cosmetics have been no more given; in fact, they have been less given to exaggeration in their advertising than the manufacturers of some other classes of commodities.

Senator OVERTON. What other consumptive products have you in mind besides foods, drugs, and cosmetics?

Mr. ROBB. Well, it seems to me, Senator, that there are many things which have to do with a man's comfort and well being other than those which he puts in his stomach which have great importance to him, and it seems to me that if you are putting restrictions on advertising you ought to make those restrictions general and apply to clothing and to everything else. That is my point.

Senator MURPHY. Is it a possible justification in this case, that health is apparently involved?

Mr. ROBB. Well, health is pretty well taken care of now, under the provisions of the present statute, Senator, in my judgment. Perhaps I should, in all frankness, say that it seems to me, with all respect to those that are responsible for S. 1944, S. 2000, and S. 2800, that if they had taken all the court decisions that have been against the Government in the last 27 years and set about deliberately to get around them they could not have done a better job than they have in these bills.

It seems to me that the Government has been pretty successful in the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act, and that while some amendments may be in order, that the history of the act affords no justification for its complete revision. In view of the language of the Supreme Court in the case to which I referred, and in other decisions the statute has been effective. If the Congress, in its wisdom, sees fit to amend it I think there will be adequate protection to the public. Frankly, I see no necessity or justification for throwing the present Food and Drugs Act into the wastebasket and departing from its principles, as would be the case in the enactment of S. 2800.

Senator MURPHY. Except that you do think that deception in advertising ought to be corrected?

Mr. ROBB. I think there is exaggeration. I am bound to admit there is exaggeration in the advertising of practically all commodities. I do not mean that it is general, but there are some instances. The manufacturers of foods, drugs, and cosmetics are no worse than the others, but there are, of course, certain manufacturers who do abuse the truth. That ought to be stopped. They ought to be stopped in respect to all commodities, but unless the Congress is prepared to impose Federal censorship on all advertising, I do not think foods, drugs, and cosmetics should be singled out.

Senator MURPHY. We just persist in thinking that the foods that our children eat, or the medicine that we give them, is much more serious than the cigarettes we smoke, and that representations made as to food and drugs is attended with possible serious consequences that misrepresentation regarding an automobile or a cigarette or something else does not involve.

Mr. ROBB. There should be the highest degree of care, Senator. I am with you there.

Senator MURPHY. Yes.

Mr. ROBB. I certainly am.

Senator VANDENBERG. Where do you find the authority that would permit the Secretary to increase this list of diseases for which self medication is prohibited?

Mr. ROBB. Well, of course, there have been changes, Senator, from 1944 and 2000 in that respect, but still, through the promulgation of new regulations, in which, under the present form of 2800, the manufacturer would have no share, it would be quite possible to extend that list.

Senator VANDENBERG. You think that is part of the general powers that are conferred?

Mr. ROBB. Yes; I think so. Now, Senator, let me make myself clear, if I haven't already. I am not arguing that those enumerated diseases should now be permissible to the manufacturer of proprietary remedies. I am objecting to the ground, the principle by which they may be excluded at this time. If it be found that the medical profession has not yet developed a successful treatment for some disease, then it is perfectly proper to exclude that disease for the time, and until there is improvement in the medical profession, from the permissible range of proprietary medicines, but let the exclusion be upon that ground, not upon the ground of self medication being inherently dangerous or "patently so." That is the language of the act, in connection with each of these particular diseases.

Senator VANDENBERG. And you do not want the decision left to a jury that is predisposed in advance against self medication?

Mr. ROBB. That is it. That is it. We are perfectly content to argue the question before a jury of disinterested persons. If there are no other questions, I appreciate the courtesy which has been shown me.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John W. Darr.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DARR, REPRESENTING THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR SOUND AND DEMOCRATIC CONSUMER LEGISLATION, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. DARR. Mr. Chairman, and Honorable Senators, there have been many presentations made here since this hearing was called into session yesterday morning

Senator VANDENBERG. Whom do you represent, before you start? Mr. DARR. I represent the Joint Committee for Sound and Democratic Consumer Legislation. I want to go into that a little more fully, just a few minutes later. You listened long and patiently to the criticism of this bill from those who represent the consumers and from those who represent the manufacturers. I have the honor to come to you on behalf of an organization that, at a glance, may appear to be an anomaly. I speak for a group of prominent manufacturers from among the industries which come within the purview of this bill, and some others whose products are in no way touched upon by any of the three bills, 1944, 2000, or 2800.

