Government could only take advantage of the industry to try to stretch that unduly, but I think the language as it is is capable of almost any construction.

If I represented a defendant who was accused of anything under this act, the first thing I would do would be to plead that the Government of the United States came into court with unclean hands, because I would refer very simply to the poster advertising used by the United States. We have all seen these naval posters: "See the world"; "Join the Navy". And you see a beautiful poster picturing tropic seas, and an immaculately groomed officer with an immaculately groomed horse. Everything is lovely. That poster is certainly creating a misleading impression.

Senator COPELAND. I thought I was the only man in the United States who had been mad about those posters, for the very reason you have suggested.

Mr. Mock. Those posters never show a gob swabbing a deck or sleeping in a hammock with the temperature around 100°, or anything like that.

Although I am in favor of this bill, I think the language should be corrected.

Now to our specific amendments. Dr. Beale yesterday objected to the wording of section 5, on page 6, and it was your own suggestion,

Senator Copeland, that before the word "user" there should be inserted the word "average." My own suggestion before I heard you speak was the word "ordinary." I do not know which is better; but I think if either the word "average" or the word "ordinary "is inserted there it would exclude the causes of hypersensitivity referred to yesterday and save a great deal of trouble.

Senator ČOPELAND. That is exactly what I had in mind, because paraphenyline-diamine is irritating, but to the average person no such evil symptom is presented.

Mr. Mock. This association has been so rigorous, Senator, in its admission to membership that no one who uses paraphenyline-diamine has ever been admitted. I refer to the much more common causes of hypersensitivity. I think the word "ordinary" would cure that.

The bill suffers from the defects of trying to be three bills in one. It legislates for foods, for cosmetics and for drugs all at the same time. In general we have no objection to telling the customer what is in the package; but our articles are bought not only for their regular value; but for their esthetic use and for their use as beautifiers.

In the case of perfumes it is very difficult to put the contents on the labels. Sometimes 2 ounces of perfume are sold for $50, and they are sometimes sold for 10 cents.

In the case of lipsticks there would be no object in putting the contents on the package, because every lipstick, whether sold for 10 cents or $50, is of the same size. No lipstick is ever bought on account of quantity.

I ask that on page 7 an exemption be put in on cosmetics. Packages of 2 ounces or under shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.

Now, will you please turn to page 11, to the section which discusses the private formula class. Dr. Campbell said very well from his point of view that a man who is his own doctor is entitled to know what he is putting into his stomach. Now, this section does not refer to cosmetics specifically, but there are many cosmetics which are also drugs. In the definition of drugs, and in the definition of cosmetics, the term is used that those cosmetics shall not be mutually exclusive. But to be more specific, if Coty makes a shaving lotion and puts on that lotion, "Good for bleeding", that article at once becomes a drug as well as a cosmetic.

Now, under this section, since it is not made in accordance with any article in the pharmacopia, Coty would be compelled to put upon the label the actual physiological ingredients of that product. You would have a label filled with probably 20 scientific names, essential oils, synthetic drugs, alcohol, fixatives, and other things which furnish no information whatever to the consumer and would only suffice to give away a valuable trade secret to a competitor.

Now, that product, in the first place, is not for internal consumption. So that takes away one reason why the formula should be disclosed. That product is never prescribed by a physician. So I submit in behalf of the cosmetic manufacturers that either an exception be made in the case of cosmetics, or that that paragraph be stricken out. Senator COPELAND. I have written in my book that you wish to have this omitted entirely, or certainly omitted as to cosmetics. Mr. Mock. Yes, sir.

Now, please turn to page 17. Section 12 contains the laudable provision, as in the Crab Meat Case cited yesterday by Dr. Campbell, that

whenever the Secretary finds that the distribution in interstate commerce of any class of food, drugs, or cosmetics may, by reason of conditions surrounding the manufacture, processing, or packing thereof, be injurious to health, and such injurious nature cannot be adequately determined after such articles have entered interstate commerce, he is authorized, after notice and hearing, to make such regulations governing the conditions of manufacture

and so forth.

Then you have this intrastate inspection of factories. Now that is very good, and we concur in that, but there is not any reason in the world why it should ever apply to cosmetics, and I think it is merely an inadvertance. It does not appear in section 13 of the act. In section 13 it says:

In order adequately to regulate interstate commerce in food, drugs, and cosmetcis, and enforce the provisions of this act.

Now, cosmetics are not bacteria carriers. In fact, most of them destroy bacteria. There is not a thing you would ever find about conditions of health by going into a cosmetics factory; and I submit that a limitation should be put in section 13 so that that factory inspection could have the same limitation as section 12. That is only in cases where the public health is involved.

Now, I have just two more; and my last two points have to do with the general features of the act, as well as with cosmetic. There is one other person involved in this act besides the public and the Government, and that is the manufacturer, and very often the rival manufacturer. This publicity provided in section 21 of the act is a two-edged sword. I believe that that section should also be limited to cases of emergency involving the public health.

As Senator McNary said yesterday, a man is believed innocent until he is found guilty. Now, what under heaven is the purpose of advertising a seizure or a complaint against an article in interstate commerce if afterwards the complaint is withdrawn and the defendant is found not guilty? That not only is no protection to the public, but it is very often used, or could be used, by competitors very disadvantageously. Senator COPELAND. Mr. Mock, you propose on page 18, in line 6, to insert the new language that you furnish, with the understanding that the addition or change should be made on the preceding page. Mr. Mock. That is right; and I propose, although it is not in my brief, that under "publicity" that that publicity should be limited to cases of emergency involving the public health.

Senator COPELAND. Where is this now?

Mr. Mock. This is on page 28. It says:

No seizure or complaint shall, however, be publicly reported until final judgment has been rendered in the case.

Now, there is one other item that I want to mention, and that is the case of penalties. Mr. Burke this morning made a very resonable plea for taking up minor violations of law in a friendly manner with the Department, and I think practically all manufacturers would be very glad to cooperate with the Department in correcting matters of labeling or matters of packaging. The penalties as provided in the act, I think, are for a serious infraction, for a willful infraction of the