We would not fight a war with the antiquated weapons of 1906, we would not care to make a journey in a 1906-model automobile, and few of us would care to keep house with 1906 facilities. We have been expecting 1933 Federal officials to adequately protect from adulterated and false food and drugs a 1933 population assailed by true and false advertising printed and spoken word, with a 1906 law, framed at a time before radio, talkies and printed advertising had reached the peak now attained.

For 14 years, I have been closely associated with the enforcement of the State food and drug laws, and I am well aware as you are that even with constant reminders, the public buy drug products and cosmetics in particular more from their advertised claims than from any statements made on their labels.

To determine the effectiveness of the present law in all its inadequacy, I ask you only to compare the labels of some well-known "patent" medicine with its radio or magazine advertising.

The other night a radio speaker stated plainly that a certain soap "would grow new skin" on the user's face. Such fabrication is really ridiculous, and almost laughable if it were not for the deep tragedies similar statements cause.

I want to quote again from Dr. Martin's very interesting paper, The Art of Living, where he touches on just advertisement as it covers a single class of drug products:

"Ever since Lister published his discoveries concerning antiseptics, their effects and mode of action have been distorted in the public mind by the cupidity of commercial interests. Unscrupulous advertisement has misled the public and caused them to attribute powers of both cure and prevention to substances containing antiseptics that cannot be realized. In that way people are led to assume unwarranted risk and exposure expecting antiseptics to provide protection. It must be thoroughly understood that a germ must be brought into direct contact with antiseptic agents before it can in any way affect them. It must be remembered too, that germs are also endowed with the divine faculties of self-preservation. They do not come out in open places and invite themselves to slaughter. On the contrary, they hide in the obscure and hidden recesses of the body that are invisible even to the microscopic eye. They fortify themselves in fortresses of fatty tissues that is inpenetratable to aqueous solutions, thereby rendering some of our noblest efforts at antiseptics futile. This situation can best be illustrated by the example of a farmer spraying his barn to exterminate the rats. All aqueous solutions of antiseptics are of either doubtful value or have none whatever. Killing germs in vitro (test tube) and in vivo (body tissue) are two vastly different problems. Any reliance upon antiseptics without due consideration of ways and means of establishing the necessary contact is doomed to failure and may lead to fatal consequences. After all, there is only one antiseptic in which complete reliance can be found and that is heat. A temperature of 160° F., or more. Next to that, the factor of safety deserving the greatest degree of confidence in the basic rules of cleanliness typified in soap and water and vigorous application.' The present Federal Food and Drug Law, does not in any way cover cosmetics and that vast army of users of such products are made victims of their own harmless and pleasant vanity coupled with unscrupulousness of a minority of manufacturers of this class of products. The consumer at present is helpless, there is no source of information available for their guidance and I can vouch for their avid interest since I have come in direct contact in a number of States with women's organizations. The women are the users of cosmetics and as the representative of that great branch of consumers, I can only urge that Congress through the enactment of S.1944, afford some protection to our health, our looks, and our pocket books.

In the present law, the definition of drugs does not include a vast army of mechanical, electrical, and statis devices advertised for sale as treatments of all types of conditions and diseases from double chins to diabetes.

Only last year an enterprising concern with offices in all the large cities of the country was selling and may still be selling an electric belt. One sat within its circumference and could, in accordance with their literature and newspaper and radio advertisement be successfully treated for "Asthma" through "Varicose Veins", and alphabetical list of 27 diseases. This utterly valueless apparatus sold for $67.50 cash or $75 on time. At the present time there is no law preventing the sale of such trash. Only the depression has had any effect on the sales.

Another simple electric heater, such as is sold for heating the shaving water or the baby's bottle, was offered for sale as an electrifier of water which would give such magical properties to a glass of water so heated, that a hopeless invalid for 30 years could be cured of a bone deformity. Such frauds and chiselers of our

money and hopes will be prevented from operation by the enactment of this bill, S. 1944.

State food and drug laws in many instances are patterned after the present Federal law. The proposed bill makes little change in the basic principles as they affect foods except to strengthen the Federal law, and in fact bring it more in line with the provisions of many State laws.

