into gasoline. It was practically certain from experience up to that time that there would be hundreds of cases of poisoning. One of the things which has given me the energy to work on this matter is that I took my courage in both hands and telegraphed the New York Times and the New York World the number of deaths from tetraethyl lead poisoning within a year.

During that year the Surgeon General called a conference, at which everybody concerned was heard. A committee was appointed to study the hazard. The Ethyl Gas Corporation studied it and found that by mixing the tetraethyl lead with gasoline in the factory it could be distributed without serious danger. It developed the warning now placed on every gasoline pump, and as a result there have been few, if any, cases of poisoning in the general public.

That is an illustration of exactly the sort of thing that we are hoping will come about under this law, or under this bill if it ever becomes a law, so that before any dangerous substance is put out, the manufacturer will go to the Surgeon General, will utilize the facilities of the National Health Institute, will find out what will be safe conditions, and will then follow on through. I have in my hand a pamphlet of the Treasury Department, Public Health Service, containing some regulatory propositions for tetraethyl gas. So far as I know, the present use of that highly poisonous substance is quite safe. What we are aiming at is to bring that about in general.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. I have inquired at gasoline stations about its safety, but I have never seen any signs or warnings around the station. I am interested, because I introduced a resolution in the Senate asking that it be investigated. I was never able to learn what was done to make it safe.

Mr. HENDERSON. The main thing that was done is that the poisonous ingredient is diluted in the gasoline before it is distributed. Senator SHIPSTEAD. Do you think it is safe now!

Mr. HENDERSON. So far as my experience shows, it is safe. In Connecticut our gasoline pumps generally have a sign reading, "Do not use this for washing purposes," or "Do not wash greasy hands with ethyl gasoline.".

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Is that a State law?

Mr. HENDERSON. That I do not know, sir.

Senator FRAZIER. What is the effect upon the people who do that mixing?

Mr. HENDERSON. In industry, under the conditions of the factories, nearly any substance, no matter how toxic, can be handled under expert supervision with ventilation or other precautions, with safety. The industrial council of factories is something which began beyond this matter. I do not think there is any substance so poisonous but that it can be handled by men trained for that purpose, with carefully adjusted regulation.

Senator FRAZIER. We often read of fatalities even where there are precautions.

Mr. HENDERSON. Oh, yes; but with machinery, even with the safeguards we now have, we sometimes have injuries. We can not stop industry because there is an occasional slip. But in general that type of hazard is one which comes under a safety law, and which is increasingly well controlled. That benzol matter in the State of

New York is a matter which New York State Government has controlled, and in general it is pretty well controlled.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Would you consider the use of ethyl gasoline in a cleaning establishment as safe?

Mr. HENDERSON. Very unsafe for that puropse. It is not so used; it certainly is not in Connecticut. There are warnings; I do not think that is a State law. I think it is a regulation of the Ethyl Gas Corporation for self-protection.

The CHAIRMAN. This bill regulates household consumption, does it not?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, I think you should confine yourself to that. It is a very large subject when we get away from that.

I would like to know from you in a word why this bill, what the need is, what are the hazards, what it is expected to do to protect the household occupant from poisoning, and what it is expected to do in regard to health. I am not enough of a chemist to go all over the country and search for poisons. Let us get down to something we can understand.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Is ethyl gasoline used to any extent in the household?

Mr. HENDERSON. I do not think so.

I will refer briefly to this matter of methanol or methyl alcohol. The reputable members of the paint industry through their efforts for years have tried to prevent, through their own influence, the using of methyl alcohol instead of ethyl alcohol. They have not succeeded. Methyl alcohol is now used quite extensively in varnish and materials of that sort, which are sold for household use. think that is one of the most outstanding, or the outstanding, example of these substances. I have already referred to the cyanides, where formaldehyde is used. I used some the other day in disinfecting in the house.

I

The CHAIRMAN. Does any ill effect come from its use in the household?

Mr. HENDERSON. Not if it is used carefully.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any instances of death from inhalation of the fumes?.

