Mr. BLAIR. I wish to make a very short statement, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BLAIR. Partly for clarification of the record, and partly to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of you gentlemen.

We have no brief for putrid, spoiled, damaged, unsatisfactory, unsafe, or dangerous foods or drugs. We ask no preservation of those, and I am directing my remarks entirely to one thing, multiple seizures.

Seize such items as are spoiled as often as you wish, as far as we are concerned. You cannot seize them too frequently for us.

We want the seizures to be made after the matter be adjudicated in favor of the Government. Upon a showing by the district attorney, we think that there should be an emergency declared by the court, and the enjoinment of the repetitious shipments to which the Senator referred a moment ago be made.

Repetitious shipments should not be made pending the adjudication of the matter in court after the decree has been entered.

Senator HEBERT. Let me see if I understand you. A shipment is made in interstate commerce and is seized as unfit for human consumption. That case is taken into court, and pending its determination the manufacturer would be enjoined from making any other shipments of those goods?

Mr. BLAIR. Of those same goods, certainly, in the interest of public health and public protection.

Senator COPELAND. The witness who was here before you, Mr. Blair, I think his name was Hoge, suggested that not more than three such procedures be in process at one time.

Mr. Blair. We think that the public should be amply protected, that the Department should be amply protected, that the whole scheme should be well taken care of by a single seizure. We ask it be a single seizure. That is the reason I am here, just to make

, that statement, to clarify the record. We believe in a single seizure, until the case has been adjudicated in court, and then go as far as you like. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. W. S. Richards, of Toledo, Ohio. Is he in the room?

(There was no response.)
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. J. E. Slocum, of Webster City, Iowa.


Dr. Slocum. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as chairman of public relations of the National Chiropractic Association, I want to say that I represent over 15,000 practitioners of that profession, whose legally recognized rights in some 41 States of our Nation would be invaded if this proposed bill should be enacted into a law as it is now written. I shall try to briefly point out to this

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

committee the language that contains such possibilities. We want to go on record as approving the public purpose of this proposed bill.

Since this proposed bill when enacted into law will become a criminal statute we know that this committee is going to give careful consideration to every valid objection submitted. Our objections are few and can be corrected without any damage to the intention or purpose of this act. Hidden within the objections which we have to offer is a subtle possibility which may submit not alone our profession but the entire drugless movement to ruin. It will do this by granting the power of control to a competing organization as I shall point out. I am sure that it is not the intentions of our legislatures to betray our cause into the hands of those who would rather witness our annihilation than steady advancement. We charge that this proposed bill will do that very thing.

First, I direct the attention of this committee to page 3, line 15, of S. 2800, to the clause dealing with the definition of the word * advertisement":

The term “advertisement” includes all representations of fact or opinion disseminated in any manner or by any means other than by the labeling.

Second, the term “medical profession” means, page 3, line 18, paragraph (k):

The term “medical profession ” means the professions of physicians, pharmacologists, dentists, and veterinarians; and the term “medical opinion ” means the opinion of physicians, pharmacologists, dentists, or veterinarians relating to the field of their respective professions.

It is no secret that “medical opinion” is in most instances opposed to the advancement and welfare of all drugless doctors; who will determine the claims of the drugless men in their advertisements? Medical opinion will be the standard. What an opportunity to register their objections in an effective manner to any claims made by the drugless professions. It will mean complete censorship of any and all drugless advertising. The medical attitude toward any and all paid advertising on health subjects is a matter of common knowledge, and it cannot be fairly presumed that they would be neglectful of such a splendid opportunity. If the attitude of the editor of the American Medical Association Journal does fairly represent the attitude of official medicine and could be used to illustrate the degree of censorship that we might expect to later encounter, then we firmly believe that no claim made by any member of the drugless profession pertaining to the relief and cure of disease would be a legal claim.

I next direct your attention to page 2, section (b), line 4, which is the definition of the term “drug."

The term “ drug” for the purposes of this act and not to regulate the practice of medicine, includes (1) all substances and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopæia, Homeopathic Pharmacopæia of the United States, or National Formulary or supplements thereto; and (2) all substances, preparations, and devices intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (3) all substances and preparations, other than good, and all devices intended to effect the structure or any function of the body.

We feel that the term “ drug” is here strained almost to the point of rupture. By what stretch of imagination the term devices can be included as justly coming under the heading of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

“drugs” is beyond our ability to hazard more than a guess. We next direct your attention to page 15 under the section dealing with * false advertisement” section 9, paragraph (a), line 10:

Any representation concerning any effect of a drug shall be deemed to be false under this paragraph if that representation is not supported by substantial medical opinion or by demonstrable scientific facts.

We here make the discovery of just how nicely medical opinion shall completely control any device or modality used by any branch of the drugless profession. "If some chiropractic supply house would attempt to circularize our profession and they should contend in their advertisements that their device or table was so designed as to make the care of certain diseases more effective than they would immediately become subjected to the interstate laws under a reasonable interpretation of paragraph (b), line 15, of this same section, which reads:

An advertisement of a drug shall also be deemed to be false if it contains the name of any disease for which the drug is not a specific cure but is a palliative and fails to contain a plain and conspicuous statement, so placed as to be readily observable where such name occurs, indicating that the drug is a palliative and how the palliation is effected.

Furthermore, it will be false if it does not meet the approval of the medical opinion.

On page 16, line 18, to the bottom of the page: Provided, That whenever the Secretary determines that an advance in medical science has made any type of self-medication safe as to any of the diseases enumerated above, he shall promulgate regulations, as provided by section 22, exempting the advertisement of drugs having curative or therapeutic effect for such disease from the operation of this paragraph, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be necessary in the interests of public health,

Now, the question that I want to raise on this paragraph is whether the term “medical science" here is to include the drugless professions? If it is not then the question of determining as to whether sufficient advancement has been made to permit that fact to be advertised to the sick should be left in charge of some other body than a group of medical men.

