Mr. CHAPMAN. We will be glad to hear from you, Miss Scott. Mr. KENNEY. You have not changed the name; it is temperance, is it not? Miss SCOTT. It does not happen to quite agree with some of the modern temperance organizations, however, in its interpretation of the meaning of temperance. I represent the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, which is one of the organizations which cooperated with Dr. Harvey W. Wiley in his campaign for the enactment of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. All during the years since 1906 we have appreciated the splendid work done by the Food and Drugs Administration of the Department of Agriculture in improving the standards of foods and drugs placed on the market and in furnishing purchasers the means of identification of standards of quality of these foods and drugs. We are now in full sympathy with their desire to strengthen the law and to widen its application, but we are not satisfied with the identification and classification of alcohol in paragraph (f), section 402, page 16, of the Copeland bill. After several women's organizations, including the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, and the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, asked the Senate committee in charge of the Copeland bill to make adequate provisions for the recognition of alcohol as a narcotic, habit-forming drug, section 402 (f) was changed in an effort to meet our objections, but the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union feels that this paragraph as it now stands is weak and inadequate. The Senate committee added the words "including any alcohol" (p. 16, lines 12-13); but they cut out the words "quantity or proportion" from the label requirements, and in the proviso gave the Secretary of Agriculture such power to make regulations as might easily nullify the paragraph entirely. We should like to have retained in the revised law the provisions of the present law as regards alcohol which were worked out by Dr. Wiley, because we believe that alcohol is a narcotic drug and should. be classified with substances of that kind. The present law, enacted in 1906, deals with alcohol in section 8, where it says that any article shall be deemed to be misbranded "if the package fails to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilid, or any derivative or preparation of any substance contained therein." We ask that this provision be retained in any bill which your committee decides to report to the House. Mr. KENNEY. Now under the existing law we do have labels on these various packages showing the alcoholic content and also with respect to certain drugs. That is so, is it not? Miss SCOTT. That is so under the present law. Mr. KENNEY. Now, you want us to continue under this law what we are now doing under existing law? Miss ScoTT. Yes. We would like to have those particular provisions retained in the new proposed legislation. Of course, the Copeland bill has added a number of narcotics to the list which is found in 602 (e), and that is quite proper, and anything of that kind we would in no way object to; but we do believe that those same general provisions of giving the quantity or the proportion, naming the ingredients, ought to be retained in the new law. Mr. KENNEY. I am inclined to agree with you, as one member of the committee. Miss SCOTT. I might say this, the Mead bill has, and the original administration bill had, two paragraphs, one dealing with what they called habit-forming narcotic drugs, and in that paragraph each of the packages was to be labeled not only with the ingredients but also with the warning "habit-forming.' Then, in the next paragraph which followed, was given a list of what is called "stimulant depressants", and that paragraph followed the lines of the old law, the present law, which gave the quantity and proportion and the name of the ingredient, but it did not add the warning, and that appeared in S. 2800, and the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union accepted that version of the law not because we thought it was ideal, but we felt that we would not oppose a bill with that arrangement, but after it came into the next stage of amendment we found that the section providing for the labeling of depressants had been entirely cut out and no alcohol is mentioned at all; but the Senate committee did put in as I have explained to you; but we feel very strongly that the present law is much more satisfactory to us than either one of the proposed laws. Mr. CHAPMAN. Miss Scott, is it your opinion that continued operation of the present law requiring accurate labeling as to alcohol and various narcotic drugs in this bill, if it is enacted, would be not only a continuance of that provision which exists in the present law but would also be in keeping with the general policy of the proposed legislation, which is to require accurate and honest labeling of all these products? Miss ScoTT. I certainly do. Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you. Mr. CHAPMAN. The committee will be glad to hear from Mr Phillips. Is Mr. Phillips here? (There was no response.) STATEMENT OF HOWARD INCHES, ADVERTISING DIRECTOR, DERMETICS, INC., ROCKEFELLER CENTER, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. CHAPMAN. We will be glad to hear from Mr. Inches, for 15 minutes. Mr. Inches, will you state your name and address and whom you represent? Mr. INCHES. My name is Howard Inches. My address is 5409 RCA Building, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, Rockefeller Center, New York City. Mr. CHAPMAN. Are you a member of your firm, or are you appearing as an attorney? Mr. INCHES. I am advertising director of a firm called "Dermetics, Inc.", the home office of which is in Seattle, Wash. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, our organization has distributing offices in 32 cities of this country and over 1,000 people look to this company for their living. Speaking for my company, I wish to say that we are very happy to have the privilege to appear here before this committee to testify on behalf of the bill S. 5, known also as the "Copeland bill." The sections of this bill that pertain to cosmetics are of special interest to Dermetics, Inc. We sell a product which we call "Dermetics" and which we have refrained from calling a cosmetic because our principles are in complete disagreement with those commonly identified with the outstanding cosmetic firms. Mr. G. D. Runnels, president of my firm, has for the past 6 years fought for the truth in the field of the toilet preparations. Mr. KENNEY. Just what do you manufacture besides this product which you mentioned? Mr. INCHES. We have a production which we call "Dermetics " and which we believe covers the entire field. The name, at least, covers our products. Mr. KENNEY. What are the products? Mr. INCHES. We have a skin lotion and make up a program of scientific skin management. Mr. KENNEY. And your business is confined, then, to the sale of these lotions, and you would not call it cosmetics? Mr. INCHES. We do not call it cosmetics; no. We realize, of course, likely we will come under that field, because we have purposely avoided calling our article cosmetics and sold it under our name Dermetics. Mr. KENNEY. Do you make any other articles? Mr. INCHES. We do, too. A product called "Derbetain." It is a concentrated food for balanced dieting in concentrates. Mr. KENNEY. What is the other? Mr. INCHES. The other product is La Free, which is an antiseptic and deodorant. Mr. KENNEY. What? Mr. INCHES. An antiseptic and deodorant. We have the courage to believe that the steady progress and success of Dermetics proves conclusively that false advertising and false claims do not have to be used in this business to achieve success. We believe that the worth of the product is the first and only principle to follow. From these statements, you may have surmised that we are appearing here today to urge you to pass this bill, S. 5, or even a stronger one, at this session of Congress. If you have you are correct, for we do urge you to aid in the passing of this bill and making it a law that has been needed for many years. Miss M. C. Phillips, of Consumers Research, Inc., published last year a book called "Skin Deep" with which I am sure you gentlemen are familiar. In this book Miss Phillips reveals the amazing story of how cosmetics and cosmetic rackets have defrauded the public for many years unhampered and unregulated by the authorities. She cites many instances of the harm that this unregulated industry has caused the public, telling of how one woman, in using a popular brand of eyelash dye, permanently lost her eyesight due to the analine dye contained in this product. This book, itself is remarkable testimony to the fact that the cosmetic industry should be regulated by the Government in a strong and sensible bill such as S. 5. In the event that you gentlemen have not had the oppor tunity to read Miss Phillips' book, may I offer you this copy which I have placed on the bench? Mr. KENNEY. What is the name of that book? Mr. INCHES. I am coming to that. It is called "Skin Deep." Mr. INCHES. Yes, sir. In the event that you gentlemen have not had the opportunity to read it, I am leaving it here with Mr. Cantrell, the clerk of this subcommittee. It is our belief that no sincere firm in the toilet-preparation field, would, or could, oppose any part of this bill. Those who do are simply reluctant to give up the ridiculous claims and statements given in their advertising. Because of never having any governmental regulations imposed upon it, the cosmetic industry has had a clear field for producing sales and advertising campaigns and giving forth products, the success and acceptance of which belies the intelligence that modern Americans are supposed to have. We are especially anxious that chapter V and chapter VI of the Senate bill 5 be adopted in their entirety. May we point out to you section 601 of chapter VI as a part of this bill that will prove invaluable in protecting the best interests of the American public. It is impossible for any sane person to believe most of the_cosmetic advertisements one sees today, and the art of cosmetic advertising copy has reached such a point of perfection in using vague and evasive statements that one prominent manufacturer has been able to sell thousands of dollars worth of a "sun-burn cream" by merely advertising that it was "for sun-burn", without stating whether it would prevent sun burn or give you sun burn. I do not wish to take up any more of your time, gentlemen. I am not an attorney and hope you will overlook the lack of legal phraseology in my testimony. As a firm we have looked forward to the day when the cosmetic industry would be placed under a law such as we hope this will be, and we feel sure that this bill, when put into effect, will bring a sounder and more honorable condition to this business. And I thank you again for the time which you have granted me in giving this testimony. Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you, Mr. Inches. Mr. Samuel A. Syme, of the California Fruit Growers' Association. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL A. SYME, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE DRIED FRUIT ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA Mr. SYME. Mr. Chairman, my name is Samuel A. Syme, of Washington, D. C. I represent the Dried Fruit Association of California. I have given to the clerk a list of the firms composing this association, but in order that you might have some familiarity with some of them, whose names I am sure are familiar to the committee, I will just give you a few among others who are listed. McNeil, Libby & McNeil, the Sun Maid Raisins, California Packing Corporation, and numerous others, which the committee will find there. The Dried Fruit Association of California, through its members, represent 95 percent of the State's output of dried fruit, which in turn represents 90 percent of the dried fruit produced in this country. They are all on the Pacific coast. Some 125,000 farm families to a very large extent depend on this industry for their livelihood. I may say that the association is heartily in favor of legislative and regulatory activities of the Government which will attempt to promote honesty in business, protect the public health, and so on, and they feel that the present proposed legislation, S. 5, is by far the best legislation which has been proposed so far, and there is only one suggested change that we would like to make. We feel that philosophy of the entire field as it is presently drawn and as it applies to foods applies to foods which are, we might say, manufactured and ready to serve when they reach the consumer. The committee has heard the request of the citrus fruit people to be relieved from being included in the standards of identity as set forth in section 203. The Senate committee heard numerous arguments from the fresh fruit and fresh vegetable industries, and relieving them from the standards of quality as provided in section 303 and the apples and pears have been excluded. We feel that the dried fruit should also be excluded from the standards of quality. The reasons for that are as follows: The only difference between fruit in its fresh form and fruit in its dried form is that a certain amount of the moisture content of the fruit has been removed by the action of the sun. The fruit is split and set out in the drying yards and left there until it has been dehydrated by the action of the sun. This brings the fruit into a semiperishable condition, preserving it so that it may be used, stored, for future use. The fruit in this form is subject to the same attacks that it is subject to in its fresh form. In fact, on the Pacific coast particularly, fruit is marketed in three ways. It is either sent to the fresh market, or it is canned, or it is dried. Mr. KENNEY. Do any one of your members engage in the canning industry? Mr. SYME. Why, Mr. Kenney, there are a number of the concerns that are members of the Dried Fruit Association who are also engaged in the canning industry. Mr. KENNEY. You are directing your remarks Mr. SYME. Solely to the dried-fruit industry; yes, sir. The fruit, as I say, is marketed in one of three ways: Either fresh, canned, or dried, and it is not at all unusual that fruits from the same orchard and even fruit from the same trees will go to all three markets. Now, the fruit, as long as it is in its fresh form, is exempted from the standards of quality. When it goes into cans, that is a different principle. There the housewife when purchasing a can of fruit is purchasing it in a condition where it is ready to serve. All services have been performed on that product for her. She is purchasing not only the product but the service. Fruit in its dried form is not ready to serve. While it is palatable and wholesome raw, that is not the way it is usually consumed. It |