Page images

uninitiated how careful they should be before they sign on the dotted line.

The foregoing three comments on the life's-blood definitions in the bill proposed will hardly be seriously questioned by the makers and best friends of same, and for the purposes of review we shall conclude with this statement: We represent a group of proprietary package medicine firms who directly and indirectly employ some 3,000 people at the present time. This number has but lately been reached; to within 4 or 5 months ago it did not exceed 500, and it is their voice that I am asking you to listen to. We can only guess at the motive of the bill in question that is contemplated, from exhibit 1 hereto attached known as the "Tabloid News", November 24, 1933, volume 1-issue no. 8, a publication that has but recently come to life and which seems to be working with the American Medical Association and a subsidiary named the Consumers Research League, Inc., of Washington, N.J., wherein the family of the President of the United States, Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mrs. Anna Dall, are drawn into this controversy on behalf of the American Medical Association and the various doctors espousing this bill, and there is great capital made in this issue of the fact that an excessive price was paid for a cure for diabetes, same having been exhibited to the astonished ladies aforesaid at Dr. Tugwell's showing at his chamber of horrors, wherein they also exhibited death certificates of the users of these remedies; the expounder of this article, which is headed Rout the Medicine Makers!, failed to add that the ladies in question, if they had been more perceptive than horrified and had looked at the death certificates and noted the ages upon them, they would have found that the users of these remedies, instead of dying from diabetes, die from old age.

The above-exhibited at the World's Fair, plus the public platform, the radio, the newspaper, and the all-powerful moving picture, as propaganda for the passage of this act, makes one doubt the merits of this bill, of its sincerity, as in human experience a thing that is reasonable will stand of its own weight, without all of these supporting columns and crutches advanced for this bill, and makes it seem as though the medical profession were heavily affected by the late depression and in their just energy and ambition were seeking a new source of revenue by compelling people to resort to them for prescriptions, purchases of medicine, and medical treatment in the most trivial matters. This would of course be very good for the doctors but a trifle exacting upon the said John Public, whom the proponents of this bill are with such vim and vigor protecting and saving from disintegration.

And by its context renders it liable at the hands of persons who are not so charitably inclined to be the recipient of that undesirable public comment so colloquially used in this modern age and termed 'a racket", which has been known to conclude many public careers and measures and, of course, it is but right to assume that everyone connected with this measure desires to give no room for such reference.

[ocr errors]

Therefore in keeping with out first comment that we represent close to 3,000 people of the common strata of life, just the average workman and his family that are holding jobs at the present time, we know they do not rate very high in a social scale, but we also feel that they are here and once born have the same right any other person has under the Constitution; they are not here because they sought

to come here and they will go without wanting to go when the timecomes; we cannot order them executed because they are too many, and we have no sterilization act that may perform that function for us, therefore, we must provide a living for them and they have the right to the enjoyment of an honest day's work for a fair day's pay; they want no dole, these people whom we represent tasted the bitter bread of charity all of last winter, it did not go over so big. The experience of an able-bodied man walking the streets with a family at home without food and without food himself, with no money in his pocket and in reality not a place to sleep, are such as, I am sure, the gentlemen of this committee are unacquainted with, but the endurance and the suffering of the people engaged in the trade on whose behalf this brief is filed are beseeching you gentlemen not to hurl them back into the street by the passage of your mysterious bill, as the old act is more than sufficient to cover everything that you propose in your new act and the people in whose behalf we speak are but a very small part of the mass involved in this legislation, and the day you pass this Tugwell bill giving dictatorial power wholly unnecessary and un-American to the Secretary of Agriculture to destroy any patent-medicine firm in America, you want to be sure, as an act of courtesy, that you also attach a rider to said bill providing a reasonable upkeep per week for close to half a million people, as that many would be affected directly or indirectly and they would have every right in the world to look to the Government that enacted this bill, to provide something suitable in the way of a livelihood to take the place of their present means of sustenance.


[The Tabloid, Philadelphia, Pa., Nov. 24, 1933]

Dispatches from the Nation's capital indicate that no less a personage than Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt has interested herself in the drive to make advertising untruths illegal.

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rex Tugwell, author of the proposed Tugwell bill, which will be presented to the next Congress as a means of providing Federal control over advertising of food, drug, and cosmetic products, is declared by George Durno, International News Service correspondent at Washington, to have enlisted the aid of Mrs. Roosevelt and her daughter, Mrs. Anna Dall, in his campaign.

The First Lady and Mrs. Dall motored to the Agricultural Building wherein Tugwell has set up his "chamber of horrors." They were astonished at the significant display. They viewed with alarm the "cure" for diabetes, which sells for $12 a pint. Alongside the carton containing the nostrum they saw a group of testimonials from persons reputedly cured by the faked "cure."

And on the other side they saw the death certificates of the same persons, They also saw the picture of a truly beautiful woman who ranked high socially in a Midwestern town. Later, they saw a horrible photograph of her sightless eyesthe result of having her eyelashes dyed with a certain preparation in anticipation of attending a testimonial banquet her grateful clubwomen were tendering. That particular preparation was exposed as a fraud in a recent issue of the Tabloid. Mrs. Dall will comment on the startling exhibition in her Liberty Magazine column. Mrs. Roosevelt vowed she would lecture on the subject. Both ladies were honestly horrified.

And well they might be.

The United Medicine Manufacturers of America, in their recent Chicago convention, drew up imposing regulations condemning the proposed Tugwell bill, outlining 17 specific points to which they objected.

With their battle cry calling attention to the "inalienable right to self medication" being sounded, the organization drew plans for a concerted drive to nullify the Tugwell bill. Extensive propaganda, a lobby on Congress, and the enlistment of allied industries will be used to defeat the proposed law.

The medicine makers must not succeed.

The Food and Drug Administration, whose powers would be greatly increased under the Tugwell bill, answer the medicine makers' complaints with the single argument: "Is the right to self medication denied by requiring that drugs be labeled with directions for use under which they will not be dangerous to health? Or requiring that drugs actually possess the remedial value ascribed to them in their labeling?

"Will the right of the consumer to medicate himself be abrogated by requiring the identity of drugs to be revealed on the label, so he can have full knowledge of what he is getting and whether it is habit forming?"

The answer to these questions is, of course, no.



Mix together 5 ounces of water, a pinch of salt, and a couple drops of perfume and what have you?

A preparation worth nothing? No, kind reader, you have a bottle of "Oyloff Dry Shampoo." And you'll pay $1.05 for it, too. At least that is the contention of the makers of this nostrum, who advertise the water-salt-perfume mixture as the finest shampoo on the market.

The Godefroy Manufacturing Co., of St. Louis, who make "Oyloff Dry Shampoo" did a rushing business until the American Medical Association got wise to them.

The manufacturers were not a bit bashful in their unusual claims for their salt and water product as is evidenced by the article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The article quotes an advertisement which appeared in the Ladies' Home Journal, as follows:

"Amazing new liquid makes shampooing quick, easy, right at your dressing table.

"Here is what you have always wanted, a thrilling new way to shampoo your hair in 15 minutes without washing out your wave.'

[ocr errors]

The A.M.A. purchased a bottle of the stuff to find out what it contained. (Article doesn't say whether or not the Medical Association was thrilled.)

The cost of the bottle was $1.05, the liquid coming "in a most modernistic container, characteristically of the present high-hat tendency in the cosmetic trade."

The chemical laboratory of the A. M.A. analyzed the preparation and announced that

"Qualitative tests indicated the presence of sodium and chloride. No heavy metals, carbonates, sulphates, alkaloids, and soap were found. The specific gravity, etc. *

* *

"From the foregoing tests it was concluded that Oyloff is essentially a colored solution of dairy salt (commercial table salt) with a dash of perfume."

The A.M.A. article continues:

"From the chemists' report we learn that this 'amazing' product that reveals the 'romance of your hair' and that will 'thrill you' is, essentially a pinch of salt in 5 ounces of water-incidentally the bottle states net contents, 6 ounces.' Paying $1.05 for 5 ounces of salt water would seem, under present economic conditions, to furnish a text for a discussion on certain phases of modern business."

Senator HOMER T. BONE,

Washington, D.C.

Seattle, Wash., December 2, 1933.

HONORABLE SIR: Nearly 1,500 people, incensed at the autocratic attempt of the American Medical Association, in reality the biggest trust in America, to become dictator in health matters through Rexford G. Tugwell and his so-called food, drug, and cosmetic bill, gathered at the Masonic Temple here Friday evening to give voice to their objections.

The objections to the bill are that:

It is altogether too sweeping, and the powers given the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture are dictatorial in that there is no recourse to the courts;

The "Secretary's" opinion is to be based upon medical opinion, and this means the American Medical Association, which in practice would discriminate against all other systems of healing;

The term "drug" as defined in sec. 2 (B) is so inclusive as to take in anything and everything that they might choose to include in their textbooks; thereby they would gain supreme power.

The bill should be indefinitely postponed, as it is a clever method whereby the American Medical Association can later sweep through the State legislatures, gaining similar State authority by which they could wipe out the new schools of healing. The amendment which we enclose with this letter should be included if it is likely to pass.

We wish to also call your attention to the enclosed printed matter, especially the brochure upon which the American flag is printed. The magazine, Sanipractic, tells of the medical freedom meeting spoken of in this letter.

Respectfully yours,



Amend section 2, subdivision (B) in line 11, after the word "Animals", insert: "Provided, This Act, shall not affect the practice of sanipractic, or osteopathic physicians, or doctors of chiropractic, food science, mechano-therapy, psychotherapy, physcultopathy, or naturopathy: Provided, further, That the practitioners of these systems prescribe in accordance with the art, science, and philosophy of the curriculum of their respective systems.


At the time of the public hearings, before the Senate subcommittee, on Senate bill 1944, Senator Copeland invited interested parties to submit their views and suggestions in written briefs for incorporation in the record of the hearings. This brief is being submitted pursuant to that invitation.

Young & Rubicam, Inc., is an advertising agency, located in New York City. It places advertising in magazines, newspapers, on billboards, and on the radio to the extent of several million dollars annually. Prominent among its clients are several of the largest and best-known food manufacturers in the United States. However, the suggestions and views presented in this brief are our own and are not presented on behalf of, nor as representing, necessarily, the views of any of our clients.

Let us say at the outset that we are opposed to the abuses that have existed, and that now exist, in advertising; that we subscribe whole-heartedly to any intelligent attempt to promote "truth in advertising."

As has been pointed out by the sponsors of the pending bill-and as has been pointed out many times by people whose business is advertising—the falsity of some advertising tends to lessen the belief in, and, therefore, the effectiveness of all advertising. From a purely selfish standpoint, therefore-from the standpoint of self-preservation and of the perpetuation of our business—we are opposed to false and misleading advertising.

But that is not the only reason for our opposition. We believe the public is entitled to protection against the fraudulent and misleading representation of goods offered for sale, not only advertised but unadvertised products, and not only foods, drugs, and cosmetics, but all products offered to the general public. No one, we believe, can advance any valid argument as to why the public should not be protected against the "misbranding" of foods, drugs,, or cosmetics. And, again, we subscribe without reservation to the contention that false advertising of those products-no less than false branding of them-should be prohibited.

The point at which we diverge from the philosophy of the proposed bill as presently drafted, and from the reasoning which its sponsors use in justifying. its present provisions, is this:

We believe that such false advertising-both on the label and elsewhere-can be effectually prohibited without at the same time jeopardizing the business or the interests of any legitimate and honest manufacturer, publisher or advertiser. That the proponents of the present bill do not agree with that belief is, we think, fairly obvious both from the language that they have used in drafting the "misbranding" and "false advertising" provisions, and from the arguments that they have used to support the language used. Their position is, quite evidently, that the public needs protection-that they are unable to devise language that will protect the public and at the same time protect the honest manufacturerand that since the interests of the public are paramount, the public must be protected at all events, even although in protecting the public, the interests of honest and legitimate individuals and businesses must suffer. Additionally, of course, they minimize the seriousness of the threat to honest advertising because they say that the law will not be enforced as written, but will be enforced only in part, so that its penalties will seldom fall on those who do not merit them.

To restate our position: We agree that the public is entitled to, and needs, protection from false advertising of foods, drugs, and cosmetics; we agree that the public interest is paramount; we agree, therefore, that if both the public interest and legitimate business cannot be protected at one and the same time, the interests of such business must give way to the protection of the public generally. But we by no means concede that the one cannot be protected and the other adequately safeguarded at the same time. And we contend that the protection of the honest advertiser should be contained in the language of the statute itself, and not depend on anything so illusory and untrustworthy as a promise that the law will not be strictly enforced.

In support of our belief that a provision that can be drawn that will protect both the public and the honest advertiser, we suggest the following definition of “false advertising" which we believe will prevent all the abuses which it is the avowed purpose of the so-called Tugwell bill to prevent; and which, at the same time, will make possible the honest exploitation of legitimate foods, drugs, and cosmetics.

"An advertisement of a food, drug, or cosmetic shall be deemed to be false if (1) it is in fact untrue as to the ingredients, the harmlessness, or the therapeutic, nutritional, dietetic, or health value of such food, drug, or cosmetic; or (2) if by inference fairly and reasonably drawn from the advertisement, it is misleading as to the ingredients, the harmlessness, or the therapeutic, nutritional, dietetic, or health value of such food, drug, or cosmetic; or (3) if either by its statements or its implications it materially misrepresents the product which is the subject of the advertisement.

"An advertisement of a food, drug, or cosmetic shall be deemed to be false if it unfairly or untruthfully disparages a competitor or the product of a competitor; and for the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether such disparagement be by direct statement or by inference reasonably drawn from the advertisement. "Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to mean that any advertisement of a food, drug, or cosmetic shall be deemed to be false or misleading merely because such advertisement contains claims of the kind recognized at common law and by the court as 'trade-puffing"."

With your permission we should like to discuss:

1. Wherein the present language of the Tugwell bill, in its zeal to do the one thing-namely, protect the public against false and misleading advertising—fails inexcusably to do the other important thing—namely, protect the honest manufacturer and advertiser.

2. The adequacy of the substitute language we have suggested to accomplish the purposes of the bill without punishing the innocent as well as the guilty.

I. THE OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES OF THE TUGWELL BILL IN ITS PRESENT FORM It is not our purpose to discuss all of the respects in which we think substantial revision of the Tugwell bill is desirable. We prefer to confine our discussion, in the main, to those provisions which relate directly to advertising and branding. In the first place, we think we can in this way help to conserve the time of the committee. Moreover, we are familiar with advertising, as we are not familiar with many of the other subjects covered by the bill. We can speak from experience, as specialists, on the effect of the proposed bill on advertising, whereas we could claim no such special knowledge with respect to the other subjects.

Nevertheless, before proceeding to amplify our position with respect to the definition of "misbranding" and of "false advertising", we wish merely to

« PreviousContinue »