« 이전계속 »
branded, tagged, as prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture so as to show them to be compounds and the exact character thereof."
Page 4, section 7 provides, "that the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to cause all compounds, mixed, or blended products to be properly branded and prescribes how this shall be done."
These are important provisions. They also were omitted from the act, as finally passed. The Copeland bill would provide this authority.
Members of the committee, when the act of 1906 was under discussion the same vociferous and determined lobby of proprietary medicine makers, drug dealers and bad food manufacturers or inert ones who were doing pretty well and did not want to be disturbed; many promoters and advertisers were on the ground as they now are, determined to prevent action at any cost—with this difference: There is a larger body of newspaper, magazine, outdoor, and radio advertisers presenting arguments, filling the mails, offering substitute bills. Their present mass methods of attack have gained horse sense. They follow a leader, turn a solid circle of heels to the next outer circle and an ever-widening circle the heels of which energize the minute men to a constant stinging attack.
Where does it strike? In the words of a Serbian girl refugee before the commanding general of the city in which she was called to account for herself. “I being now no more living, have no more fear, I speak the truth.” I present exhibit A-marked for your use. If there was that much business in 1933, what became of the part of the $17,700,000,000 which ought to have been moving about? Who bought all these products? Would education and publicity, truth in advertising make such a difference?
Times have changed. Few producers of any foods are raising any objections to this bill. Some packers of food have asked for the factory inspection, e.g., the salmon canners. Scientific knowledge, education in home economics, biology, chemistry, the structure, function, growth, and nutrition of the human body, and the evolution of the food industry due to Dr. Wiley's leadership have changed the situation. The good law is eventually good for all of us.
Times have changed. There is constant emphasis on the fact that it is up to women to do their job well. They are better educated, better psychologists, better citizens than they used to be. They are thoroughly interested in this bill.
The consumer is not, and I think she cannot be, confused seriously by any statements about the dangers of this bill. Her confidence-indeed the confidence of the entire Nation-has been upset and shaken to the base. Ballyhoo does not move the woman citizen. She is quite resolute these days.
The cuckoo clock may call the hour and the half hour, but she is like the 8year-old boy who turned the dial of the radio with the remark “The battle of the tooth pastes is on again, I use powder. Let's listen to something else.".
“Voluntary inspection”, section 22, has been called "a paradoxical complex, a dangerous experiment” at these hearings.
This inspection service is now offered by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on perishable farm products. The authority to give it was introduced as the result of trade demand, grading of eggs, butter, fruit, potatoes, poultry, etc. *The meat inspection law has been in full force for 27 years. Salmon packers have requested such service. Why should not packers of crab meat and other such foods have it? There have been trade demands for this section 22 though because it is so contentious, I think if it be not vital to the purpose of the bill, it might be modified. The question of the financing of this feature of the bill should not be questioned by any person who knows the results of the inspection of meat and milk alone.
When Pasteur discovered bacteria, the causes of food-borne diseases were soon known. When Dr. Harvey W. Wiley arose as the leader of the pure-food movement, food-borne disease was doomed. Today any city or community is ashamed to have cases of typhoid fever reported. “What is wrong with the milk? Or water?” In other disturbances “What food or drink have they had in common?” Isn't the cost worth while?
The combined effects of scientific research in foods and nutrition and the operation of the food and drug law and the education of the whole body of our citizens, through schools, the press and the health education in city and State and Nation, make it possible to choose and use the right food in the right combination at the right time anywhere.
The names carbohydrate, fat, protein, vitamin, endocrine gland, harmone meant little or nothing to women and home makers 25 years ago. Today one would seem to be a moron if she had not absorbed some of this newer knowledge. Some knowledge of these factors is part of the health education of every family.
The difference between the use and abuse of drugs in relation to health is beginning to be understood. We now have prescribed a diet instead of a tonic in convalescence. We rebuild.
This education is irresistible and will move on just as the education in foods has done. We need truthful labels and truthful presentation of values in every way, though advance can go on anyhow.
Now all the speakers against this bill have said the bill will take away the possibility of self-medication. It would make self-medication easier. It would give confidence upon which so much of the expected benefit is based. What is the present situation of the mother of the family who must bear and rear the children and keep up the efficiency of the family? Some health education has made her conscious of these questions:
1. The danger of neglect of the family health.
2. The knowledge of or faith in a few "simples” or remedies which have come down through the ages, which she uses to alleviate suffering, sooth the anxious patient, and quiet her own mind.
3. The vast blast and chorus proclaiming the new cures, remedies, and substances emphasized by radio, by the newspapers and magazines, though she learns these claims cannot be put upon the labels and gives little heed to the clamor,
4. The increasing number of proprietary products which bear the formula on the label.
5. The high cost of medical care and its frequent inaccessibility.
6. The probability and possibility of the county health unit and socialized medicine.
Is this the woman who has been here objecting to S. 1944? Certainly not. As she becomes acquainted with the bill she understands its helpful purpose and protection and favors it.
Who are the objectors to this bill? Are they shadows of 1906? Have they suffered no “sea change" in 27 years?
In 1887, when I was a very young girl, a friend was showing me her curio cabinet. Her mother whimsically remarked, "Show her the little pills.” Into my hand was placed a small sample package of proprietary medicines which had been thrown in at the door as an advertisement and kept for some time as a curiosity. The box had 8 or 10 slender vials containing tiny white pills. Each vial was numbered and labeled “Specific” for some 1 of 8 or 10 major then known diseases and an alarming sequence of symptoms which made you wonder whether there was "no health in us”, concluding finally at the bottom of the label in a heavier type: "Or fear of death.” They don't do that now.
How many of us still carry horse chestnuts for rheumatism? Wear a Carnelian ring? Wear a sapphire? Or a rabbit's foot, etc. Or take Exity Ex Compound instead of a hooker of something else? The woman at home who voted for you as her Congressman or Senator can very well use as much intelligence in her choice of proprietary medicine as she did in voting for you in the election if you will give her a good chance to read labels which tell the truth, allow no false claims in the label or in advertising, and contain a warning in case of new and unknown or little known substances. (Note provisions in S. 1944, sec. 7 f (2) and sec. 8 e (1 and 2), quantitative formulas not required. Ingredient declaration required only where product is not a standard article.)
S. 1944 will help this woman very much. I would like to present an exhibit of labels used by competent manufacturers who have confidence in their products and in the intelligence and observation of the consuming public. The formulas are given on these labels as will be required by S. 1944. On the shelves of the Mayflower Hotel drug store you will find many of these labeled articles. We would like to know why the United States must be reckoned as a backward Nation in respect to this labeling. None of our ordinary proprietary products can be shipped to any South American nation without a full formula on the label. Why not give home consumers the same protection?
The consumer would like to be relieved of another disadvantage. She is beginning to question the use of certain drugs and products. She cannot afford to buy these highly advertised substances and take them to a chemist for an analysis. Neither can she use such a scientist as Dr. A. Goettler and get his O.K. before she uses it. Dr. Goettler's analysis of the radium water used by Mr. E. M. Byers, of Pittsburgh, who died of radium poisoning, would have warned him to let it alone. The consumer has the right to protection. The Government can give it to her. Any manufacturer can make an analysis of any product on the market. So the objection to the revelation of the formula is not valid. A manufacturer may not be able to tell by what combination or process a certain product was perfected. That is the clever protective secret of the good manufacturer.
Because of the individual differences of human beings as to the tolerances and allergies and some other differences, it is important to have such tolerances defined, standards set up, and note made of the behavior of such medicines under reasonable conditions. Several persons at the hearings recommended the insertion of the word "public" before "health” wherever used in the bill. I protest that suggestion. It would defeat the purpose of the bill.
Mr. Northam Warren, of the Associated Manufacturers of Toilet Articles, mentioned the annual turnover in the cosmetic industry in terms of many millions of dollars and said that only one one-hundredth of 1 percent of these cosmetics could be considered dangerous or fraudulent. I believe most of them could be eaten by a child with no worse result than a possible "tummy ache." But women and men have a right to know where danger lies.
The cosmeticians have missed the psychology of the consumers. They should be working for the passage of this bill. Why?
Women still believe they are taken at their face value. They try to live up to it and you will admit they do a pretty good job nowadays.
When education and industry took most of the interesting processes of making foods, clothing, interior decoration, and education out of the home and standardized them the women followed them out into business, and for the first time were paid for their work.
But in order to get the jobs they had to look young, fresh, and attractive present good face value. The young Vassar graduate who had lived joyously all her life suddenly was faced with the complete collapse of her father's health after 4 anxious months of care, had to become provider. She got a job. A few days later, questioned by her boss as to her use of rouge and cosmetics, answered, “Yes, I do. I heard the office manager wouldn't hire a girl who hadn't good color. I had to have the job so I got my color for a quarter and now I can relieve my mother at night so she can sleep and I have money to buy food. I am doing my work all right?” She kept her job.
Now another woman who has often been ailing is Mr. Warren's best prospect. Get her interested in her face, complexion, skin, looking young. Yes, she leaves off all the doses, tonics, drugs, and doctors whom she never needed and spends a large part of $24,000,000 a year looking her best.
The honest manufacturer, the cosmetician, and the honest advertiser have nothing to fear. They will have an interesting time, more copy to write and a great increase in business under S. 1944.
Let us have the bill.
STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PACIFIC FISHERIES AND THE
NORTHWEST SALMON CANNERS ASSOCIATION I. The Association of Pacific Fisheries and the Northwest Salmon Canners Association, with offices at Seattle, Wash., comprise within their membership over 99 percent of the salmon packers of the United States operating in the United States and the Territory of Alaska. The industry as a whole does approximately $40,000,000 of business annually.
These associations submit to this committee that the present food and drug bill contains provisions which have been found to be adequate for the protection of the consumer of canned salmon. They believe that the drastic provisions of the proposed bill (S. 1944) are intended to meet difficulties found in the manufacturing, selling, and advertising of products other than food products.
Consequently, since the evils aimed at are nonexistent in the food industry, including the canned salmon industry, we see no need for the preparation of a very drastic bill which is inapplicable to, and is impracticable for, the salmon canning industry.
Therefore we petition that consideration be given to the feasibility of the preparation of a separate food bill. The problems of governmental regulation of food, drugs, and cosmetics must of necessity differ because of the difference in function and nature of the products involved in the three divisions. It cannot be truthfully said that evil in one division is of the same character and proportion as that in another, nor that it requires the same remedial and penalty devices for correction. Difficulties existent in the drug and cosmetic fields can be independently eradicated without the necessity of imposing unwarranted and costly impediments upon the manufacture and distribution of food products, including canned salmon, the cost of which ultimately must be borne by the consumer.