Mr. HENDERSON. I can not immediately give you one.

The CHAIRMAN. But you think it should be included in this bill? Mr. HENDERSON. I do. As regards the use of sulphur dioxide, I know of cases of poisoning in the household, where it has been used unintelligently, but it is so irritant that it generally gives its own warning.

As regards the general substances of halogen compounds, that would include Carbona. It would include that "tet " that Senator Bingham referred to or tetra chlorethylene. I think we can state with absolute assurance that all or practically all of the halogen compounds are more or less poisonous. I mean enough of them to kill. It is only a question of getting enough. There are a number of cases that can be presented, if necessary. I have known of instances where people using these substances of the type referred to in one of these letters for cleaning purposes, have been rendered

unconscious.

Senator FRAZIER. From the fumes?

Mr. HENDERSON. From the fumes; yes, sir. I refer to tetrachlorethylene, which these people believe honestly to be harmless. would not kill worms in a hog's stomach if it were not poisonous. The CHAIRMAN. I have to go to the Senate floor to arrange the day's work. Senator Frazier, will you take charge of the meeting until 12 o'clock?

To-morrow, if Senator Hatfield is not present, I have a question to propound to you that he has left with me. It is too late to do it now. I will do it to-morrow morning.

Senator FRAZIER (presiding). Proceed, Doctor.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think I have talked nearly as long as I should. There is one general point I want to come to which may seem at first to concede the needlessness for such a bill. I want to show that to some extent some concerns, public-spirited, high-grade concerns, are now adequately protecting the public. I have here a can of carbon disulphide for killing prairie dogs. It contains this warning, "Caution. Carbon disulphide is highly inflammable, so it should be protected from light or fire of all kinds." In another place is a warning as to killing prairie dogs, and it is clear that nobody would use it carelessly. That is sufficient warning.

I have also a bottle of black-leaf nicotine sulphate, which is labeled "Poison." As far as I know, that is a precaution on the part of the manufacturer. That is adequate protection.

I will come next to this "Tet," which is composed of carbon dioxide and tetrachlorethylene, which are poisonous. There is no warning at all on it.

I want to call particular attention to the letter which was read by Senator Bingham from Mr. Watson, reporting that by personal agreement, voluntary agreement, the association which he represents will hereafter cooperate with the Surgeon General in labeling their products. If all concerns were willing to do that, I would say immediately to Senator Bingham and this committee, we do not need any law. If we were all good. But we are not all good. I do not mean to impute bad motives to manufacturers of poisonous substances who put them out without warning. I impute merely ignorance. They believe they are harmless, but they are not harmless.

All I have been aiming at in working on this bill is to provide a little pressure, not very much. Some of my colleagues have criticized it because they say it does not go far enough. They want this or that substance more fully described in the bill. That does not seem to me to be the way to handle the question at all.

I would emphasize, on page 3, section 12, lines 8 to 19, the provision that the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service shall from time to time certify to the Secretary of Agricul ture such additional substances as need proper warning. I take it that he would not very often have to do that, except after the manufacturer had consulted him as to his product. At present there is no way for a manufacturer to find out what is bad, what is harmful, what sort of label his article should bear. The Bureau of Mines have been subject to criticism in the last year because they have carried out investigations for manufacturers, the manufacturer paying

for it. I do not think that is a very good arrangement, but it certainly is better than no arrangement.

What should come about is that in the National Health Institute there should be and will be and there are now men who are experts in this matter, who can advise the manufacturers and shippers as to whether or not their product is dangerous. That is what this section aims to provide.

I call attention also particularly to page 4, lines 6 and 7, in regard to labels, which provides that the Surgeon General may add such additional or other warnings as he may specify. I take it that he could change the warnings.

Then finally, I would mention on page 4, section 3, lines 15 to 25, the provision that the Surgeon General will be empowered under that section to remove from any substance the requirement of a warning label.

