« ForrigeFortsett »
We, as an important part of the packaged-medicine industry and the cos metic and toilet-article industry, feel that under these bills the future of these industries would be insecure irrespective of any public health question. We feel that we should have as much to say about the regulation of our own business as the doctor has. We frankly admit that the commercial interests of the medical profession are to a certain extent opposed to our interests, yet under these Tugwell bills, prepared without consulting the industries affected and with the assistance of doctors and introduced by doctors in Congress, we would be placed largely under the supervision of the medical profession.
Under the proposed legislation there is no regulation whatsoever of the prescriptions of physicians which are nothing more or less than formulae. There is nothing to require the doctor to tell his patient in what way palliation resulting, if any, from prescriptions is effected. Subsections (i) and (j) of section 8 in the closing clause of each such section expressly exempt advertising disseminated to the members of the medical and pharmaceutical professions from restrictive features which are imposed on all other advertising. Why should such an exception be made?
One of the chief effects of this proposed legislation would be to cast suspicion upon all prepared medicines in a manner which is entirely unnecessary, and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the public interest.
Legitimate manufacturers for years have completely omitted the word "cure" from their literature, labels, and advertising. As a matter of fact, the food and drug administration has for years under the present law prohibited the use of the word "cure."
There is no general impression in the public mind that either a medicine, a prescription, or a physician can effect a cure. Medicines and therapeutics are not exact sciences. Trial and error are outstanding elements in the search by the ailing for health.
The mere statement that a preparation is for use in connection with named ailments does not raise a presumption of claim of cure. It is stretching and expanding the imagination to say that when the public reads a label containing therapeutic claims that the reader assumes that the fact that the claim is made constitutes a claim upon the part of the manufacturers that the preparation is a cure.
Yet this legislation, in spite of these circumstances, requires that the manufacturer must say that his preparation is a palliative. If the law prohibits the use of the word "cure" the public is sufficiently protected and the industry is not harmed or embarrassed.
The provision in the present Tugwell bill that the manufacturer must state on his label how palliation is effected has absolutely no application to public welfare or protection. It is patently included in this legislation to embarrass the industry and is clear evidence of an attack against the same. It would be a practical impossibility to comply with this requirement on the label of a large percentage of prepared medicines.
The public is only interested in results-not how they are achieved. Subsection (b) of section 8 of Senate bill 2800 and the other Tugwell bills provides that if any prepared medicine contains a narcotic or hypnotic substance which is habit-forming, the label must bear a statement that the preparation may be habit-forming. This is an unreasonable regulation going beyond the necessities of public protection and is further evidence of prejudice against the industry. This habit-forming warning should be required only on prepared medicines containing narcotics or hypnotics in sufficient amount to raise a question as to habit-forming qualities in the finished product.
The method of establishing the advisory committees provided in this legislation for the regulation of foods and of public health should be such that these committees could not be "packed" against the interests of the industry sought to be regulated. The method relating to the public health committee is particularly susceptible of being taken over by the medical profession.
Attention is invited to the fact that since the introduction of the first Tugwell bill few, if any, important revisions down to the present bill have been made to remove objectionable features in connection with medicines. Many objections, however, have been removed in connection with food regulation. This clearly shows the way the wind blows and is clear evidence of an attack on the medicine industry rather than a revision of the present food and drug laws to bring about adequate protection for the public.
Members of Congress may feel that the medicine industry is too apprehensive of the effect of this kind of legislation. This apprehension is well grounded for under the present doctrine of consensus of medical opinion we are put into a position where it is practically impossible for us to know what is required under the present food and drug act in matters of therapeutics. Under the present law we are limited to a very marked degree and are not permitted to make therapeutic claims for prepared medicines which claims are being made as a common practice for prescriptions containing the same ingredients. Probably the outstanding illustration of this statement is in the case of aspirin which is put up and sold to consumers under that name. In making claims for aspirin we are prevented by the food and drug administration from making claims for use in connection with la grippe or influenza. Since aspirin was discovered and became of common use, there probably has been no case of influenza treated by a physician where he failed to prescribe aspirin as the principal medicinal agent. We are at a loss to understand why there
should be any such discrimination.
There is a prepared medicine on the market for sinus trouble which is frequently prescribed by physicians yet this trouble is listed in this legislation as an ailment for which self-medication must be discouraged.
If there are no prepared medicines for the ailments listed under subparagraph (b) of section 9, then there are no prescriptions which can rightfully be issued for the same diseases.
Why should this discrimination be made?
We agree that there is a list of diseases properly considered incurable at the present time and we mention this section of the bill here not by way of objection to the section so much as by way of showing an unfair and prejudiced attitude. Furthermore, in raising some of these questions we realize that Congress has no power under the Constitution to regulate prescriptions.
