SEC. 16. Seizure: Objection: Any specific violation as provided for regarding misbranding, adulteration, labeling, advertising, or all of them, make the manufacturer subject to heavy fine and punishment regardless of how blameless or unintentional the error may be. Officials of the United States Department of Agriculture, etc. are relieved of civil liability. SEC. 17. Penalties: Objection: The conclusion is unescapable that no matter how innocent or flagrant the violation may be the act is empowered to inflict unreasonable and inhuman penalties upon every possible violator including the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, carrier, advertiser, advertising agency, publisher or radio broadcaster, and the dissemination of any false literature or advertisement through the mail will subject the violator to aforesaid punishment. SEC. 18. Liability of Corporate Officers: Objection: The slightest infraction or omission on the part of any employee is construed as the act of a corporation and all officers of such corporation regardless of innocence are subject to fine and imprisonment for any violation. SEC. 21. Publicity: Objection: The most dangerous latitude is permitted the Secretary of Agriculture to publish, disseminate and broadcast such information regarding charges and proceeding against manufacturers as in his arbitrary discretion would work for the public health and the protection of the consumer. SEC. 24. Liability for personal injuries: Objection: The inclusion of this section regarding the right of any person to sue for alleged injuries resulting from the use of food, drugs, and cosmetics opens a wide field to harass prominent manufacturers. Giving all due credit to the gallant efforts of our President to revive American commerce, and acknowledging the undoubted ability of the Secretary of Agriculture to wisely enforce the provisions contained in this proposed act, it is yet our opinion that powers so broad and comprehensive should not be alloted to the determination of one individual, and we protest the theory of government that finds it necessary for the protection of the American consumers to ruthlessly confiscate and destroy the fruitful returns of the American manufacturers. The proposed revision of the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 not only places too much power in the hands of one individual, but in the case of subordinates such power will undoubtedly lead to the opportunity and likelihood of its abuse. The bill is objectionable further because no matter how well intended its enforcement may be it is still subject because of its vague and uncertain language to limitless interpretations, and it determines in large spheres and broad general terms, which are subject to rounding out and expanding many decisions which should be definite and detailed in character. And not the least of the objections is the fact that it denies the right of individuals and businesses to the protection of the constitutional guarantees of law and freedom which are inseparable from American tradition. As evidence of the tremendous responsibilities and autocratic decisions for which the Secretary of Agriculture will be accountable it is wise to remember among his powers are the decisions of (1) whether a food, drug, or cosmetic is or is not dangerous to health, (2) whether any product contains injurious substances or not, (3) whether labeling on any package is honest or not, (4) whether or not employees of the Department should be empowered to investigate private formulas, methods, and processes of manufacturers that have taken years to develop, (5) whether any ingredient is pure or impure, (6) whether self-medication is desirable or otherwise, (7) whether the divided medical opinion of thousands of American doctors shall be considered or whether the dictum of the Secretary of Agriculture shall be final, (8) whether an advertisement creates a "false impression" or not, (9) whether a radio broadcaster exceeds the truthful powers or not, (10) whether or not the business establishments of manufacturers should be licensed, (11) whether the accumulation of this massive power in one individual is a colossal legislative blunder or not, and (12) whether the enforcement of this proposed legislation will result in remedying the evils it professes to correct or will actually create an unwarranted destruction of capital, wages, and property. It is entirely within reason to assume that immediately upon the passage of the proposed revision of the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 the various State food and drug officials will demand that wide and arbitrary powers alloted to the Secretary of Agriculture shall be duplicated in their person, and that they will exercise every possible prerogative to enforce the most drastic interpretations possible under the revised act. The Federal Government after all has a responsibility of restraining the ill-advised acts of minor bodies, and the manufacturers of America have every reason and right to demand that no statute be adopted which will permit local organization or individuals to exercise unlimited powers within their bodies. It is a tradition of American industrial history that the cooperation of the food, drug and cosmetic manufacturers of the United States in their compliance with Federal statutes has always been a voluntary act. It is now proposed that they shall be regimented and coerced under the threats of fine and imprisonment. It is our contention that such a proposal is un-American, confiscatory, and unwise. And we protest the passage of this measure on behalf of thousands