Under those provisions, if they are adopted into law, I take it that any concern, before it brought out a preparation, could consult with the Surgeon General and find out what sort of label he thought was necessary.

That, sir, and gentlemen of the committee, is the aim which I have had in mind in working on this bill.

STATEMENT OF W. N. WATSON, SECRETARY MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator FRAZIER (presiding). Is there anyone here who wishes to be heard at this time?

Mr. WATSON. If no one else is ready, I would be glad to make a statement at this time.

Senator FRAZIER. Very well. Come forward. Give your name and address.

Mr. WATSON. W. N. Watson, secretary Manufacturing Chemists Association. My address is 608 Woodward Building, Washington, D. C.

This association is a voluntary nonprofit organization, devoted to the welfare of the chemical industry. It was established in 1872. One of our major activities for many years has been directed to a continuous research program on the question of handling, shipping, and packing of chemicals, and also suitable containers therefor. To that end, we have six committees on this question of handling chemicals, in the interest of the consumer, the manufacturer, and the shipper. It might interest the committee to know, as an example, that the producers are interested in questions of public welfare and problems of safety. This manual we are bringing out on standard recommended procedures relates to subjects on the handling of particular chemicals and containers for the benefit of shippers and the consumers. That is only one part of a very large program on the question of safety in which we are engaged.

Under the provisions of this bill, the title of which is "A bill to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in poisonous volatile substances intended for household consumption," the label is prescribed for in section 2 as follows: First, a provision for a cross and skull; second, the phraseology, "the fumes are poisonous. Do not inhale.

118954-32-3

Avoid contact with skin. In case of accident, send for an inhalator." Also, such additional or other warning or direction as the Surgeon General may specify. In addition, the Surgeon General is empowered to add articles to the list. The bill carries heavy penalties and right of confiscation for violation.

Before commenting on this bill, I wish to call your attention to two fundamental principles which relate to any proposal dealing with the regulation of poisons. The first is the question of the poison label. The second is the question of existing laws and regulations on that subject. Experience has taught that the use of the poison label as a precautionary warning depends upon its limitation. The application of the poison label on relatively harmless or harmless products can only result in public indifference to the poison label, and the trend will destroy its warning value.

I would like to call your attention to the experience of State road commissioners, which is a very significant one. They have found that a too frequent use of the warning-"Curve Ahead "-has resulted in an increase of accidents, whereas a reduction in the excessive number of warning signs, was in the interest of public safety. Consequently, we must conclude on the basis of experience that the poison label has a very definite place in our social structure, and its value will depend upon its limited and proper use. One label is sufficient on a real poison. We strongly believe that duplicate or separate labels on a package serve no useful purpose.

There is another point to which I would like to call attention, and that is a brief summary of existing laws and statutes concerning poisons. The basic law relating to interstate shipments of hazardous articles falls under the interstate commerce act of March 4, 1909, as amended in March, 1921. In sections 232 to 236 the commission is authorized to issue regulations for explosives, allied products, and other dangerous articles, including inflammable liquids, inflammable solids, oxidizing materials, corrosive liquids, compressed gases, and poisonous articles.

To illustrate the character and scope and thoroughness of the regulations issued under this act, this particular copy, 381 pages, issued and effective on October 1, 1930, contains the regulation covering the shipment of hazardous articles. It specifies in most minute detail every type of container, and method of testing containers, packing, shipping directions, in the interest of public safety. This is binding on all common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce by rail and upon all shippers making shipments via such carriers.

Senator FRAZIER. Who issues the book to which you have referred?

Mr. WATSON. The Interstate Commerce Commission. It includes the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission of October, 1930, to which, of course, many supplements have been since issued.

I have also the labels now in use in Interstate Commerce Commission regulations. They have a class A poison label, a class B poison label, and a class C poison label. This diagram issued by the Bureau of Explosives illustrates the labels on a reduced scale. Naturally, the labels in full size are larger, like these [indicating]. You can see the poison warning label for class A, class B, and class C for poisons, and green and red labels for gases. This interstate