facturers for intelligible, informative labels, and then look for the labels. Trying to make enforcement officers test for lead or intricate organic compounds, that may lead to a repetition of the absurdities that we had at the Scopes trial. There they were trying to prove the truth of the theory of evolution, when the whole question was, was that man violating the law of the State in teaching evolution.

Mr. Kallet very much objects to advertising, and so do I, but not for the same reasons. I worked as an active member of an organized advertising group for 7 years. Therefore I do know something about advertising. I have been a consistent objector to the moronic advertising with which cosmetic subjects have been presented. I did my best to reform it as a member of the group. I couldn't. I am not a member of the group any longer, but I am still working to reform cosmetic advertising. I feel that its trouble as is in other advertising is often due to a lack of technical knowledge on the part of those that do the writing

A point was brought out this morning by one of the speakers about putting responsibility for change in copy. Here is a beautiful art work, and someone says, “I want 87 words of stuff.” That is the way they describe it, 87 words to go in there. The question is who is going to furnish the words. If the technical information is correct, very frequently that is rewritten by the copy person and frequently information is cut out of it that should have been left in because the person who writes the copy has not the technical knowledge.

I feel we have to do something. This bill may not do it, but I feel that somehow we should require that what is going out in copy should be provided with the technical knowledge back of it. So it is obvious that the control of cosmetics means more than the publication of ingredients on labels. It means, first of all, an understanding of the importance of clinical knowledge. That is where I felt I could be of great help serving as an interpreter, because my knowledge of cosmetics is clinical.

I have that knowledge and I know the physicians haven't it, for I had a definite reaction on that just a few weeks ago. When I suggested to a physician, who is prominent in the Public Health Service, that I felt it was too bad that physicians do not know more about cosmetics, he said, “ They can't; it is not ethical.”

, Senator OVERTON. I want to ask you: You say an advertisement ought to be prepared by someone who has proper technical knowledge, and that that is done frequently, and then the advertisement is changed. Who effects those changes ?

Miss WALL. It very often is done in the office of the agency.
Senator OVERTON. The advertising agency?
Miss WALL. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. Under this bill the advertising agency is exonerated from any criminal responsibility anyway or from any responsibility as far as I can see.

Miss WALL. Many of the manufacturers work very closely with their agents. Others just simply turn the work over and let a copy writer work on it, and there we get into this embroidering of just a few fancy words without any basis of technical knowledge.

Senator OVERTON. One of the main features of this bill is to prevent false advertising. Do you think it is a proper provision in the bill that those who are actually guilty of false advertising should escape with the penalty of the bill, or whether responsibility ought to be placed on those who are actually guilty, whether it be the advertising agency or whether it be the manufacturer or whether it be the dealer?

Miss WALL. I think the responsibility ought to be put where the guilt is found.

Senator OVERTON. If we are to place criminal responsibility on those who indulge in false advertising, responsibility ought to be placed on the authors of the false advertising; don't you think so?

Miss WALL. Yes, if the manufacturer has not supplied the correct information, then he should be responsible; but if he has supplied the correct information-and I know that very frequently they will just go ahead and use information regardless of what the manufacturer tells them.

Senator OVERTON. I can readily see why an advertising agency should be absolved from any responsibility if that agency uses the copy that is supplied by the manufacturer or dealer, because presumably the agency does not know anything about the product. But if the advertising agency assumes the responsibility of changing the advertisement that is given by the manufacturer or dealer I am inclined to the view that the responsibility ought to be placed where it belongs.

Miss WALL. I agree with you. I think it should be. I have had experiences of that kind myself, and sometimes when a technical expert is consulted it is a case of supplying all the information, and they act as if it is, “One word from you and we do as we please anyway."

I know of woman physician who was a consultant on the staff of an agency, and she was worn out fighting with them on how they changed copy she said was all right. I feel that in cosmetic advertising we do not have to go into untruth and fancywork and embroider all these phrases that don't mean anything. The truth is wonderful enough. Anybody--man, woman, or child—I don't say that a cosmetic preparation is going to restore lost youth and beauty. That is silly. But I say that the truth is wonderful enough; that any child or woman or man, at any age, can be improved by cosmetics chosen and used correctly.

Miss Wall subsequently inserted the following:

[Note on Senator Overton's comment: Instead of not knowing anything about a client's product, most large advertising agencies boast that they have scientific and other experts on their staffs, who are supposed to make a thorough study of whatever is assigned to them. A close check on responsibility for erroneous or misleading advertising may lead to an obligation to put all orders, suggestions for copy, etc., in writing and thus protect manufacturer, copy writer, and agency.]

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, but some of us have engagements. It is now 6:30.

Miss WALL. The question of the administrative board. I would like to be assured of the kind of scientific attainments they are going to require for that board. Five seems to be a small number.

Senator COPELAND. What do you think of that plan that was proposed by somebody this morning to have 11 and have the original 5 plus the 2 from a given industry?

Miss WALL. So there would be just seven functioning at a time? Senator COPELAND. Yes.

Miss WALL. I thought that that would be a rather good idea. I have known of cases where outsiders might have proved very valuable. They use it in England. Judge Goodwin was speaking of that. I know of a case where Mr. Mitchell, the president of the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain was asked to sit with the judge and help to decide questions on technical matters.

Senator COPELAND. You know we do that with the bureau of standards in New York. They call in all the experts from all of the departments, who sit together and formulate these regulations.

Miss WALL. I thought it would be rather a good idea to have a board made up about as Mrs. Sporborg suggested at our other hearing, a physician and a lawyer and various persons.

That is in the record, but that would spread it out too thin, and maybe the very man could not be there for the meeting who ought to be there for the discussion in his field. If we are going to get scientific opinion we wouldn't want all these people to be physicians, because I feel they have not the practical knowledge of the cosmetic matters. Therefore you must go to someone who has knowledge of cosmetics. Physicians don't know the modern or organic chemistry on which it is based, and they don't have the clinical experience. That is one of the first things I mentioned to the Department last year, that on account of the public health angle involved, I didn't want to see it all go to physicians.

I suggested in the discussion of Senate 1944 that the food and insecticides should stay in the Department of Agriculture. I suggested that drugs and cosmetics should be transferred to the National Institute of Health. I didn't mean by that to give it into the control of the Public Health Service as we have understood it, but I had in mind the National Institute of Health as it was planneri in Senator Ransdell's bill in 1931 for the creation of a larger body that was to look after research on all human ills, and I feel that if this new concept could be worked out, there could be plans for research on all problems involving the aesthetic as well as the physical ills that disturb vital bodily processes. But this is probabẫy not feasible at the moment. Personally, I am not for saying " let us have any kind of law and get it going”, because if we do that, we know how difficult it is sometimes to have an amendment put through.

We went through 13 years of the late unlamented noble experiment. It took us a long time to get that amendment through. But on the other hand, I don't like the attitude that I have heard expressed here by so many speakers that this is something irrevocable. You would really think that every word of this bill was to be engraved on the stone of the Black Hills, and that everything must be just so, whereas, we must allow leeway for changes that will come about in the course of events. I suggested also—I have suggested in articles and in talks about the bill—that the Department of Commerce does have the mechanism for handling this, and it has its Bureau of Standards to set up, standards, though not to do all the research. But they have certainly a wonderful fund of information on pharmaceuticals and toilet articles, and everything that would come in the purview of this.

I want to say as my final word, that I shall speak for anything that will protect the public in the proper administration of a bill of this sort. But I feel that if you make everything punitive, and nothing protective for the manufacturers, you are going to shackle the cosmetic industry to the mistakes of its past, instead of helping it to look forward by reason of the modern science which is going ahead with such leaps and bounds, and I want to assure you, Senator Copeland, that I will do everything I can to help it.

T'he CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kallet, it is desired that you furnish for the record the names of the founders of the Consumers' Research, and also the names of those who served on the board of directors for the past 2 years.

I will be glad to have you do this.

Organizers of Consumers' Research, Inc. (affiliations at the time).–Edward C. Lindeman, sociologist and instructor at New York School of Social Work; Stuart Chase, economist, certified public accountant, author; Frederick J. Schlink, engineer, physicist, author, assistant-secretary of American Standards Association (present president, technical director, and member of board); Mathilde C. Hader, teacher, New York University ; Edith Ayres, economist, teacher at New York University.

Directors past and present (affiliations at the time).—The above incorporators, and Arthur Kellogg, managing editor, The Survey; George Soule, economist and editor The New Republic; Morris L. Ernst, attorney; Willard E. Atkins, chairman Department of Economics, Washington Square College, New York University ; Donald McConnell, ţeacher, Department of Economics, Washington Square College, New York University; Bradford Young, associate rector, Church of the Holy Trinity, Brooklyn, N.Y. (present director and treasurer) ; E. J. Lever, labor educator; Bernard Reis, certified public accountant; J. B. Matthews, executive secretary, Fellowship of Reconciliation (present director and vice president); Bensen Y. Lundis, secretary, Federal Council of Churches (present director); Eleanor S. Loeb, administrative staff of Consumers' Research, Inc.; Arthur Kallet, engineer, author (present director and secretary).

The CHAIRMAN. I present for the record a memorandum presented by Mr. H. L. Bushong, of the Washington Chemical Corporation, which is to be placed in the record.

(The memorandum referred to is as folows):

[ocr errors]

Senate bill, S. 2890
Memorandum to-
Chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate,

Washington, D.C.: The Washington Chemical Corporation, manufacturers of a scientific ointment, strenuously objects to divulging its formula. Several offers to purchase this formula have been made to the corporation and should the law require that such information be made public any one could manufacture the product and thus ruin the corporation's business and cause great loss to the stockholders.

A suggestion is offered relative to a correction in the present method of administering the regulations of labels and literature. At present no permanent approval is available for the labels or literature. Many times the approval of the board having been secured and thousands of dollars spent in printing it is then discovered that such approval is again disapproved—thus funds are needlessly wasted. It is respectfully suggested that once approval is granted by the boaid for lubels and li. rature that such üpproval is înal.

(Signed) H. L. BUSHONG, Majority Stockholder of The Washington Chemical Corporation. Mr. KALLET. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me very curious that you should permit an attack on the Consumers' Research to go into the

[ocr errors]

record as relevant to the bill, and not permit what I had to say going in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You were attacking individuals. This lady was making some remarks relative to an organization.

Mr. KALLET. That was relevant to the bill ?

The CHAIRMAN. Not entirely so, no; but I did not interrupt the lady. I didn't know what she was going to say, but I knew in advance what you were going to say, and I stopped you.

(Thereupon, an adjournment was taken until tomorrow, Mar. 2, 1934.)

« ForrigeFortsett »