efforts being put forth thereafter. We would be only one of the many drug, cosmetic, and food advertisers who would be forced to liquidate in this manner. We hope you will act promptly and continuously on this between now and the time Congress convenes.

This letter provides concrete proof of the reason for the opposition of many publications to the bill now before this committee.

Mr. Chairman, the American Home Economics Association urges that S. 1944 be reported favorably to the Senate and that any changes your committee may see fit to make in the bill as it now stands shall not be such as to lessen its scope or to impair its effectiveness. I thank you.

The next speaker will be Dr. Florence E. Wall.

STATEMENT OF DR. FLORENCE E. WALL

Dr. WALL. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Senatorial Committee: I would like to deal here, for a few moments, with some things. which I think would be of interest in connection with cosmetics. Mrs. Sporborg forgot, I am sure, to include in the committee that she suggested for reference on matters of scientific interest, that that be covered also by a chemist. It was suggested that my reference would be to matters that are to be covered by a chemist. It is as a chemist that I appear before you this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. As you probably know, Dr. Wall is a fellow of the American Institute of Chemistry.

Dr. WALL. I regret that Mrs. Sporborg omitted to include a chemist in that list.

Mrs. SPORBORG. I thought I did. I do so now.

Dr. WALL. I am a consulting chemist of 20 years experience, and the last 9 years of my experience I have devoted exclusively to work in cosmetics. I find, and my personal analysis of this bill shows rather an unfortunate lack of knowledge of the cosmetic business which has now become almost exclusively a chemical industry. have, since last May, tried to offer my constructive suggestions in the section that was to cover cosmetics as that would be included in this bill, but somehow connections were not made.

I

I can subscribe to many statements made by Dr. Reed because he is also a scientist and a professional man and he made the same criticisms that I do in regard to the clarity of definitions. It is said that a scientist can give you in 1 sentence what a lawyer will take 2 paragraphs for.

I desire to call attention to 1 or 2 sections. So much has been said that I might say that I will proceed directly to things that have not been touched upon. The term "cosmetic" which it says on page 2 includes all substances and preparations and so forth is too vague. I can give you an excellent definition of cosmetic which will include the therapeutic appliances which come in our work as it is now recognized in cosmetic therapy because this is also a field of research that has gone on despite its being ignored by many professional people. It has not been respectable for physicians to bother with cosmetics since about the year 1600. It is only really recently since manufacturers of cosmetic preparations, within the last 25 years, have been able to afford to find out what the business was really about.

The paragraph in the bill reflects that lack of knowledge. The progress that has been made in chemical research is truly astounding,

and the amount of research that has been done in cosmetics has not been exceeded by any other industry, except, perhaps, dyes.

First, my criticism of a chamber of horrors is that the worst thing in it is perhaps basic ignorance. They have taken these few things and brought them out as examples, completely ignoring about 95 percent of the business which has gone on and which is carried on in the most constructive way.

We have also been telling the public in lectures and writing, that the most harmful thing is not what we put in the cosmetics, but what these manufacturers say about them. I think the worst thing any cosmetic does that is done largely through a lack of information. Some of the manufacturers do not have the information that they should have, and that has been responsible for many of these conditions which have arisen. Processes can be controlled, and when they can be controlled, it is indeed simple to take care of the situation. I have already told Dr. Copeland I am willing to offer definite suggestions in connection with the paragraph in the bill. This definition of drug is kind of silly to me. It says that a drug is any appliancethat is ridiculous, because that would include a pair of scissors that the barber uses to cut your hair with. This is just a silly aside, but this is a matter of adulteration, which we consider as a chemist.

I am discussing now the average drug in connection with the matter of adulteration. It seems that the inherited opinion of what an adulterant is something which is added to a substance which is going to spoil it, but you can have adulterants, and dangerous ones, that are not mutually exclusive. For instance, potassium cyanide does not have to be adulterated to kill you. It can be the most pure potassium cyanide there ever was, and it will kill you just the same. In other words, you can have dangerous things which are not adulterated, and you can have adulterated things that are dangerous also. They do not have to be mutual. The definition of an adulterant, if it is taken to be something to be added to another compound, it will vary with the nature of that compound; for instance, water, which has been added in many creams, is considered to be an adulterant if it is present in more than 25 percent quantity. There is a lack of definition of adulterant which is going to be a pitfall.

One of the worst clauses that we object to is section 10, page 14, tolerances for poisons and poisonous ingredients. I have read that clause all through and if I could add two words "or cosmetics" I would say that you were really getting at what this is supposed to get at, spray residue and insecticides and things that are in or on a surface of some sort, but to keep cosmetics in that definition is to invite a most perplexing condition.

There are any number of cosmetics that may be used safely on the surface of the skin, and properly so, but if they are taken internally they may be, in many circumstances, harmful. We know that many substances can be used externally with great benefit, but if taken into the body even in small quantities, they are likely to become dangerous. For instance, if you get mascara on the eyes, that is on the eyeball, it will cause a severe smarting, and I would not care to swallow any of it. This reminds me of an old story which was told by a doctor when he had prepared some drugs for a man to take, and he wanted to prescribe a dosage for it, so he told him to take as much as he could hold on a dime-because it was a rather strong medicine-and the

next day when he called on this man he saw that he was in a rather serious condition and he asked him if he took the medicine to the quantity that would be able to stay on a dime and the man said that he had no dime so he used two nickels. This illustrates very clearly what happens when otherwise innocent drugs are used improperly. We are not looking for scarecrow nor for corkscrew interpretations. We want them to be straight and definite. Under the definition as we have it now, if you sell something, anything to be used externally, if it is taken internally, or if it goes in your eye, the person who makes that can be liable for injury if this provision were incorporated in the law.

I should like to see the words "or cosmetics" taken out. I think that is what it really means, spray residue and insecticide.

I should like to suggest also taking over the adulteration of cosmetics and I refer now to page 6, section 5. Dr. Beal objected to that when he was brought forward, and I shall be very glad to offer a concrete suggestion in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. You are offering some language for that?

Dr. WALL. Yes; I can offer you language for a definition, and I can clear this up'so it will not be so vague.

The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to have you do so.

Dr. WALL. This section 5 has to do with the adulteration of cosmetics. We will pass everything that has to do with material medical because that has changed so frequently since 20 years ago, when we started the chemical research, and if I may coin the term "material cosmetica" has changed just about as frequently.

Years ago everything was in connection with plant substances and then metallic substances, and then 20 years ago the metallic substances in drugs have been replaced by modern chemical synthetics and very little is known about them. The one thing that must be covered is the question of personal idiosyncrasy. It is unsound to exclude a whole group of substances because a few individuals might be susceptible, and the matter of determining tolerances can only be determined after a long and severe undertaking for years and years. I hope it will be done, and when done, properly.

Misbranding: We have goods taken care of and we have drugs taken care of, but we have no misbranding of cosmetic accounted for. That has been omitted. The industry is one which justifies the protection against misbranding, which is frequently possible in our industry. It deserves the protection against misbranding certainly as much as the other two industries. I have listened with great interest to all the discussion of the publication of formulas. You owe it to the legitimate manufacturer to protect him. The man who has pirated that has simply taken the hard work of another manufacturer and gained all the benefit of it. This, of course, brings in a class of people who are not professional-the amount of pirating that is done is something appalling and they feel that all one must do is to simply analyze a substance and duplicate it, that is not the point. The control of food and drugs bring in, largely, manufacturers of some size, but the control of cosmetics brings in every little beauty-shop operator who if she or he wants to pay $5 for an analysis can become a manufacturer. Every person who manufactures cosmetics should be protected. The big houses who have spent so much time and money on research work

every year should be protected. I would like to suggest, and I can also suggest some words for that.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have that.

Dr. WALL. In summing up I would like to say that I feel it is to be regretted that there is so much hysteria about cosmetics. I lay that largely to the dread mystery in which it has been shrouded so long. The physicians dropped it and it was taken up by very improper people for a long time. It was not until the chemists took it up that it became respectable again.

