« ForrigeFortsett »
FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS
I do not think it will be denied hy cosmetic manufacturers that there is a need for regulation of this industry. Some very definitely tragic occurrences have been recorded.
Vero is a product that is off the market now. It is a depilatory and contains tulium rcctnto. It has been responsible for injuries of an irreparable sort. Notwithstanding that fact, it was advertised as safe for use.
Here is another article by the name of "Lash-Lure." It is to be usod in the trentinont of eyelashes. This is a photograph of an individual before using it. This is a photograph of the same individual a low duys --olyn low dnys--after using it, showing the effect of this cosmetic.
llore is a placard alvortising the product that I have just pointed out to you, which we obtained from a local store in Washington.
It is actually on the market at the present time.
Mr. C'AMI'BELL. It would be determined in the same way, Sonator, that the identical questiou is now determined with rospeci to poisons in foods.
The toxicity of the product would be appraised by taking into account thc work done by anyonu in the field, not necessarily in our organization, but a general survoy of the cutire situation.
In other words, it would contemplate tho utilization of all availablo scientific information which we could secure upon the subject.
The CHAIRMAN. Would there be any objection to changing that to read, "llit ly or has been found by scientific or clinical tests to be injurious to usor's”? Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not sure that I am nwaro of your point.
I do not know in what respect your definition dillors from the one here.
The Chairman. To be certain that it is not an arbitrary decision on the part of tho doputment. I do not press the matter ut ull.
Mr. Campblll. Do you wish to discuss thut now?
Paragraph A reads, "if its labering is in any particular fulse, or by ambiquity or inference crentes a mislending impression regarding uny food, drug, or cosmetir."
Senator McNary. Is that new?
That is new longunge. It is the requirement in the art now, but now lungunge to inno cosmetics.
Sonntor McNARY. Then it loudly would be now language.
In view of the fact that there has been so much comment ubout thut purugraph, the alleged harshness of its terms, I wish to make further reference to it.
Section 8, on page 17, of the Food and Drugs Act reads-
FOON, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS
Mr. CAMPRELL. Section 8, on page 17, if you have the same copy that I have.
That the term “mistorienceel" on lisad licsein, 11:11 apply to all rirugx, or articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of sword, the package or label of whicle whall bearinlys statement, design, or device, regarding turli article, or thic ingredients, or substances continer flerein wich rhill be rolse or mislending in any particular, :und to my foord or drug porolvet, which is solsely branded sis to the Stato, Territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced.
The longuage that we have employed in paragraph 1 of section 6 of the present bill requires nothing inore than the existing langunge does.
In the Supreme Court's interpretation of the existing langungo Orcurs this stntenient:
The statute is playini :und direct. Its compreliensive terms condemli every intement, design, and device which may mislead or licceiro. Deception may result from the use of statements 100 terlinically raised for which may isa literally true. The aim of the stitute is to provrent that resulting from indirection and ilmubiguity as well as fron statements which are false.
We have frequently ammuntered which we considered to be unquestionably misterling statements appearing on labels. This even though the individual sentences comprising that suittonient might be true 110111 could not be refirical. The interence was undoubtedly of :1. obrachar 10 deceive :in10 mistend the purchaser.
Our thought was that misunderstanding on the part of manufac1.11rers would be overcome by giving them adequate notice of their obligation and of their responsibility by saying quite definitely. "Titlis labeling is in any particular false, or by ambiguity or insurance (routes et misleading impression regarding : ny ivoil, rus, or cosmetic."
The ('HLATMAN. Would the thought, you have in mind bo made il it were to road, “If this labeling is in any particular lose or if unsupported and imscientific claims are advanced "'?
lir. CAMPBELL. Im sorry I do not understand your point.
The (SLANMAN. Or is unsupported or liscientific claims aro dvenced.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yrs; if we were making a prohibition against a certain type of misle:ding statements. liut that would not be Sullirinnly inclusive, do you thinki, Senator', to cover the category of misicaching statements which are sunde.
The ('ITAIRMAN. The olojection I have to this subsection is its very albignity.
Mr. C'ANDREUL. "That it is sumbiguoris?
"If this labelilik is in any particular falsco ? That is cloor to mo, and I am strniel Ido 1000.nderstand your point.
The ('ITALNMAN. 'That is what Uncl roterende 10.
11 il. creates a misterionis impression, it is immaterial whether it is by way of ambiguity or inforcice. The object of this language is to prenesel 111111.
The Supreme Court has taken into consideration tint this is it stature for the consumer, and thint the labels on tho product, diusi, be free from any foleza, niinligguous, one wishoding statement, even whicro thut mistending statement is created by rich in diccininiwis.
Let me point ol11 this to you; ictime call your attention in this shoot diere.
FOOD, DRUCS, AND COSMETICS
There is a full page advertising statement--a full page advertisement sluting the fact that colds are injurious; in other words, stuting that you should avoid coldy if you would guard against tuberculosis. The word "luberculosis" is in biz letters at the top.
If you will roul all us that stritement, I doubt whether you will find any single sentence to which you can take excoption, but unquestionably the goneral inserence on the part of the individual who reuds it, and I submit to you thut that would be a normal and justified conclusion, is that tho articlo allvertised is of some value in the trentmont of tuberculosis.
The Chairman. Loot me ask if there is any particular change betweon the present language and tho lungungo you huve llore, in any front particularity?
In other words, if it is at the present time a violation, if this label has anything of if thut creutes a nusleading impression.
Mr. CampBELL. Thut is the requirement of the present luw.
The Chairman. Do you liave a court decision mustaining you on that?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yos.
"Which shall be falso or mislending in any particular." That is the language of the present act.