of American manufacturers, who are law abiding and constructive and desire to perpetuate the great principles of American industrial freedom. It was my recommendation at the last time we had a hearing, in May, that the Department of Agriculture submit a proposed revision of the law to all of the industries involved, and then at a later date hold a meeting, at which time an opportunity would be given to the manufacturers to make recommendations. I believe at this time, in view of the large number of amendments that have been recommended, that likewise a meeting should be held between the Department of Agriculture that represents the consumers and the manufacturers, and that they be permitted to report back with a compromised bill. The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged, Mr. Hall, Now, I presume you are going to present a brief pointing out changes which you think should be made in the bill before us? Mr. HALL. Yes. 30390-34-20 The CHAIRMAN. All right. I hold in my hand a rather interesting letter just handed to me by Senator Walcott. It comes from the Connecticut Oyster Farms Co., signed by the president, William H. Raye. Mr. Raye points out that in natural foods such elements as arsenic and copper are normally found, in sea foods particularly, and he is worried for fear there might be some percentage of tolerance formulated which would interfere. Of course, there would be no thought on the part of the Department to interfere with natural foods in this respect. This letter will be read into the record. (The letter referred to by the chairman is as follows): THE CONNECTICUT OYSTER FARMS COMPANY Growers and Shippers of Opened and Shell Oysters Hon. FREDERIC C. WALCOTT, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MILFORD, CONN., December 5, 1933. MY DEAR SENATOR WALCOTT: I am quite disturbed over the possible effect on the seafoods industry of S.B. 1944, known as the Tugwell Food and Drug Bill. The bill apparently is designed to correct some of the abuses which exist in the present Food and Drug Act, but carries so far in its scope as to practically set up arbitrary control over all foods, as well as drugs and cosmetics. In substance, it provides complete control over the food industry under sections 3, 7, 11, and 21, by giving the Food and Drug Division of the Department of Agriculture full authority to determine what may be dangerous to health, to fix standards governing the amount of toxic elements which foods may contain, and the right to prescribe labelling which, in many instances, might compel descriptive labels of such a character as would prevent the sale of the products. In short, it contemplates bureaucratic control over the entire food industry and offers too much opportunity for political tampering with the sale of seafoods. Seafoods, in their natural state, carry arsenic, copper, and other elements to a greater extent than do land products. At the present time there exists a socalled "world tolerance" for arsenic of 0.01 grain of arsenious oxide per pound of food. This standard dates back to 1900, when in England and Wales many people were made ill by the consumption of beer containing arsenic, and I believe this has been accepted as a tentative standard by the Food and Drug Division of the Department of Agriculture in their effort to regulate the use of insecticide sprays on farm products. The following table shows the quantities of arsenious oxide in grains per pound of various seafoods, from which you will note that all our common varieties of seafoods contain arsenic in excess of the so-called "world tolerance": While it is probable that the Food and Drug Division would recognize the great distinction between "added" toxic elements and such elements as arsenic and copper, when found in a natural food, nevertheless arbitrary authority granted to anybody might very well work a serious hardship upon one of our most important industries. The seafood industry ranks third in the per capita consumption of flesh foods, being exceeded only by pork and beef; it employs over 200,000 men in its various branches, and seafoods have from time immemorial been considered as healthful and as carrying many of the mineral elements which are now lacking in our land products. Our very nation itself owes its existence to the abundance of seafoods available for the early settlers, and it seems that we are moving into dangerous ground when we grant to any controlling body the right to say that seafoods are unsafe because of the elements natural to them. So far as I can learn, there is no published work to prove that natural arsenic in marine food results in any harmful physiological effect, and certainly a food which provides iodine and other mineral salts, which are lacking in land foods because of a soil deficiency occasioned by constant leaching, should not now be thrown under suspicion. Perhaps I am unduly fearful of the standards which may be fixed by the Department, but I can see no good reason for granting any such absolute authority to any single body of men. Various food industries are now competing keenly for their share of markets; every effort is being made to improve the plight of the farmer, but so far little has been done for the fisherman, and only recently a processing tax was suggested upon seafoods to help the farmer. What assurance have we that, under this Act, seafoods might not be embargoed under any one of the clauses which I have enumerated in the foregoing? In fact, there is altogether too much opportunity for political tampering with our industry. I sincerely trust that you may find it consistent to oppose the passage of this measure in its present form. Respectfully yours, THE CONNECTICUT OYSTER FARMS CO.. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Norman S. Dillingham, representing the American Spice Trade Association. He is a 5-minute speaker. Mr. DILLINGHAM. I have made you popular with the audience. STATEMENT OF NORMAN S. DILLINGHAM ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SPICE TRADE ASSOCIATION Mr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer this brief, reading it aloud for the reason that there are certain recommendations which may possibly want to be elaborated on. The following brief is respectfully submitted by the American Spice Trade Association through a specially appointed committee: It has always been the purpose and aim of the American Spice Trade Association, an organization which has been in existence for 27 years, to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture to endeavor to improve quality standards of the goods which our membership imports and manufactures. Our association was in 1906 one of the first to force shippers abroad to improve the quality of merchandise offered for entry into the United States so that when processed and offered for sale to the consuming public there would be no question of its purity. It has always been the aim and purpose of our entire membership, which comprises approximately 80 percent of the industry, to support in every way the existing Pure Food Law; and although there are certain sections in the so-called Tugwell bill to which we object, we are nevertheless in accord with its purposes and aims. In presenting our objections to the bill, it should be understood that we are considering only those sections which apply to our particular industry-the manufacture and distribution of spices, and spice products, for edible or seasoning purposes. It seems to us that with the addition of regulations for cosmetics to the present Food and Drugs Act, the results thereby obtained would be substantially the same, with less confusion, than by adoption of the Tugwell bill and the repeal of the present law. Our general objections to the proposed bill relate to the following: 1. Proposed disclosure of private formulae. 2. Vesting in the Secretary of Agriculture complete autocratic powers without the right of appeal from his decisions or those of many other nonjudicial officers. 3. Definitions of false advertising. 4. Denial of reconditioning privileges. It appears to us that in section 20 we would be denied the privileges now afforded us under the present law for the reconditioning of imports of crude spices to obtain entry. The CHAIRMAN. That was the last statement about section 20? Mr. DILLINGHAM. It appears to us that in section 20 we would be denied the privileges now afforded us under the present law for the reconditioning of imports of crude spices to obtain entry. In regard to the particular sections, section 6 (a)-that is the paragraph referring to misbranding-instead of paragraph (a) which is altogether too general, we suggest a paragraph providing for the reasonably prompt government approval of labels. Section 7 (f). It is our opinion that this paragraph aims at disclosure of all formulae, and it is our opinion that the required disclosure of any formula is absolutely unjustified by any possible benefits accruing to the public and is absolutely unjust to manufacturers who have developed formulae at great expense. The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you a question. Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You represent the Spice Trade Association; are there formulas that you employ or apply in the manufacture of spices where it would be detrimental to your industry to have in the law as it is written here? Mr. DILLINGHAM. There are, for this reason, that we have certain blends of spices which are made up into seasonings, the different ingredients of which it would be unjust to us to disclose. The CHAIRMAN. Would you have any objection as to the department knowing about those ingredients? Mr. DILLINGHAM: I will answer for myself personally, if the disclosure of the formula was made known, for example, to Dr. Campbell, or to a man in his position, I would not object, but I would object to having them known and broadcast through the department as a whole. The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is that the bill had some point exempting the necessity of declaring spices, does it not? Mr. DILLINGHAM. There is a question there which I think is capable of two answers. It does definitely say, if I may go to that paragraph us. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that? Mr. DILLINGHAM. 7(f). The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that is right, the very section we have before In lines 6 and 7, "except that spices, flavors, and artificial colors may be designated as such without naming each spice, flavor, or artificial color." Mr. DILLINGHAM. I should like to ask this question: Is it not so that when this paragraph was put in it referred to articles like sauces and ketchups, and things of that sort? I referred in my statement to dry seasoning. Of course that semi-colon after "weight" in line 6 might cover spices as such; on the other hand, it might also mean that any sauces and ketchups which contain spices would not require that you show on your label the pepper, ginger, or what have you, but simply the word "spice." The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it not a fact that in the use of spices there is just an infinitesimal quantity used in a given article of food, and |