-I think that there ought to be $5,000,000 appropriated for the enforcement of the present law, if it is to be enforced effectively.

While we are on that thought, let me say we are not administering the law as it applies to all products. I have said that publicly and in my annual reports. We have such a small force that we are bound to be selective. We seek to apply their time and their efforts to the correction of abuses which are of the greatest consequence to the consumer. We are dealing with the larger and more important things; things that are most injurious to health. We are paying no attention to innumerable instances of misbranding, simply because we cannot do it without pulling the men off of work that we think is more important to the consumer. For that reason we are being excoriated by the public. I do not blame the public. I would do it too if I were a member of the public and did not understand, but the fact remains we have no alternative and we cannot do more with the limited funds we have.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

(The following communication was ordered inserted in the record :)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOOD AND DRUGS,

CUP & CONTainer InstitUTE, INC.,
NEW YORK, N. Y., July 26, 1935.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: I address you as the executive director of the Cup & Container Institute, Inc., 420 Lexington Avenue, New York City, representing leading manufacturers of open-type paper drinking cups and round nesting paper containers used for the packing of foods and similar products. Our membership represents more than 85 percent of the total sales by volume of an industry with net annual sales of approximately $10,000,000, with about 2,600 persons employed, exclusive of executives, managers, and salesmen, and with a pay roll of some $3,200,000 yearly.

This brief is respectfully submitted to make clear our position with reference to subdivision (d) of section 302 of the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act, which is now before you for consideration. This subdivision reads as follows:

MISBRANDED FOOD

SEC. 302. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded―

"(d) If its container is so made, formed, or filled as to mislead the purchaser."

Our original intention was to request that a change be made in this section, so that a clearer definition of this so-called " misbranding" under subdivision (d) would be made, or that willful intent to mislead the purchaser should be shown. A more mature consideration caused us to believe that any attempt to amplify subdivision (d) might let down the bars and defeat the very aims of the Food and Drugs Administration of the Department of Agriculture, as well as the purposes of the act, with the objectives of which all in our industry, to the best of my knowledge, are in accord.

Rather than suggest any change we are therefore taking this opportunity to register with your committee pertinent facts pertaining to our industry which we believe will clarify our position and serve as a guide in the future adminis tration of this act, for the protection of our manufacturers whose products merit protection and for the detection of efforts to mislead the purchasing public on the part of manufacturers of other types of containers who may desire detection. Submitted with this communication are samples which will clarify this presentation. (Being sent under separate cover.)

Round nesting paper containers are manufactured with an open recessed bottom, which is part of the construction and is necessary to insure easy separation of one container from another. The outside bottom of one container rests on the inside bottom of the container immediately beneath it when nested or stacked as indicated in cut-out samples marked “Exhibit A." Without a bottom

of this sort it would be difficult to separate the containers either by hand or by automatic filling machines without tearing or breaking them, as the side walls would converge and form a vacuum which would prevent separation.

It is obvious a container with a flush bottom that would nest is to be desired, as it would require less paper stock and would effect substantial savings when manufactured in large quantities. Efforts to produce such a container have failed owing to the difficulty of securing adequate ease of separation.

The paper milk bottles, marked "Exhibit B, of foreign manufacture, are an example of an attempt to provide a flush bottom container with easy separation. The shoulder or bead near the open end is supposed to insure separation, but it does not do so when a pressure is exerted such as would occur through ordinary handling, jamming, or shipping.

The open recessed-bottom type of construction, "Exhibit C", is readily seen to provide easy separation. The depth of this recessed bottom is governed by the size, shape, and taper of the container and the thickness of the paper stock used. There is a very slight difference between the depth of the open recessed bottoms on the smallest and the largest containers, as is illustrated by the four stacks of samples submitted, all marked "Exhibit C."

Where containers are used for the packaging of various foods, they must be adaptable to easy handling and separation on automatic filling and capping machines similar to the type illustrated in the photograph marked "Exhibit D." Containers manufactured and sold by our industry in no way mislead the public. The open recessed bottom is entirely open and can be readily seen by the purchaser.