In September I had the privilege of serving as chairman of a committee working in connection with the New York Health Department to get up a display of the Chamber of Horrors in connection with cosmetics. The first release that went out-but first let me go back and give you the history of that:

The idea was to fit in right along with the Food and Drugs Act and the Health Department was commissioned to collect up a display that would show to the public all of the harmful and dreadful things, things against which they should be warned. I went away for 10 days and Dr. Barker had been commissioned to collect these dreadful things. I came back and called him on the phone and when I called him and asked him what had been done he said, "We cannot find enough to make a decent show." I said, "That is fine." When the releases. came out, they had evidently already gone to press and it had been written by some representative who evidently had written it up in the future tense, and it stated that this display was a display of all the harmful things that could be used by the public. As a matter fact, the display that was there was a splendid exhibit of the raw materials that the various creams were made out of and it told why the value of the cream bases helped in some measure to account for the prices of the product. That was entirely good propaganda. At another corner there was a display by the department where I gave a lecture on hair dyes. My objection to similar things that appear here are purely esthetic. I have never known of anybody being killed by hair dye, but some of it is certainly not very flattering, although the better grades are. I was on the committee that helped to revise the sanitary code of the city of New York; I was invited merely as a chemist to sit in on the meetings of the committee as a whole, in connection with the protection of the public. I decided that if people are still in business who have been in business for the last 75 years, it cannot be so deadly the product which they manufacture-but if they have products which contain certain things they should be stated. They should put informative labels on them so the public can decide whether they want to buy that particular thing and use that particular thing or not. As the ideal solution of this I would like to suggest that our present law, as it stands, be extended to cover the advertising; that, we need to improve, to bring in corrections that are most urgently needed at the moment. The cosmetic industry has had some trade-practice conferences, and perhaps can take care of its own troubles. That was their idea, but the N.R.A. came along, and I think they are going to function under that. The ideal thing would be to have foods and insecticides where they belong, under the Secretary of Agriculture, and I think the Secretary would have troubles enough with them. Í would like some time, it cannot happen day after tomorrow, but I would like to see drugs and cosmetics taken out of the administration

by the Department of Agriculture, and it should be treated as a new administration of drugs and cosmetics in which we shall include all therapeutic appliances, drugs and cosmetics in the new National Institute of Health where they would be subject to the Surgeon General, and with an advisory board consisting of physicians and pharmacists and chemists who can be assumed to know something about these questions and would be specilaists in this line. They would know about things that pertain to our business, and they will not be determined by people who have their troubles already with food and insecticide.

I suggest the establishment of an advisory board to serve as a grievance committee to protect against unwise publicity before facts are ascertained. But, publicity and prosecution should follow any complaint or finding toward them.

Re: Publication of formulas: I also want registration of formulas with a competent bureau-I suggest the advisory board-so that questions of advertising claims can be settled before copy goes out and publications could also apply to such a bureau to see if advertisement is acceptable and truthful in substance. This will work towards higher standards because if advertisement is refused and refusal is based on actual knowledge itself it may prompt manufacturers to improve products and bring them up to standards that will be acceptable.

A list of "harmful or deleterious substances" should be carefully defined to include

A. Substances forbidden at all times. These would be very few.

B. Partially harmful substances that are allowable up to defined percentages. C. Substances specifically for external use, generally harmless.

D. Substances generally harmless, that can affect predisposed persons-and this protection should apply to labels as well as all accompanying literature.

It is not suggested that these lists are to be included in the law. They should be for the information of the bureau, available at request. Lists can be made for food, drugs, and cosmetics, impartially, and I can supply much valuable information on these categories.

But, I still say that these medical, drug, and cosmetic matters belong more properly to some other administrative body than the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Agriculture. Section 9 (e) at the foot of page 13 should be revised. The wording is amusing in its implication. An advertisement is false in one magazine but not false if it is in a medical magazine. If you mean that curative properties can be stated more explicitly to the medical profession, say it in some other way. After all, the medicos need to keep up with the new things just as well (even more) than the laity.

Contemporary medical opinion. This is especially important on cosmetics because so few physicians know about them at all and practically all the medical literature is against them based on troublecases only; hence, exaggerated. They are learning that their newer ideas are worth more.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate the remarks by Dr. Wall, and we think they will be of value in the consideration of this bill. We will call on Mr. Arthur Kallet, Secretary of the Consumers Research Incorporated, Washington, N.J.