It is the opinion of the authors that the toxicity of small amounts of copper continuously ingested has been greatly overrated. In these experiments, rats which received, for 12 months, a diet many times richer in copper than one would ordinarily come into contact with, showed no symptoms of poisoning either in their physical appearance or by histological examinations of their livers, spleens, and kidneys. Not one animal died of copper poisoning during the course of the experiment. It would scem that other investigators who have used concentrations of copper equivalent to 2,000 and more milligrams per kilogram of food consumed, in order to demonstrate the toxicity of copper, have passed out of the realm of chronic toxicity into that of acute poisoning, especially when it is reported that 16 out of 21 animals died of copper poisoning within 105 days-11 of them within 60 days-of the experimental period, and this in an animal most susceptible to copper poisoning (Hall and MacKay, 1931). It cannot be concluded from such experiments that smaller quantities of copper taken over much longer periods of time will produce the same results. Nor can we necessarily conclude from the fact that copper is concentrated in the liver in cases of cirrhosis and hemochromatosis that the metal has been the cause of the disorder. Mallory and Parker (1931a) state that a certain minimum dose must be exceeded in order to demonstrate the toxicity of the metal, as otherwise the animal can handle it without any injurious effects. The minimum harmful dose may be and probably is relatively high. Another factor which must be taken into account also is the type of diet which accompanies the copper, since we have shown that this is a factor in the quantity of the metal which may be stored in the liver of the animal.

In the experiments described in this paper, each rat consumed an average of 2.4 grams of dry oysters per day which is equivalent to about 14 grams of fresh oysters. An average serving for a human is 110 grams (Hodges and Peterson, 1921) which on the basis of caloric consumption would correspond to about 2 grams for the rat. Therefore, our rats were receiving about seven times the relative amount of oysters a human would consume by eating one serving every day. Since the rats consuming this quantity of oysters regularly for 12 months showed no evidence of toxicity and since the oysters fed contained from 3 to 900 times the quantity of copper found in oysters on the market, and furthermore, since oysters apparently inhibit the storage of the copper in the livers of the experimental animals, it would seem logical to conclude that the copper content of market oysters should cause but little concern.

There is probably no question that with this amendment the burden of proof would be on the food manufacturer or the producer of the natural food to show whether or not any natural ingredient was or was not dangerous to health. If the burden of proof is on the Government to show that fact, the Government would have to produce scientific evidence which is not now available and which members of the Food and Drug Administration admit is not available to set up any tolerances for toxic elements naturally occurring in foods.

However, in that connection. I want to read just a short sentence from a publication by Dr. Ward B. White, Chief of Food Control, in the Food and Drug Administration. This article was published by Dr. White. It is entitled "Poisonous Spray Residues on Vegetables", in the June 1933 issue of "Industrial and Engineering Chemistry." This is what Dr .White says:

Because of the presence in such amounts of a cumulative poison like arsenic in foods against which regulatory officials are powerless to proceed, these officials must be doubly vigilant against those foods, such as sprayed vegetables, where the arsenic is unquestionably an added substance. The following table gives figures from this survey, limiting them to marine products because arsenic is, in general, much higher in these than in any oiher class of foods except those carrying spray residues. These data are given with the full recognition that the arsenic may, in some cases, be present in organic combinations which render it somewhat less toxic than when in the form of lead, calcium, or other arsenates. It is doubtful, however, whether any toxicologist would assert that

there is any published work to prove that the natural arsenic in marine and other foods is without any harmful physiological effect.

Of course, since that paper was published in 1933, our work has been done.

The bureau just thinks that that changed phraseology I suggested when I first spoke would not in any way injure or weaken the law, and would certainly clarify the situation, because and fair administration of the law would require that the pharmacologists and chemists of the Food and Drug Administration obtain this necessary evidence to show or to prove that such foods did contain an ingredient or natural constituent which might render it toxic.

I might say this, that the American Medical Association at one time issued a bulletin which was based on the international tolerances for arsenic set up by the Food and Drug Administration, whereby it did not make clear, or apparently did indicate that its restrictions on arsenic would apply both to natural and to added ingredients. As a result of the bureau's efforts since that time, the American Medical Association has issued a revised bulletin stating specifically that it only applies to added ingredients.

