Mr. KENNEY. You are talking about foods now.

Dr. SIROVICH. I am talking about foods, drugs, beverages, and cosmetics.

Mr. KENNEY. Do you think more inspectors would be needed for the investigation of food

Dr. SIROVICH. Of course. Of course. Where is Dr. Campbell going to get them?

Mr. KENNEY. More than for drugs?

Dr. SIROVICH. Before I conclude, I want to pay my respects to Dr. Campbell, and I don't want you to get away with anything but the kindliest feelings for him, because if the conditions were reversed, I would be entitled to receive the criticism he is receiving, because he has not the help to enforce the law.

Mr. CHAPMAN. He hasn't got the money.

Dr. SIROVICH. He has not got the money. It would be the same thing as if I appointed you a committee to investigate all the weaknesses I complain of and Congress gave you $15,000 to investigate it and you needed at least a half a million, and then you come back and report you could not go on with your work because your money is exhausted.

Surely, if there is anything in the world that I think Secretary Wallace should have done, instead of criticising the peoples of our country, instead of things he knows nothing about, he should have come in and battled with Congress to get the proper kind of an appropriation to administer the Pure Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. KENNEY. I was interested in your statement about spraying the fruits and vegetables. How would you deal with that problem? Dr. SIROVICH. That is a very easy matter to deal with. All kinds of food, vegetables, plants, apples, pears, peaches, plums, asparagus, cauliflower, tobacco, have parasites which live upon them, and unless you destroy these parasites, they will destroy the products that constitute our edible foods. To destroy them, they usually spray them, through airplanes, balloons, and mechanical devices, with a preparation of lead and arsenic, and this lead and arsenic gets into the food by infiltration of the interstices in the small cells and stays there, and the farmers are supposed to wash them out.

Mr. KENNEY. You mean it penetrates right through the skin?

Dr. SIROVICH. Exactly. I have seen in a very large hotel in New York 24 people poisoned from eating broccoli and spinach because it gets into the interstices of those foods, and they get all the symptoms of gastro-intestinal poisoning, nausea, and vomiting, all the symptoms, because the farmers have not washed the lead and arsenic from the leaves.

The best way of handling that situation is for the Government to spend $150,000 to prepare dilute forms of hydrochloric acid which it could spray over the food, wash it.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Doctor, don't you think it is logical, though, that if the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over advertising, that same authority ought to have jurisdiction over the question of misbranding, or if the Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction over misbranding, that that same authority ought to have jurisdiction over advertising? The two are inseparable and ought to be carried along by the same authority.

Dr. SIROVICH. Not only are you correct, but if you give them that-if you give the Department of Patents the labeling and the prints that go into boxes, so that they know what they originally deposited with the Commissioner of Pure Foods and Drugs, they would have a yardstick with which to measure that advertising. The Federal Trade Commission is the greatest department, if we cooperate with them.

Mr. KENNEY. Doctor, that has not been true in the past, of the Department of Agriculture.

Dr. SIROVICH. I cannot be responsible for the fact that for 12 years we had a Republican administration of the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. KENNEY. But I want to ask you this; in the past the Food and Drug Administration has had charge of misbranding, has it not?

Dr. SIROVICH. Yes.

Mr. KENNEY. And the Federal Trade Commission has had charge of advertising; isn't that so?

Dr. SIROVICH. I think the Federal Trade Commission has had charge of advertising, in a way. They have issued orders to cease and desist, but it took them a long time before the results would be found. It might take a year or two. In the meantime a great deal of damage would be done, and there are a lot of new preparations and other things that have come out that the Commissioner of Pure Foods and Drugs has no jurisdiction over today, and these little amendments to the old law, if added now, would give him this opportunity, and I think that we can, through the labeling I have just given you, the white label, the blue label, and the red label, and also the principal ingredients of his formula. So he knows.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Labeling and advertising are both vitally important, aren't they?

Dr. SIROVICH. Very important, and I will tell you why

Mr. CHAPMAN. And they should be both worked right along together.

Dr. SIROVICH. Right; and I will tell you why they are important. You take, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the circulation of the blood. As the heart pumps the blood, the blood visits every cell of the body and carries nutrition to and vitalizes every cell of our body. If the heart stops beating and no blood is carried to the various cells, you have got death.

Now the newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and publications bear the same relationship to the general people of our country that the circulation of the blood does, because through the advertisements they carry the flow of food products to the hearth and fireside of the American people. Since repetition makes reputation, 85 percent of the people of the United States are depending upon advertising, because unless you bring it to them through the radio or newspapers or magazines or periodicals or publications, they have no way of being enlightened-and why is that so? The truth is the economic one, that because we have an economic scarcity so far as money is concerned, and an economic overproduction so far as production is concerned, therefore, to have the two unite together we have to utilize the medium of advertising, and therefore advertising should

be under the Federal Trade Commission, because it is doing that for the departments of the Government. It is unfair trade practices, unquestionably.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Don't you think it would be a little more logical to have advertising and labeling work right together?

