WASHINGTON, D.C., February 27, 1934. Hon. HUBERT D. STEPHENS, Chairman Senate Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As manufacturers of a variety of food products we are naturally very much interested in the following drug and cosmetic bills which we are informed are now pending in the Senate: S. 1944 (original Tugwell bill). S. 2000 (revision of the Tugwell bill, S. 1944, written by Hon. Senator Copeland). S. 2800 (latest revision of the Copeland bill S. 2000). We understand that the Senate Committee on Commerce is holding hearings on these bills on Tuesday, February 27, 1934. We are therefore writing to you at this time to present a few facts which we believe you will want to consider. We are heartily in accord with the intention of these bills to increase the effectiveness of the present food law, to fix minimum standards for food and drug products, and to eliminate false advertising. However we respectfully protest against the following specific features of these bills: (1) The combination of food products and cosmetics in one law. It would seem that treating two such different types of products under the same bill and on the same basis would be both confusing and difficult to the administration and the public. (2) The combination of the advertising regulation into these food bills.—It would seem that regulating this advertising could be handled more accurately and effectively entirely independent of the other provisions of the food regulations which are sufficiently complicated in themselves. (3) The establishment of food standards by the Department of Agriculture. This is fundamentally under our Constitution a function of the legislative branch of our Government and not of the administrative. While we realize that if the Congress of the United States were to pass on each food standard, they would have time for no other business, would it not be practicable for Congress to designate an impartial commission representing both manufacturers and consumers who could establish these food standards? Under the present law, as you know, "custom" is the basis for defining the various standards for food products, and surely the consumers and manufacturers are the best possible judges of just what is the accepted customary standard. The Department of Agriculture would naturally administer the standards after they had been established, but it would seem foreign to the spirit of democracy to have these standards determined in the first place by a bureau of the Federal Administrative Department. (4) The proposed requirement that all manufacturers submit to factory inspection by Federal authorities.—An inspection of this sort should be more properly the function of the State government, and every effort should be made to have the State inspection very rigid. Furthermore, as a Federal inspection would apply only to factories doing interstate business, this requirement naturally could not be imposed upon firms doing business entirely within one State. Therefore this requirement would not apply equally to all food manufacturers, since those doing intrastate business would be exempt. (5) The requirement that manufacturers secure a factory permit from the Federal Government.-This, too, would apply only to those firms doing an interstate business and would subject them to a regulation which could not be imposed upon manufacturers doing business entirely within one State, so that those doing an intrastate business could evade any regulations which might be placed by the Federal Government on the manufacturers who were required to have a Federal factory permit. Furthermore, this regulation could be quite simply evaded even by manufacturers who do an interstate business, since they could set up a sales company independent of the company operating as the factory. The sales company could handle all the selling and distribution of the products, buying them direct from the factory company so that the factory company would technically be doing an intrastate business, selling to the sales company, and, therefore, would not be required to have a Federal factory permit under the law. In view of these possibilities it would seem that this particular feature might easily lead to bootlegging, since it would be just as difficult to enforce as was the prohibition law. As mentioned above we are heartily in accord with the general intent of these bills. We feel, however, that their effectiveness would be increased by the removal of the features mentioned above, and we would appreciate your cooperation in having the bills amended along these lines. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Missouri Pharmaceutical Association, on behalf of its many members and their patrons all over the State, respectfully protest against the enactment of S. 2800 for the following reasons: 1. The present Federal Food and Drugs Act has served its purpose for 28 years, the number of cases of injury to the public from misbranded or adulterated food and drugs having been few compared to population. 2. There is no public demand for the repeal of the present law, because the public sees no need for it and certainly would ask its repeal if there was need. 3. Necessary amendments should be made by the enactment of S. 2355, or H.R. 6376, proposed by the National Drug Trade Conference, representing all branches of pharmacy and the drug trade and best qualified to prepare amendments. 4. The proposed law places the food, drug, and cosmetic industries at the mercy of the Secretary of Agriculture, aided by appointees of the President, except a small minority. 5. When formulae, labels, and advertising must be determined by the national administration it should assume full responsibility for the conduct of these industries by investing the necessary capital and relieving the enterprises now responsible for them. 6. Retail druggists would be responsible for representations made to their customers and wholesale druggists for statements of their salesmen to retail druggists under the provision of the bill governing advertising. 7. Congress enacted the National Industrial Recovery Act to promote_reemployment and business recovery. The revised Tugwell bill would defeat this by unduly restricting the manufacture, advertising, and distribution of food, drugs, and cosmetics. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Secretary P. J. Garvin, of the Connecticut Pharmaceutical Association, wires the writer under date of the 27th instant as follows: "Connecticut Pharmaceutical Association unalterably opposed to the revised Tugwell bill. Giving any one man exclusive power is preposterous." It is clear that the provision in the revised bill creating 2 committees to aid the Secretary of Agriculture in drafting regulations is being interpreted as in no way curtailing the Secretary's power to govern the industries affected by regulations made by the administration, because all of the members of the committees except 2 are to be apointed by the President who appointed the Secretary, and the 2 not appointed by the President shall be selected from the Food and Drug Administration by the Secretary. The integrity of our worthy President cannot be questioned, but the question of placing the control of private enterprises under the Government without the Government assuming financial responsibility for these enterprises may well be questioned. If the public policy reflected in the revised Tugwell bill is sound and necessary it should and must be applied to all industries now conducted by private enterprises and they should be relieved of all responsibility. Connecticut druggists are opposed to many provisions of the bill in question, including retail druggists being held responsible for representations to their customers and the determination of the facts by the Secretary of Agriculture exclusively. They are opposed to decreasing employment and retarding business recovery by restricting the manufacture, advertising, and distribution of food, drugs, and cosmetics. They favor all necessary amendments to the existing law, as incorporated in the Stephens and Black bills (S. 2355 and H.R. 6376) proposed by the National Drug Trade Conference, best qualified by attainments and experience to draft amendments. Very respectfully yours. Hon. HUBERT D. STEPHENS, E. C. BROKMEYER. CHEMICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, Chairman Senate Committee on Commerce. DEAR SENATOR STEPHENS: At a recent meeting of the board of managers of the Chemical Society of Washington, the following resolution was adopted: "Be it resolved, That the Chemical Society of Washington record in it's minutes its approval in principle of the bill now before Congress known as the "Copeland bill, S. 2000." This society wishes to place itself on record in favor of legislation designed to prevent fraudulent claims and misrepresentation of standards of quality in the sale of foods, drugs, and cosmetics." On instructions from the board of managers, I am sending this resolution to you for your consideration. MY DEAR SENATOR STEPHENS: The committee on legislation and correlation of the American Dental Association submitted its recommendations to the board of trustees at a meeting just held in Chicago, with the following results: The general strengthening provisions of Senator Copeland's bill (S. 2800) were approved in order to better safeguard the interests of the public and at the same time encourage a more constructive and dependable health service. However, since dental practice is so definitely recognized as an important phase of health service our association strongly urges the following amendment: On page 7, line 18, after "medical" insert "or dental" making this read "substantial medical or dental opinion." On page 16, line 9, after " sinus infection ", insert "dental caries, periodontal disease,". In line 13, same page, insert after "medical", ", dental" making this read "medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions." In line 19, after "medical" insert " or dental" making this read "in medical or dental science." In view of the present knowledge of the relation of dental diseases to all general health problems, I trust you and your committee will recognize the merit involved in these suggested changes and appreciate that their inclusion will substantially strengthen the provisions of this much-needed health conservation and promotion legislation. Thanking you and your associates for the careful consideration these recommendations merit, and with best wishes, I remain Very sincerely yours, HOMER C. BROWN, Chairman Committee on Legislation and Correlation, BRIEF SUBMITTED BY JAMES L. DONNELLY, CHICAGO, ILL., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ILLINOIS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION On behalf of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, and particularly on behalf of the several hundred industries in that State specifically affected by the revised Tugwell-Copeland bill (S. 2800), I submit the following objections to said measure: Those specifically objecting to the bill include: Food and kindred industries, including meat and other packing-house products, various food preparations, beverages, ice cream, canning, dairying, confectionery, flour, and tobacco. Chemicals, drugs, and allied products, including soaps, pharmaceuticals, biologicals, botanicals, and insecticides, essential oils, flavoring extracts, cosmetics, perfumes, package and propriety medicines, toilet preparations, chemicals, vegetable and mineral oils, waxes, and gums. Printing, publishing, and allied industries, paper and supply industry, and advertising. Containers of various types, including bottles, tin and cardboard containers, cork products, closures, and paper products. 66 termed Clothing, shoes, false teeth, crutches, suspenders (originally "braces"), and all appliances affecting "the structure or any function of the body" or promoting the attractiveness of the person might also be construed as subject to the Department of Agriculture, which will be the supreme power in enforcing the measure. S. 2800 raises the question of whether we shall have legislation by Congress and enforcement by court as at present under the present Food and Drugs Act, enacted in 1906, or legislation and enforcement by a Government officer in the Department of Commerce. Under the present law, we are informed, the Government has instituted over 22,000 cases, and truthfulness of packages, labels, and circulars has in the main been achieved. It is submitted that any measures that may be necessary in the interest of public health, in the case of medicine, or to remedy misleading advertising, or to regulate the use of face creams and other cosmetics, might