have been reported during the long period of the administration of the present law, particularly in recent years. This accounts for the fact that there is no public demand for the proposed legislation. Where necessary the present law should be amended. The Stephens and Black bills provide for this. The amendments have been carefully prepared by the National Drug Trade Conference, representing all branches of pharmacy and the drug trade, including. State boards of pharmacy and colleges of pharmacy, best qualified by scientific knowledge and experience to draft amendments to the Federal Food and Drugs Act.

Your petitioner objects to the revised Tugwell bill on the following grounds: 1. Because it provides that 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." Representations by retail druggists to their customers, or by traveling salesmen to their customers, not supported by substantial medical opinion or by demonstrable scientific facts would violate the proposed law. The Secretary of Agriculture would decide what authorities should determine scientific facts, or substantial medical opinion. The findings of fact by the Secretary aremade conclusive by the bill.

2. The definition of the term "drug" includes "devices." The term "drug would include ear trumpets and artificial aids to hearing; artificial teeth and limbs; gymnasium equipment; dog muzzles; check reins, blinkers, and interference pads for horses; shoulder braces; fountain syringes, suspensory and obesity bandages; trusses; etc., all of these being related to the "mitigation or prevention of disease, or intended to affect the functions of the body of man or other animals."

3. The term " labeling as defined in the bill is too broad. It not only includes the principal label or labels upon the immediate container of any food, drug, or cosmetic, but all labels " and other written, printed, and graphic matter, in any form whatsoever."

4. The bill substitutes government by regulation for government by law. This is dangerous to the industries affected and establishes a precedent dangerous to all other industries and to our form of Government. The aides pro-vided for the Secretary of Agriculture in drafting regulations are all appointed. by the administration and responsible to the administration and in no wise safeguard the industries concerned and the public served by them against one-man government.

5. The administration of the proposed law unquestionably would restrict the manufacture, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics which should not be restricted. This would reduce the volume of production and distribution in the industries affected. This would decrease employment, lower wages, and retard business recovery, which Congress and the administration are endeavoring to promote through the enforcement of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Very respectfully,

President.

PAUL PEARSON,
ASA V. BURDINE,

Secretary. E. C. BROK MEYER, General Counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Hugo Mock, 10 East. Fortieth Street, New York City, representing the Associated Manu-facturers of Toilet Articles.

STATEMENT OF HUGO MOCK, NEW YORK CITY, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURERS OF TOILET ARTICLES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I had the honor of representing this association upon the occasion of the previous hearing. A brief on behalf of the association was filed at that time.. There were about six particulars in that brief in which we asked that Senate bill 1944 be amended. I am pleased to inform this com-

mittee that about 5 out of those 6 changes were made, and I had the confident expectation that the last change would also be made, and that particular change I wish to call to your attention first. I have here the minutes of that hearing and I want to call to your attention a brief paragraph.

Dr. Beal yesterday objected to the wording of section 5 on page 6, and it was your own suggestion, Senator Copeland, that before the word "user" there should be inserted the word "average."

My own suggestion, before I heard you speak, was the word "ordinary." I refer to section 5, page 7-A.

A cosmetic shall be deemed to be adulterated—

(a) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance in such quantity as may render it injurious to the user under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are. customary or usual.

That is the same language as appeared. It is very similar to the language of 1944. Senator Copeland said at that time that he was willing to insert the word "average."

Now, I do not claim that there was any breach of faith. I think the word has been omitted merely by inadvertence.

-66

Senator MURPHY. Pardon me. Where would you put the word "in? average

Mr. Mock. Before the word "user", it would read "injurious to the average user ", in line 5.

Senator MURPHY. On page 7?

Mr. Mock. Yes. And now the reason why we would like to have that word "average" is because there are some products, not many products, but some products made by members of this association which have found a wide acceptance for many years. I refer specifically to such products as depilatories. Now, no satisfactory depilatories are on the market except those containing sulphides. These are samples of the same [handing samples to the Senator]. This particular product which I hand you has been on the market for about 50 years. And there is no definition of the word "poisonous " or " deleterious" in this paragraph. It might be very well said that this substance is poisonous or deleterious, but it doesn't hurt the average users. It has been sold in millions of packages. I may say that it is used very largely for taking away the hair under the arm and for depilatory purposes generally. If the manufacturers knew a better way of making depilatories they would be very glad to use it. The other ways are much more dangerous. Electrolysis and X-rays are much more dangerous, and we feel that the purpose of the act would be fully conserved if the word "average" were inserted before the word "users."