This industry is entitled however, in spite of this fact, to receive fair consideration and to be subject to legislation and regulations going no further than necessary to protect the public health and interest and it is entitled to be free from the use of the powers of Congress under the commerce clause to put the industry into a position of commercial embarrassment.
We anticipate that this committee will not permit itself to be swayed by prejudice or propaganda or permit itself to be used to further the interests of one group or class against another.
The members of this association are those concerns which have for many years been engaged in the manufacture of a line of packaged foods, toilet articles, medicines and similar articles the distribution of which merchandise to the consumer has been through house to house sales principally in rural communities.
This particular branch of the industry affected by this legislation has many million dollars in invested capital, many employees and approximately 25,000 exclusive dealers which dealers handle nothing else but these lines of merchandise.
Every agricultural community in the United States has one or more of these dealers and such dealers several times per year eil upon every farm family in the United States.
Hon. ROYAL S. COPELAND,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 26, 1934.
United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR: I am enclosing herewith two letters received from the Arner Co. and the J. R. Watkins Co., of Buffalo, N.Y., containing protests against certain provisions in the revised food and drug bill.
I understand a hearing will be held on this legislation tomorrow and I shall appreciate it if you will have these letters read into the record and give them your consideration.
Yours very sincerely,
ALFRED F. BEITER.
P.S.-I am also enclosing two telegrams sent to Congressman James Mead protesting against the bill. I trust you will have them included in the records.
A. F. B.
Representative ALFRED F. BEITER,
THE J. R. WATKINS Co., Buffalo, N.Y., February 22, 1934.
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
HONORABLE SIR: In view of the statements contained in your acknowledgment of our letter dated November 17, 1933, relative to the so-called "Tugwell bill", we know you will appreciate our present views regarding the revised Tugwell bill, now known as revised Senate bill 2000.
The bill, in its revised form, contains many provisions that will eventually work a great deal of harm to our employees, our dealers, consumers, and this company.
The enclosed reprint of an editorial from the Chicago Tribune is self explanatory. The editors of the Chicago Tribune have no personal "ax to grind " inasmuch as, in its new form, the Tugwell bill has been so modified that the chief objection raised by the publishing and advertising interests in the country have been removed. Hence, this editorial is based entirely upon the effect of this bill, upon the general public, the economic and industrial activities which would be affected.
Frankly, we believe that without question, this bill is a direct attack on the prepared medicines business and not-as is propagated—a public health measure. When the Tugwell bill was first introduced, persons having only the public interests in mind and believing in reasonable regulation of foods, medicines, cosmetics, etc., prepared another bill for the amendment of the present food and drug law. We refer to House bill 6376 by Representative Black.
We recommend that this bill (the Black bill, House bill 6376) receive your vote and support because the present food and drug laws, with few minor exceptions taken care of by the Black bill, fully protect the public.
Our opposition to the revised Tugwell bill is as fully justified as was our original opposition. A careful study of the present bill will reveal that over a period of time its effect in regard to prevention of self-medication will become every bit as drastic as those contained in the original bill.
We appreciate your consideration of our previous objections and we are confident that our present protest will receive the same careful consideration. We shall again appreciate very much your writing us giving us your ideas of this bill, and we trust that in the interest of general public welfare you will vote against this bill.
Very truly yours,
THE J. R. WATKINS Co., Eastern Counter Sales Division. B. C. BARTLETT,
Hon. ALFRED F. BEITER,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
THE ARNER CO., INC., WEDNESDAY, February 21, 1934.
DEAR SIR: Your attention is respectfully drawn to Copeland bill S. 2800. This is a further amendment to bill S. 1944.
All of the objections to S. 1944 can be applied to the last amendment, S. 2800. This latter amendment, which is quoted as meeting the objections to the original bill, actually does not do so and in some particulars is even more objectionable.
The industries affected have no objection to proper control of advertising, but such control should equally apply to all industries and should be administered by the body properly constituted for that purpose, viz, the Federal Trade Commission, and not by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Any law enacted should not leave open the possibility of appointment of an advisory board composed exclusively of medical men who do not hide the fact that even their very primary training is against self-medication.
Bureaucratic control of inspection and permits is subject to the most serious abuse and the industries will not be permitted to exist under it, and it should be eliminated entirely.
We respectfully suggest that a law be enacted permitting and encouraging each of the affected industries to cooperate with the Government agencies to
correct malpractices and compelling correction only after the industries themselves could not or would not act.
We feel sure that this suggestion is in accord with the " new deal and that bill S. 2800 is foreign to this idea and to American principles, and we would very much appreciate your help in defeating any such attempts to set up this un-American bureaucracy.
THE ARNER CO., INC.
P.S.-Senator Copeland has given our industry only 20 minutes to present our side of the bill on February 27 at the hearing before the Senate Commerce Committe. If you feel that you are not in accord with any part of this bill, your appearance at the hearing would be very much appreciated.-C.P.A.
FEBRUARY 26, 1934.
