178 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS books since 1907, and under that act the meat packers are in effect licensed with respect to their entire operations in meat-packing plants, their labeling of products, what they may use in connection with those products; and we can see where there might be a conflict of jurisdiction between certain portions of the Copeland bill, and the Meat Inspection Act which has been on the books for so long, and for that reason we have had up with the Department of Agriculture the matter of the preparation of an amendment to this act, which would have the Copeland law, when it becomes a law, apply to the meat-packing industry, as to everybody else, in all of its provisions, with the single exception as to where certain things may be already covered by the Meat Inspection Act, and we hope that that amendment can be inserted in this law before it is passed. The CHAIRMAN. Just what language do you propose to provide for the acceptance? Mr. DRAPER. We have suggested several sorts of language, Mr. Chairman, and each one of them, the lawyers of the Department or somebody else connected with the Department has suggested that we had not covered it exactly, and so we rather feel that maybe we might leave it to them to draft some language that would have the effect that we are seeking, and I think that they will undertake to do that. We are in a peculiar position in this business. We cannot put a label on any meat product unless it is approved in advance of its use. Everything on it, everything on the label and on the can and on all meat and meat-food products, and the products are prepared in the first place under the immediate supervision of inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and then we can not even use labels, or do anything else without their approval, that we must obtain here in Washington, and we simply do not want to run, in the future, into a conflict of jurisdiction over the identical subject. I think that is all I have to say on the subject, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will give that particular matter attention, Mr. Draper. Mr. J. D. Miller. STATEMENT OF J. D. MILLER, REPRESENTING THE ILLINOIS WHOLESALE GROCERS ASSOCIATION AND THE CHICAGO WHOLESALE GROCERS' COUNCIL Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman. I represent the Illinois Wholesale Grocers' Association and the Wholesale Grocers' Council of Chicago. I desire first to call attention to paragraph (e) of section 2 where "interstate commerce " is defined as commerce between any State or Territory, and any place outside thereof." We feel that that is an improper definition of "interstate commerce" and suggest an amendment by scratching out the words, after the word "Territory " in line 2, as follows: And any place outside thereof. The CHAIRMAN. You mean in line 211 Mr. MILLER. In line 21; yes. Our reason is that foreign countries will doubtless buy goods according to their own laws, and this restriction may tend to interfere with the business of the citizens of the United States as to foreign trade. FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 179 I now call your attention to page 4, section 3, line 14, which says: If it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated. I am referring to page 4, section 3, beginning at line 12. Now this is a criminal statute, and we feel that the words "may have" should be eliminated, and in lieu thereof insert the word "has"; so that no person may be subject to conviction merely on the matter of suspicion. I next call attention to page 8, paragraph (c), line 3. Under this provision The Secretary is hereby authorized to promulgate regulations exempting from any labeling or packaging requirements of this act food, drugs, and cosmetics which are, in accordance with the practice of the trade, processed, labeled, or repacked in substantial quantities at establishments other than those where originally processed or packed, on condition that such articles are in conformity with the provisions of this act upon removal from such processing, labeling, or repacking establishment. This paragraph relates to the relabeling of merchandise shipped by manufacturers and packers to distributing points for relabeling, and it merely says that the Secretary is authorized to promulgate such a regulation. Inasmuch as this relates to business of very large volume, we feel that he should be required to make such a regulation, and therefore ask that in line 3, page 8, the word "authorized" be stricken out, and in lieu thereof insert the word "required." We next call attention to paragraph (a) of section 7, page 8, under which A food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to mislead the purchaser, or (2) if its contents fall below the minimum standard of fill prescribed by regulations as provided by sections 11 and 22. Merchandise which is shipped and handled will necessarily be reduced in volume, very much, of the merchandise, and it would appear to be slack-filled, when as a matter of fact it is not, and we suggest that either the "minimum" be removed or, if it shall be desired to retain it, that an amendment should be added to that paragraph, for which purpose we suggest the insertion, at the end of line 24, of the following words: Provided, That suitable tolerance shall be allowed for reduction in volume of the product resulting from transportation or other handling. And this is a criminal law, and we know this committee-we know that Congress does not want to convict innocent persons, but we have a clause in this law that, for a second offense, there are very severe penalties, and that paragraph as written would be liable to be violated at any time, unless amended. We next call attention to page 9, paragraph (e), which reads as follows: A food shall be deemed to be misbranded (e) If it purports to be or is represented as a food for which a minimum standard of quality has been prescribed by regulations as provided by sections 11 and 22, and (1) its label fails to bear, if so required by the regulations, a statement of a standard of quality in such terms as the regulations specify, or (2) it falls below such standard. 180 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS We move that that entire paragraph be stricken out. We are in favor of definitions for standards. They have been used for many years. They have been nearly always found to be correct. The joint standards committee has determined and fixed these standards, and generally, in fact, nearly always, the work has, we believe, been efficiently done, but the fixing of definitions of standards is entirely a different proposition from the establishing of grades; and on that point we call attention to the fact that at the Century of Progress, in 1933, held in Chicago, the United States Department of Agriculture maintained an educational food exhibit, evidently in support of the theory on which the pending Senate bill 2800 has been founded. As it relates to grades of food products, the Secretary would. under this bill, have power, by official rulings, to require the labels of food products to bear a statement of United States grades A, B, C, or similar designations. As a matter of fact, under the proposed grading plan, United States grade A would probably be made low enough for packers in all sections to market an important part of their product as grade A. In order to meet competition, manufacturers would be interested in reducing the quality of United States grade A instead of improving it. The maintenance of United States grades A, B, and C will, under this bill, necessarily rest on Government policing, and, with approximately 50,000 food establishments