One of the most widely advertised proprietary foods in the American market is Kellogg's All-Bran. Here is an advertisement for Kellogg's All-Bran which says:

Millions of Americans have discovered that this delicious ready-to-eat cereal corrects constipation due to insufficient "bulk" in meals. Research shows that Kellogg's All-Bran is a natural laxative food for normal people.

Now, skipping to this:

Except with those few individuals who suffer from diseased or highly sensitive intestines, where "bulk" in any form is inadvisable, Kellogg's All-Bran may be used with perfect safety.

Now, let me read first a statement which was made in the Journal of the American Medical Association in a reply to a query made by a physician who wanted to know what the advisability of recommending bran to his patients was, and this is the statement made by the Journal of the American Medical Association, and remember, in the light of this advertisement which says that bran is safe except for a few persons:

* *

Bran can be injurious to any type of constipation patients with a weak digestion and a tendency to flatulence are likely sooner or later to get into trouble on any rough bulky type of food. The frail bowel cannot handle it. Answers to a questionnaire * indicated that the medical profession is anything but enthusiastic about bran. Most of the men who answered said that they no longer prescribed it, and many warned their patients against its use on account of the indigestion it often produces.

* * *

Alvarez reported the case of a woman who began the use of bran and in the succeeding 4 months went downhill until she was skin and bones. In her attempt to relieve the distress in the bowel she gave up one food after the other until she was living on little besides bran. It never occurred to her to drop that, because she had been led to believe that it was a wonderful health food. *

*

Manufacturers should warn buyers that not everyone can tolerate the substance and that its use should be stopped the minute it begins to produce indigestion, flatulence, and malnutrition.

The United States Public Health Service, in a radio broadcast, issued an even more drastic warning, in which they said that probably two-thirds of the people who eat bran should not eat it, that it can cause serious consequences, and they indicated that in some cases it might even cause cancer, and yet that is advertised as a safe health food.

And there again the representatives of the company and their associations like this bill, and that alone should make it perfectly clear that the bill will not control that kind of dangerous misrepre

sentation.

If you think this statement with respect to foods may be overdrawn, listen to this editorial which appeared in the Grocers Commercial Bulletin, December 1933, shortly after this legislative effort was first started. It says:

Are you really facing the fact that too many food products do contain so large a percentage of added poisons as to be a real menace to public health; that a large part of the public have discovered that and are demanding protection?

That is from an editorial from the Grocers Commercial Bulletin. Mr. KENNEY. Do you think the old-fashioned cooked oatmeal is safer than these other prepared goods?

Mr. KALLET. Yes; but that question brings up a very interesting point. All of the cereals which are advertised in women's magazines, household magazines, are advertised as wonderful health foods.

Now, it is perfectly true that they are in a sense excellent health foods, but it is the policy of the advertiser never to give a warning of any kind, because a warning interferes with the sale, and they do not want that to happen.

Now, cereals, such as oats, which you have mentioned, are valuable, and yet listen to this statement which was made in a report by May Mellanby, a researcher in England, who has done a great deal of work on diet in relation to the teeth. She says:

The consumption of milk, eggs, cheese, animal and fish fats, and vegetables should be greatly increased and the consumption of cereals diminished and for children abolished.

Now, it is quite generally believed that

Mr. KENNEY. Does she give any reasons for that?

Mr. KALLET. Yes. You probably know that vitamin D, in the form of cod liver oil or some other form is given to children because of its calcifying effect; that is, it aids in the calcification of the teeth, also of the bones, and therefore promotes their proper development.

According to Mrs. Mellanby, cereals have the opposite effect; that is, they have what she calls a decalcifying effect, and therefore interfere with the proper development of the teeth and bones.

Now, elsewhere she says that when cereals are given to children there should be compensating quantities of vitamin D in some form. At least, if the manufacturers of cereals would advertise that, we would say they are doing the right thing; but they will not even go that far, because it might interfere with the greater consumption and a larger sale of their products.

These examples I have brought forward so far have been intended to show you that many of these nationally advertised products, the products which are sold in large quantities all over the country can be very dangerous; that many of them actually can cause fatal results.

It was for some such reason as this that I tried to make a statement before the Senate committee, which was objected to and cut out of the record, and I would like to make it to you now. It is something that I wrote following the first hearing on the Copeland food and drugs bill.

Mr. KENNEY. Who objected to it?

Mr. KALLET. The Senator-I have forgotten his name-the Senator from Mississippi, I believe, who has since left the Senate. Mr. CHAPMAN. Senator Stephens?

Mr. KALLET. Senator Stephens; that is his name.

Imagine the Senate's going to dope peddlers for advice on how to curb the legal sale of narcotics; to kidnappers to ask what punishment kidnappers deserve; to thugs for their advice on how to protect the public welfare! Yet the witnesses who gravely advised the Senate-through the sympathetic medium of Dr. Copeland-on the curbing of food, drug, and cosmetic racketeers, represented the racketeers themselves. These good business men, whose ideas will be written into the Federal statute books if a new law is passed, have been responsible for greater robbery of the poor, for more suffering and more deaths than all the criminal inmates of all the jails in the country.

I believe that statement is true, and I believe, in passing on this legislation, you have to make a choice as to whether you are going to protect those racketeers-though legally they are not or whether you are going to protect the public.

Mr. KENNEY. There is no such thing as legal racketeer, is there? Mr. KALLET. Yes; I should say so.

Mr. KENNEY. There is?

Mr. KALLET. Yes. There are racketeers whom the law cannot touch; that is, what they do is within the law, yet they are robbing or injuring or murdering as effectively and far more dangerously than those who are commonly known as such; and it is these people who have advised the Senate in the making of S. 5, and whose ideas are written into that bill, and that is the bill that the House is now asked

to enact.

Mr. KENNEY. You make a distinction, then, between a legal racketeer and an illegal racketeer?

Mr. KALLET. Yes; I make a distinction, except that to my mind. the legal ones are probably worse.

Mr. KENNEY. You mean to say, however, that a racketeer is a racketeer, whether within the law or without the law?

Mr. KALLET. Yes. We feel that S. 5 is a dangerous bill and that it should not be passed; and yet, because apparently there has been pressure from official quarters for the passage of this bill, there is more than a possibility that it will go through. For that reason I want to pick out some of the particular provisions of S. 5 and discuss them from the consumers' point of view.

I want to turn first to chapter II, Definition of Terms, section 201 (d). This particular section is important, not because it is likely to entail any particular physical damage to consumers but because it shows the way this bill came into being.

It says:

The term "cosmetic" includes all substances and preparations, except soaps or household cleansers for which no medical or curative qualities are claimed by the manufacturers or retailers in labels or advertisements, intended for cleansing, or altering the appearance of, or promoting the attractiveness, of the person.

In other words, the term "cosmetic " does not include soap, because it says it is not a drug.

How did that particular exception come into being? I think we have an explanation in the Congressional Record. Senator Copeland said: "We had long discussions with the soap manufacturers, and there is good reason why that exception was made "-since it is necessary to protect advertising. Here is an advertisement for Woodbury's

soap.

Now, it is commonly agreed by dermatologists, I think, that there is absolutely no controversy or exception to this view, that a soap is nothing but a simple cleaning agent. This advertisement says: Today his touch says Friendship,

Yes: within 30 days! There's proof in abundance that you can have skin loveliness quickly now * * that your complexion can be clear and fine, no matter what its present fault. Leading dermatologists have proven it recently in a series of world-wide tests.

Now, in order to protect that kind of advertising, frankly, this exception has been written into the bill. There is no reason to except it as a cosmetic article, because it is not a drug. Soap is advertised as a cosmetic, and there should be no exception for it.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Is there anything in that soap except its cleansing quality?

Mr. KALLET. No. The soap itself is probably all right. There is nothing dangerous about it, but it is falsely advertised.

That kind of advertising leads people who cannot afford it to pay more than they should for a soap because of false advertising.

Mr. CHAPMAN. What is the soap about which in the advertisements they say, "A skin you love to touch"? Is that the one?

Mr. KALLET. That is the one.