The group of manufacturers whom I represent have associated themselves together for the purpose of interesting themselves in this and other legislation, and they have chosen for themselves the title of which I have just quoted, the joint committee for sound and democratic consumer legislation.

This committee has recently been commented upon editorially by some of the important journals of large circulation, such as the New Republic, for example, in a vein that is scarcely complimentary. One such editorial ended up with the now supposedly obsolete phrase, "caveat emptor."

The active members of this committee, I want to explain, are as follows:

Lee H. Bristol, vice president Bristol Myers, Inc.; S. Bayard Colgate, president Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.; K. F. MacLellan, president United Biscuit Co.; Ellery W. Mann, president Zonite Products, Inc.; Allyn B. McIntire, vice president Pepperell Manufacturing Co.; Edward J. Noble, president Life Savers, Inc.; Arthur R. Wendell, vice president Wheatena Corporation, and your proponent.

In all there are some 20 concerns of like size and importance represented by this committee, all of them concerns which spend large sums of money in national advertising and which have many thousands of employees on their pay rolls, and with many more thousands dependent upon those same pay rolls, and collectively the products of these organizations reach into millions of homes throughout the Nation; and so, strange as it may seem, we are interested in both sides of this question, both producer and consumer.

In fact, we do not believe that there is any very sharply defined line of demarcation between the two. There are some who would have you believe that on one side is an army of gullible, defenseless, ignorant, suffering human beings, as the consumer which is being gypped" and defrauded and hoodwinked and exploited wherever appetite, illness, or vanity manifests itself, and by a group of grasping, unscrupulous fakers, known as the producers. These producers are supposed to be waxing rich by overcharging, by short-changing, and by selling inferior and adulterated products of no merit, and by generally exercising all of the gross evils known to human depravity. The truth is that most of these companies are publicly owned; that is, their securities are owned and held by these same consumers, and each of these companies is, in its own way, vying with the industry of which it is a part, to sell its production in order to win and hold public good will; and yet these important businesses are being hampered, right now, through fear of this undemocratic piece of legislation. Since it has been pending, programs have been delayed; and if it is passed, it will hamper their programs still further. In exploiting the need for this legislation, as though it were a national emergency, much capital has been made of the need for pure foods and drugs and cosmetics as though any sane-minded person or any reputable organization doubted that need and had not long ago admitted it. These are simple truisms.

One might almost be led to believe that the consumer has only recently been discovered, and that therefore all these first principles appear as new and interesting ideas with which to play, but reputable manufacturers discovered the consumer many, many years ago, and most of the great businesses today have been built on the knowledge which manufacturers have of needs and desires of the consumer, and they have remained in business and have grown and thrived because of the knowledge that they must produce something for which there is a demand, and at a price at which the consumer deems to be fair and just.

Business and industry, we believe, come much nearer knowing the needs and desires of the consumer today than can any self-appointed consumer guardian. It is our belief that too much regulation of business and its details by Government would tend to breakdown the initiative of business, in working for the good will of the public. It is axiomatic that in order to earn public good will, some public service must be rendered. In general, we are against the delegation of any discretionary powers to any appointive official, and we believe that whatever regulations are to be imposed upon business and industry, in this or any other legislation, should be written into the law itself, and not left so flexible as to keep business in doubt as to what the future course of that legislation may be.

Senator VANDENBERG. Amen.