Senator MURPHY. In your experience have you found that this has been harmful to anybody, to any user?

Mr. Mock. It will sometimes cause irritation. May I ask your indulgence and read a paragraph of a very beautiful volume called -66 One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs ", one of our best sellers. I read this because this is not particularly favorable to the manufacturers of cosmetics, and I would like to read to you what they say about these particular products.

"The chemical depilatories that dissolve excessive hair are not quite so innnocent. These are in liquid, powdered, or paste form, made dangerous

because they depend for their action on the power of the drug to dissolve hair", says the American Medical Association. "As the structure of the hair is practically identical with the structure of the outer skin, anything that is powerful enough to destroy one may injure the other. Used properly and only occasionally on not too sensitive a skin, they are fairly safe, but it is considered psychologically bad and not good business practice for the manufacturers to put warnings on labels or wrappers that chemical acids, berium, or calcium sulphide is in many cases used too often if left on the skin too long."

Now, this is not a dangerous product in the sense that it doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't cause death, it doesn't cause serious injuries. It sometimes causes inconvenience, depending upon the skin of the user. It may be called one of the products referred to by Mr. Thompson where there is a hypersensitivity in certain cases. These products have been on the market for many years. The manufacturers in this industry would like to continue to sell them. They think they should be permitted to do so, and for that reason we submit that the word "average" should be inserted before the word "user."

I may say there is another reason why we want that word in. There is a new industry, very popular, throughout the United States, and that is to sue manufacturers of nationally advertised articles. I refer not only to cosmetics but to drugs and to food products. They will sue on the slightest pretext. There isn't a manufacturer in this room that has not every year some suits of that kind. If these particular products are pronounced in any way dangerous, it is an encouragement for multiplying litigation of that kind.

There has been numerous mention by people here made to palliation. Section 8, paragraph a, on page 10, and substantially the same article, section 9, paragraph a, of page 15, refer to that. I do not intend to take up the time of the committee in bringing in the numerous changes on that, but as manufacturers of cosmetics we are also interested in this because some of the products we manufacture have a drug in them.

Now, I think I can very simply explain the origin of this particular paragraph, section a, which provides in substance that if an article is not a cure it is a palliative and must be so stated.

Now the benevolent persons that drew this bill-and I use the word "benevolent" seriously and earnestly-had in the drafting of that particular article such articles in mind as cough remedies and liniments which are clearly palliatives. I presume that in at least 99 percent of the cases where a cough remedy is used, where it helps, it helps the symptoms but it does not remove the cause of the disease. Now that paragraph would fit cough remedies beautifully but there are hundreds of other cases where it does not fit.

Now the manufacturers represented by this association make deodorants. Deodorants are used principally by ladies to prevent the evidence of excessive sweating. The liquids used for that purpose are mild, they are beneficial. They, as a product, have found a wide acceptance.

Now the last thing in the world a manufacturer of a deodorant would want to do would be to cure the sweating, because he doesn't want to. He does not want to stop the operation of the sweat glands of the skin, he only wants to remove the unpleasant evidences.

mittee that about 5 out of those 6 changes were made, and I had the confident expectation that the last change would also be made, and that particular change I wish to call to your attention first. I have here the minutes of that hearing and I want to call to your attention a brief paragraph.

Dr. Beal yesterday objected to the wording of section 5 on page 6, and it was your own suggestion, Senator Copeland, that before the word "user" there should be inserted the word "average."

My own suggestion, before I heard you speak, was the word "ordinary." I refer to section 5, page 7-A.

A cosmetic shall be deemed to be adulterated

(a) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance in such quantity as may render it injurious to the user under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are. customary or usual.

That is the same language as appeared. It is very similar to the language of 1944. Senator Copeland said at that time that he was willing to insert the word "average."