In other words, gentlemen, scientific evidence is incomplete on the subject. It would take several years to get complete evidence, and whatever evidence is available and which this bureau has obtained would indicate there is a vast difference between the arsenic that occurs in organic combination naturally in food and arsenic, such as arsenic trioxide which is poisonous. One proof of that is the administration of arsenical preparations such as salvarsan, which is known to have no toxic effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Manning. The committee will reconvene at 2 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 11:55 o'clock, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day, Aug. 10, 1935.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reassembled, pursuant to the taking of a recess, at 2 p. m., Hon. Virgil Chapman (chairman) presiding.) Mr. CHAPMAN. The committee will be in order.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. HORTON, CHIEF EXAMINER, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Mr. CHAPMAN. We will hear Mr. Horton. Mr. Horton, will you state your name, address, profession, official position, and for whom you speak in this hearing?

Mr. HORTON. James A. Horton, chief examiner of the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to discuss briefly the operation of the Federal Trade Commission insofar as it applies generally to the division of which I have the privilege of being the head.

It is the practice of the Commission whenever a complaint is received by it to refer that complaint immediately to the chief examiner who examines it with respect to whether it contains the neces

sary jurisdictional element and the other elements bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and then it is assigned for investigation if these elements are present.

In the matter of bringing complaints before the Commission, it has no technical requirements and has endeavored to simplify its practice in every particular so that complainants may readily have access to it.

I quote from the "Rules, Policy, and Acts" of the Federal Trade Commission, under date of July 1, 1935. In rule IV which states that:

(a) Any person, partnership, corporation, or association may apply to the commission to institute a proceeding in respect to any violation of law over which the commission has jurisdiction.

(b) Such application shall be in writing, signed by or in behalf of the applicant, and shall contain a short and simple statement of the facts constituting the alleged violation of the law and the name and address of the applicant and of the party complained of.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that numerous statements have been made here before the committee with respect to the delay in the commission's activities, and as those delays, if any, are primarily my responsibility, I would like to state before this committee that, during the last fiscal year alone, the division of which I am the head, reduced the number of cases pending before it from 1,027 to 397.

In addition to that, it kept the pending applications all on a current basis.

Now, I appreciate that it is a simple matter to come before this committee and say that the Federal Trade Commission is doing nothing, but unless there are some facts and figures produced in support of that statement, I think it is decidedly unfair to the present operation of the Commission.

I also wish to go on record as stating that the legal investigational division of the Commission, which is the very heart and soul of the Commission itself, is composed of the finest trained, the most effective, and the most efficient body of men of like character in the Government service.

Congressman Kenney raised the question this morning with the chairman about the qualification of a man because of his legal training; candidates for admission to the staff of the investigational division must be graduates of reputable law schools and must have been admitted to the practice of law. It is the endeavor of the commission to obtain men who have had 3 or 4 years actual legal experience. By this process we are enabled to obtain the services of what I consider to be the finest body of men in the Government service, as I have previously stated.

After their admission, they are required to undergo a rigorous course of training and instruction before they are even what we believe qualified to go out and represent the Commission.

It is not our endeavor to specialize along certain lines, although at times we have done so. It is our endeavor to produce a lawyer who is well rounded, who is capable of taking up any case which may be presented to the Commission for investigation.

In view of the limited funds available to the Commission and its limited personnel, I do not believe that there is a possible criticism

that can be made of the manner in which it has conducted its activities

in recent years.

The staff, of course, has been greatly augmented and we hope to be able to retain it during the coming years, even the present year, in the face of depleted funds.

The question has also been raised here with respect to matters involving private controversies, and I read again from the rules of the Commission with respect to its policy.

It is the policy of the Commission not to entertain proceedings of alleged unfair practices where the alleged violation of law is a purely private controversy redressable in the courts, except where such practices substantially tend to affect the public. In cases where the alleged injury is one to a competitor only and is redressable in the courts by an action by the aggrieved competitor and the interest of the public is not substantially involved, the proceeding will not be entertained.

Now, the Commission has told you, by the chairman this morning, that it settles a large number of cases by stipulation and in order that the committee may have first-hand knowledge of the manner in which it proceeds, I would like to read for its information its policy with respect to the settlement of cases by stipulation.