There are few States actively engaged in the enforcement of the drug portions of their State laws, due mainly to lack of appropriations as well as to the fact that the great majority of packaged drug products are sold in interstate commerce and as such is subject to the Federal law. Many times it has been brought forcibly to my attention that our State laws are only so strong in enforcement as our Federal Laws are interpreted, regardless of the fact that our State laws are in many instances stronger and more forceful in language. State courts are very apt to balk at interpretations contrary to decisions under a somewhat similar Federal law, and few States have the funds to build up a case to be fought through the final courts. The strengthening and broadening of the Federal law as it applies to the drugs and advertising will go far to clear the markets of all States of fraudulent products and the passage of this bill, S. 1944 will be hailed by State health and food officials as evidenced by quoted expressions of opinion from such officials, attached to this statement.

The Association of Food, Drug, and Dairy Officials of the United States adopted a resolution approving the proposed bill in September of this year at their annual meeting in Milwaukee.

The Association of Food and Health Officials of the Ohio Valley passed a resolution approving the bill in detail and urging its passage at their quarterly meeting in October 1933.

The individual members of the South Central States Association of Food, Feed, Drug, and Health Officials have authorized me as their president, to submit their statements urging favorable action by this committee and the need for passage of this bill.

Health officials, State food commissioners, and State agricultural departments have added their approval of the bill and are urging its passage.

The State Board of Health of Kentucky, in its monthly bulletin, makes this final statement in an article discussing the proposed act, S. 1944.

"There is no valid reason anywhere why the proposed legislation should not become law; there are many and compelling reasons why it should. It is necessary for the proper protection alike of the consumer and of the honest manufacturer and dealer-the former, in his health and his economic welfare; the latter, against unfair and dishonest competition."

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY The Ohio Valley CONFERENCe of Food, Drug and HEALTH OFFICIALS, AT ITS REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1933, AT CINCINNATI, OHIO

Whereas, by direction of the President of the United States the Department of Agriculture has prepared a bill, designed to supplant the present food and drugs act, which has been introduced in the Senate as Senate bill 1944; and

Whereas, nearly 27 years enforcement of the Federal food and drugs act revealed many deficiencies in its provisions through wich serious abuses of the public health and the consumer's purse arise; and

Whereas, the United States Department of Agriculture, with the approval of the President of the United States, has prepared a bill which was introduced in Congress by Senator Copeland as Senate bill 1944, designed to correct these abuses by strengthening and extending the present law in the following particulars: (1) Prevention of false advertising of foods, drugs and cosmetics; (2) Prevention of traffic in poisonous cosmetics;

(3) Establishment of safe tolerances for added poisons in food;

(4) Establishment of legally binding definitions and standards for foods;

(5) Power to require permits for manufacture of potentially dangerous products when public health cannot otherwise be safeguarded;

(6) Prevention of curative claims for drugs when such claims are contrary to the general agreement of medical opinion;

(7) Requirement for definitely informative labels for food and drugs; and (8) Power to protect the public health from future products and practices which may prove dangerous.

Whereas, the Ohio Valley Conference of Food, Drug, and Health Officials has consistently endorsed legislation to protect public welfare through safeguarding the purity and truthful representation of food and drugs, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Ohio Valley Conference of Food, Drug, and Health Officials endorse Senate bill 1944 and that every effort be made to secure the enactment of this bill during the forthcoming session of Congress.

STATEMENT COVERING SENATE BILL 1944 AS PUBLISHED BY THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH OF KENTUCKY IN THE BULLETIN OF THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DECEMBER 1933, VOLUME 6, No. 5

MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUG ACT

The present Federal Food and Drug Act became law in 1906. It was designed, primarily, to safeguard the consuming public against deception and fraud in the sale of foods and drugs passing in interstate commerce.

That the enactment has been productive of incalculable good does not admit of rational argument. It has operated to prevent the sale of many and various goods dangerous to the public health. It has, to a large degree, served to correct many cases of flagrant deception in the labeling of drug products.

Equally evident is it that the law, as it now stands, is grossly inadequate for the proper protection either of the public health or the consumer's purse. Twenty-seven years of enforcement have revealed many weaknesses in the statute which defeat full accomplishment of its purpose. Some of these weaknesses are inherent in the original limitations of the law itself; others have grown out of changed and changing conditions. Both the food and drug industries have expanded tremendously since 1906. The intervening 27 years have witnessed a gradual transfer, throughout the Nation, of food preparation from the kitchen to the factory. Methods of transportation and advertising, particularly the latter, have changed enormously. New provisions are required to meet the new conditions.