Hon. JAMES MEAD,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Your appearance at hearing on Senate bill 2800 tomorrow and your opposition thereto would be greatly appreciated by ourselves and others of your constituents.
SALE LITHOGRAPH CO.
FEBRUARY 26, 1934.
Hon. JAMES M. MEAD,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Would greatly appreciate your vigorously opposing before Senate Commerce hearing Tuesday S. 2800 as un-American and highly bureaucratic, tending to Sovietize manufacturing and merchandising business of America, and urging control of advertising remain with Federal Trade Commission.
[From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 16, 1934]
THE TUGWELL BILL
J. H. CUMMINGS.
The propaganda demanding the enactment of the Tugwell bill without important amendment calls for intelligent discrimination on the part of Congress and the public. In spite of self-righteous assertion of noble motive, it is unscrupulous and reckless of the public good. It ascribes moral turpitude to any critic or dissenter and attempts to cover the deficiencies of the measure or overawe objections by this means. Fair-minded Americans will resent this effort to discredit rational criticism and legitimate objection by a process of bullying which has been employed before to bring about ineffective or injurious legislation.
Generally speaking, the bill, even in its moderately amended form, provides for broad and vague powers which no Government bureau should have, and should be thoroughly reconsidered in the interest of legitimate industry. There has been in our legal policy from the first the doctrine that it is better that nine guilty should escape than one innocent suffer, but this doctrine seems to have been reversed by the authors of the Tugwell bill. The definitions of offenses in the bill should be carefully considered in the interests of clarity and justice. The amendments devised by the subcommittee are not adequate in this respect. The legitimate industries and businesses concerned should not be subjected to impossible requirements or vagaries of bureaucratic regulation. Even more important than the correction of defects in the details of the bill is a sensible consideration of its general character and results. The bill as written requires the creation and maintenance of a very large corps of Federal agents to operate throughout the country in investigation and regulation. Congress should consider this aspect of the bill and determine whether public policy justifies the expansion of Federal bureaucratic supervision and regulation to the extent provided by the bill. We doubt that it does, but there can
be no rational doubt that Congress should not authorize any such expansion and public expenditure under the influence of clamor or until it has studied the actual extent of existing evils and considered how they can be corrected or restrained without unnecessarily or improperly burdening and endangering legitimate enterprise and putting upon the shoulders of the taxpayers an unnecessary burden of expense for the maintenance of a huge bureau.
The practical method of correcting the weaknesses of the present system of regulation is to amend it as experience with its operation has demonstrated that it needs amendment for public protection. But this would have fallen short of the ambitions of Professor Tugwell and Mr. Campbell, the authors. of the measure, who seem to have an unrestrained enthusiasm for bureaucracy and very little regard for what it costs the public or whether its benefits are in proportion to its cost. The Nation has just rid itself of an expensive and widely demoralizing experiment in Federal regulation, and we are confident if given the chance to consider the new experiment will expect Congress to bring it within sensible proportions.
If there are loopholes in the existing Food and Drug Acts that jeopardize life, health, and fair dealing, they should be closed by appropriate amendment. Advertising and legitimate business should be protected from such abuses. But Congress should show some sense of proportion between the evils existing and the means of correction. There is at Washington at this time an unlimited enthusiasm for the increase of the power of Federal Government and the extension of its activities throughout the life of the Nation. Of this the Tugwell bill is an outstanding expression. But the disposal of the prohibition experiment does not indicate that this enthusiasm is shared by a substantial majority of the American people.
Hon. HUBERT D. STEPHENS,
ROCHESTER, N.Y., February 26, 1934.
Chairman Senate Committee on Commerce,
DEAR SIR: We submit herewith the stand of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce on the so-called food and drugs bills: S. 2000 by Mr. Copeland; S. 2858 by Mr. McCarran. The Rochester Chamber of Commerce has taken this stand by action of its officers following a study of the subject by a special committee made up of representatives of the general public, of local health organizations, and of manufacturers of foods, drugs, and cosmetic products.
S. 2000 should be amended to eliminate the requirement of formula divulgement as provided in section 7 (f). Section 8 (a) should be eliminated in our opinion since the requirement is impracticable and further as a true representation of facts is secured by the application of section 6 (a). Section 17 (g) should be made more inclusive by removing the words "patentable" and "not protected by letters patent." Section 18 (b) should have its wording so changed as to provide that no employee of a person, corporation, or association be held liable for violation unless he actually and knowingly ordered the act which is in violation of the law.
S. 2858 could be improved by changing section 19 (b) to include the qualifications for members of the board of review. Such qualifications should require that the Government, the manufacturers, and the public be properly represented.
As between the two bills we believe no. 2858 is the more practical and should be preferred. We ask that you submit our views to the hearing on these two bills.
Very truly yours,
M. H. ESSER, General Secretary, Rochester Chamber of Commerce.