페이지 이미지



[ocr errors]

Mr. Kallet. My name is Arthur Kallet, and I am Secretary and one of the representatives of Consumers' Research, a nonprofit organization with 50,000 ultimate consumer subscribers, and interested solely in the protection of the ultimate consumer, and supported solely by ultimate consumers.

We had prepared a detailed analysis of the proposed bill from the consumers' point of view, but we shall not present that analysis.

With respect to the bill, I wish merely to say that while we believe the bill far too weak to give the consumers the adequate protection to which he has every right, it is nevertheless infinitely superior to the present act, and if a stronger law cannot be obtained, this at least should be passed.

We do, however, wish to place a brief statement on record which we feel is an unpleasant but unavoidable necessity if this legislation is to receive proper consideration from the present moment until it passes the Congress.

Before reading the statement, I wish to point out that it is now a few hours within the close of the hearings, and no ultimate consumer has yet been heard. Nor has even a modicum of consideration been given to his interests by the speakers or by the formal or informal expressions of the Committee, yet it is or should be evident to everyone that except as this bill serves, aids, and safeguards ultimate consumers, these deliberations have no meaning of value, except a few pitiful remarks.

It is difficult at best for consumers to obtain a fair and full hearing before a congressional committee dealing with legislation which would dislodge strong vested interests of manufacturers of cosmetics, quack medicines, and adulterated and misrepresented foods and drugs of every sort. The preponderance of commercial interests present and speaking at great length for the protection of their profits makes it absolutely essential that the fairest possible dealing with every ultimate consumer interest should be assured. As representatives of the consumer we do not believe it possible to receive such fair dealing, not only in the hearings but also in the committee's deliberations, when the chairman of the Committee is, we are informed, receiving pay for broadcasts on behalf of a nationally advertised product the claims for which will be adversely affected as being untrue and misleading under

the terms of the pending legislation. These broadcasts, on behalf of Fleishman's Yeast, were started after the introduction of the pending bill. The Senator's fourth broadcast in the series took place last night, following the close of the first day's hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you observed any unfairness on my part?

Mr. KALLET. Yes. I have. I should want to discuss that with you after I close this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. By all means proceed.

Mr. KALLET. During the course of that company's broadcast statements were made which were gross exaggerations and which find no support among reputable American physicians. Because reputable American physicians are not permitted by their code of ethics to testify directly or indirectly on medical nostrums, Fleishman's have been found to buy their testimony abroad. Much of this purchased testimony has been repudiated by the medical faculty at Vienna.

In view of this commercial activity for a concern which will be affected by the pending legislation, we protest on behalf of the consumers for whose protection this bill was drawn, and we request that the hearings be reconvened under a new committee and an unquestionably impartial chairman.

This statement is made by the secretary and is signed by myself and Mr. Schlink.

To answer Dr. Copeland's statement, we do not find that very hard, because I merely listened to those that came forward to press their claims by taking up what otherwise would have been time for the consumers, and the two have banded together in the considered effort to prevent the ultimate consumer from being heard. I have sat here and listened to those that have come forward all day yesterday and today up until 2 hours ago and no consumer had been heard.

One of the representatives of the ultimate consumer, I noticed, received a great amount of applause from the commercial interests represented here.

If the consumer is to receive adequate protection, we believe that a more aggressive spirit must be displayed in seeing that the clause is properly described, and that his necessities are properly placed before the Committee, for, after all, this is an appeal designed to protect the public, to protect the ultimate consumer, and not to protect the commercial interests concerned, as one might gather from listening to the two days of testimony. The CHAIRMAN. We very much obliged, Mr.

Mr. Kallet. (Applause).

The CHAIRMAN. The next speaker is Dr. Schlink, of the Consumers' Research,





Dr. SCHLINK. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

Like Mr. Kallett, I spent many days in preparation for these hearings, in an earnest attempt to represent, so far as they could be represented, the interests of 50,000 ultimate consumers.

We really speak for those ultimate consumers, and we know that we speak for them.

Hundreds of them have written to members of the Senate and the House and to President Roosevelt himself, in support of this bill, and we have copies of the letters which many of them have sent.

Through our work 50,000 consumers, at least, know that they have a stake in this bill, and we propose to tell them, as often as may be necessary, that that stake is not being protected under the system which is set up for hearings of this type.

I am not going to make a speech.

I am going to close very briefly by saying that I reenforce the statements of Mr. Kallett. We prepared those statements together. We have made them with a clear consideration of our responsibility.


[ocr errors]

We recognize that we have to know what we are saying. We think it exceedingly important for 125,000,000 people in America that proceedings of this character should be carried on under auspices which are so unmistakably impartial that there can be no question raised about it either now or hereafter.

In order that the ultimate consumer should receive the safeguards he has every right to be afforded under this bill, the members of this committee or subcommittee which handles the hearing must represent, neither indirectly or directly, neither inferentially nor by their conduct of their discussion, any interest whatsoever save that of the general public.

I recognize that it is an unprecedented thing for a representative of the general public to speak in this way. I recognize that he usually held, properly, perhaps, in the light of the very clever men of law and of science who speak here, very properly regarded as the victims of the operation of commercial machinery.

I think the time may have come, gentlemen and ladies, when that process may no longer be safely carried on.

Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Dr. Schlink.
Dr. Schlink spoke at my invitation, as he had not sent in his name.

The next speaker is Mrs. C. I. Hendrickson, of Washington, of the District of Columbia Home Economics Association.



Mrs. HENDRICKSON. Senator Copeland and members of the Committee, opponents and proponents, I am Gladys Irene Hendrickson, a home maker, representing the District of Columbia Home Economics Association, which is a member group of the American Home Economics Association.

It, like the national association, is composed of elementary and secondary school, college, and university teachers of home economics, dietitians, nurses, members of scientific and journalistic staffs within the District and Federal Governments, and in industrial and business organizations throughout the District of Columbia, together with a large group of home makers.

This association most heartily endorses Senate bill 1944 as an instrument of protection for consumers in their purchases.

We are endorsing the bill in its entirety, Mr. Chairman, not because we believe it to be a perfect instrument, but rather that we regard it as a starting point for the regulation of a situation which we now feel is absolutely hopeless, and we hope from the extremes of the opposition and the support that we may expect a reasonable mean.

It is the belief of our association that the provisions of the bill regarding advertising are mutually helpful to all concerned, producers, distributors, and consumers alike. In “distributors" we include advertisers.

Since the provisions of the bill preclude the possibility of misleading statements in advertising, consumers' confidence in the products advertised and the descriptive material used should be immeasurably strengthened.

Since reduction of waste through member purchasing is one of the major objectives of the association, it believes straightforward nonambiguous advertising can be most helpful in realizing this objective.

Every consumer desires adequate protection against harmful ingredients in all articles for both internal and external use and therefore welcomes the extension of prerogative and function given the Food and Drug Administration in the provisions of the bill regarding drugs and cosmetics.

It is most reassuring to us to have our Government arranging its legislation to meet the constant changes in manner and practices of living such as are to be found in the provisions of the bill regarding mechanical therapeutic devices, as it gives us cause to believe that the unscrupulous may not expect to exploit the public at the expense of its health.

As in the instance of the reduction of economic waste, and as a means toward that end, the extablishment of definite standards in all products purchased for household and personal use has long been a major objective of the association, especially in the home makers' group.

We are, therefore, desirous that this portion of the bill, together with the provisions regarding labeling, be made as extensive as possible in its scope.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me; you would not favor any change particularly in those items of the bill?

Mrs. HENDRICKSON. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. HENDRICKSON. Since in the understanding of the members of the association the bill as written offers so much protection to honest ethical producers and distributors, and also offers such excellent opportunities for the practice of fair business methods, this group feels such business organizations have much to gain and little to lose under its enactment.

The District of Columbia Home Economics Association wishes, therefore, to go on record as endorsing all the provisions of S. Bill 1944 as protective of the best interests of its members and needful to the well-being of all as consumers.

It urges that the committee recommend the speedy enactment of the bill into law.

Mr. Chairman, may I at this time read the concensus of opinion of a group which met at my home yesterday and discussed the bill. I had not requested the time for that.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mrs. HENDRICKSON. In addition, I wish to express the opinions of 40 women meeting informally to discuss this bill, and, while some of these may seem very curt, very abrupt, and even rude to some of you advertisers, nevertheless I shall offer them:

That in the opinion of this group to which I refer, any manufacturer who refuses to subject his products to the scrutiny of the bill is thereby automatically admitting some inferior or harmful quality in that product, and that, therefore, we, as consumers, can have no confidence in any sales appeal regarding it;

That no action proposed by the Government with the protection of public health as its objective could be considered too drastic or too costly;

That we can have no confidence nor understand the motive of a manufacturer or advertiser who is willing to abide by the letter of the existing law regarding labeling, and insists upon creating other impressions through other forms of advertising;

That we urge the formulation of legislation which will give the consumer-Dr. Campbell particularly—the greatest sense of protection against the unscrupulous, unprincipled manufacturer.

I take issue there with the man who spoke this afternoon on the small percentage of those people. It is always the small percentage against whom we have to protect ourselves, because, by and large, we all like to believe we are fairly decent people.

I want to second the statement of Mr. Thomas Elliott that at any social or economic cost which may ensue as a result of the effect upon the unscrupulous, that cost is infinitesimal beside the continuance of the present practices of the people who would be involved in that situation.

Finally, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist asking Mr. Parlin of the Curtis Publishing Co. how he reconciles his vehement attack upon the rating of products which all we home makers have welcomed, with the wide-spread campaign of the Dole pineapple people to educate the public at large to use their second- and thirdgrade products.

Thank you.

Mrs. Hendrickson later secured permission to insert the following documents at this point in the record: THE MONEY-CHANGERS IN THE TEMPLE_AN ANALYSIS OF THE GOODWIN PLAN

(By Robert C. Dexter, in the Christian Leader, Dec, 16, 1933) Many of our churches have inquired of officers of the American Unitarian Association regarding the so-called Goodwin plan. It has, therefore, been thought advisable by the administrative council to request the secretary of the Department of Social Relations to prepare a statement outlining the plan. Further than that, it has been considered desirable that this statement shall also include pertinent comments and criticisms on the plan for consideration by our churches. It should be borne in mind that Unitarian churches are congregational in polity and that any statement only represents the opinion of its author. Some of our churches, in common with many others, have already committed themselves to the support of the plan as outlined.

In this connection it is interesting to note that at the last meeting of the General Alliance Board on November 10 the matter of endorsing money-raising schemes was discussed. The alliance board felt that this was not its function and the following vote was passed:

Voted: That the executive board feels that the alliance is organized to stress the religious and spiritual side of our churches, and that it does not endorse the exploitation of the branches by business organizations.

While the officers of the association take essentially the same position as that taken in the alliance resolution just quoted, they feel that they are bound at least to present their point of view to our churches for their consideration.


The Goodwin plan was conceived by Adolph 0. Goodwin, a business and advertising executive of Chicago, Ill. It is worked in the following manner: The Goodwin Corporation is approaching all churches in the United States, both Protestant and Catholic, generally making its contact through the women's organizations, although this is not always the case. It asks that each organization appoint at least 10 representatives, whom it calls broadcasters. These broadcasters are instructed to approach the purchasers in the church, particularly the women, and ask them to sign an agreement to purchase a certain brand of nationally advertised products. The products cover practically every con

« 이전계속 »