for is this: Write into this act the specific products to which this permit system should apply.

Senator COPELAND. How did you handle it in your bill?
Mr. Dunn. In my bill I left the situation in this way,
Senator COPELAND. Where is it-section 13?

Mr. Dunn. I thought I could lay my hand right on that section. I cannot understand why I cannot.

Senator COPELAND. What was the essence of that?

Mr. Dunn. The essence of it is this: That if and to the extent the Department of Agriculture is unable to determine, by an examination of the product itself, whether that product violates the act, then the Government shall be empowered to enter the factory and to make the necessary inspection which is required to enforce the act; but I am willing to go a step further at this time and say that, as to the permit system, it is perfectly proper to write into this act a permit system plan, but it should be limited expressly to the food products which have been found to be required in the public interest to be placed under that permit system, and not have, on the other hand, this indefinite power of permit which is in the present act.

So much for that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other points, but I have exceeded my 30 minutes. Shall I stop, or shall I go on?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dunn, you have the privilege, of course, of filing any documents or statements you care to. I dislike very much to stop any person who wants to make a statement, but there are so many here, and, as you heard Senator Copeland say, we are awfully anxious to conclude the hearing, so I would appreciate it very much if you will file a brief on the subject.

(Space is provided in the record at this point for the subsequent inclusion of any further statement to be submitted by Mr. Dunn.)

Senator VANDENBERG. I would like to ask Mr. Dunn one question before he leaves the stand. Speaking generally, Mr. Dunn, and without going into too much detail, what advanced consumer protection is provided in the McCarran-Jenckes bill?

Mr. Dunn. As compared with this bill?
Senator VANDENBERG. No; as compared with the existing law.

Mr. DUNN. The McCarran-Jenckes bill protects the consuming public in these additional respects. First, it places under the jurisdiction of the act, advertising, to prevent false advertising. Secondly, it places under the jurisdiction of the act, cosmetics, therapeutic, or remedial devices or any substance or preparation other than food which is designed to affect the structure or any function of the body, to prohibit their adulteration, misbranding, or false advertising

Thirdly, it strengthens the present definitions of the adulteration of foods, drugs, and cosmetics. It strengthens the present administrative and enforcement provisions so that if the McCarranJenckes bill were enacted exactly as you have it on the table before you, you would have an infinitely stronger law than you have at the present time, but now, the purposes and the general application of the McCarran-Jenckes bill are precisely the same as Senator Copeland's bill, and our purpose in introducing this bill has not been to oppose Senator Copeland's bill at all. It has been to place before


this committee what we considered to be the right form of a revision of this act, to accomplish precisely the same purposes that Senator Copeland has in mind, and that the Department has in mind, and we are perfectly willing to have Senator Copeland's bill revised to include the major suggestions that we have in our bill, and then we are only too happy to support the bill, because we are in favor of a sound revision of this right now without delaying the matter until another Congress, or to any indefinite time in the future.

Senator COPELAND. Mr. Þunn, if you will look at page 21 of your bill, the section at the bottom, that is where the matter comes in that you were discussing a moment ago. It says

If it cannot be determined by an examination of food, drug, or cosmetic, after it has entered commerce, whether it is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act

And so forth.

Mr. Dunn. Yes, sir; but as I say, I am willing to go a step fur ther, Senator Copeland, and the industries I represent are willing to go a step further, and have this permit system in the act, provided you confine it to the products which have been demonstrated to need that permit control.

Senator COPELAND. Well, that is well stated in your bill, that it is a product which, after it has entered commerce, cannot be identified.

Mr. DUNN. Cannot be determined as to its violation by an examination of the product itself. I thank you for the privilege of the second testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. William C. Woodward.



Dr. WOODWARD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen

Senator COPELAND. Mr. Chairman-pardon me—I think the committee ought to know that Dr. Woodward represents the American Medical Association. He is a distinguished man who was a former health commissioner of this city, and he has other attainments which should entitled him to the respect of all concerned.

Dr. WOODWARD. When the American Medical Association understood that a hearing was to be given to the opponents of S. 2800, I was instructed not to appear, if appearance involved any opposition to that bill; and when I reached Washington, I so notified Senator Copeland, that if I was to appear as an opponent to that bill, I would not appear at all.

My sole purpose of being here is to aid in constructive criticism of the bill.

In view of what has been said with respect to the American Medical Association, I think it may be well briefly to state what it is. It is a nonprofit organization, incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, with headquarters in Chicago. Its membership numbers approximately 100,000 physicians, scattered throughout this entire country, organized into State associations.

Its purpose is to promote the science and art of medicine. It is interested, of course, in public health, and maintains at headquarters

[ocr errors]

a council on pharmacy and chemistry, a committee on foods, and a bureau of investigation, in order to study what is going on in the field of foods and drugs; and to disseminate the information that it acquires, it publishes the Journal of the American Medical Association, six or seven highly technical journals for specialists, and Hygeia for the general public.

It publishes also a book entitled “Nostrums and Quackery” which is widely used as a reference book for persons desiring to ascertain the status of advertisers of various sorts.

The constitution and bylaws of the association provide that only our house of delegates, made up of representatives from our State associations, can speak as to the policy of the association.

The house of delegates meets but once a year, and in the intervals the policies of the association are determined by the board of trustees. Since S. 2800 was introduced, the board of trustees has not met, but when the Tugwell bill, so-called, S. 1944, was introduced, it was brought to the attention of the board of trustees, and the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas the American Medical Association has for years protested against the inadequacy of the National Food and Drug Act of 1906, because of which inadequacy the officers of the Government, charged with the enforcement of the act, have been and are unable effectively to protect the people against fraud and danger to health: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the American Medical Association pledges its support toward procuring the formulation and enactment of effective national food and drug legislation, adequate for the protection of the people.

Under that general commission I speak.

My review of the provisions of this bill must be taken as based on my personal experience and observation, and for that reason, it is possibly desirable that the committee know my background.

Senator COPELAND. May I ask you a question, Doctor? I have heard it rumored that the American Medical Association wrote this bill, and is back of it, and is really the moving force in the whole plan of revision. Is there any truth in that?

Dr. WOODWARD. May I ask the Senator which bill he refers to?
Senator COPELAND. Any one of them.

Dr. WOODWARD. When I learned that the Department of Agriculture was considering the rewriting of the Federal food and drug legislation, I personally called on Assistant Secretary Tugwell, offered him the use of everything that the American Medical Association had, in framing the bin, but at no time was I ever called into conference with respect to the bill, and only once was there a hearing held, in the course of the development of that bill. At that hearing a representative of the American Medical Association—not I-appeared, but no copy of the bill was present. My first acquaintance with the contents of the so-called “ Tugwell

came when I received an official printed copy of the bill. The American Medical Association never stimulated it, never wrote it, nor cooperated in writing it. Since that bill was introduced, I have availed myself on behalf of the American Medical Association, of every opportunity for cooperating and developing sound legislation, and I have dealt, of course, with the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Copeland. Our work has been very friendly, very cordial. I think the Senator has done a very remarkably good bit of work.


[ocr errors]

9 and

Senator VANDENBERG. You are not particularly partisan to it, however, I apprehend?

Dr. WOODWARD. Not self medication, no; but let me say—I do not want to take up too much of your time, but the idea that self-medication is detrimental to the doctors' interests is a mistake. I am quite sure that a considerable number of persons who resort to self-medication get well, while the self-medication is in progress, and they may get well because of the self-medication, if you please, but the chances are that for every person who is benefited in that way, there is one person who is made worse, and possibly passes into a chronic condition, so I believe the debit and the credit account, so far as the doctors are concerned, would be not far from equal.

Now, passing to page 26, after all, to what seems to me to be the very backbone of the bill, the penalizing feature

Senator COPELAND. Doctor, just a moment. I gave you a job, the other wy, relative to the list of diseases on page 16. Are you ready to deliver the goods, this morning?

