Mr. KALLET. Mr. Chairman, the consumers have been given very little opportunity to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN. You have your opportunity now.

Mr. KALLET. I think we might have the courtesy of saying what we wish for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am not going to permit the stenographer to take down anything in which you make assaults upon the integrity of the members of this committee. Now, you know that you are here in opposition to the bill, certain features of it, at least, which is perfectly all right. I hope you will make an argument on the proposition in which you have an interest, and we would be delighted to hear you.

Mr. KALLET. Very well, I will do that, Mr. Chairman, but under objection, because I feel that the whole course of this legislation is important to the public, and directly bears on the kind of bill the public is going to get for its protection.

The CHAIRMAN. But what we are engaged in here now is trying to work out a bill, and we want constructive suggestions made, and not abuse of individuals.

Mr. KALLET. Well, let me make a statement on what I believe the consumer has a right to demand, in a bill governing products which affect the health or involve potential dangers to health. I believe you will consider that fair for the record, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will assent to that.

Mr. KALLET. First, proof of technical competence on the part of producers.

Second, adequate facilities to produce good products.
Third, insurance of proper controls and tests.

Fourth, good sanitary conditions of manufacture.

Fifth, and this, of course, Mr. Chairman, will be considered absolutely communistic, we demand complete truthfulness of claims and knowledge that such claims have been passed upon by disinterested experts.

Sixth, we demand for consumers a knowledge of the contents of foods, drugs, and cosmetics, and a warning of possible hazard to users; and

Seventh, and finally, we demand that the consumers' safety be placed in any bill above the protection of profits.

We feel that Senate bill 2800 would not assure a single one of these things. We would still have the same profoundly ignorant and incompetent producers of our foods, drugs, and cosmetics, most of them indifferent to the damage they do to the public, and one of the best mirrors reflecting the knowledge and technical competence of the drug and cosmetic industries is a "questions" column conducted by a leading trade magazine, "Drug and Cosmetic Industry." The following are a few of the questions asked, and it is only the better element in these industries that read a trade magazine and stop to ask questions.

I would like some information regarding a preparation for the treatment of colds, headache, and other pains. I would like to know if it is possible to compound a clove mint with the following ingredients:

Tincture of aconite.

Caffeine, and phenacetin.

Now, in the ordinary course of events a purchaser would jump into the market with his preparation. He would not stop to ask a question. Only occasionally is a question asked. The answer is:

It is possible, but it would seem to us to be dangerous and impractical. Aconite is a very powerful poison when used in excess of 0.03 grams per dose. Caffeine is a nerve stimulant with an exceedingly bitter taste. Phenacetin is less bitter, and probably more effective for your purpose. The very idea of a mint implies dissolution of the medicaments in the mouth in which case the practicability of such bitter substances is open to serious question. Finally, although all of these substances are good analgesics, none of them is especially to be recommended for colds. Frankly, we don't think much of this idea. We would recommend, rather, a mint containing some more generally used and less potent drug, like acetylsalicylic acid, which would relieve cold, and also allay pain.

Here is another question: "We have been marketing a cough remedy"—and this, Mr. Chairman, I think, is a very important question in relation to this bill, because, as you will learn later, we ask that every product, before it goes into interstate commerce, be licensed. Many say that that is not necessary, because if there is anything wrong with it, it will be caught immediately when it enters interstate commerce. Now let me read this question, which has a marked bearing on that:

We have been marketing a cough remedy for 40 years and never got into trouble because of claims we made for it, but lately a lot of our stuff was picked up and condemned, and we have been having considerable difficulty with the Department on this account. How can we find out what claims we can make?

It does not even occur to them to hire a technicologist or to hire physicians. They want to know what claims they can make, and the answer was:

It would pay you to retain a consulting medical director to advise with you along these lines, and we shall be glad to put you in touch with one if you so desire. However, the Department is the court of last resort, and its decisions are in the public interest and are usually based upon ample precedent. So the best thing is to engage someone who is in touch with the Department on such matters to rewrite your package and advertising copy and then submit it for approval.

Another question:

We are preparing copy for one of our clients who is going to market a new type of skin ointment. Our client feels, however, that the statement that the ointment is for "eruptions, irritations of the skin" would probably be construed as too general. What is your opinion?

