On August 4, 1933, the National Wholesale Grocers' Association and the American Wholesale Grocers' Associatoin were merged at a meeting held in the City of Washington. One of the purposes of this merger was to bring about a united front in the wholesale grocery industry in its operations under the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

The National Wholesale Grocers' Association, one of the constituent organizations in the present merged Association was organized in 1906 prior to the enactment of the original Food and Drugs Act. One of the first official acts of the National Wholsale Grocers' Association was to communicate to President Theodore Roosevelt and the leaders in Congress its endorsement and approval of a pure food law which would afford greater protection to consumers and to honest manufacturers and distributors throughout the country. Following the enactment of the Federal statute and for more than 26 years the National Wholesale Grocers' Association has devoted its efforts to urging enactment of State pure food statutes uniform with the Federal Food and Drugs Act, and as we know, in a vast majority of cases our State food laws are substantially uniform with the Federal Food and Drugs Act. Since its organization, the National Wholesale Grocers' Association consistently and constantly has urged enactment of food laws prohibiting adultoration and misbranding of food, not only in the interest of the consumer but as a protection to the honest manufacturer and distributor against the activities of unscrupulous competitors. So that it truthfully can be said that the National Wholesale Grocers' Association favors enactment and enforcement of pure food laws.

At this point, and in order to clarify the position of the wholesale grocer, it should be said that, while the association never has opposed the enactment of statutes or the adoption of regulations which would prohibit adulteration and misbranding, nevertheless the organization has continued throughout this long period of years to express its opposition to the enactment of measures which would unnecessarily burden the business of the interstate shipper of foods without affording any greater protection to the consuming public.

The present statute enacted in 1906 has been of great benefit to the public and the legitimate honest manufacturer. While the law may have its defects, it has, to a very great extent, eliminated many forms of adulteration and misbranding, and it has succeeded in placing in the hands of the housewife more wholesome food products bearing more honest labels. In the recent report of the Food and Drug Administration it is stated that, since 1906 more than 22,000 actions under the law have been concluded.

In the reports of congressional committees on the original Food and Drugs Act we find that it was one of the principal objects of the bill to prohibit the manufacture of food containing foreign substances poisonous or deleterious to the health of our people. The House committee in its report said:

"The purpose of the pending measures is not to compel people to consume particular kinds of food. It is not to compel manufacturers to produce particular kinds or grades of food." We feel that it is not the intention of the present Congress to compel our people to consume particular kinds of food, nor to compel manufacturers to produce particular kinds or grades of food

While we are not here to object to or oppose the underlying principles of the pending bill, we feel that in many respects the provisions of the measure are vague and indefinite and subject to misinterpretation. Unquestionably, these provisions should be clarified, since the bill deals with a subject of vital interest to the entire Nation. A few illustrations will suffice to make clear what we have in mind:

1. Section 2, (e) defines the term "interstate commerce" to include commerce between any State or territory and any place outside

thereof. This section is an attempt to legislate for the entire world, and it would result in serious loss and damage to producers, packers, and distributors engaged in export trade. Packers and distributors in this country now prepare and label their products to comply with the requirements of the foreign countries to which they ship. If these producers and distributors are to retain such export trade as they now have they must meet requirements of the foreign countries to which they ship their merchandise. We respectfully urge, therefore, that the provisions of the existing statute as respects interstate commerce be retained.

2. Section 3 of the measure provides that a food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it is or may be dangerous to health. We must admit that there are types of wholesome and unadulterated food products which may be dangerous to the "health" of certain individuals, but which are not in any respect "dangerous" insofar as the public health is concerned.

3. Section 6, paragraph (a), provides that food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its label "by ambiguity or inference creates a misleading impression"; and paragraph (c) of the same section provides that food shall be deemed misbranded if any information on the label is not "in such terms as to be readily intelligible to the purchasers and users of such articles under customary conditions of purchase and use." These provisions are entirely too broad, and in numerous instances would require manufacturers and distributors to label their products down to the intelligence (?) of those who might infer anything from a label. We should bear in mind that in certain sections of this country, particularly those that have a very large foreign population, thousands of consumers are unable to read any label printed in the English language.