properly be obtained by offering amendment to the existing law. This new and revolutionary bill repeals the existing law and sets up a new and involved measure that would vest in the Secretary of Agriculture broad and almost unsupervised legislative, executive, and judiciary powers. It is contended by our membership that it is not only unnecessary but also unwise to set up entirely new legislation, for the reason that this would discard the experience of 28 years in the administration of the present law, together with the valuable court and administrative interpretations of that law. Furthermore, it would necessitate the rewriting of all the State laws which have been enacted in conformity with the Federal law. Unless this background of experience is obtained, there will be confusion, uncertainty, and tremendous expense and waste of time in setting up the administration and court interpretation of a new law. Any possible advantage to the consumer can be accomplished by amending the present law without raising the innumerable objections which have been advanced in connection with the various bills that have been proposed by the Department of Agriculture. The principal objections to the bill which have been pointed out by our members include the following: Bureaucratic domination of the food, drug, cosmetic, and innumerable related industries established through the Department of Agriculture. The regulations proposed are unsound, unprecedented, and dangerous. In spite of some modification in the latest revision, the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in a number of controversial matters is increased. The Department of Agriculture obtains control of advertising relating to food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics. This will have the effect of materially restricting the sales of those commodities, which it may be assumed, is one of the chief purposes of the proposed law. Advertising does not need such control. The advertising carried in the newspapers and magazines of this country is governed by a proper and strict desire on the part of the publishers to delete any matter which by description or implication misstates the truth. The laws now on the statute books provide sufficient protection against dishonest advertising through the Federal Trade Commission, the Post Office Department, and the criminal statutes. The definition of "advertisement opinion disseminated in any manner." lutely impossible of enforcement. covers "all representation of fact or This is so all-inclusive that it is abso The bill attempts to define "truth" with terms which are difficult if not impossible of practical application. Such a definition will cause a multiplicity of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, inconvenience, and persecution. An unjustifiable new punishment is inflicted on radio advertising and the dealer, in the provision affecting dealers. Publishers, advertising agencies, and radio stations are forced to turn "state's evidence" to avoid being implicated in the crime. It is provided that any advertisement of any drug valuable to the public as a palliative for some disease must state how the palliation is effected. It is impossible in many instances to state in what manner the drug acts on the human system and even if the information were available it would mean the advertisement must be too long, with detailed and uninteresting information which would prevent any effective small advertisements. Under the proposed measure self-medication for simple ailments which otherwise might become dangerous is prevented. This would materially increase the cost of medical treatment, imposing a heavy burden on persons in moderate circumstances. It also would work an irreparable injury if not destruction of many manufacturers, reducing employment and seriously curtailing the purchasing of raw materials from farm, mine, and other manufacturers, and the purchase of advertising and other service. MULTIPLE SEIZURES The proposed law gives the administration power to destroy a sound and honest business for an offense utterly trivial in itself. Manufacturers should have the opportunity to correct unimportant infractions of the law. The authority accorded bureaucratic administrators to make multiple seizures would place every business at the mercy of a capricious offer. Manufacturers should be permitted to defend themselves in court. FACTORY INSPECTION This provision, although appearing to be voluntary in reality, is mandatory. It enables the building up of a vast inspection bureaucracy to be fastened upon and maintained at the expense of industry. Inspectors can oppress management without restraint as no liability is imposed upon them for any action. Business would suffer the hazard of disclosures by dishonest inspectors of secret processes and formulas, which are important assets developed at great expense and constituting a great element of the property rights of the business. RIGHT OF COURT REVIEW This provision fails to guarantee the individual the freedom of review to which he is entitled. On the contrary, it apparently has been drawn for the obvious purpose of preventing such assurance. It makes the right of review dependent upon the suffering by the manufacturer of substantial damage and thus affords no relief to him from arbitrary abuse by the administrative officers of their powers and discretion. Provisions relating to labeling are impractical and unreasonably burdensome, calling for the statement of many facts of no practical value to the consumer. The vindicate a prejudiced opinion against self-medication, the prevention of which will place the burden of heavy expense upon those in moderate circumstances. This is particularly apparent in the requirement that the preparation must be labeled as a palliative if it is not a specific cure. There must be a plain and conspicuous statement under the bill that a preparation is a palliative, and "how the palliation is effected." How could physicians answer such a question? Practically every prescription is a palliative, inasmuch as there are probably less than half a dozen specific cures in the whole field of remedies. DISINFECTANTS, GERMICIDES, AND ANTISEPTICS The bill proposes to set up bacteriological tests showing the action of such preparations, which are impractical and which would give no valuable facts. |