And goodness knows how many tens of hundreds of women purchase it in the hope that they will get a "skin you love to touch." Page 5, under "Adulterated food ", section 301 (a), it says:

A food shall be deemed to be adulterated

(a). (1) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it dangerous to health.

I suggest, if this bill goes through-which I hope it does not-that that be amended as follows:

After "health" there be this proviso: "unless permitted by regulation, in which case warning, as prescribed by the Food and Drug Administration, shall be given."

The reason for that is that there are substances which in themselves cannot be considered poisonous or deleterious but which can in some cases have a damaging effect. For example, iodine in the form, I believe, potassium iodine in commonly added to table salt for the more or less laudable purpose of preventing goiter. Whether that is the best way to prevent it or not, I do not know, but iodine taken that way can do damage.

And here is an extract from the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 22, 1935, bearing on the subject. It is an item entitled "Goiter caused by iodized salt."

After telling of cases of goiter resulting from the use of iodine, and iodized salt, it lays down the following rules:

1. Iodized salt should be used only in quantities that correspond to the usual salt consumption.

2. It should be used only by persons who have a normal sympathetic nervous system.

3. Persons with cardiac defects should not use iodized salt.

4. Patients with goiter or with other incretory disturbances should abstain from the use of iodized salt.

5. Iodized salt should not be used by women during the climacteric period. The author gives the clinical histories of some of the 37 patients in whom the use of iodized salt resulted in exophthalmic goiter, and she emphasizes that goiter prophylaxis by means of iodized salt should be carried out only under medical supervision.

Now, let us assume that iodized salt should continue to be sold, and I think there is some basis for it. Is it not reasonable that you demand that on every package of iodized salt there should be some warning" Persons with heart trouble should not use ", or "Persons who already have goiter should not use" it? Under other circumstances it should not be used.

It seems to me that is not asking too much.

Mr. KENNEDY. Now, how would you label it? Label the package? Mr. KALLET. I would include some such statement as is made right there. That gives a list of conditions in which iodized salt should not be used.

Mr. KENNEY. Would you use positive language or say it negatively? Would you say this is harmful to goiter or not good for goiter?

Mr. KALLET. I should say that this salt should not be used by persons suffering from goiter; this salt should not be used by persons suffering from heart trouble; and so on.

Of course, that will injure the sale of iodized salt; but your concern is the protection of the public, and you should make some such provision in your bill so that these companies will not have the option of giving a warning if they wish but will be forced to give a warning, and the warning should not be what they consider adequate but what medical experts, who are employed or consulted by the control administration, consider adequate.

Mr. COLE. Iodized salt is in pretty general use in our hospitals, is it not?

Mr. KALLET. Possibly.

Mr. COLE. Well, is it or is it not?

Mr. KALLET. I do not know; but, of course, if it is in use in the hospitals, they know under what conditions it should be used and under what conditions it should not be used.

The man in the street does not know that if he has heart trouble he should not use iodized salt, and I daresay there are thousands and thousands of persons for whom iodized salt is potentially dangerous and who are using it simply because no warning is given.

Mr. COLE. Do you use it?

Mr. KALLET. No; I do not.

There are many people who should use it, possibly in certain areas of the country which are inland and where natural foods do not contain sufficient quantities of iodine. Iodized salt can be valuable in preventing goiter. It is a useful and often valuable product, but that is not a reason why adequate warning should not be given. Mr. COLE. What is iodized salt commonly used for?

Mr. KALLET. It is used for ordinary table salt.

Mr. CHAPMAN. It comes in packages and boxes?

Mr. KALLET. Yes. Some companies put it up both ways-put up iodized salt and some that is not iodized-and some entirely the iodized product.

Mr. COLE. While you are in Washington you are eating your meals here. You use it then, do you not? I mean that seriously. Do you practice what you preach or do you inquire about these things before you eat it?

Mr. KALLET. As a matter of fact, as an adult who under ordinary conditions eats a sufficient supply of foods which contain iodines, such as fish, and so on, it is not necessary to use iodized salt; and the fact that here the foods may contain less iodine than in New York, which I do not know to be true, does not mean that it is necessary on a brief trip here to immediately begin taking iodized salt as a medicine. It is not at all necessary.