Dr. SIROVICH. Yes; but I want to call your attention

Mr. CHAPMAN. Don't you think that would be more effective? Dr. SIROVICH. But I want to call your attention to one constitutional objection, that labeling and trade-marks belong to the Department of Patents, and you could have the Department of Patents send the labels and prints immediately to the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. CHAPMAN. That would be more effective?

Dr. SIROVICH. That would be the more effective way, because it would give them a club in their hands to see that they did what they said they would do, and to know what they are doing.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you very much.

Dr. SIROVICH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for the intelligent attention you have given me.

Mr. CHAPMAN. That concludes the hearings on this subject. (Whereupon, at 12: 10 o'clock p. m., the hearings on the above bill were concluded.)

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF MR. W. G. CAMPBELL

In the testimony of certain witnesses appearing before the committee, various amendments were offered to the bill. On some of them I wish to submit this expression of my views. Furthermore, two witnesses opposing legislation proffered charges against the Food and Drug Administration. On these I presume I am expected to comment. I shall undertake to do so briefly, giving first consideration to the accusations contained in the statements of Dr. Norman W. Burritt, who presented resolutions of the New Jersey Medical Society, and of Howard W. Ambruster, also of New Jersey. The substance of these charges is lax and, by implication, at least, dishonest administration of the Federal Food and Drugs Act.

I apreciate the inappropriateness of a consideration of that question by the committee at this hearing. You are concerned now primarily with a determination of the nature and extent to which the Food and Drugs Act needs revision and not with the degree of efficiency and honesty with which it has been enforced. Nevertheless, the question has been raised. You have heard and you have seen the accusing witnesses. Ordinarily I would be content to let the matter rest there and not dignify their accusations by a reply. However, for purposes of record I wish to make a few observations and offer a few documentary exhibits.

I suppose no one could occupy my position and make a valiant and conscientious effort at the discharge of his duties without creating enemies. Certainly I have made some ardent ones. The Administration comes in contact with a variety of commercial adventurers operating in the food and drug field. Some seek to carry on business in violation of the law. Others observe its requirements but attempt to utilize the enforcing agency to their financial advantage. Both are doomed to disappointment or worse and embrace every opportunity to voice their resentment.

My first knowledge of Howard W. Ambruster was as an importer of crude ergot, a venture upon which he had entered only a short time previously. By the sworn testimony of others, as submitted to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in June 1930, he had, according to his own admission, acquired control of the supply of ergot from Spain, the country of principal and preferred production, and declared his purpose to increase the price of it to the astounding figure of $5 per pound (the quotation at that time being approximately $1.50 per pound). Meanwhile he urged detention under the Food and Drugs Act of various shipments offered for entry, the disposal of

which would not be at his command. If examination disclosed that the condition of such shipments was below the U. S. P. standard, they were detained; if it established compliance, they were released. The releases were the basis of his original charge of lax enforcement, which was subsequently extended to a variety of products. His repetition of these complaints and their sponsorship in responsible but uninformed quarters led to my request for an investigation of the Food and Drug Administration by the Senate Agricultural Committee before which Ambruster had previously appeared. The report of the hearings by that committee is voluminous and illuminating.

Commercial practices in the production and marketing of food and drugs both now and throughout the life of this law have never been claimed by me or my predecessors to be what they should be. Compliance with the law has not been sufficiently general. Violations are occurring constantly, always have occurred, and will continue to occur until greater facilities for enforcement are provided. The personnel of the Food and Drug Administration is public-serviceminded and thoroughly conscientious. The enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act has at no time been undertaken with a greater devotion to the purpose of protecting the public than with that which now prevails.

I shall attempt here no specific reply to these charges. To each there is an effective answer, even as there was to the innerable charges which were filed with the Senate Agricultural Committee. Such comment as I have here made about Mr. Ambruster is in the nature of a preliminary to the statement that he was, as is indicated by their report, the source of information upon which the Union County (N. J.) Medical Society took action in opposition to the Copeland bill and critical of the Food and Drug Administration. Presumably this county organization took the initiative in bringing about the action of the State society indicated by the resolution submitted by Dr. Burritt. The following is from the report of the Union County society's special committee. It was signed, among others, by Dr. Norman W. Burritt and by Dr. George W. II. Horre as secretary. The Secretary of Agriculture received copies of this report direct from the society and from Members of Congress. I shall conclude this statement with the submission of a copy of that document and the selfexplanatory correspondence which ensued.

