Mr. O'HARA. Well, as a member of the American Bar Association for many years, I got their program, and I noticed they were going to dedicate a monument at Runnymede to the Magna Carta. I thought that would be of interest to some of the members of the committee, because the Magna Carta guaranteed a jury trial, as I recall it. [Laughter.] Mr. DUNN. Well, that comment is interesting because it fits in with the compromise suggestion which I offered, and which I think must appeal to you. You have got a very mixed situation here, Mr. O'Hara. You have to balance off many different pros and cons and try to reach a just and sound conclusion from the standpoint of all concerned. We in the food industry feel that we should not be arguir g about this bill from the standpoint of the food industry above. We simply serve the American people in providing them with wholesome and pure foods and, therefore, we have a very great responsibility to promote legislation which is necessary to secure the safety of our foods. We have supported such legislation, as Mr. Harris knows, from its very inception. I cooperated with Senator Copeland in the development of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and had a very considerable part in the writing of that act. And that was a contribution by the food industry. Now we are trying to make a contribution in the solving of this complex food additive amendment before you, and our position boils right down to this, Mr. Chairman, that we are in favor of the Administration bill, provided it is duly revised as we have suggested. We suggest that this compromise provision should be added, which will satisfy the objection to the Government license provisions in it, on an equitable basis, but that decision is left with the committee to make. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. Just a very brief statement to reassure the gentleman from Minnesota, from the questions raised this morning by Mr. Dunn, and those which I can see are going to be raised, I think he can be reassured that Mr. Dunn will have plenty of time to return from Europe before any resolution is reached on this subject. Mr. O'HARA. Of course, Mr. Dunn, it is true that, under the present Food and Drug Act, the Food and Drug Administration has three remedies if food is being sold to the public which is injurious or deleterious to health: They can go into the district court and obtain an injunction, for one remedy. They can prosecute criminally. Or they can go in and seize the food. Now, they have that under present law, is that not true, Mr. Dunn? Mr. Dexx. That is true, Mr. O'Hara, but the point is that the law now applies to a food after it is sold and consumed; whereas the purpose of this amendment is to assure the safety of a food before it is sold and consumed. Mr. O'HARA. I was the author of a bill during the last session of Congress which provided the same Mr. Duxx. What was that? Mr. O'HARA. I say I was the author of a bill, along with Mr. Priest, which did just that, recognized that principle. Mr. Duxx. Exactly. It has been your philosophy and it has been our philosophy. ago, I believe. H. R. 6747 was introduced in April, which was 2 months prior to the date that the industry bill was introduced, and you mentioned that a lot of water had gone over the dam since the industry bill was introduced, which made you feel that the Administration bill should be used as a basis for consideration by this committee. Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir. Now, the explanation of that is this: a counterpart of the second Harris and Wolverton bill was introduced last year, and Mr. O'Hara introduced at that time, also, a bill developed by the food and chemical industries, so that there is nothing new about these bills at all, these in lustry bills. They were before Congress last year. And what is new is the Administration bill. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. DUNN. We did not know anything about that at all, until it was introduced. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Schenck! Mr. SCHENCK. I have no questions. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Rhodes! Mr. RHODES. I have no questions. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Bush! Mr. Bus. No questions except to say that the statement made by you, Mr. Dunn, is certainly very revealing and very factual as to the position of the industry which you represent. Mr. DUNN. I hope fairly so, sir. Mr. BUSH. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DINGELL. No questions. Mr. LOSER. Nothing at all, sir. Mr. DUNN. I wonder if Mr. O'Hara has any questions? He has been so interested. Mr. WILLIAMS. I am just getting around to recognizing Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dunn, I note that, as a member of the American Bar Association, you are going over to London, and there you will have a joint conference, I assume with the British bar and perhaps other international lawyers in this field. Do you know of any legislation that they have which would be helpful to this committee which might induce the subcommittee to await your return? Mr. DUNN. No. Mr. O'HARA. I say do you know whether they have any forwardlooking food and drug additive laws which are good for us to know about? Mr. DUNN. This conference, Mr. O'Hara, is a rather historic one, because we have never had one of this sort before, and it will be largely a scientific conference in which the food commissioners of the United States, Canada, and Great Britain will discuss the various scientific aspects of such legislation. The general conclusion that runs through all of these papers is that there must be legislation to control food additives, and that the administrative authorities should be given the necessary powers to administer such legislation. Mr. O'HARA. Well, as a member of the American Bar Association for many years, I got their program, and I noticed they were going to dedicate a monument at Runnymede to the Magna Carta. I thought that would be of interest to some of the members of the committee, because the Magna Carta guaranteed a jury trial, as I recall it. [Laughter.] Mr. DUNN. Well, that comment is interesting because it fits in with the compromise suggestion which I offered, and which I think must appeal to you. You have got a very mixed situation here, Mr. O'Hara. You have to balance off many different pros and cons and try to reach a just and sound conclusion from the standpoint of all concerned. We in the food industry feel that we should not be arguir g about this bill from the standpoint of the food industry above. We simply serve the American people in providing them with wholesome and pure foods and, therefore, we have a very great responsibility to promote legislation which is necessary to secure the safety of our foods. We have supported such legislation, as Mr. Harris knows, from its very inception. I cooperated with Senator Copeland in the development of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and had a very considerable part in the writing of that act. And that was a contribution by the food industry. Now we are trying to make a contribution in the solving of this complex food additive amendment before you, and our position boils right down to this, Mr. Chairman, that we are in favor of the Administration bill, provided it is duly revised as we have suggested. We suggest that this compromise provision should be added, which will satisfy the objection to the Government license provisions in it, on an equitable basis, but that decision is left with the committee to make. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. Just a very brief statement to reassure the gentlenan from Minnesota, from the questions raised this morning by Mr. Dunn, and those which I can see are going to be raised, I think he can be reassured that Mr. Dunn will have plenty of time to return from Europe before any resolution is reached on this subject. Mr. O'HARA. Of course, Mr. Dunn, it is true that, under the present Food and Drug Act, the Food and Drug Administration has three remedies if food is being sold to the public which is injurious or deleterious to health: They can go into the district court and obtain an injunction, for one remedy. They can prosecute criminally. Or they can go in and seize the food. Now, they have that under present law, is that not true, Mr. Dunn? Mr. Dexx. That is true, Mr. O'Hara, but the point is that the law now applies to a food after it is sold and consumed; whereas the purpose of this amendment is to assure the safety of a food before it is sold and consumed. Mr. O'Hara. I was the author of a bill during the last session of Congress which provided the same Mr. Duxx. What was that! Mr. O'HARA. I say I was the author of a bill, along with Mr. Priest, which did just that, recognized that principle. Mr. Duxx. Exactly. It has been your philosophy and it has been our philosophy. Mr. O'HARA. I got that philosophy from working for a number of years with the food-industry organizations which I think are quite largely responsible, namely, the American Bakers Association, the American Institute of Baking, the American Meat Institute, the Dairy Industry Committee, and the Millers National Federation, who are all quite responsible dealers in foods in this country; are they not, Mr. Dunn! Mr. DUNN. Very much so. They are fine organizations. Mr. O'HARA. And I think you will find my bill, H. R. 366, which I introduced at the start of this session of Congress, with one amendment, is similar to the bill that you strongly supported in testimony in 1956 before this committee. Mr. DUNN. Not only that; I had a very large part in drafting it originally. Mr. O'HARA. I didn't remember that, but I am happy to have you tell me that. [Laughter.] Anyway, it does indicate the desire of the food industry for safe. sound, sensible legislation; does it not? Mr. DUNN. Exactly. Mr. O'HARA. And would you say that H. R. 366, before the committee, is pretty good legislation still, Mr. Dunn? Mr. DUNN. It is a good bill, except that it raises the controversial issue which is the heart of this whole legislative problem: Whether an adverse administrative opinion against the safety of a food additive should be reviewed, in effect, by a de novo trial through the district court, which is the heart of your bill, or Mr. O'HARA. But you rather substantially support that in your various statements of objections to the Administration bill; do you not? Mr. DUNN. Well Mr. O'HARA. I mean, you go in by injunctive relief, but there would be a trial; would there not! Mr. DUNN. What I say is this: Your bill makes it mandatory for the district court to determine, by a declaratory judgment proceeding, whether an additive is safe or not, before the Administration has condemned it. Now, my position is quite different at this time. I am trying to say that, first, the Administration bill should be revised to reduce it to the right legislative form, and it needs a very thorough revision in that respect. And that, secondly, to meet the objection of the legitimate foodmanufacturing industry, which is so widespread, there ought to be some way in this bill to provide for a de novo court review of the issue where the Administration has adversely condemned a food additive: that a compromise provision might well be to vest a discretionary power, not a mandatory power, in the United States district court to undertake that de novo rule for cause shown, so that when the petition for review is presented to the district court, the Government would state any reasons why that procedure is not a good one. For example, it may state, as Commissoner Larrick has often said. that the scientific determination of the safety of the additive in question may take at least 2 years, which is the normal period for determining the safety of an additive by a scientific process; and that, therefore, it would not be feasible, the Government would not be in posi tion at the time of the proposed court proceeding to present its testimony. Now, if the court was persuaded that it would be against the public interest for that or any other reason, then the petition for an injunction proceeding would be denied. But if, on the other hand, the court was persuaded by the argument of the manufacturer, a legitimate manufacturer, that there should be this de novo inspection trial instead of the appeal procedures as provided by this act, then there would be an opportunity to have it. Mr. O'HARA. My position is always it should be a matter of right, not whether the judge wanted to work on the case, and I still think that is a sound approach to as important a problem as this might be, Mr. Dunn, and I hope after you visit the dedication of the Magna Carta that you will agree with me. Mr. Drxx. I respect that position, Mr. O'Hara, and I expect to attend that dedication ceremony, and I know I will be very much inspired by it. But we still feel the United States district court ought to be given the discretion, representing the people of this country, in balancing the public interest, to reach the decision whether that review ought to be made, or whether the Administration review procedures should be followed. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Dunn, along those lines, in writing any legislation that comes from this subcommittee, I want to be perfectly sure and satisfied that we do not deny any existing civil rights of any of our people. I want to be sure that you have the same thing in mind. Do you have any question in mind, Mr. Heselton? Mr. HESELTON. NO. Mr. Duxx. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a final question of you! Do you want us to submit a revision of this bill in September, or do you not want us to? Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Dunn, that is a question I do not think anyone can answer at the moment. If we have not completed work, I am quite sure we would welcome any suggestions which you or any other interested parties might have with respect to revision. As the chairman of the full committee stated a moment ago, it is highly doubtful whether we will be able to finish consideration of this bill by September. I do have 1 or 2 questions with regard to your testimony and along the lines you has just mentioned. I note that you made numerous suggestions for modifying and revising this legislation, one in particular with respect to the definition of the term "food additive" or "chemical additive." However, and I believe you refer to it in the annex of your statement, you submitted suggested language for only one of these amendments, and that is with respect to the definition of the term. I am wondering if you plan to submit suggested amendments along the lines of the other amendments or modifications suggested in your testimony! Mr. DUNN. Well, the amendment in the annex to my statement, Mr. Chairman, contains one revision we suggest, subject only to the question whether the "generally recognized" clause should be modified. |