Among the principal products for which these containers are used are ice cream, cheese, sea foods, and frozen foods, which are kept in refrigerators, and are not purchased on the basis of appearance-in most instances the inside of the refrigerator cannot even be seen by the purchaser. These products are generally sold on a definite weight or content basis, such as a pint of ice cream or a pound of cottage cheese, and not in the odd sizes.

There are many advantages in the use of the nested paper containers. For instance, they occupy about one-seventh of the space required by round nonnesting containers, with consequent savings in freight, handling, and storage costs. Furthermore, being manufactured from a blank, instead of being spirally wound, they can be more attractively designed and printed. Nested containers are being sold throughout the world and are manufactured principally in the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Austr.a, Italy, Germany, France, Holland, and Sweden.

In conclusion, we express our confidence in the work of your committee and in the objectives of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Agriculture, which will administer this act. We do not believe it is your purpose nor the object of the Food and Drug Administration to foster legislation that will bring any hardship or injustice on our industry nor destructively effect its products.

We believe, if your committee and the Food and Drug Administration are in accord with us as to the intent and purpose of subdivision (d) of section 302, and that this section of the act is not directed nor is to be so interpreted as to effect adversely products of the character and type we have discussed, then the possibilit.es for any future misunderstandings will have been eliminated and the constructive benefits of the act will have been enhanced.

Very truly yours,

GRANVILLE P. ROGERS,
Executive Director.

It is about 1 minute until time for adjournment, and the hearing will be resumed tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 11:44 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned to meet the following morning, Thursday, July 25, 1935, at 10 o'clock.)

AMEND THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1935

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Virgil Chapman (chairman) presiding.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The committee will please be in order.

The first witness we will call today is Dr. A. T. McCormack, secretary of the State board of health, Kentucky.

STATEMENT OF DR. A. T. McCORMACK, STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER OF KENTUCKY, LOUISVILLE, KY.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Dr. McCormack, will you state your full name, residence, and official position, for the record?

Dr. MCCORMACK. A. T. McCormack, State health commissioner, of Kentucky, Louisville.

I am also secretary of the Kentucky State Medical Association, and represent the Committee on Federal Relations of the State Health Authorities of North America.

Mr. Chairman, I am here in those capacities, and very happy to be the proponent of pure food and drugs legislation.

I hope very much that this legislation can be perfected and enacted into law at this session.

My father and I, when I was very much younger, were present during the great fight that was made when Dr. Wiley passed the original Pure Food Act with the great assistance of this great committee.

The situation then was entirely different from that now, and it was historically like so many things that are happening now that I think it is worth calling your attention to it. Of course, this whole thing was "unconstitutional" at that time. It was an "invasion of the rights of the States." It was absolutely "destructive of all property rights", and all of the vested interests that had been preying on the public through the use of utterly worthless drugs and adulterated foods, were perfectly outraged at that time at the idea that the Federal Government should reach its strong hand into and "interfere with their rights."

I think we constantly confuse rights and wrongs in our conversation on very many of these subjects. Sometimes those who have been interested in the predatory invasion of the people's rights get

confused and think that their rights are being invaded. It was that attitude that we met then, and the outrage that everybody expressed and was expressed through the comments of the press and through the mass of telegrams that were presented to Congress would remind you of many of the things that are happening at the present time, had you been present at that session of Congress.

The situation is entirely changed now. This law has been in effect for many years. Three great men have been the directors of the Bureau that, under the Department of Agriculture, has enforced this law. In all those years there have been no complaints from any State that its rights have been invaded or involved. There has been no complaint from any State except through peculiar and unusual and, as a rule, personal circumstances that there has been any de-. struction of any property that ought not to have been destroyed. The great interests that produce foods and drugs in this country are possibly more thoroughly in favor of this legislation than any other group in the world.

We find in Kentucky that 97 percent of our manufacturers and jobbers are honest and want to comply with the law and they like to have standards and regulations that make them know what the law is and make the public know that their product is a safe product.

I recall the time, Mr. Chairman, when I was house physician at the General Hospital at Paterson, N. J., serving my interneship under the very great physicians who were in charge of that hospital. Mr. KENNEY. When was that?

Dr. McCORMACK. That was in 1896 and 1897, Mr. Kenney, before any of the members of this committee were born, probably, and I do not like to disclose just exactly how long ago it was; but when I look back at that time, when we wanted to get digitalis, we had in the hospital to assay it and we found that out of each 10 packages that came 7 did not contain enough digitalis to have the slightest effect on the face of the earth. It is almost inconceivable after this lapse of time to realize the good that has been done by the present law, and yet when the present law was written, Dr. Wiley, and every other man who knew the subject at all, knew that there were many weaknesses in the law.

The principle underlying that law was that the label should show so that the buyer would know what he was purchasing.

Well, now we have got to the point where, under the high-pressure advertising and salesmanship of the era, through one phase of which we are just passing, that the label is forgotten because of the persuasive voice of the orator over the radio, who tells you how good something is that is worthless, and how many things that it will do that nothing will do, and you go and buy a bottle of it and take it for a good long period of time before you realize, after you have gone and consulted your physician and found out what is really the matter with you, before you realize that you have been wasting a good deal of time and sometimes have wasted a sufficient period to involve you in invalidism or premature and unnecessary death.

We know of cases, not isolated cases but dozens and dozens of cases, where cancers have been maltreated by simple oils or simple lotions that could have no possible effect because they have been advertised as effective for the purpose, and where the patients have

gone on to a miserable death when, at the period they began taking these miserable messes, using these miserable messes, they could have been saved.

We know in Kentucky of case after case of perfectly round, goodlooking, attractive women-and in Kentucky we believe in curves in our women, just as much as we do in our race tracks-of women that really look good that read one of these idiotic advertisements and take some one of the three or four types of reducing medications, and that results in a serious impairment of their livers or kidneys or hearts, that are wholly avoidable and wholly unnecessary, and that cannot be stopped as long as this law is left as it is.

Now, the thing that we would urge particularly on the committee, and I know how difficult it is with the insidious and wonderfully qualified men who will appear before you as representatives of those who want to continue those practices-there are not many of them-you will not find the American Canners Association, who under the operation of this law have produced a universal product that is used in almost every home in America, because it is of high standard. They do not attempt to sell you unnecessary water, they do not at tempt to put in enough salt to make that the chief ingredient in the food, as frequently was the case before, they do not use rotten products, and they are in favor of a fair and distinct law and they do not want that law so made that they have to resort to the courts to get an interpretation every time they talk about it.

I notice in my reading of the bill two particular provisions that seem to me to be utterly impossible. I do not see how it is possible for you to say in the law that medical opinion shall be the composite opinion of all of those licensed to practice medicine in the State without setting up a tribunal that is going to arrive at that decision after hearing; that scientific opinion is the opinion of all of the scientists in a particular branch of science. Who is going to determine that? Do you have to go to the Supreme Court to determine every question of scientific fact, every question of medical opinion, and, in the meantime, have those who are violating the law continue to make their profits over the period of years and then immediately upon the decision of the Supreme Court, become incorporated in Delaware under another title and continue to do the same thing during another period of litigation?

The question that I am sure that you realize confronts you and the American people is whether we are going to protect the rights of the people against the wrongs that have been committed against them or whether we are going to protect the minority-and a very small minority-of the industry of America in order that they may continue to prey upon the people?

That is the only question involved in this subject at all.

Now, I realize, of course, and I think everybody in America does, that at this present time we are all apprehensive about this thing we call bureaucracy, and we are apt, in our inclusiveness in discussing bureaucracy, to think of all of the activities of the Government as bureaucracy. I do not think we could be further from being just than to do that, because, you take the great scientific departments of the Government, like the Public Health Service, or Bureau of Vital Statistics in the Census Bureau, or the Bureau of Standards,