In cases prior to the service of complaint by the Commission, the Commission may, in its discretion and in the public interest, permit respondents to dispose of cases by stipulation, in which stipulations the respondent promises and agrees to cease and desist from the unfair methods of competition involved, and in which the respondent, after admitting the material facts, agrees that said admissions may be used against him if thereafter the Commission has reason to believe the respondent is violating his promise and agreement to cease and desist and issues its complaint against him. All such stipulations shall be altogether for the public records of the Commission. The disposition of a case by stipulation is regarded as a privilege and not a right. It is the policy of the Commission not to accept stipulations from respondents who, it has reason to believe, have been guilty of intentional frauds or wrongdoings or violations of the criminal sections of the Sherman Act or of any other statute, or who, in the opinion of the commission, will not keep their agreement. The Commission has a right in all cases, for any reasons which it regards as sufficient, to refuse to extend this privilege.

In the investigation of cases, particularly those cases involving drugs and cosmetics, it is the practice of the chief examiner's division to obtain its data from the best available sources.

Now, we have always had a perfect spirit of cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration in this respect. We do not, however, confine our data to that which we receive from the Food and Drug Administration. It is the practice of this division to contact and obtain data from such organizations as the Public Health Service, which has rendered at times invaluable aid to the Commission; the Army Medical School; the naval hospital; the American Medical Association; the various State bodies of health; physicians and surgeons who are expert in any particular line of medicine or surgery, and specialists in public health. Of course, we are not unique in that respect. The Food and Drug Administration does the same thing, as, for example, when, upon its request, its doctors were assisted by the doctors of the Public Health Service concerning antidotes for certain caustic poisons and their labeling.

That, I think, is one of the strong factors in the success of the Commission in this work. We are not dependent on any one source for the data we obtain in the handling of our cases. The result is,

that we feel that we obtain by this method an unbiased statement and that we are not bound by statements or opinions of an organi zation devoted purely to regulatory matters.

We endeavor to present to the Commission a full, complete story of the particular merits of that product, its therapeutic value, and all other elements which necessarily must be taken into consideration before the Commission makes disposition of a particular case.

In the exercise of its work, the Commission had divided the country into various sections. We maintain branch offices in New York City, in Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. At the present time we have an office in New Orleans which is on trial in order to determine if the Commission's work may be further expedited by maintaining a staff in that locality.

Commissioner Davis this morning called your attention to a decision of the court in which it was stated that the Federal Trade Commission was organized for that particular purpose, and that false and misleading advertising, deceptive of the public, constituted an unfair method of competition.

That, gentlemen, I construe as a judicial recognition of the congressional mandate which the Congress has given to the Commission through the Federal Trade Commission Act, and that it must proceed with that mandate and carry out the work to the very best of its ability.

It has been my experience as head of this division and also as an attorney who has had 10 years of actual field experience with the Commission, having traveled in every State of this Union, that the American public and industry has full and complete confidence in the Federal Trade Commission; that they are heartily in accord with the work which it is doing and the manner in which it is performing its duties.

I feel that if you were to grant to another department of the Government jurisdiction over false and misleading advertisements, as they relate to foods, drugs, and cosmetics, that it is a positive loss to the Government and is prejudicial to the best interests of the public. The Commission has the training, the background, and the experience, and there is no other department or division of the Government that is so well organized or so thoroughly equipped to carry on the work in relation to false and misleading advertising, advertisement of these products as a protection to the ultimate

consumer.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Horton, I believe Judge Davis said this morning that you had no examiners assigned especially to the investigation of matters relating to food and drugs.

Mr. HORTON. It is not our policy.

Mr. CHAPMAN. You do not divide your force into separate specialized groups?

Mr. HORTON. No; it is not our policy.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Do you have technical men there who are qualified to pass on these medicinal and food products and cosmetics?

Mr. HORTON. We do not; we depend for that work on our contacts, such as I have illustrated; the Food and Drug Administration, the Public Health, and the Bureau of Standards. The Bureau of Standards does an immense amount of work for us. We are constantly sending products there for the purpose of analysis, and for