There can be no objection to the use of that language in this bill if you prosor it.
I liuvo told you what the Supreme Court said in the interpretation of thut language. It condemmed labels creating inisleading impressions, even those impressions that might result from inferences or ambiguity.
Our purpose in stating thint fuct specifically in the language was to make the manufacturer of loods, drugs, and cosmetic products aware of his own responsibility.
Our thought was thit, with the knowledge of the requirements of this act, he would violnto the luw less frequently than otherwise.
The Chairman. I presume the Department is not proud of the authorship liere, particularly?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Oh, 110.
The CHAIRMAN. Then let the record show the referenco to thio Supremo Court decision.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I road from United States Reports, volumo 265, at
Paragraplı B. “If in packngo form it fails to bear a luhol contuining: (1) the name and place of business of the munusucturer, pucker, seller, or distributor."
That is now. That paragraph was put in at the request of Stato oflicials. When they hnvo occasion to investigate products sold by peddlers in their jurisdiction, this information is valuable.
(2) An accurate statement of the contents in such terms of woight, measure, or munericul count is may be prescribed by rogulations of the secretary.
The Challman. Thut is new?
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is, at the present tinc, the law as it applies to food.
One (1) is now; (2) is the law, substuntially as it is now. The Chairman. How does it differ from the prosent law? You Buy it is substantiully tho same?
FOOJ), DRUGS, AND COSMETICS
nges of fruit.
Mr. CAMPBELL. This is the Goud amendment of the act. There is A proviso--from line 10 nnd including line 19-which is new language. The CHAUMAN. From Jinc 10 to line 19 is new langunge? Mr. CAMPREU. Yes.
That gives the Secretary of Agriculture power to make exemptions where canned food products are put up at one of several factories, and brought to somir central point where they are labeled before being placed upon the market.
As a matter of fact, thint hins been done. That is what has been done administratively, by the secretories in the prist, and this is asked, simply, ns legislativo confirmation of such action.
Thé Cuauman. llos that anything to do with apples?
It has been the fear of some apple growers that this food and drug bill would take over the regulation of the contents of baskets or pock
Mr. CAMPBELL. I think that question will present itself in a following section.
I do not think there is any objection by nny of the industries to this portion that we are discussing nox. This is the entire paraprapli B. Shall we pass on?
The ('ITAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ('AMPBEL... Paragraplı C. The purpose of that is obvious. That is now. Under the net-weight, requirements at the present, time, it is provided that the quantity of contents must be plainly and con-picuously murked onderland
Tlint lines berei omitted from the above portion and the grueral requireinent included in porngripla ( for prominent and legible statements of all Jubel declarations required by the bill.
The next is "misbranding of food.' A foodi shall be deemed to bo misbranded if its container is so mnde, formed, or filled as to mislead the purchaser, or its contents fall below the standard of lill prescribed by regulations as hereinafter provided.
This itcin is nothing more or less , in difierent language, than the old sluck-pack mensure that passed the house on 33 or 4 dillorent occasions but never lins becomo low.
Flere are a number of samples that illustrate the necessity for that particular paragraph.
The ChamMAN. I did not get mucii encouragement from the Senato when I had that bill in.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I hope you will when it, uppoat's in this brill. Core tninly it is needed. This package of spice, black pepper, is a littlo more than one hour full. The content or it can be seen as indicated by the line on the package.
The consumes would assume that it is entirely full amid lins it right to that assumption.
This package of charge has a false bo'tom. The way to detect the extent of deception created by this extruct bottle is to turn it up and look through the bottom.
Shall I pass on to the next section? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. CAMPBELL.. Hiern is an interesting form of deception, Mr. Chairman, that should bo scon in connection with this provision.
FOOD, DILGS, AND COSMETICS
These are specimens of plnin noodles, both without eggs. But one is packed in yellow cellopiano to create the impression that it is un eng noodlo.
Beforo I leave the paragraph, let me prosent an advertisement, Mr. Chairma!, which is illustrative of the extent to which ianulacturers are selling contuiners on the ground that they will create a false impression among consumers.
The CHAIRMAN. I read here, “You need not be a magician to make your orgs be the sauno size. Only an expert buyer, after careful study, could detect any difference in sizo.”
This is advertising to a firm selling eggs? Mr. CAMPBELL. The firm is putting out a box to muke one egg look like the others in size. It will make them all look the same size.
Paragraph B und paragraph care practically those that are now in tlie ich.
The CHAIRMAN. Bund C?
Mr. CAMPBALL. We vone now, Mr. Chairman, to paragraphs D and 10.
Tho ('larman. They are new?
Jl it purports to be or is represe culls a food for which a definition of identity luas bei'll prescribed by regulations its berrimuftos provider.
Turning to section 11, because I think that would be the orderly way to consider this--thint is on page 15 - you will see that the Secrotiry is authorized w formulate and promulgate delinitions of identity and standards of quity and till of sunluiner for uny food.
Thuis is, to my mind, one of the most important provisions of the act.
There are a legul standards now, lvy which there could be regulution of food products. There are legal standards for drug products; the Purmacopoein, and the Nitional Formulary are the legal standards for the regulation of the tradlic in drugs.
This particular provision is one that lies beon recommended by the Depurtment of Agriculture for the last 20 yours, to my personal knowledyo.
It is a provision that was recommended by Dr. Wiley in the originul bill. It has been considered by Congress from time to time.
You introduced, yoursell, Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress a bill to make provision for the administrative deurmination of legal food standards.
Tho procedure which we must follow now, is that of showing that trade custom, or household understanding las fixed the composition of food products nnd determined wlint they must bo.
Paragraplis 1, 2, und 3, of soction 7 of the existing law connote standards.