« PreviousContinue »
The difference between the use and abuse of drugs in relation to health is beginning to be understood. We now have prescribed a diet instead of a tonic in convalescence. We rebuild.
This education is irresistible and will move on just as the education in foods has done. We need truthful labels and truthful presentation of values in every way, though advance can go on anyhow.
Now all the speakers against this bill have said the bill will take away the possibility of self-medication. It would make self-medication easier. It would give confidence upon which so much of the expected benefit is based. What is the present situation of the mother of the family who must bear and rear the children and keep up the efficiency of the family? Some health education has made her conscious of these questions:
1. The danger of neglect of the family health.
2. The knowledge of or faith in a few "simples" or remedies which have come down through the ages, which she uses to alleviate suffering, sooth the anxious patient, and quiet her own mind.
3. The vast blast and chorus proclaiming the new cures, remedies, and substances emphasized by radio, by the newspapers and magazines, though she learns these claims cannot be put upon the labels and gives little heed to the clamor.
4. The increasing number of proprietary products which bear the formula on the label.
5. The high cost of medical care and its frequent inaccessibility.
6. The probability and possibility of the county health unit and socialized medicine.
Is this the woman who has been here objecting to S. 1944? Certainly not. As she becomes acquainted with the bill she understands its helpful purpose and protection and favors it.
Who are the objectors to this bill? Are they shadows of 1906? Have they suffered no "sea change" in 27 years?
In 1887, when I was a very young girl, a friend was showing me her curio cabinet. Her mother whimsically remarked, "Show her the little pills.' Into my hand was placed a small sample package of proprietary medicines which had been thrown in at the door as an advertisement and kept for some time as a curiosity. The box had 8 or 10 slender vials containing tiny white pills. Each vial was numbered and labeled "Specific" for some 1 of 8 or 10 major then known diseases and an alarming sequence of symptoms which made you wonder whether there was "no health in us", concluding finally at the bottom of the label in a heavier type: "Or fear of death." They don't do that now.
How many of us still carry horse chestnuts for rheumatism? Wear a Carnelian ring? Wear a sapphire? Or a rabbit's foot, etc. Or take Exity Ex Compound instead of a hooker of something else? The woman at home who voted for you as her Congressman or Senator can very well use as much intelligence in her choice of proprietary medicine as she did in voting for you in the election if you will give her a good chance to read labels which tell the truth, allow no false claims in the label or in advertising, and contain a warning in case of new and unknown or little known substances. (Note provisions in S. 1944, sec. 7 f (2) and sec. 8 e (1 and 2), quantitative formulas not required. Ingredient declaration required only where product is not a standard article.)
S. 1944 will help this woman very much.
I would like to present an exhibit of labels used by competent manufacturers who have confidence in their products and in the intelligence and observation of the consuming public. The formulas are given on these labels as will be required by S. 1944. On the shelves of the Mayflower Hotel drug store you will find many of these labeled articles. We would like to know why the United States must be reckoned as a backward Nation in respect to this labeling. None of our ordinary proprietary products can be shipped to any South American nation without a full formula on the label. Why not give home consumers the same protection? The consumer would like to be relieved of another disadvantage. She is beginning to question the use of certain drugs and products. She cannot afford to buy these highly advertised substances and take them to a chemist for an analysis. Neither can she use such a scientist as Dr. A. Goettler and get his O.K. before she uses it. Dr. Goettler's analysis of the radium water used by Mr. E. M. Byers, of Pittsburgh, who died of radium poisoning, would have warned him to let it alone. The consumer has the right to protection. The Government can give it to her. Any manufacturer can make an analysis of any product on the market. So the objection to the revelation of the formula is
not valid. A manufacturer may not be able to tell by what combination or process a certain product was perfected. That is the clever protective secret of the good manufacturer.
Because of the individual differences of human beings as to the tolerances and allergies and some other differences, it is important to have such tolerances defined, standards set up, and note made of the behavior of such medicines under reasonable conditions. Several persons at the hearings recommended the insertion of the word "public" before "health" wherever used in the bill. I protest that suggestion. It would defeat the purpose of the bill.
Mr. Northam Warren, of the Associated Manufacturers of Toilet Articles, mentioned the annual turnover in the cosmetic industry in terms of many millions of dollars and said that only one one-hundredth of 1 percent of these cosmetics could be considered dangerous or fraudulent. I believe most of them could be eaten by a child with no worse result than a possible "tummy ache." But women and men have a right to know where danger lies.
The cosmeticians have missed the psychology of the consumers. be working for the passage of this bill. Why?