4. Under the provisions of section 7, paragraph (f), food would be deemed misbranded if it were a product for which no definition of identity had been prescribed, and the label failed to bear the common and usual name of each ingredient thereof in order of predominance by weight. This provision would require many wholesome food products packed under ideal conditions and sold under their own distinctive names to be labeled so as to indicate each ingredient. The effect of this provision would be to require many manufacturers and wholesalers to disclose to competitors the private formula for their products. The provision would absolutely destroy the valuable goodwill built up over a long period of years, and at great expense in many wholesome food products.

5. In section 9, an advertisement of a food product would be deemed to be false if "by ambiguity or inference" it created a misleading impression. We do not in any respect defend false or misleading advertising of any product, yet the provisions of section 9 in this respect are so broad as to restrict the legitimate activities of advertisers to such an extent that they would be compelled, in many cases, to write their advertising down to the intelligence of those who would not be inference get a misleading impression regarding the advertising of the product.

6. Section 11 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to fix, establish and promulgate definitions of identity and standards of quality, and fill of container for any product. In this connection, section 7 provides that a food shall be deemed misbranded if it fail to indicate on

the label (if so required by the regulations), a standard of quality in such terms as the regulations may specify.

Here again it must be stated that we hold no brief for stubstandard food products.

The latest expression of Congress as respects food standards is contained in what is known as the McNary-Mapes amendment of the Food and Drugs Act, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a reasonable standard of quality for each class of canned food. This statute specifically provides that "the word 'class' means and is limited to a generic product for which a standard is to be established and does not mean a grade, variety, or species of a generic product."

The subject of standards and grades for food products will be discussed thoroughly by others representing the trade, and we will not review this phase of the subject in this memorandum.

7. Section 12 of the measure provides that whenever the Secretary of Agriculture finds that the distribution in interstate commerce of any class of food may, by reason of conditions surrounding the manufacture, processing, or packing thereof, be injurious to health, he is authorized to require manufacturers, processors, and packers to hold permits. We respectfully urge that this section be so changed as to provide that whenever the Secretary finds that distribution of any product shall be injurious to the public health, he may require permits,

etc.

8. Under the provisions of section 17, paragraph (6) (e), no dealer would be prosecuted insofar as penalties are concerned if he could establish a guaranty from the person from whom he received the article of food to the effect that such person assumes full responsibility for any violation of the act.

We respectfully urge that the provisions of section 9 of the existing Federal Food and Drugs Act be retained to the effect that no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of the act when he can establish a guaranty from the seller to the effect that the product is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the act.

9. Sec tion 24 provides that a right of action for damages shall accrue to any person for injury or death proximately caused by violation of the act. This section should be considered in conjunction with section 3, which provides that a food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it may be dangerous to health.

If enacted in this form the bill would encourage and promote what now has become a "racket." Legitimate manufacturers constantly are faced with fraudulent claims of those who allege that they have been injured by consumption of food products, and this section of the bill would result in an increase in these fraud cases. The law as to liability for personal injuries is well settled and established, not only by statute but also by the decisions of the courts.

10. Section 26 of the bill provides that "This act shall take effect 6 months after the date of approval."

Food manufacturers and wholesale grocers purchase many of their products long in evidence of their distribution and sale. Labels, cartons, and other containers are prepared and purchased long in advance of their use. At the present time millions of dollars are invested in the labels, cartons, and other containers of food manufactures and wholesale distributors. Six months' time is wholly

inadequate within which to dispose of food products and labels, cartons, and packages on hand.

When the Gould weight- or measure-branding amendment of the present statute was enacted it specifically allowed, in section 2, 18 months after passage of the statute within which to dispose of merchandise on hand.

We respectfully urge, therefore, that section 26 of the pending bill be amended so as to provide at least 18 months within which to dispose of products on hand.

CONCLUSIONS

Section 26 of the bill would repeal the existing Federal Food and Drugs Act.

The existence of the Federal Food and Drugs Act has been justified not only by the work of the Department of Agriculture in enforcement-22,000 actions concluded since 1906-but also by the vast improvement in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of food products. If, under the present statute, serious abuses exist in the food industry which it is not possible to control surely we should not disregard all that has been accomplished in the way of enforcement and interpretation by the courts since 1906. If amendment of the statute as respects food is necessary, there is no real reason for repealing the entire statute as respects food products.

Senator COPELAND. We will hear now from Dr. John F. Anderson, of the E. R. Squibb & Sons, of New York City.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN F. ANDERSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, NEW YORK CITY

Dr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee on commerce, my name is John F. Anderson. I am a physician, a vice president of E. R. Squibb & Sons, of New York City, and director of the research and biological laboratories of that company. I appear before this subcommittee to present the results of a careful study and analysis conducted by E. R. Squibb & Sons of the provisions of S. 1944, introduced by Senator Copeland.

E. R. Squibb & Sons are manufacturers of medicinal products, including many important chemical and biological agents, as, for example, ether, insulin, antitoxins, cod liver oil and vitamin concentrates and similar preparations. The company also manufactures so-called "household products and cosmetics" among the more familiar of which are dental cream, shaving cream, and bicarbonate of soda.

Study of the general purposes of the proposed bill as well as of its specific provisions was made in the light of the knowledge and familiarity with the drug industry as a whole which the staff of E. R. Squibb & Sons possesses. As a result of this study, which necessarily involved a consideration of former legislation on these subjects, E. R. Squibb & Sons have reached the definite conclusion that the proposed legislation, in its general purposes as well as in perhaps most of its specific provisions, should be adopted as a measure for the better protection of the public health. We believe, however, that there are certain provisions in the bill as now proposed which are, and can be shown to be, inapt or unnecessary to accomplish the purposes of the bill, and that they should either be removed or altered

to the end that a law capable of enforcement and respected in its observance be enacted.

There have been, and probably always will be, certain abuses in connection with the distribution of drugs and medicinal preparations. The extent of these abuses, however, and the changing conditions surrounding the distribution of these preparations are such that, in our judgment, new and comprehensive legislation should be adopted to limit them. The so-called "Food and Drugs Act of 1906" was the first step in this direction and though it brought great benefits to the public health it is abundantly apparent that additional legislation is now required to deal with matters untouched by that law and to make more effective the administration of the law which appears to us necessary to meet new conditions.

Perhaps the most important single feature in which the proposed legislation varies from the present law is the express limitation of advertising, a subject which is not dealt with in the present law. Many of the vices which the present law tended to correct in respect of labeling have cropped up in the form of general advertising. There would appear to be no sound reason why false or misleading advertising of foods, drugs, and cosmetics should not be covered by law as well as false or misleading labeling, since a campaign of advertising may very readily be designed to supply any lack of claims in the statements contained on the label of a product. Not only are the most extravagant claims being asserted but a type of advertising has grown up built upon the prevalence and consequences of certain diseases whose object has been deliberately to mislead the public into believing the products advertised are cures for such diseases, when in fact their real effect, to say the least, is nil. To a very important extent newspapers and periodicals have been the censors of their own advertising but there are still a number of outlets by which the quack and the fraud can advertise his preparations to the public. Even reputable manufacturers under the stress of competition at times have felt it necessary in order to compete effectively with others, to resort to the use of extravagant, unjustified, or misleading statements respecting their preparations.

Some reasonable limitations and restrictions on this type of advertising could only have a salutary effect. It is therefore our view that is is advisable that some legislation in this field be encated. We therefore suggest only certain comparatively slight modifications in the proposed legislation dealing with advertising which will, we believe, leave the proposed bill free to deal effectively with at least most of the abuses which now exist and at the same time to include nothing which would impair the right of any honest manufacturer to advertise his products fully and fairly.

Before passing to a consideration of the specific provisions of the bill, we think it will be helpful if we refer to certain general matters connected with the bill. The first of these is the suggestion which has been encountered to the effect that it will be more advisable to seek an amendment of the present law rather than to enact an entirely new law. The argument in this regard is not without weight, since it points out that the present law makes provision for the outright repeal of the act of 1906, under which so much progress has been made and under which many helpful interpretative decisions of the courts have been rendered. The present law was itself amended on a number of