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF UNION COUNTY (N. J.) MEDICAL SOCIETY

The special committee appointed by Dr. Morris following the January meeting of the Union County Medical Society, at which time certain information was laid before us by Mr. H. W. Ambruster, would like to make the following report:

"We have personally investigated the so-called 'Wiley Act' of June 1906 and Senate bill 2800, being the proposed Tugwell or Copeland bill. We have also investigated the evidence presented by the printed report of a Senate investigating committee of 1930, which went into the matter of the status of enforcement of the Wiley Act under Mr. Campbell. We have digested the court records of cases prosecuted during 1929-31 and 1932.

66 The members of the committee feel that, from the evidence, there have been numberless violations of the Wiley Act, which have been proven but have gone unpunished, and a very large percentage of the cases that have been punished have not only had such small fines that one can consider them no punishment, but they have repeatedly committed the same offence, with knowledge of the Administrator, without being effectually prosecuted.

"Having compared the two bills in the light of what has gone before, we are unanimously of the opinion that the proposed bill should not be supported but that the present act be properly administered, both because S. 2800 does not provide any inherent penalties and because it leaves to the pleasure of the man who has before allowed flagrant violations the matter of enforcement. A more detailed report is herewith appended.

"We recommend that a resolution of condemnation for the proposed bill be spread on the minutes of this society, together with this report, and that copies of the resolution and the report be sent to the house of delegates of the State medical society, to the Secretary of Agriculture, to our own Senators and Representatives in Congress, to the President of the United States, and to the Journal of the American Medical Association. We further recommend that a copy of this report, together with the appended summary of proof, be sent to several of the daily newspapers. *

The following letter from Senator Barbour was written April 26, 1934: Hon. REXFORD G. TUGWELL,

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture,

Agriculture Department, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. TUGWELL: Dr. G. W. H. Horre, secretary of the Union County Medical Society of New Jersey, has sent me the enclosed report with reference to the present enforcement of the Pure Food and Drug Act. I have received similar communications from this society, some of them expressing the opinion that before any further legislation of this character should be enacted that an investigation into the present enforcement practices should be made. It would be helpful if you would let me have your advices on this matter.

With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely,

WARREN BARBOUR.

To the above the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture replied on May 1, 1934: Hon. W. WARREN BARBOUR,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: I have your letter of April 26 enclosing a report submitted by a special committee of the Union County (N. J.) Medical Society, with reference to the present enforcement of the Federal Food and Drugs Act. The report condemns the Food and Drug Administration for alleged laxity in the enforcement of thte Food and Drugs Act and protests the enactment of the pending food and drug bill, S. 2800.

The Department has already seen this report, a copy having been forwarded to the Secretary by Dr. Horre. A search of the Department's files fails to indicate that any member of this committee or Dr. Horre has ever previously communicated with the Department in connection with this committee investigation. We are forced to conclude, therefore, that the commitee has compiled its report on the basis of material and information of an ex parte character submitted by H. W. Ambruster, to whom reference is made in the opening paragraph of the report. Certainly, had the committee seen fit to communicate with the Department, we would have been very willing to have supplied comprehensive information which would have effectually answered many of the questions before the committee.

Mr. Armbruster has been engaged in attacking the Department of Agriculture and particularly the Food and Drug Administration-since 1926 or 1927. The charges which were apparently before the Union County Medical Society committee were extensively considered by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in a hearing held during the month of June 1930. The report of this hearing, printed for the use of the committee, covers 1,982 pages, approximately one-half of which consists of exhibits and statements submitted by Mr. Armbruster supplemental to the hearing. Perhaps Senator McNary, Senator Townsend, Senator Hatfield, Senator Copeland, or others who regularly attended the hearing can give you authenic information about its character and the facts which it developed. In view of the consideration already given the subject by the Senate committee, I assume you will not wish me to discuss in detail the various charges against the Food and Drug Administration contained in the medical society report. If you desire a detailed discussion of the report, however, I shall be glad to supply one.

The Senate hearing, of course, occurred before my connection with the Department of Agriculture. I have been a close observer of the work of the Food and Drug Administration since my appointment as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. Admittedly, the Food and Drug Administration is working with a deficient statute. Like other governmental agencies, it has of necessity been obliged to operate with a restricted budget-far too restricted, in fact, to do all of those things which should be done if the food and drug supply is to be adequately protected. In spite of these handicaps, it is my observation that a rather remarkably effective control is being maintained. The fault lies not in the administration of the statute but in the deficiency of the statute itself. That is why we have drawn up the proposed new food and drug bill which is now before the Senate, with a favorable report from the Senate Committee on Commerce. Rather than attempt to discuss the fragmentary criticisms of Senate bill 2800 in the report of the Union County Medical Society. I prefer to refer you to the report of the Senate Committee on Commerce, filed y Senator Stephens, chairman, on March 15.