I want to repeat what I said at the beginning. We are for the declared purpose of this proposed piece of legislation. We do, however, most respectfully request that this committee give the objections that we have here and now placed before you, very careful consideration. We feel that under the definition of the word “drug that the term "devices" should be eliminated. We do not believe that the elimination of this word will weaken the effectiveness of this measure. Its elimination will tend in no small measure to set at rest the fears of the drugless profession and this term has been included under the definition of drugs for no good purpose.

Senator COPELAND. Haven't we taken care of you by what we are proposing to do in the definition of the term drug” back here on page 2?

Dr. Slocum. Well, I don't know, Dr. Copeland, just what that is.

Senator COPELAND. The purpose of it is to take care of the chiropractors, and we wanted to insert in the bill somewhere some language like on line 5, “not to regulate the legalized practice of the healing art.

That takes care of you, doesn't it?


[ocr errors]


This does not interfere, this measure, in any sense whatever, with the chiropractors in the practice of their profession.

Dr. Slocum. You mean as the language now is there in the bill?

Senator COPELAND. Well, the language as it is in the bill now, it says: “ The term “drug', for the purposes of this act and not to regulate the practice of medicine, includes”, and so forth. Chiropractors of the city came to see me and thought that was not entirely fair, that might leave the chiropractors in a pocket. So the latest proposal was, "Not to regulate the legalized practice of the healing art.

Therefore you, as a chiropractor, would not be interfered with in the practice of your profession by anything in the bill.

Dr. Slocum. It isn't alone that we object to the word “ devices." We would object, of course, of being submitted to the method of determining the devices which are used in dealing with the human element.

Senator COPELAND. I don't think we are seeking to do a thing about your business, about the use of your devices. The bill would seek to regulate the therapeutic lamps, and things that might be sold to the public, but whatever you might do in the practice of your profession in your office or bedside would not be touched by the bill, and that is the intention of the language.

You had a very firm, strong advocate on the committee, Senator Erickson, of Montana, who asked that the chiropractors be taken care of, and it led, first, to this language, “Not to regulate the practice of medicine", and then the chiropractors locally felt that that was not quite broad enough or specific enough, perhaps I better put it, to take care of it, to make certain that the drugless healers and others might not be interfered with, so it says now, the subcommittee recommended it should read: “Not to regulate the legalized practice of the healing art."

Dr. SLOCUM. That is the recommendation now!
Senator COPELAND. Yes.

Dr. SLOCUM. Of course, I was sent in here primarily on that S. 1944. After I got here I found this S. 2800. Of course, this had not been called to my attention.

Senator COPELAND. I assure you—I cannot speak for anyone else with certainty-I assure you the committee has no thought of interfering in the slightest degree with the practice of your profession. That is the intent of the language.

Dr. SLOCUM. If that is the way the committee feels about it, that is all right. That was the only objection we had to the bill.

Senator COPELAND. You do not need to filibuster your own bill. You have in it what you want.

Dr. SLOCUM. All right, sir.

Senator COPELAND. The definition as read to you a moment ago, so far as your profession is concerned, is satisfactory to you, and there is no objection to the bill?

Dr. SLOCUM. That is right.
Senator COPELAND. I thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. James L. Donnelly, of Chicago.
(No response.)
I will call Mr. W. Bruce Phillip.



Mr. PHILLIP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is W. Bruce Phillip and I am counsel for the National Association of Retail Druggists. There are between 50 and 60 thousand retail druggists within the United States. The National Association of Retail Druggists represents through direct and affiliated membership the majority of those 50 and 60 thousand druggists.

I feel that this hearing would be incomplete if the retail druggist was not represented. I might further state that my individual background is represented by having a degree of doctor of pharmacy from Columbia University, and following that degree, I have had 30 years' experience directly in a retail drug store or by representing retail druggists' associations, I have a degree in law from the University of California. It was gained not to practice law, but to endeavor to find out how and why regulations and laws governing the retail druggists were formed, and an endeavor to help frame those laws in order that they might truly represent that which was to the best interest of pharmacy. I feel that now that we have 10 numbered laws before Congress dealing with foods and drugs that there is much confusion, not only among the Members of Congress, among people that are interested in the industry, but among the people generally.

I regret deeply that these laws are not amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act, in order that the problem of amending the food and drug act or bringing it up to date or correcting it cannot be properly placed before the people.

In other words, had the original bill or had what we call the Stephens-Black bill had a title like this, "A bill to amend the title and sections 1, 2, 3, and 4; or 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Food and Drug Act, approved June 13, 1906, and amendments thereto ", and by adding three new sections to be known as “10 (a), 10 (b), and 10 (c)”, we would have our problem clearly before us.

The retail druggist approaches this problem from several points, and in the beginning may I say that I asked the committee to weigh seriously the words of Dr. James Hartley Beal and Mr. Charles Wesley Dunn, because we of the retail drug trade have identified these two people with food and drug legislation from its very beginning

I believe Dr. Beal wrote the first food and drug act for the State of Ohio, or at least, he was materially connected not only with that act, but with most of our State food and drug laws, as well as the Federal law; and I feel that experience from the very beginning is the experience that should be weighed most carefully.

As I said in the beginning, the retail druggist believes that the Food and Drug Act should be amended as the proper approach in order that the corrections that should be made can best be made.

If the administration and this committee and Congress believe that a new act should be written, we feel that while we desire to pay tribute to Senator Copeland and his good work, that the so-called “Dunn bill ”; or S. 2858, the McCarran bill; H.R. 7964, the Jenckes bill, is more clearly written; it offers more protection to both the public and to the druggist and the drug industry.

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »