that compliance with certain sections of that bill was impractical and further extensions as they related to certain sections of the bill, namely, labeling, were extended in some instances 6 months and others as much as a year. Thus the Congress and the agency charged with the enforcement of that act clearly recognized that no bill of this character should be made effective in any short period. A recent survey of inventories of packages actually on hand in the industry indicates a total dollar value of approximately $2,200,000, and it is estimated that that supply actually on hand will last approximately 6 months at current rates of use. In addition to inventories actually on hand there are commitments in the industry for forward buying of these same types of package materials, which commitments are firm and which probably could not be cancelled, amounting to approximately $1,300,000, which when received will add to the inventories now on hand sufficient goods to last an additional 5 months. Summarizing these figures, the industry has on hand and in sight $3,500,000, sufficient for 11 months' shipments. If this bill becomes effective in 30 days, these inventories would be worthless, causing a very substantial loss to the industry, and at a time when materials are in short supply.

The foregoing figures relate only to inventories of producers, on hand and in sight. Many wholesale grocers and chain stores have salt packed under their own private labels. Undoubtedly substantial inventories of labels and packages are in the hands of this class and they, too, would suffer considerable loss if these inventories became unusable.

Inquiries made by the industry to various supplies of package material goods indicate that from the time orders might be placed for new printing plates and fabrics and paper goods necessary for the package material and the delivery thereof, would require periods ranging from as low as 3 months for certain fabrics to as high as 5 months for most paper items. Thus compliance with the act within the 30-day period is impossible.

As has been stated previously, the iodizing of table salt in the past has been confined almost exclusively to those grades of salt packed in round fiber cartons, and equipment in the plants of the various salt. producers has been limited to that grade of salt and packed in those packages. The bill as written may require that all other grades of salt produced for table use be iodized.

A survey of the industry indicates that for each company to equip its plants for the iodization of all grades of salt, would require additional plant investments of approximately $275,000. This equipment consists of, principally, mixers, blenders, conveying machinery, and motors, all of which are in very short supply and some of them almost impossible to purchase within a reasonable length of time. Inquiries made to suppliers of that equipment indicate the industry could not be supplied with their requirements for this use within a period of less than 1 year.

If the Congress believes that legislation of this character is desirable, then in any and all events, the effective date thereof should be made at least 1 year after the date of the enactment.

Mr. HALE. Are there any questions of Mr. Clements?

Mr. CHAPMAN. I would like to know how long it would take the industry to equip itself to comply with the terms of the law similar to what this would be if enacted.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I stated 1 year. Perhaps you did not understand me, but I stated it would take 1 year.

Mr. MILLER. I would like to refer to your statement on page 5, the information from the Yearbook of 1945. I understood Mr. Wilcox to say it was difficult to determine how much salt was used for household purposes, table purposes and so forth. Now, this amount of salt referred to here, that covers, anything, does it not, farm use and all of the rest of it?

Mr. CLEMENTS. Those figures are compiled by the Bureau of Mines on questionnaires that were sent to the industry, and at best they are not too accurate for the reason that we as producers of salt sell carloads or less of various types of salt and various packages of salt going to certain destinations. Most of those cars move through channels of

trade normal to the industry, such as the wholesale grocer, eventually the food dealer and the retailer, and of course we have no way of accurately knowing where any of those particular items in that car are to be used, or how they are to be used or by whom. They are for general distribution in the channels of trade.

Mr. MILLER. That is what I meant, so that this statement about nine and a half times the minimum daily requirement really does not mean anything.

Mr. CLEMENTS. It means this, that insofar as we are able to pick out the types of packages that may find themselves going into the home, we have classified it and given our best estimate.

Mr. MILLER. Would that not mean the total output of salt in that category would be for human consumption, which would not be true? Mr. CLEMENTS. I am not sure that I caught your words there. Mr. MILLER. I say if that statement is correct, it means the whole output as reported in the Mineral Yearbook would be for human consumption.

Mr. CLEMENTS. The output of this particular item, you understand that this salt for table and household use is only one item of the entire list as reported in that statement.

Mr. MILLER. It is broken down to household uses?

Mr. CLEMENTS. That is what I meant, that the break-down in the uses is the best estimate we can give you.

Mr. MILLER. What effect would it have on the industry if this bill were amended so that it applied only to packaged salt, as applied to bulk salt?

Mr. CLEMENTS. That is the thing that Mr. Wilcox meant when he was here in the chair a moment ago. Salt is packed in various sizes, from about a pound and a half, a paper package, on up to 100 pounds in weight. We consider and refer to that in the trade, any of it or all of it, as packaged salt, as differentiated from bulk salt. Now, it is true that the small 112- or 2- or 3-pound or maybe up to 10 pounds, 10-pound package is a type which is normally sold through grocery stores, normally purchased by the housewife; but in addition to that, there is a far greater tonnage of salt packed in larger packages than those mentioned; namely, from 25- to 100-pound packages or bags. That is sold for use to industrial processors, is sold to hotels and restaurants where it is used on the table, in cooking, we presume, and a very large tonnage is sold on the farm where the farmer buys a 100-pound bag of salt. He may use it to feed his livestock, and a farm wife may make butter or cheese and put it on the table and use in her kitchen. That has been the difficulty we have had even among ourselves, to try to find any sort of a definition that would accomplish what the proponents of this bill want and yet make it possible for people who need salt for other purposes, who need uniodized salt for other purposes, to have it.

and

Mr. MILLER. Is it your contention that there are people who need uniodized salt?

Mr. CLEMENTS. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. And it would be harmful to them?

Mr. CLEMENTS. I would like to qualify that. I take this position. You have heard the representatives of the canning people here. Mr. MILLER. I am assuming we amend this to apply to table use.

Mr. CLEMENTS. That is the point I am coming to, Mr. Miller. It is hard to split these things off. The point I am making is that if iodized salt may create difficulties with the industrial food canner, I take the position that the same problem exists in the farm housewife's job of processing her own food.

Mr. MILLER. I cannot agree with you there. I think there is an awful lot of difference between household canning and commercial canning, whether it is canned or jars. I do not think anybody, would contend this amount of salt would have any effect on household canning, and I can see where it might in commercial canning.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I am not an expert on food processing, but it seems to me if the food processors themselves are skeptical, and they say themselves it is largely through lack of knowledge rather than fear, and it seems to me that a can of tomatoes cooked and prepared at home and canned at home goes through about the same process as it does in a canning factory. I do not know. There is a rapidly growing practice developing in many rural communities where housewives prepare, cook, and season various foods, then deliver such foods to community canning factories, where the foods are canned in tin cans exactly as is done in commercial enterprise. This practice is commonly referred to as "custom canning."

Mr. MILLER. There are a lot of other factors involved, a little streak might be caused on it, and the housewife on the farm would have no objection about that, whereas in a selling proposition it may be very important. If you have any authorities on that subject, I wish you would refer them to the committee.

Mr. CLEMENTS. Unfortunately, I do not have. I do know this, that from time to time we have had housewives and farm housekeepers, particularly, complain that they had spoiled some food with the use of iodized salt, but we cannot say that those are the facts. She may have had spoiled food from other things.

Mr. MILLER. I want to make my position clear to you. It seems to me if we can work this thing out so that everybody that buys salt for table use will get iodized salt, which I understand would be helpful to many, many people and harmful to none, I would like to see it done; and I am just trying to ask these questions to see if that can be worked out.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I wish that I could give you more clear answers to some of these problems, but the question of knowing what happens to our products and how they are used after they leave our hands is a pretty difficult thing for us to answer with the precision you would like to have. While no accurate figures for the entire salt industry are available, one company which does have Nation-wide distribution of salt has figures indicating that not more than 8 percent of the salt presumed to be sold for livestock feeding is iodized.

Mr. MILLER. I would rather vote for legislation of this kind than for appropriations for the public health service to take care of goiter patients if we could do it.

Reference has been made to the attitude of Christian Scientists, and I want to say I do not want to offend anybody's religious beliefs. it your contention that a Christian Scientist is objecting to using salt that is labeled "Iodized salt"?

Mr. CLEMENTS. We have heard of individuals who have, and I do not know whether that is a part of their belief generally.

Mr. MILLER. If by statute we define salt as a product that contained a certain amount of iodine, then it could not be medicine after that, could it?

Mr. CLEMENTS. I am not an authority on what constitutes medicine. They seem, or at least some individuals with whom I have talked do take that position.

Mr. MILLER. Maybe we could cure it by statute so that it would not be medicine. That is all.

Mr. HALE. Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Clements.

Is James B. Wescott here?