The Department of Agriculture, at the direction of the President, has drafted a bill designed to plug the loopholes in the existing law and to modernize it, to the end that it may prove a more effective instrument against present-day abuses. This new draft was introduced in the upper Chamber of Congress last June by Senator Royal S. Copeland of New York, and is known as "S. 1944." While preserving all the worthy features of the present law, it strengthens and extends the existing enactment in many important particulars. Among these are:

JURISDICTION OVER FALSE ADVERTISING

Many foods and drugs carry no false statements on their packages, but their advertising is blatantly misleading. Legal actions against false labels result merely, under the law as it now exists, in correcting the labels; continued deception of consumers may be and often is accomplished by advertising the false claims formerly made on the labels.

INCLUSION OF COSMETICS

The health of many persons is impaired by poisonous cosmetics. for the popularizing of which false labels and deceptive advertising are frequently and largely employed. The present law has no jurisdiction over cosmetics. The bill now pending will correct these evils.

BETTER CONTROL OF POISONOUS FOODS

The present law contains no provision against poisons in foods, unless the poisons are added. The bill now pending prohibits the sale of dangerous foods, regardless of whether the hazard is caused by added poisons or otherwise. As the law now stands, the testimony of expert toxicologists must be introduced, in every case, to show that the quantity of added poison is such as may be harmful to health. The proposed legislation authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish, upon expert advice, safe tolerances for added poisons in foods.

MORE ADEQUATE CONTROL OF FALSE CURATIVE CLAIMS FOR drugs Many persons are influenced by false curative claims for drugs to postpone or discontinue rational treatment for serious diseases. Frequently, the disease is thus permitted to progress to a point where illness becomes protracted or untimely

death follows. As the law now stands, there is no control over false curative claims in advertising. Even in establishing the case against such claims in labeling which, like advertising, is subject to the present law, the Government must show not only that the claims are false, but that the manufacturer knows they are false. Public protection against this evil is, therefore, inadequate because proof of a manufacturer's actual state of mind is practically impossible to establish. The pending bill prohibits false curative claims in both labeling and advertising. Under it, the Government would not be required to show that the manufacturer knows they are false. Neither would it be required to prove that the therapeutic claims are "false and fraudulent"; it need only establish that · claims are contrary to the general agreement of medical opinion.

FULLY INFORMATIVE LABELING OF FOODS AND DRUGS

The existing law, while prohibiting false labeling, does not require the manufacturer to state the whole truth as to what his product is. The pending bill requires that foods be labeled with their common names and that drugs be labeled with the common name of each therapeutic or physiologically active ingredient. This is simply an expression of the right of the consumer to know what he is eating and what he is taking for his ills.

There is no valid reason anywhere why the proposed legislation should not become law; there are many and compelling reasons why it should. It is necessary for the proper protection alike of the consumer and of honest manufacturer and dealer-the former, in his health and his economic welfare; the latter, against unfair and dishonest competition.

STATEMENTS OF OFFICIALS AND INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE PASSAGE OF S-1944

From C. A. Harper, M.D., State health officer, State Board of Health, Wisconsin:

"I am familiar with Senate bill 1944, and fully in accord with its contents. It will be a godsend if we can get a national food and drug act that will hold up and be in force throughout the United States."

From Jane H. Rider, director of the Arizona State Laboratories, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.:

"In Arizona we are particularly interested in Senate bill 1944, since the regulations relative to foods passed by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture automatically become effective in Arizona. We also hope to interest the State board of barbers and cosmeticians in the features of the bill that regulate the traffic in poisonous cosmetics."

From Verne K. Harvey, M.D., director division of public health, department of commerce and industry, State of Indiana:

"We realize that every person interested in public health should put forth an honest effort to get the new Federal food and drug bill passed."

From H. H. Hanson, State chemist, State board of agriculture, Dover, Del.: "All food officials should unite in assisting to strengthen the existing Federal food and drug laws. The bill known as the Copeland Bill, S. 1944, has been very carefully prepared, and if passed and approved, would seem to me to be a long step in advance over the present statute.