They should Women still believe they are taken at their face value. They try to live up to it and you will admit they do a pretty good job nowadays.
When education and industry took most of the interesting processes of making foods, clothing, interior decoration, and education out of the home and standardized them the women followed them out into business, and for the first time were paid for their work.
But in order to get the jobs they had to look young, fresh, and attractive— present good face value. The young Vassar graduate who had lived joyously all her life suddenly was faced with the complete collapse of her father's health after 4 anxious months of care, had to become provider. She got a job. A few days later, questioned by her boss as to her use of rouge and cosmetics, answered, "Yes, I do. I heard the office manager wouldn't hire a girl who hadn't good color. I had to have the job so I got my color for a quarter and now I can relieve my mother at night so she can sleep and I have money to buy food. I am doing my work all right?" She kept her job.
Now another woman who has often been ailing is Mr. Warren's best prospect. Get her interested in her face, complexion, skin, looking young. Yes, she leaves off all the doses, tonics, drugs, and doctors whom she never needed and spends a large part of $24,000,000 a year looking her best.
The honest manufacturer, the cosmetician, and the honest advertiser have nothing to fear. They will have an interesting time, more copy to write and a great increase in business under S. 1944.
Let us have the bill.
STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PACIFIC FISHERIES AND THE NORTHWEST SALMON CANNERS ASSOCIATION
I. The Association of Pacific Fisheries and the Northwest Salmon Canners Association, with offices at Seattle, Wash., comprise within their membership over 99 percent of the salmon packers of the United States operating in the United States and the Territory of Alaska. The industry as a whole does approximately $40,000,000 of business annually.
These associations submit to this
committee that the present food and drug bill contains provisions which have been found to be adequate for the protection of the consumer of canned salmon. They believe that the drastic provisions of the proposed bill (S. 1944) are intended to meet difficulties found in the manufacturing, selling, and advertising of products other than food products.
Consequently, since the evils aimed at are nonexistent in the food industry, including the canned salmon industry, we see no need for the preparation of a very drastic bill which is inapplicable to, and is impracticable for, the salmon canning industry.
Therefore we petition that consideration be given to the feasibility of the preparation of a separate food bill. The problems of governmental regulation of food, drugs, and cosmetics must of necessity differ because of the difference in function and nature of the products involved in the three divisions. It cannot be truthfully said that evil in one division is of the same character and proportion as that in another, nor that it requires the same remedial and penalty devices for correction. Difficulties existent in the drug and cosmetic fields can be independently eradicated without the necessity of imposing unwarranted and costly impediments upon the manufacture and distribution of food products, including canned salmon, the cost of which ultimately must be borne by the consumer.
II. Specific objection is made to the following provisions, which, when incorporated into the suggested bill for food alone, if one is needed, should be materially modified, as follows:
1. Section 3 (a) (4): Substitute the word "has" for the words "may have." The salmon-canning industry believes that the determinations provided for in this section should be based upon fact rather than conjecture.
2. Section 11 and 7 (e), taken together, permit the Secretary to promulgate standards and provide that a food shall be misbranded if the label does not state such standards, including standards of quality, or if the product is not of the promulgated standard or standards.
The salmon-canning industry urges the amendment of these sections in regard to the preparation of canned salmon or canned foods, by the substitution of the provision suggested by the National Canners Association embodying the principle of the McNary-Mapes amendment to the Food and Drug Act. This amendment will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to set a standard for each class of canned food calculated to promote honesty and fair dealing with the consumer. That is the industry's conception of proper and practicable governmental regulation, namely, to enforce a minimum standard of quality below which a manufactured product may not fall. Anything further is regimentation that extends beyond principles of our existing system of government.
The industry opposes the principle that government officials should dictate the forms and types in which a product is to be marketed. Those forms and types must be flexible. They result from a variety of factors unsusceptible of fixed standardization. They adjust themselves naturally by consumer preference in a competitive field. By unwritten economic laws they bear a close relation to costs.
Furthermore, the industry feels strongly that any such standards cannot be set up so as to be capable of efficient enforcement and that any efforts at enforcement necessitate procedural difficulties that make the scheme impractical.
For example, in the salmon-canning industry there are five varieties of salmon which may be canned-Chinook, Red, Coho, Pink, and Chum. The promulgation of standards within these five varieties is impractical and impossible. Conceivably, there is no objection to a requirement that the particular variety of salmon be designated.
3. Section 12 as drafted would permit the Secretary under conditions determinable within his own discretion to license all food factories by means of a permit system which may be suspended arbitrarily by him. The nature of the operations involved in packing salmon in Alaska render such a provision for administrative power particularly objectionable to the salmon-packing industry. Due to the short season and the isolated character of the area in which operations take place the revocation of a permit under section 12 (b) on the ground that certain regulations were being violated in the packing operations then under way would be equivalent to an administrative determination that for a particular season no packing could be allowed. Any right of appeal for judicial determination would be an insufficient remedy, since it would serve only to lock the stable after the horse was gone. The provision that the permit may be reinstated after hearing, inspection, and a finding that adequate measures of correction have been taken, is an illusory safeguard for the same reason.
The industry feels that the legislation of these drastic powers into an administrative official is a threat to its very existence because the peculiar conditions surrounding the industry nullify the effectiveness of its constitutional rights of judicial appeal.
Section 16 (e) provides further that foods manufactured by a person not holding a permit under section 12 shall be destroyed. The industry feels that this provision is unnecessarily drastic. The words require the administrative officials to destroy the whole shipment without permit. This requirement provokes an uneconomic and unnecessary waste and a taking of property without due process of law. Furthermore, some provision should be made for the return to the manufacturer of goods processed during the period in which the permit was canceled in event the permit is reinstated and the goods are given a clear bill.
The association also indorses the proposal made by the National Canners' Association for the amendment of section 17 (b) regarding penalties and confirms the reasons advanced by that organization as being highly important in the salmon-packing industry. The association recommends the amendment of section 18 to provide for the proof of knowledge on the part of the person charged sufficient to amount to a criminal intent. It is somewhat difficult to impose criminal liability upon a corporate official located in the United States
for some minor act done by a subordinate in Alaska where he has no knowledge of such act and had he such knowledge would clearly have forbidden it.
The association concurs in the necessity for and desirability of the amendment to section 21 regarding publicity suggested by the National Canners' Association. The elimination of the phrase "for the protection of the consumer against fraud' will remove the authority to issue precautionary information in advance of findings of fact. This seems only fair to the food industry, since the provision is obviously aimed at drugs and cosmetics. A separate provision relating to them might be inserted. This association recommends the complete deletion of section 24 as conferring upon the consumers no greater rights than they now have. It is the type of provision which will be conducive to unwarranted and fictitious suits instituted solely for the purpose of compelling the defendant to settle.
The American food manufacturers, including the salmon packers, are as much interested as the Government in preventing the sale of adulterated, poisonous, or unhealthful foods. It should be recalled that they are as much concerned about consumer interests and health as are any other agencies. Nevertheless, it must likewise be remembered that the food industry represents investments of many millions of dollars, that in the salmon-packing industry, because of conditions depending entirely upon nature or upon conservation activities of the Federal Government, in many seasons this investment yields no return whatever. permit complete administrative control of this industry, to permit arbitrary or mistaken seizures of thousands of dollars worth of food, to permit, as this bill contemplates, the complete cessation of activities, is a matter of great moment to those in the industry.
We believe that in any act proposed, adequate provision for complete court review should be provided. This is intended as no reflection upon any administrative official. But a law as sweeping as this can be arbitrarily enforced. feel that the interest of the public will not be in any way affected, and the necessities of the situation require that adequate court safeguards be thrown around administrative action under the bill. In most instances resort to the courts is not necessary. In the majority of cases the industry will cooperate in the formulation of any regulations or in any action under them, but the association insists that the amendment proposed by the National Canners providing adequate court review of action under this act be incorporated in it.
In conclusion, we wish to say again that it is not only unjust, but possibly improper legislative action to associate in one comprehensive statute a variety of products-drugs, cosmetics, and foods—which involve wholly different techniques of manufacture and sale and the problems in each of which are wholly different. We have no opinion as to the necessity of some of the provisions of the act as applied to other fields, but we believe it is clear from the history of the cooperation between the food industry and the Government that most, if not all, of them are completely unnecessary in the case of canned foods, particularly canned salmon.
Hon. HUBERT D. STEPHENS,
SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Chairman Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. STEPHENS: I beg to hand you, herewith, brief from the San Francisco Cocoa Trade Committee, on the subject of mold tolerance on cocoa which will be considered at a meeting of your committee December 7, when the Tugwell pure food and drug bill is to be taken up.
San Francisco's importations of cocoa beans have dropped 50 percent since October 1, when the 5 percent mold tolerance went into effect, while there has been no decline at New York. The new 5 percent tolerance stands out in bold relief when compared with the international standard, fixed by long experience of 12 percent.
If present conditions continue it seems inevitable that San Francisco's cocoa bean import trade will be slowly strangled.
I trust you will give this matter your usual careful consideration.
C. B. DODDS, Washington Representative.