It would be better to say that the ointment is useful for many eruptions and irritations of the skin.

And who knows whether it is or not? But, of course, that doesn't matter.

Another question asked:

We are thinking of making a chest rub containing aspirin. Is there any literature on the external use of aspirin?

There is nothing in Senate bill 2800 that will keep out of the medicine business such persons as William J. A. Bailey, who killed at least two men with Radithor, and who is now said to be selling seaweed for all kinds of ailments; or the makers of Koremlu, who ruined the lives of probably scores of women.

I should like to read a letter recently received from one of these

women:

At present I wear steel braces on both legs and still require treatment.

I might remind you that Koremlu was the depilatory that contained a rat poison, thallium acetate, and even after the medical journals appeared carrying statements showing terrible cases resulting from this depilatory, the firm continued to sell it.

At present I wear steel braces on both legs, and still require treatment. Up to date, no physician has promised me a complete recovery. I was discharged from the Massachusetts General Hospital on May 13, 1931, after spending 13 weeks there. At that time I was barely able to walk with the aid of a cane and steel walking splints. For 6 months, I returned three times a week to the hospital for electrical stimulation. Then, once a week for some months longer. Gradually the time between visits has been lengthened.

But the present bill would not have prevented such a product from getting on the market, that is S. 2800. It might have been caught up, after a great deal of it had been used, but there is no guarantee that the most dangerous preparations would not go into commerce; and the amount of damage that these "small fry" do is trifling compared with the injuries inflicted on the public by large and respectable advertisers who, with their high-priced and clever lawyers, under the proposed bill could easily defend their practices as trade puffing." If these advertisers had one shred of honesty or regard for the public welfare, their advertising would at least warn the public of possible hazards; but does it? Let us compare some advertisements with the statements made about the products by those who are in a far better position to tell the public what is good and what is harmful. A book by Dr. J. F. Montague, of New York, a physician, very aptly called "I know just the thing for that", admirably summarizes present knowledge of many of these products, and I shall quote several sections from that book. One of the most profitable avenues for advertising is the common ailments that are very difficult to overcome, and that it is difficult to do anything about, even for physicians.

We find the advertising men, the manufacturers, rushing in to put all sorts of products on the market for such things as constipation and for colds. Now, here is an advertisement that appeared in the New York Times of February 15. It says:

Avoid laxatives that constipate you. Physicians warn against irritating drugs.

It is an advertisement for "Pluto Water", and there are other advertisements, one for "Limestone Phosphate ", from another paper, the New York Journal, and an advertisement for Kruschen Salts from the Journal, which advises women to lose their fat by taking Kruschen Salts; but Kruschen Salts is just another cathartic, like Pluto Water and, like the Limestone Phosphate, a salt cathartic. Now, here is another one, "Fat Mary learns how to be slender ", how to lose fat, which appeared in the World Telegram. There are others, like Eno Salts which, by the way, I understand that Senator Copeland is to broadcast for, beginning next week. Senator COPELAND. Eno Salts?

Mr. KALLET. Eno Salts.

Senator COPELAND. I did not know that. I am much obliged to you for the information.

Mr. KALLET. Most of these are salt laxatives, and I should like to read some statements which physicians make about such cathartics. Here is one, made by the American Medical Association, many

years ago:

The abuse of saline cathartics by the public is an evil deserving of serious attention. Rightly or wrongly, the laity fear constipation, and naturally take what they are taught to believe is the cheapest and simplest course for its relief, self-drugging by means of saline cathartics. This habit is responsible for much of the distressing spastic constipation that exists and its accompanying neurasthenia. The advertisement and sale to the laity of such a nostrum as Sal Hepatica can only increase these evil results.

I should like to point out at this time that Sal Hepatica, one of the oldest nostrums on the market, is a product of Bristol & Myers, and that is Mr. Lee Bristol, of Bristol & Myers, who is so active in this joint committee for sound and democratic consumer legislation. I am afraid Mr. Bristol has a slight interest aside from the protection of the public.

Let us turn to Dr. Montague's book to see what he says about these salts:

There is a very general impression that salts are quite harmless, and the average individual feels perfectly competent to prescribe them for himself. If he knew more about what "salts" really are, and how they produce their cahartic action, he might think twice before running the risk which their promiscuous employment involves. In the first place, all salts are habit-forming drugs.

