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.


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.


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.



Memorandum: To the officers and members of the advisory board of the

American Pure Food League: Mrs. Wiley and myself asled 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.


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 committee 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.



Mrs. Wiley. Mr. Chairman, I have been most interested in this hearing. You have had now 9 hours nearly of hearing, of which 25 minutes have been for the consumers. We have heard mostly from representatives of the drug industry and the advertisers.

I represent the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, a federation of 30 clubs in the city of Washington, numbering about 5,000 members. We represent the consumers' class about which Miss Edwards spoke yesterday.

Miss Edwards brought to your attention yesterday what represented the opinions of thousands of women back in the States.

On November 27, 1933, the present inadequacy of the Food and Drug Law, drafted under the leadership of Dr. Wiley in 1906, was explained to us, as well as the provisions of Food and Drug bill S. 1944 at our regular meeting. A month later, on December 18, after we had secured all possible information on this subject, we voted to endorse the principle of bill S. 1944 and to recommend its passage without substantial modification. We believed in the administration's food bill to be the best bill, the most disinterested, and the best from the standpoint of the consumer, because it had been drawn by food experts devoted to the interests of the consumer.

On January 13, at the midwinter board meeting of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, at the instance of our federation, a motion was passed, as follows:

The board of directors of the General Federation recognizing the necessity of amending the present Food and Drugs Act, enacted in 1906, and now inadequate, recommends to the State federations of the study of Senate bill 2000 with a view to its passage without substantial amendment.

According to the State federation bulletins which came in February, the clubwomen all over the country are forming committees, and are studying the administration's bill. Mrs. Grace Morrison Poole, president of the General.Federation of Women's Clubs, has accepted the position of honorary vice president of the American Pure Food League, of which I am acting as president.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs will definitely vote on this measure in May, next, at its council meeting. If, after these 5 months of study, these 2,500,000 women vote to endorse the administration's bill

, one of the greatest armies of consumers in the country will work for its enactment. Dr. Wiley gave much of the credit for the passing of the first food law to the organized women of the country, to the women of the General Federation.

The point which the consumer always bears in mind in considering this bill is that it is a consumers' measure, and that the primal idea of the old law and of this new bill is to favor the consumer in any case where there is a dispute between the welfare of the consumer or the profit of the manufacturer.

In speaking as president of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, I may say we endorsed the principles of S. 1944. I do not see the need for the two super committees of food and health provided in bills S. 2000 and S. 2800. The two committees provide l in S. 2000 have 5 each, and of 5 and 7 in 2800 would a great burden on the taxpayer, and I doubt if the consumer would have any greater security than he has with honest officials in charge of the administration of the law.

The administration bill as originally drafted contains all of the provisions of the old law, but it aims to stop the gaps and eliminate the compromises which had to be accepted in order to get any law at all in 1906. Bill S. 1944 also left the way open for the control of new foods, drugs, and cosmetics which may be invented or compounded in the future. In the two last bills there is no appeal for the consumer from the decision of the supercommittees on foods, and no opportunity for appeal for the State food departments from an adverse decision of the supercommittee on health.

I wish to concur with the women's organizations who spoke yesterday that we would like to see the word “minimum” taken out of section 11 in bill S. 2800. The word "minimum" means of the smallest possible degree. The minimum food standards would mean the lowest standards for the consumers' benefit.

I believe that one member of the committee acted for the Food and Drug Institute. I would like, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, to place in the record an article from The Nation of February 21.

The CHAIRMAN. Permission granted.
(The article referred to is as follows:)




[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

There are no interested, profit-motivated lobbyists at Washington; only patriots, crusaders, guardians of our most sacred institutions, saviors of humanity. If you doubt this, read the transcript of the public hearings held December 7 and 8 in Washington on the Tugwell-Copeland food and drug bill, which is one of the most fascinating and dramatic documents the Government Printing Office has ever issued. If, after that, you are still cynical, you should read the mail the President, General Johnson, and Postmaster Farley are getting these days from the patriotic medicine men, vitamin men, and cosmeticians whose sole concern is the welfare of the present administration and the N.R.A. The names of these correspondents cannot be divulged, but here are a few samples of their style:

“ With yourself and every other loyal citizen of the United States endeavoring to assist in the relief of unemployment, it would seem that any type of legislation that would retard the recovery of business would be unfortunate at this time. Therefore, House bill 6110 and the Copeland bill should be given serious consideration as their effect upon an enterprise with an annual output of over $2,000,000 would be serious indeed “We have no objections to regulation but

here is no ordinary regulatory measure of the industry. Here is a bill known as the Tugwell bill

that openly demands that the Secretary of Agriculture in enforcement of regulations be final and absolute without appeal to the courts * *

Now I'm no disgruntled manufacturer writing you; I'm quite well able to take care of myself and have been doing it in this business for many, many years

Practically all the worthwhile factors in proprietary cosmetic, drug, food, and advertising industries are in accord that these Tugwell measures are impossible of amendment and should be withdrawn

"I have recently been impressed with the danger to the administration that is resulting from the agitation created by what is known as the Tugwell bill

There are four main points to note about this huge correspondence, of which only a few typical examples have been excerpted: (1) That the names of most of the ready letter-writer firms are already familiar through notices of judgment issued by the Food and Drug Administration at the termination of cases brought under the present inadequate law, in post-office fraud order or in the Federal Trade Commission cease-and-desist orders; (2) that the writers invoke the principle of recovery as opposed to reform in order to defend businesses which in most cases are demonstrably a danger and a burden to both the public health and the public pocketbook; (3) that they do not hesitate to misrepresent both the nature and effects of the bill, as for example, by asserting that administration action would not be subject to court review





[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



although such review would be easily available to defendants under both the original bill and the present revised Copeland bill; (4) that the writers, by implication, threaten the administration with a political headache and political defeat, regardless of the merit of the issues involved.

The nature and methods of this lobby can best be understood by examining the following “Who's Who” of the leading lobbyists. A complete list is as impossible as would be any attempt to estimate the expenditure, undoubtedly large, of the proprietory drug, food, and advertising lobby to date.


Mr. Blair represents the Proprietary Association, the chief fraternal order of the patent-medicine group, but even closer to his hear, one suspects, is Sterling Products. This firm manufactures Fletcher's Castoria, Midol, Caldwell's Syrup and Pepsin, and Cascarets, a chocolate-covered trade phenopthalein and cascara laxative recently seized by the Food and Drug Administration. The Proprietary Association and Mr. Blair, plus the National Drug Conference, are backing the Black bill, written by Dr. James H. Beal, chairman of the board of trustees of the United States Pharmacopoeia. The Black-Beal bill would further weaken even the present inadequate law, make seizures practically impossible, and permit nostrum makers to get away with murder " in their advertising. In short, it is a sheer fake.


Mr. Love, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, is attorney for the Crazy Water Co., of Mineral Wells, Tex., manufacturers of Crazy Crystals, a prominent exhibit last summer in the Food and Drug Administration's wellknown “ Chamber of Horrors." At the December hearings Mr. Love said, “No harm has ever resulted, or is likely to result, from the misrepresentation of the remedial or therapeutic effects of naturally produced mineral waters”, which is a brazen enough falsification. Two kinds of harm result from such misrepresentation-harm to the health of the victim who takes a dose of horse physic under the illusion that a dose of salts is good for what ails him; harm to the victim's pocketbook because he paid about five times as much for that dose of salts as it was worth.



Mr. Blackett is president of Black-Sample-Hummert, a Chicago advertising agency. His pet account is Ovaltine, that mysterious “ Swiss” drink which puts you to sleep without drugs” and performs such miracles with underweight children, nursing mothers, busy workers, and old people. “ Food and drug advertising ", Mr. Blackett writes to magazine and newspaper publishers, “is different from other classification. It must actually sell the product. It must put up a strong selling story-strong enough to actually move the goods off the dealers' shelves.” More briefly, Mr. Blackett believes it would be impossible to sell a “chocolate-flavored, dried malt extract containing a small quantity of dried milk and egg" for what it really is-at least for a dollar a can.


Mr. Jacobs is president of “Jacobs' Religious List”, which would appear to represent the alliance of the fundamentalist business and the proprietarymedicine business. As a publishers' representative of the “official organs of the leading white denominations of the South and Southeast”. he offers a combined weekly circulation of 300,317 to the God-fearing manufacturers of Miller's Snake Oil (makes rheumatic sufferers jump out of bed and run back to work), kidney medicines, rejuvenators (“Would you like to again enjoy life?"), contraceptives (presumably for an equally holy purpose), reducing agents, and hair growers. Mr. Jacobs is secretary and general manager of the Institute of Medicine Manufacturers; he is, in fact, a member of the old southern patent-medicine aristocracy. His father, J. F. Jacobs, was author of a profound treatise on The Economic Necessity and the Moral Validity of the Prepared Medicine Business.

« ForrigeFortsett »