Mr. DARR. No attempt has been made by the President of the United States to extend the power of government beyond the needs indicated by the present emergency through which we are passing, and from which we all hope we are now emerging, yet there are some today who would attempt to write through this permanent piece of legislation, a criminal statute, if you will, as though it were an emergency measure. The committee for sound and democratic consumer legislation is concerned with these attempts, because we believe that they are neither in the best interests of the consumer, industry, or government. This bill, now under consideration, has for its essential purpose protection of public health, which is in itself a perfectly noble purpose, and which is endorsed by all, but this bill also contains many features which are opposed to the broad principles of democratic government, as will be pointed out later.

We urge you to give careful study to those clauses of this bill, before sanctioning an entirely new pure food and drug act, and we respectfully call your attention to the fact that even a law as eminently successful as the present measure was not a success from the very beginning. As is true with any legislative enactment, aimed at regulation, the present act has been faced with the necessity of many changes, many clarifications in the courts, and otherwise. The past 27 years have produced a series of interpretations of the act which were essential for its success, and esesntial to the well-being of public health. The present Food and Drugs Act was comparatively simple and specific in its authority and effect, yet changing circumstances and unforeseen problems have necessitated many revisions of the act, until it is declared today to be notably different in its effect than it was in the beginning. Such, we predict, will be the experience of any attempt at governmental regulation of manufacturing, distribution, and advertising of any product, no matter how specific the legislation may be.

It is pointed out that the original Pure Food and Drugs Act, if it has been of value, has been with each passing year becoming more valuable because of the interpretations, and because of clarification by the courts, making it far more adaptable to existing conditions. In view of the experience in the present act, it obviously would be unfortunate for industry if the suggested new legislative enactment has to go through the same testing periods, and run into similar or more extensive difficulties. I am told that it is practically impossible to eliminate all ambiguities and inferences in any new

legislation, and to eliminate all need of interpretations; yet, unless every clause is so clear and so specific as to be beyond doubt, the United States Government will be faced, over a period of many years, with many expensive legal entanglements, in bringing about the proper interpretations; and these increased governmental costs will have to be paid by the general public already overladen with the costs of our national recovery program, to say nothing of the enormous burden that it will be necessary for industry to bear for the same purpose.

Now, may I call your attention to certain clauses which are bound to need clarification and interpretation, and in so doing, it may be that I will touch on something that has already been mentioned. If so, I will try to be as brief as possible.

Section 8 (a), which deals with the misbranding of drugs, I know was touched on yesterday.

Senator OVERTON. In giving the sections, will you also give the pages?

Mr. DARR. I am sorry, I do not have the page, because this was drawn from a mimeographed sheet, and the pages were not numbered as they are now.

The CHAIRMAN. It is page 10.

Mr. DARR. It is section 8 (a). It is on how the palliation is effected. That has been so well and ably discussed that I just want to pass that by, saying I cannot see any reasonable doubt in anyone's mind why that should not be eliminated, because we have not yet been able to find anyone who can describe "palliation" or how it is effected, even in the most simple things.

Now, on section 16, the section relating to seizures, it has not been changed from S. 2000. The power to seize is, of course, in the present law, but when it was included by Congress, in 1906, there was no intention, so far as can be gleaned by good legal examination of the Congressional Record, that the power should be used even as it has been used within the last 10 years.

In 1906, there were numerous nostrums sold as specifics for the most serious diseases, and also adulterated, poisonous, and filthy foods. Then, as now, such stuff should be removed from the market immediately. The power, in fact, has been used by the Department, to enforce its fancies with respect to language used in good faith by reputable manufacturers in stating claims of therapeutic effect. For instance, one label for a product says "for headaches." The Department has objected, but it approves of it if it says "for simple headaches." Again a label says "for coughs" and the Department objects, but approves "for coughs due to colds." One represents a preparation to correct "acidity." The Department requires the statement "acidity due to errors in diet ", and so on. I cite those just as examples.

Under the power to seize goods alleged to be misbranded, or under the threat to exercise it, the manufacturer usually finds it prudent to accept the Department's ruling whether he agrees with it or not. Chief Campbell's annual report for the year ended June 30, 1932, shows 2,567 proceedings under the Pure Food and Drugs Act. Of these 1,260 were seizures. The law does not limit the number of seizures that can be made. If a shipment of goods alleged to be 43076-34- -10