Now, I do not claim that there was any breach of faith. I think the word has been omitted merely by inadvertence.

Senator MURPHY. Pardon me. Where would you put the word -66 average" in?

Mr. Mock. Before the word "user", it would read "injurious to the average user ", in line 5.

Senator MURPHY. On page 7?

Mr. Mock. Yes. And now the reason why we would like to have that word "average" is because there are some products, not many products, but some products made by members of this association which have found a wide acceptance for many years. I refer specifically to such products as depilatories. Now, no satisfactory depilatories are on the market except those containing sulphides. These are samples of the same [handing samples to the Senator]. This particular product which I hand you has been on the market for about 50 years. And there is no definition of the word "poisonous " or " deleterious" in this paragraph. It might be very well said that this substance is poisonous or deleterious, but it doesn't hurt the average users. It has been sold in millions of packages. I may say that it is used very largely for taking away the hair under the arm and for depilatory purposes generally. If the manufacturers knew a better way of making depilatories they would be very glad to use it. The other ways are much more dangerous. Electrolysis and X-rays are much more dangerous, and we feel that the purpose of the act would be fully conserved if the word "average" were inserted before the word users."

66

Senator MURPHY. In your experience have you found that this has been harmful to anybody, to any user?

Mr. Mock. It will sometimes cause irritation. May I ask your indulgence and read a paragraph of a very beautiful volume called "One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs ", one of our best sellers. I read this because this is not particularly favorable to the manufacturers of cosmetics, and I would like to read to you what they say about these particular products.

"The chemical depilatories that dissolve excessive hair are not quite so innnocent. These are in liquid, powdered, or paste form, made dangerous

because they depend for their action on the power of the drug to dissolve hair", says the American Medical Association. "As the structure of the hair is practically identical with the structure of the outer skin, anything that is powerful enough to destroy one may injure the other. Used properly and only occasionally on not too sensitive a skin, they are fairly safe, but it is considered psychologically bad and not good business practice for the manufacturers to put warnings on labels or wrappers that chemical acids, berium, or calcium sulphide is in many cases used too often if left on the skin too long."

Now, this is not a dangerous product in the sense that it doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't cause death, it doesn't cause serious injuries. It sometimes causes inconvenience, depending upon the skin of the user. It may be called one of the products referred to by Mr. Thompson where there is a hypersensitivity in certain cases. These products have been on the market for many years. The manufacturers in this industry would like to continue to sell them. They think they should be permitted to do so, and for that reason we submit that the word "average" should be inserted before the word "user."

I may say there is another reason why we want that word in. There is a new industry, very popular, throughout the United States, and that is to sue manufacturers of nationally advertised articles. I refer not only to cosmetics but to drugs and to food products. They will sue on the slightest pretext. There isn't a manufacturer in this room that has not every year some suits of that kind. If these particular products are pronounced in any way dangerous, it is an encouragement for multiplying litigation of that kind.

There has been numerous mention by people here made to palliation. Section 8, paragraph a, on page 10, and substantially the same article, section 9, paragraph a, of page 15, refer to that. I do not intend to take up the time of the committee in bringing in the numerous changes on that, but as manufacturers of cosmetics we are also interested in this because some of the products we manufacture have a drug in them.

Now, I think I can very simply explain the origin of this particular paragraph, section a, which provides in substance that if an article is not a cure it is a palliative and must be so stated.

Now the benevolent persons that drew this bill-and I use the word "benevolent " seriously and earnestly-had in the drafting of that particular article such articles in mind as cough remedies and liniments which are clearly palliatives. I presume that in at least 99 percent of the cases where a cough remedy is used, where it helps, it helps the symptoms but it does not remove the cause of the disease. Now that paragraph would fit cough remedies beautifully but there are hundreds of other cases where it does not fit.

Now the manufacturers represented by this association make deodorants. Deodorants are used principally by ladies to prevent the evidence of excessive sweating. The liquids used for that purpose are mild, they are beneficial. They, as a product, have found a wide acceptance.

Now the last thing in the world a manufacturer of a deodorant would want to do would be to cure the sweating, because he doesn't want to. He does not want to stop the operation of the sweat glands of the skin, he only wants to remove the unpleasant evidences.