Hence, I suggest that the committee duly study the question of such an added provision.

But then I conclude by saying that if the committee rejects this compromise provision, then my National Association of Food Manufacturers approves the administrative amendment proposed by H. R. 6747, provided it is revised in a due legislative form.

ANNEX

We suggest that the definition of a food additive, proposed by the amendment before us, be revised to read as follows, and the significant revision is printed in italic:

(1) The term "chemical additive" means, except as herein otherwise provided, any substance used or intended to be used for any purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, packing, or other fabrication of any food, or in the treating, packaging, transporting, or holding of any food

(a) which thus becomes or could reasonably be expected to become a component of such food, either directly or indirectly; or

() which thus otherwise affects or could reasonably be expected to affect any characteristic of such food, either directly or indirectly, including any substance intended to preserve or alter such food and any radioactive material intended for use in such food or as a source for its irradiation,

if such substance is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the toxicity of such substance or its other potentiality for injury to health, as having been adequately shown through appropriate scientific procedures or through (prolonged) use in or on food to be safe for use under the conditions of its intended use.

(2) The term "safe for use," with reference to a chemical additive used in or in a food, means it is reasonably probable that such additive can be thus used under the conditions of its intended use without rendering the food injurious to health.

(3) The term "chemical additive," as used herein, does not include (▲) pesticide chemical in or on a raw agricultural commodity, or a pesticide chemical when intended solely for use in the production, storage, or transportation of any raw agricultural commodity; or (B) any substance used in accordance with a sanction or approval granted pursuant to this act, prior to the enactment of this paragraph.

(The additional similar exception with respect to the Federal Meat Inspection Act has been eliminated, for the reasons previously stated.)

Thank you very much.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Dunn, I think anyone who has heard your statement will agree with me you are thoroughly acquainted with the subject you have talked about this morning. Certainly your statement points up the complexity of the problem that is before this committee. We appreciate very much your having prepared such a comprehensive analysis of the various aspects of this problem.

There may be questions by members of the subcommittee and ex officio members of the subcommittee, which you might be able to answer, and I would like to ask Mr. Harris if he has any questions, first. The CHAIRMAN. I believe not, Mr. Chairman, except to say that I am very glad to have had the privilege of hearing Mr. Dunn in his presentation this morning on this very important and highly technical subject.

I recall a previous occasion on which Mr. Dunn last appeared before this committee, and he has always been very helpful. We are glad to welcome you back again.

The presentation you have made does point up the importance of the subject to which this committee must give a great deal of attention and careful consideration.

I have just this one question, and that is, I understood you to say in your statement that legislation in this field is absolutely necessary. Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that true!

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that recognized by everyone so far as you know! Mr. DUNN. There is no dispute on that question in the food-manufacturing industry that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, all sides, so far as you know, recognize the fact that legislation is necessary!

Mr. DUNN. Exactly. And we take the further position, Mr. Harris, that the responsible Administration bill should be used as the basis for enacting and developing this legislation, revising it as the circumstances require, and the committee believes, in a balanced form to equally protect the consuming public and the legitimate regulated industries.

These other bills which have been introduced are very valuable, indeed, from the standpoint of comparison, and taking out from them the good features that they have, which should be added to an amendment of this sort.

I participated in the development of the food-industry bills which Mr. O'Hara introduced and which you, Mr. Harris, subsequently introduced, with Mr. Wolverton, in their original conception. And at that time we had no FDA or Administration bill before the committee, so that we were plowing an original legislative path through these food-industry bills.

But now that the FDA-which, after all, administers our great and essential national pure-food law, and is very competent to do sohas now proposed an amendment drawn from the standpoint of its point of view, our position is, that from a responsible standpoint the food industry and I believe also this committee should use that bill as the basis for its development of this amendment, modified as it should be modified from every standpoint.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. WILLIAMS. In that respect, Mr. Dunn, which one of these bills more closely conforms to the views of your organization?

Mr. DUNN. Well, I cannot answer that question "yes" or "no." I would say this: That H. R. 8390, by Mr. Harris, and the companion bill by Mr. Wolverton, was the bill that the responsible food and chemical manufacturing industries originally developed, with some modifications.

But, a great deal of water, Mr. Chairman, has gone over the dam since we developed those bills, and the principal consideration facing you and facing us at this time is the fact that the Administration itself has now proposed its own bill, and therefore we believe that the food-industry bills, if I may call them such, should be now used for the purposes of reforming the Administration bill, so that we will come out with a bill which melds all points of view in an appropriate way.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that will be developed during the course of the hearings. The committee can make the determination later on. Mr. WILLIAMS. I note that H. R. 8390, which you say is the industry bill, was introduced on June 26, 1957, which is some just 2 or 3 weeks

95208-58-—————6

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. WILLIAMS. Mr. Dingell?

Mr. DINGELL. No questions.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Dr. Neal!
Mr. NEAL. I have no questions.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Loser!

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?
Mr. O'HARA. Yes; I will yield for a question.

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. DENN. 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. DUNN. 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. Busn. 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. Busи. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Dingell!

Mr. DINGELL. No questions.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Dr. Neal!
Mr. NEAL. I have no questions.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Loser!

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 there must be legislation to control food additives, and that the adis that papers ministrative authorities should be given the necessary powers to administer such legislation.