in existence in this country, adequate policing would be impossible. This would lead to unfair competition among employers and dealers, as well as to the defection. of consumers. Under the proposed plan of grading, it would not be in the interest of any manufacturer to maintain and improve the quality of United States grade A, while the Government, by its system of labeling. renders it impossible for him to gain the benefit of its efforts in his behalf. He would not go to this expense. He could not afford to. This country contains a myriad of manufacturers who have established reputations for their brands of foods. When they adopt grades, they cannot lower them except at the risk of permanent loss of reputation and financial destruction. In other words, they are bound to protect and maintain the quality of their products or go out of business. As to such products, the consumers need no policemen for their protection. These manufacturers and dealers are their own policemen and their constant effort is and has been to win, by improving the quality of their products, and reducing the costs. Therefore we feel that this subdivision (e) to which I refer should be entirely eliminated. I next call attention to paragraph (f) on page 9, of which item 2 reads as follows: A food shall be deemed to be misbranded (2) if the common or usual name of each ingredient such food bears or contains in order of predominance by weight is not shown on the label. Now, the requirement there, of a statement showing the ingredients to be named in the order of their predominance, by weight, as we believe, is unnecessary. If we are required to give the ingredients, why should that not be sufficient? Merely adding that they must be stated in the order of their predominance by weight means oppor FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 181 tunities for error. These foods are not prepared by college professors. You have to do the work through ordinary skilled labor. Errors are liable to creep in. That paragraph will be very fruitful of errors, and render this law a difficult thing with which to comply. We therefore ask that in lines 23 and 24, the words "in order of predominance by weight" be eliminated. Senator CARAWAY. What is the page? Mr. MILLER. That is page 9, lines 23 and 24. The CHAIRMAN. Repeat the words you want stricken out, please. I did not catch them. Mr. MILLER. We move that the words in lines 23 and 24 on page 9, which read as follows, be stricken out: In order of predominance by weight. We next call attention to paragraph (g) on page 10, which reads as follows: A food shall be deemed to be misbranded (g) If it is for special dietary uses, such as by infants or invalids or for other special nutritional requirements, and its label fails to bear, if so required by regulations as provided by section 22, statements concerning its vitamin, uineral, and other dietary properties which fully inform the purchaser as to its nutritional value. That paragraph (g), as written, we feel, might apply to many products, but it should not apply, as we believe, unless the label or the advertising matter recommends the product for infants and invalids. We therefore suggest to the Committee that after the word "if" the following words be inserted, after the first word, there, in the paragraph. If the label or advertising matter says Then the paragraph will read: If its label or advertising matter says it is for special dietary use-- Our feeling is, and our reason for this suggestion is, that distributors of food products should not be held to something which may be taken by infants or invalids, unless it is recommended. In other words, the advertising matter and the statements on the label should determine the purpose for which the manufacturer intended it to be used. We next call attention to section 12, a section which provides for permit factories, and in connection with section 12-they should be taken together-we call attention to section 16, page 23, under paragraph (a), lines 11, 12, 13, and 14, and move that the following words be stricken out. Commencing in line 10, the last word, there, in line 10 or that has been manufactured, processed, or packed in a factory or establishment, the operator of which did not at the time of manufacture, processing, or packing, hold a valid permit, if so required by regulations under section 12. This goes back now to the permit section 12. The CHAIRMAN. You just read from section 16, did you? Mr. MILLER. I am reading from section 16; yes. We do not wish to object to anything that we think should not go out. We do not want to confuse the committee by anything of that kind, but we are moving that the entire section 12, be stricken out. That is, section 182 FOODS, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS 12 relates to permit factories. With that, we also want stricken out the words which I have just read in section 16, lines 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. We then call attention to line 12, page 25, which also depends upon this permit business, and move to strike out all after the word "bond" in line 12. The words we want stricken out there read as follows: Any article condemned by reason of the manufacturer, processor, or packer not holding a valid permit when so required by regulations under section 12 shall be disposed of by destruction. Destroy the goods, not because they are illegal, not because they are unwholesome, not because they are misbranded, nor for any reason except that they were not operated in a permit factory. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, you discussed section 15 a few moments ago. Some reference has been made to what is commonly called "multiple seizures." Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to discuss that in this connection or not! Mr. MILLER. I will be glad to answer any question that it is possible for me to answer, Mr. Chairman. I will do anything I can to be helpful to this committee. The CHAIRMAN. I thought perhaps you might have some views on that particular subject. Mr. MILLER. I shall come to that later. What I am trying to do now is to get these clauses taken care of that hinge upon section 12, the permit business. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. MILLER. We are going to move to strike out the whole permit business, and then I will be glad to show you why we think it should be stricken out. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Proceed. Mr. MILLER. Now, we also call attention to section 17, page 26, paragraph 6. We move that that entire paragraph be stricken out. Well, it should be called the "subdivision 6." The words we want stricken out read as follows: (6) The introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, or cosmetic if the manufacturer, processor, or packer does not hold a valid permit when so required by regulations under section 12. In other words, these different paragraphs to which I have referred all hinge upon section 12. Now, what is section 12? Section 12 refers to the establishment of permit factories. It provides that under certain circumstances-I presume it will not be necessary to read the whole paragraph; it is lengthy-but it relates to the establishment, if the Department cannot determine what it wants, or get what its wants there, under certain circumstances, that the business shall be required to stop and not continue until it obtains a permit. In other words, it cannot operate without a permit from the Secretary of Agriculture. Now, we feel that that is a very onerous provision, as well as a very unnecessary one. The reason that it is unnecessary is this: Already ample provisions is made by law to take care of everything |