From E. L. Redfern, chief chemist, State of Iowa, department of agriculture: "I can assure you that I heartily endorse the resolutions of the Ohio Valley Conference, and I am in hopes that Congress will pass S. 1944 this winter, with as few modifications as possible."

From Ray Murray, secretary, department of agriculture, State of Iowa:

"I can assure you that the division of dairy and food, which is under my personal supervision in this State, heartily concurs in the resolutions as adopted by the Ohio Valley Conference, endorsing S-1944."

From A. M. G. Soule, chief of the division of inspection, department of agriculture, State of Maine:

"As food officials, we should make every endeavor to have Congress recognize and pass the proposed new Federal food and drug bill, and you may be assured that I will work to that end."

From W. M. Allen, food and oil chemist, North Carolina department of agriculture:

"We have looked into Senate bill 1944, and find it is what we feel ought to be passed by Congress, and personally I am going to do all that I can to urge the passage of this bill."

J. D. Mickle, division chief, division of foods and dairies, department of agriculture, State of Oregon:

"In regard to the passage of United States Senate bill 1944, I am deeply interested in the passage of this act and pledge you I will do all within my power to urge the Senators and Representatives of the State of Oregon to vote for the bill."

From Guy G. Frary, State chemist, State Chemical Laboratory, South Dakota:

"I need not tell you that I am fully in sympathy with the proposed revision of the National Food and Drug Act. I feel that we need to secure the enactment of this bill without any serious changes in its contents."

From E. C. Koerth, director of the bureau of food and drugs, State department of health, State of Texas:

"I want to state that I am heartily in accord with the provisions of Senate Bill 1944, and am hopeful of its passage."

From George H. Marsh, supervisor of the division of agricultural chemistry, department of agriculture and industries, State of Alabama:

"We have studied the new Federal Food and Drug Act S-1944. We consider it an excellent piece of legislation. It is in keeping with the times, a progressive act which will enable the Federal Food and Drug Administration to cope with the changes which have come about since the enactment of the present Food and Drug Act, which was passed in 1906. The new act will be of much valuein controlling some of the dangerous advertising which is going on throughout this country on foods, drugs, and cosmetics, which badly need to be controlled. "We have worked under the Food and Drug Act of 1906 for more than a quarter of a century and there have been untold benefits derived as a result of this work. The present Food and Drug Act of 1906 was a wonderful piece of legislation when it was enacted, but things have changed during the last 25 years in this country, as well as throughout the world.

"There has been a complete revolution in the industrial world in processes and methods of manufacturing which had never been dreamed of when the Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed. In the new common place practices, naturally it is not possible to cope with these new processes and methods, practiced under the present Food and Drug Act.

"The several States' Food and Drug Laws, are fashioned after the Federal Food and Drug Act of 1906, which is for the sake of uniformity in the enforcement of food and drug laws. A new food and drug act such as S-1944, would strengthen the food and drug law in practically all of the States. We consider the passage of the new Federal Food and Drug Act, a much needed piece of constructive legislation and we hope that Congress will see fit to pass it at as early a date as possible after convening in its next session."

W. F. Hand, State chemist, department of chemistry, Mississippi State College: Those who are familiar with the present Food and Drug Law and who have had an opportunity of studying the clear and inclusive requirements of the new legislation proposed will be particularly impressed with the excellent use which has been made of the precepts of a long and successful experience in food law administration.

"The fine pioneering work of a generation ago is now in urgent need of revision and extension to bring it in closer harmony with social and industrial change. It cannot but be admitted that this undertaking has been thoroughly accomplished in the Copeland bill which will become, if enacted, a trustworthy guardian of the public health and an assurance of fair trade practices and policies in the food and drugs industries."

J. W. Sample, superintendent and State chemist, Nashville, Tenn.:

"Present food and drug law inadequate to protect consumers and honest manufacturers. Tugwell bill is fair to all, workable, and fills long-felt need. Will greatly strengthen State food and health departments. Bill as a whole heartily approved by Tennessee Food and Drug Administration."

From Arling Gardner, deputy commissioner of agriculture, department of agriculture, dairy, food, and oil division, State of Wyoming:

"I wish to assure you that this State is vitally interested in the proposed changes in our national food and drug laws. We are making our desires known relative to the proposed changes to the officials in Washington through our Wyoming Senators and Representatives."

From G. N. Bilby, M.D., State health commissioner, department of public health, State of Oklahoma: