718

FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

We cannot at

and so forth but because it will give my fellow chemists and inspectors work galore. Every chemist in this country will have plenty of work, if you put that requirement into the bill. present-maybe someone will find a way of detecting it, but at present we are unable to identify or estimate with certainty how much of straight whisky goes into a mixture. This is going to be a big problem.

There is another point I would like to call to your attention. I notice that the magazines and papers and the ad writers are very much in favor of this bill. do not blame them at all for being in favor of S. 5. Why? It does not touch them. See page 32, lines 7-14. They are not responsible for any falsehoods or vile stuff that appears in the papers and magazines that go into your home and my home and contaminate our children and all the children of this country. It reminds me of the reckless fellow that runs an automobile, who says, "Shoot, let them get out of the way, or I will run them down. I am insured. I don't care.'

99

That is what this bill does, exactly. The advertisement writers and the advertising agencies are all exempted. The man away back yonder that does the manufacturing, he alone is to be soaked. The other parties must squeal. I think it is a mistake to allow those parties to get out entirely, slick as a whistle.

Now, as to the "Skin Deep" book that was handed to the committee. You have referred to it several times. I think the title of that book can be put on the basis of the ad of the Studebaker Co., criticized by Mr. Mathews. I think the title is misleading. For example, this is what it says, "Skin Deep", by M. C. Phillips. It is Mary Catharine Phillips, of the Consumers Research. "The truth about beauty made safe and harmful." What is her personal knowledge on the subject? What does she do? She lambasts everything except what she thinks ought not to be cussed. She assails the pharmacists as dreadful misfits. She prescribes. She recommends a special liniment as a shampoo, if you have drandruff. In case of a brunette, she prescribes a 2-percent solution of resorcinol. Again, she recommends sodium bicarbonate for body odor. I wonder how much good it would do in case of an obese, perspiring colored mammy. She inveighs against zinc stearate, because a mother gave her baby a can of dusting powder, the baby pulls off the cover, inhales the powder, and gets sick. I suppose water is to blame if a mother lets her baby drown. She is not a physician, not a chemist, not a pharmacist. A layman knows nothing about it, excepting hearsay, yet this layman has the effrontery to give that kind of stuff to the public, criticizing everybody and everything in matters of beauty that does not suit her fancy, with the consumers' money. I don't think that is fair and honorable.

If the right kind of a bill become a law, such a book should be gone after, forthwith-I would curtail those kind of statements. I think that those kind of writers ought to be licensed, just as well as physicians and others are now licensed.

I think the advertising agencies have too great a leeway, gentlemen. Some have come down to us in the Post Office Department, in goodly numbers and tried to bully us, tried to make us feel that we were just a lot of ninnies and did not know what we were doing. They tried to overaw us. Nine times out of ten the advertising

FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

719

agencies were wholly responsible for the untruthful advertising. The promoter was innocent, but he usually got the fraud order and the advertising agency at most got a slap on the wrist. This bill will not touch advertising agencies lying.

I will submit that a man in an automobile running down an individual ought to be held just as much responsible, even if he carries insurance as when he does not.

I am going to call your attention to another thing: There are number of Government enforcing agencies of the subjects, covered by S. 5-the Federal Trade Commission, the Post Office Department, and the Food and Drug Administration. They are all doing good work. but here is the trouble. There is too much overlapping, too much criss-crossing. It has been referred to a number of times, but the disconcerting features have not been touched on. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, will take action against a firm or a product. I have done it. I am one of the men who is responsible for a part of this criss-crossing, but I think it ought to be adjusted. The Food and Drug Administration comes along and goes after a product. Perfectly right. Then it may go to the Post Office Department. They handle it practically on the same basis. Then it goes to the Federal Trade Commission. The Raladam case took somewhat that course. Congress only can do it. I have tried it. There is too much jealousy in the bureaus.

I think that Congress ought to provide some way to eliminate this unfortunate criss-crossing. It is not fair to the men who are enforcing the laws. It is not fair to the industries. I would suggest. if it is necessary to have all this criss-crossing, that there be compulsory coordination, that the various enforcing agencies be compelled to get together and work out a plan to adjust matters with less friction. Let there be a general committee representing all of the agencies. Then, if the Post Office Department takes up a product or manufacturer, or an exploiter, let it be referred to this committee representing the various agencies so that the matter can be adjusted for all without the three agencies taking separate bites from the same cherry. That would save much of the people's money.

Somebody will say they will do something crooked a little bit later. That may be true. But I don't think it is very creditable for several Government offices to take a bite of practically the same cherry. I have talked it over with former Solicitors of the Post Office Depart ment, and all agree that I am perfectly right and believed something ought to be done to correct the embarrassing conditions.

There is another thing: In the Department of Agriculture, there are some overlapping bureaus, that do similar things. For example, in one part of this bill, you will find apples and vegetables are not to be standardized. Why? My impresíson is because there is another bureau in that department doing that work. Why take it away from the Food and Drug Administration? Why not give one bureau the responsibility of making all food standards? Why divide it up and cause discord and uncertainty?

Another thing comes to my mind: As a consultant for the Post Office Departinent, I was frequently asked, "Is this a poison; is that a poison?" I would say," Yes; that is a poison."

Barium carbonate, for instance, came up. I ruled that it was a poison. Well, the Post Office Department told the parties concerned

720

FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

that they could not use the mails to send the product. They then came in post haste and I said, "Your own department says it is not poisonous to man. It kills rats, but does not kill human beings."

It was embarrassing, but the man responsible for the statement acknowledged his mistake. The product was barred from the mails. There are other instances of a like character that I might cite. This one will suffice. Such things ought not to happen. These ought to be more coordinated. One bureau ought not to have to fight another on those matters.

I am very much interested in that Lash Lure matter. I think the health officers of the States ought to take a thing like that off the market. Absolutely, I do not think there is any question about it. I would do it. If I were a health officer and a thing like that came into my State, I would take it off so quick it would make somebody's head swim. I might not have ample power under the law, but I think safeguarding the health and well-being of a community is ample to take action.

A similar matter came up early under the Food and Drugs Act. When it first went into effect we were informed that there were large quantities of smoking opium coming in at San Francisco, Calif. I took it to Dr. Wiley, and I told him, "We do not have very much power under the Food and Drugs Act to keep that stuff out but I said that with the morals back of us and the safety of the public, we were justified in keeping it out. He told me to act. We took that position and we kept smoking opium out of this country and it has been out ever since.

I could cite case after case of similar character.

Now, these colored oranges: Supposing these people are allowed to color their oranges without declaring it. I am not interested in oranges, but suppose they are allowed to thus color their oranges and a manufacturer makes tincture of orange peel and the States officer comes along and picks up the tincture of orange peel and says, "You have colored your tincture of orange peel yellow, artificially colored. It is illegal. You are summoned to court." He does not know where it came from but is penalized. I do not think it is proper or fair with all due respects to the orange growers. I know they have their

troubles.

That is practically all I have to say at this time.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you Doctor, we thank you so much for coming.

Dr. KEBLER. Only I did not get done with that whisky.

Mr. CHAPMAN. I think you have given us the benefit of your experience and knowledge on that subject.

That concludes the hearings except for one more statement by Dr. Sirovich, a Representative from the State of New York, who has introduced a bill on the subject and found it necessary to return to New York for the week-end. The committee will reconvene at 10:30 o'clock Monday for the purpose of hearing Dr. Sirovich, who will be the last witness.

(Thereupon, at 4:25 p. m., an adjournment was taken until 10:30 a. m.. Monday, August 12 1935, as above indicated.)

AMEND THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1935

HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Virgin Chapman (chairman) presiding.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The committee will please come to order.

The committee will be glad to hear from Dr. William L. Sirovich, a distinguished and able Representative from the State of New York, on the subject of food and drugs legislation, particularly the bill which he has introduced in Congress.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Dr. SIROVICH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, every doctor will tell you it is not what a man eats but what he digests and assimilates that contributes toward his health and strength. Every student of political economics will advise you it is not what a man earns but what he saves that contributes toward his wealth. Every teacher of pedagogy or the histories or principles of education will instruct you that it is not what a man or woman learns, but what he or she remembers that contributes toward their education and their culture. Every minister of the Gospel will tell you it is not what a man preaches but what he prac tices that contributes toward his morals and ethics. So, likewise, the barometer of civilization of any great nation, acting through its Congress, will tell you that the supervision it gives to its working people and to the general public, so far as it concerns the food, the drugs, the beverages, and the cosmetics they use, will give you an indication as to how that nation takes care of its citizens, health and strength.

Mr. Chairman, food, beverages, and drugs have been the foundation, from time immemorial, upon which the superstructure of the health of mankind has been preserved. Food and beverages to maintain bodily health and vigor. Drugs to restore lost health. Cosmetics to improve women's looks have had the keen attention of the women, of all times and climes, and of all races, from the dawn of civilization throughout all the ages.

"Tell me what you eat, and I'll tell you what you are." This adage can be paraphrased by saying:

721

722

FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

"Tell me with what his food was adulterated, and I'll tell you what caused his death."

Nature does not produce all of our food products the same everywhere. Nor is all food of the best quality. All fruits grown are not of superlative standard. All vegetables that mother earth brings forth are not of the finest quality. All meat products do not come from the choicest animals.

There is a natural variation in quality, standard, and nutritive value in all plant and animal products. Food and drugs, offered for sale, should be graded officially, by labeling, to show the consuming public these variations in the quality of food and drugs they purchase.

If the food products we produce are not consumed, as time rolls by, nature, through decomposition, takes its toll on these animal and vegetable products. Deterioration and decay set in. The stage of putrefaction and dissolution arrives. The nutritive, caloric, and vitamin value of the food has been destroyed. In this condition food substance is unfit for human consumption.

Here some of the vultures and carrion crows of unscrupulous business come in. Animated by greed and avarice they actually embalm this animal and vegetable material unfit for human consumption, by the utilization of artificial and chemical preservatives, colorations, astringents, and adulterants. such as sodium sulphite, aniline dyes, sulphur. dioxide, sodium benzoate, formaldehyde, alum, boric acid, and countless other poisonous chemicals, that react on these decomposing foods, that are unfit for human consumption, to make them appear to be wholesome, palatable, fresh, and nutritious.

Food, decayed and injurious and wholly unfit for human consumption, is thus sold by the carload. Millions on millions of dollars is the price that the innocent purchaser pays for the privilege of being poisoned daily.

When there is a surplus of good food obtainable, humanity should be protected by stringent laws declaring it to be criminal to adulterate, devitaminize, demineralize. and abstract important nutritive elements and ingredients from the food of mankind for the benefit of the personal greed and the enrichment of unscrupulous racketeers dealing in food products.

What is true about food products is equally true about certain drugs, cosmetics, and nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating beverages. In drugs we have adulteration, substitution, and vitiation of strength. In cosmetics we find the use of poisonous elements that may be harmful to the human body. In nonintoxicating and nonalcoholic beverages we have colored and charged water, dyed to make them attractive seeming to the eyes, no matter how harmful they may be to the human system.

High-pressure salesmanship and false propaganda, designed to make the public what is craftily called "health conscious ", not out of regard for the public or the health of any citizen, but solely to sell alleged remedial products, is put out daily, yes, hourly, in a constant barrage through every form of available communication.

Who ought to be held responsible for this frightful and dreadful state of affairs that has excited an innocent and often gullible public with fears about their health, their stomachs, their nervous systems, their teeth, their throats, their appearance? The answer is: Those