Are there any other gentlemen here wishing to appear besides Mr. Wescott? It is 12:30, and I think the committee will hear you now. STATEMENT OF JAMES B. WESCOTT, GENERAL COUNSEL, SALT PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. WESCOTT. It will only take me 5 minutes, I think.

I am counsel for the Salt Producers Association, and I do not intend to engage in any lengthy or detailed discussion as to the constitutionality of the bill, because I understand there are members of my profession members of this committee, and undoubtedly you also have your own counsel; but I do desire to present briefly just a few points for the consideration of this committee.

As we all know, the power of Congress to regulate commerce stems from article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States and with the Indian tribes. However, the Supreme Court of the United States, beginning from the time of Chief Justice Marshall and down to the present day, has said on many, many occasions that although the power of Congress to regulate commerce is complete in itself, such power is nevertheless subject to and limited by the Constitution and particularly the due process clause of the fifth amendment.

As was stated by the preceding witnesses, it is my understanding that the purpose of the Copeland Act and its predecessor, the Wiley Act, has been to deny from the channels of interstate commerce articles harmful to health or misrepresented by misbranding. Never, so far as I know, has Congress ever attempted to enforce medication on our citizens. To do so raises the question of the constitutional power of Congress as granted by section 8 of article 1 and limited by the fifth amendment.

A somewhat analogous situation arose sometime ago in the State of Pennsylvania.. The State of Pennsylvania passed an act preventing the use of shoddy, either new or renovated, in the making of comfortables. A comfortable manufacturer in Pennsylvania filed a bill to enjoin the enforcement of that act on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, which is similar to the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and the Supreme Court of the United States in passing on that question, through Mr. Justice Butler, said, and I quote from his opinion in 270 United States, Supreme Court Reports, at page 402:

And it is a matter of public concern that the production and sale of things necessary or convenient for use should not be forbidden. They are to be

distinguished from things that the State is deemed to have power to suppress as inherently dangerous. Here it is established that sterilization eliminates the dangers, if any, from the use of shoddy; as against this fact, the provision in question cannot be sustained as a measure to protect health.

In the present instance, I do not think that any of the proponents of this bill would say that uniodized salt is anything but pure. Therefore, I have considerable doubt as to the power of Congress to constitutionally deny the channels of interstate commerce to a food product which is otherwise wholesome and pure.

Mr. MILLER. Is it any less pure with iodine in it?

Mr. WESCOTT. Well, iodine is an added ingredient under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and under the provisions of that act the added ingredient must be stated on the label or it becomes subject to misbranding sections. Iodine is an added ingredient, just as our filler is added, and on our salt can we show the percentage of potassium iodide added, as well as the amount of filler, and that is required by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Dr. Nelson who administers a portion of that act will, I think, verify that statement.

I think, unless you proceed to amend a number of sections of the Food and Drug Act, that you cannot add iodine or any other drug to an article and sell it as a food, which salt is, unless you state on the label what has been added. Now, I think the amount thereof is not required to be stated in some instances by the Food and Drug Administration in some of these standards of identity cases, but I am not sure that I agree with Mr. Chapman that you can cure this thing by simply establishing a standard of identity for iodized salt. We do not have to put on the label today, or we do not have to call this salt iodized salt. We can call it salt, and we can show that we have added so much iodine to it and so much calcium carbonate or some other ingredient. It is simply called iodized salt as a sales question. There is no requirement that the salt producers use the words "iodized salt." We do not have to do it and there is nothing in the act that requires us to do it. In other words, you might just as well take pure water and add some drug to it and require everybody to drink that kind of water, because that is a health measure. We hear a lot about vitamins today. Maybe they are good and maybe they are bad. I do not know. I will assume that they are good. You might just as well say that all flour that is called flour must have certain vitamins. Now, that is permissive. If I want to buy them, it is permissive that I do buy them; but I do not believe that this Congress has the constitutional power to say that if I want to buy flour, I have got to buy flour with vitamins in it; or if I want to buy water, I have got to buy water with a drug in it; or if I want to buy salt for table use or for kitchen use or for seasoning, I have got to buy salt with a minute amount of potassium iodide added thereto.

Now, if that salt, without the addition of potassium iodide, was impure, harmful to health, misbranded, packed in slack-filled containers, that salt would be subject to the Food and Drug Act; but assuming we comply with all of those, then I have considerable doubt of the constitutional power of Congress to enforce medication.

Mr. MILLER. You heard one of the witnesses say there is no such thing as table salt. Do you agree with that?

Mr. WESCOTT. Yes.