And you will notice that many of the advertisements say they are not habit forming.

The fact that the cathartic habit is not so morally degrading as the morphine habit does not make its acquirement any more commendable.

A strong salt solution dilates the stomach before it can be passed on into the intestine. This has a very bad effect upon the stomach lining containing the glands secreting digestive juices. If, by chance, the stomach wall is in any way inflamed, this condition will be much increased by the irritative action of the salts upon it.

One of the most widely advertised foods on the market is Kellogg's All-Bran, and here, again, we have them taking advantage of the common trouble, constipation.

Now, try Kellogg's all-bran. We have just distributed the new 1934 allbran booklet in your neighborhood. Laboratory tests show that Kellogg's allbran provides bulk and vitamin B to aid elimination

And so on.

Mr. Chairman, there is not a single thing in that advertisement that could be outlawed under the present bill. It all could be called either the truth, as it is, because it is all claimed by indirection, or mere trade puffing. Now, let us see what Dr. Montague says about bran:

Bran is a byproduct of flour manufacture. It was not considered fit for human consumption. There are, however, cases on record in which little concretions have formed in the intestines and have caused serious trouble both to man and beast. There are known as "bezoars" or food stones. To a horse, a stone or two of this kind in his intestines doesn't mean much, but to you and me they spell trouble. With the threatened passing of the horse, the flour manufacturer saw the possibility of a vanishing market, so he shrewdly con

trived to "educate" the public to the advisability of eating bran to keep "regular." He, therefore, devised tasty breakfast foods, and formulated recipes for muffins, bread, and such—all containing the "horse food", bran. Anything and everything to put back in our diet the very thing he first extracts as unfit for human use. Now, however, he calls it a health food. That bran is laxative there is no doubt. How it acts as a laxative is, however, a question of debate. Very few mention the fact that the individual flakes of bran have both a rough surface and sharp edge. Still fewer tell you that the flakes of bran pack together in the intestines in a little ball if they are not most thoroughly mixed with the food.

Perhaps it might as well be stated right now that the presence of such large quantities of indigestible material is not conducive to good bowel function in many people. In them it gives rise to much gas formation. This condition brings about a sense of "bloating" and uncomfortable abdominal fullness. Hence, when you start taking bran, it is well to realize that, in addition to your chance of being relieved, you also run the chance of developing an impaction or a flatulence which can make your happy life miserable. Say what you will, bran can and does irritate; indeed, there is excellent reason to believe it acts mainly because it is irritant to the soft lining of the colon. Imagine, if you will, rubbing a piece of sandpaper over the red part of your lip (this, too, is a mucous membrane) and you will understand what I mean when I say that the roughness of bran is unacceptable to the mucous membrane of the colon. What little softness water may have given it, departs and leaves the mass, of which the bran is part, covered and filled with sharp little spicules which tend to incite spasm of the colon. So, if you want a healthy colon, better let some horse eat your share of the bran.

Another advertisement on which I feel that Senate bill 2800 would have very little effect on, is that for the current advertising of Phillips milk of magnesia, and Senator Copeland will correct me, here, when I say that I believe that he did broadcast for Phillips milk of magnesia.

Senator COPELAND. Yes; I did.

Mr. KALLET. The ad says:

How to find out if you have acid stomach, and a quick, easy way to correct it. Senator COPELAND. But let the record show that I did not write the ad, or say anything like that.

Mr. KALLET. I know that, but you did lend your name to Phillips Milk of Magnesia.

Senator COPELAND. No; I spoke on health.

Mr. KALLET. The curious thing about this is that according to experts, we all have acid stomach, and this says:

How to find out if you have acid stomach, and a quick, easy way to correct it. The "signs of acid stomach" for which they advise taking five teaspoonfuls of milk of magnesia every day are:

Nervousness, neuralgia, auto-intoxication, frequent headaches, feeling of weakness, loss of appetite, indigestion

Senator COPELAND. I would not approve that, Mr. Kallet. That is, in that industry.

Mr. KALLET (continuing):

Sleeplessness, mouth acidity, sour stomach.

I dare say that these symptoms would apply to anything from headache to cancer, and yet they advise for all of these symptoms doing nothing but taking five teaspoonfuls of milk of magnesia every day.