Dr. WOODWARD. I have referred that to headquarters, where our council on pharmacy and chemistry happen to be in session at the present time, with the request that they inform me.

Senator COPELAND. Well, I would like to ask you one question, however. If you observe page 16, line 2, where it says“ blood poison ", suppose we were to change that to "blood diseases put those two words in quotation marks, would that cover this advertising of cures of venereal disease, and these other fake ads that are put out along that line?

Dr. WOODWARD. It would be a popular term that might have different meanings in different parts of the country. I should say that the term “ blood poison ” as it is used there probably is intended to cover two diseases, one of which is not a blood poison, and that is gonorrhea and syphilis. I see no reason why, in this day and generation, we should not frankly name gonorrhea and syphilis among the diseases, and leave out the phrase "blood poison which refers to septicaemia, for which self-medication is practically never reconmended.

Senator COPELAND. Well, then, you will pretty soon give us, from your Chicago office, the list of diseases?

Dr. WOODWARD. I hope to be able to do it within a few days, Senator.

Senator COPELAND. Have you gone over it yourself, this list?

Dr. WOODWARD. Yes; I have. Personally, if I were called on to express an opinion, the two changes I have named, I would leave it as you have prepared it, I would leave it as it is, and I say that despite the fact that I had nothing to do with the preparation of it. After all, in any criminal statute, the penalizing clauses are a vital part, and if we will turn to page 26, section 17, we have those penal clauses. Section 17 (a) provides that "the following acts are hereby prohibited—the introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.

Paragraph 3, beginning at line 7 on the same page, reads:

The receipt in interstate commerce of any food, drug, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded ar livery or proffered delivery thereof in the original unbroken packag



[ocr errors]

sioner, the Health Department of the District of Columbia, which is charged with such work in the District.

One thing that has struck me, during the course of these hearings, is the absence of any representative of an important industry that is to be affected by this bill, and that is the manufacturer of devices of all kinds. If this bill is enacted, it will bring under the Federal control the manufacture of all manner of electro-therapeutic devices, all manner of devices for the crippled and the maimed, prosthetic devices. It will bring under the control of the bill surgical instruments, and everything of that kind,

Now, I am not objecting to that. I think it is a wise movement, an exceedingly wise movement, but we must bear in mind that manufacturers probably have not connected the drug bill with a supervision and control of apparatus and devices of that kind. I am heartily in favor of bringing them all under control.

Senator COPELAND. Just a moment, Doctor. Have you a copy of the bill there?


Senator COPELAND. Page 2, line 11. It was suggested to us that we omit 3, "all substances and preparations, other than food, and ail devices intended to affect the structure or any function of the body on the theory that (2) preceding it, “ all substances, preparations, and devices intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals ", was enough, so that then it would not cover surgical instruments.

Dr. WOODWARD. Well, they are certainly devices that are "intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.”

Senator COPELAND. Well, you would not want us to have that in the bill, would you?

Dr. WOODWARD. Clause 3?
Senator COPELAND. No; I mean to have the surgical instruments in

I the bill.

Dr. WOODWARD. I see no reason for having surgical instruments in the bill, but when it comes to electrical devices of various kinds, and all kinds of contrivances of that sort, that are sold to the public, I think it is highly desirable.

Senator COPELAND. Well, isn't that included in (2) line 9, "all substances, preparations, and devices intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals ? "

Dr. WOODWARD. I have in mind to think it is. The only thing that occurs to me that is omitted there would be the prosthetic apparatus, and I do not know that it is important that that be regulated-artificial limbs, glass eyes, and things of that sort. I am not at all sure that that would be covered by clause 2, but I do not believe that the omission of that clause would materially affect the bill.

Senator VANDENBERG. Doctor, is the American Medical Association opposed to all self-medication?

Dr. WOODWARD. Not at all. In fact, we have published lists of simple drugs that we believe the people can safely use, not at all opposed to all self-medication.

« ForrigeFortsett »