ENFORCEMENT OF THE CAUSTIC POISON ACT

Mr. SANDLIN. The next item is for the enforcement of the Caustic Poison Act, as follows:

Enforcement of the Caustic Poison Act: For enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the provisions of an Act approved March 4, 1927 (U.S.C., Supp. VI, title 15, secs. 401-411), entitled "An Act to safeguard the distribution and sale of certain dangerous caustic or corrosive acids, alkalies, and other substances in interstate and foreign commerce", $22,964.

Dr. DUNBAR. The following statement is presented for the record:

845

Increase, Budget, 1935, compared with estimated obligations, 1934_____
The reduction of $755 in the estimate of $22,964 for 1935 below the appropria-
tion of $23,719 for 1934 consists of:

Impoundment of 6% percent of 15 percent pay cut-
Curtailments in 1934 working funds..

-$1, 395 -205

-200

+1, 045

-755

The reduction of $200 in working funds for 1935 is made in the amount for the payment of rents. This decrease has been made possible since the administration is moving the Chicago station quarters into a Federal building during the latter part of the fiscal year 1934 and this will result in a saving in the fiscal year 1935.

WORK DONE UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION

To provide for the expenses in connection with enforcing the Caustic Poison Act, approved March 4, 1927 (U.S.C., supp. IV, title 15, secs. 401-411). The Caustic Poison Act imposes upon the Department the obligation of seeing that the large number of preparations containing caustic or corrosive substances and sold in interstate or foreign commerce for household use are correctly labeled with the common name of the substance, with the word "poison", with directions for treatment in case of accidental personal injury, and with the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, seller, or distributor. To enforce this act, samples must be collected from the products determined by chemical analysis, and such tests made as will establish whether any or all of the ingredients are caustic or corrosive, and whether the directions given in case of injury are correct and adequate.

GENERAL STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES

Mr. SANDLIN. Is there any further statement you wish to make in regard to this item?

Dr. DUNBAR. The work under this item involves the enforcement of the requirements established in the Federal Caustic Poison Act, approved March 4, 1927, that certain chemical substances shall be marked with a poison label, together with an antidote which can be applied in case of accidental poisoning. In the course of the 5- or 6-year period, since that law went into effect, we have surveyed practically the entire field of these products, with a view to having the labels brought strictly into accord with the requirements of the act. The requirements are that the labels bear the common name of the substance, the name and address of the manufacturer or seller, the word "Poison" in letters of proper size, and directions for proper

35962-34-54

treatment in case of injury. Last year we investigated the products of about 1,000 manufacturers. With a few exceptions all of them had been brought into compliance. In the case of those manufacturers who failed to adopt legal labels, appropriate action was taken. There were nine seizure or criminal cases instituted during the year. Mr. CANNON. What is the caustic poison act?

Dr. DUNBAR. The caustic poison act contains a specified list of chemicals which are defined by the statute itself as caustic poisons. In that list there are included, carbolic acid; hydrochloric acid; sulphuric acid; nitric acid; oxalic acid; hypochlorous acid; acetic acid; potassium hydroxide; sodium hydroxide, and silver nitrate. Those are the ones I can give from memory. The act lists those various substances as caustic poisons, and then it requires that the word "Poison" in letters of a specified size shall appear on the label. It also requires that an antidote, shall be stated. The third requirement is that the name of the manufacturer, with his address, shall be stated. The common name of the substance must also be given. Those are the principal requirements. The act prescribes seizures, or prosecutions with penalties for failure to meet its requirements. Mr. CANNON. It is a matter of labeling.

Dr. DUNBAR. Yes, sir; it is a matter of labeling exclusively. Mr. CANNON. With what other poisons are you concerned, or what other poisons do you have jurisdiction over?

Dr. DUNBAR. We have no jurisdiction over any poisons under the Caustic Poison Act, except those specified in the statute. Of course, under the Food and Drug Act we have jurisdiction over any food commodity that contains any deleterious ingredients, or over any drug product imported or carried in interstate commerce. Of course, many drug products have toxic affects, but the mere fact that a drug has a toxic affect, does not make it illegal if it meets the standards set up in the United States Pharmacopoeia or the National Formulary. If it meets the standards of the United States Pharmacopoeia or the National Formulary, even though it is highly poisonous, it is a legal product for traffic, and is permitted to move in interstate traffic. If it is not an official product, or one recognized by the United States Pharmacopoeia or the National Formulary, but conforms absolutely to the label under which it is sold, it is legal. Incidentally, there is no requirement in the Food and Drug Act that poisonous medicines shall be labeled as poison. The only hint of such a requirement is that where medicines contain one of a limited list of habit-forming drugs, such as acetanilid, opium, cocaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, ether, etc., or the derivatives of any of those substances, the label must bear a statement showing the presence and the amount of those substances. However, even in in such case, the law does not specify that the labels shall state that the product is poisonous or habit-forming.

Mr. HART. All of the substances you have named are not habitforming.

Dr. DUNBAR. Not all of them. For instance, acetanilid is a heart depressant. These substances were undoubtedly included by name in the original statute, because it was considered that their unwitting consumption would be highly dangerous.

AUTHORIZATION COVERING PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. SANDLIN. The next item is:

Total, Food and Drug Administration, $1,557,713, of which amount not to exceed $481,160 may be expended for personal services in the District of Columbia, and not to exceed $12,800 shall be available for the purchase of motorpropelled and horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles necessary in the conduct of field work outside the District of Columbia.

Dr. Dunbar. The following is presented for the record:

An increase of $3,600 is recommended in the passenger-carrying vehicle purchase authorization for 1935 in order that in addition to replacement of old cars, by exchange, as shown in detail in the Budget schedule, further progress may be made in furnishing each food and drug inspector with a Government-owned car. The use of automobiles for the purpose of carrying on inspection work under five acts enforced by the Food and Drug Administration is essential. Factories, dairies, orchards, canneries, warehouses, retail establishments, and other places where foods, drugs, insecticides, and naval stores are manufactured, produced or distributed, must be visited and inspected. Shipments of these commodities by freight, express, and trucks must be kept under surveillance. Samples must be collected and delivered for shipment to laboratories. This can be done most economically and efficiently by the use of automobiles. Automobiles can be obtained for the purpose by hiring commercial cars, by using personally owned cars of employees on the mileage basis, or by the purchase of Government-owned cars. The latter method has been found to be the most economical in the work of the Food and Drug Administration, costing on the average about 31⁄2 cents per mile. The purchase of 13 additional cars included in these estimates will reduce the use of personally owned cars which cost on the average about 5 cents per mile and also the hire of commercial cars which cost from 10 to 15 cents per mile.

The 19 cars to be exchanged are to replace cars or trucks which, during the fiscal year 1935, will have been used for the maximum number of miles of economical operation.

Mr. LINTON. That provides for the purchase of 13 new cars; 5 in the eastern district, 4 in the central district, and 4 in the western district. We find that the use of the light cars-the Ford, the Chevrolet, and the Plymouth-are the most economical in which we can get about to the orchards, factories, dairies, canneries, warehouses, and retail establishments and other places where foods, drugs, insecticides, and naval stores are manufactured, produced, or distributed. We were able to operate last year for about 3.3 cents per mile, but we do not have a sufficient number of Government-owned cars. It is necessary for us to rent commercial cars or to use personally owned cars.

Mr. SANDLIN. Which is the most economical?

Mr. LINTON. The Government-owned; they cost us from 3.3 to 3.5 cents a mile; the personally owned costs 5 cents, and the commercial cars cost us from 10 cents, 15 cents, to 20 cents a mile.

Mr. THURSTON. Your figure of 3.3 cents per mile; does that include depreciation?

Mr. LINTON. It includes $150 a year depreciation in each car.

Mr. THURSTON. If you use the car 4 years, it absorbs the whole purchasing price. The figure of 3.3 includes not only the operation but the obsolescence and wear on it?

Mr. LINTON. Yes.

Mr. HART. And you get an allowance when you turn them in? Mr. LINTON. Yes, we get an allowance when we turn them in. In that case we would not run them 4 years.

Mr. THURSTON. How long do you run them?

Mr. LINTON. Two or three years, depending upon the number of miles operated. We get from 50,000 to 60,000 miles out of each car.