food and drugs acts, and if we do not get Federal legislation pretty soon there will be a general tendency on the part of the States which have been waiting and holding back to enact separate legislation which will be considerably at variance with this proposed bill and with the bills which may be proposed in the several States.

I think it is a tribute to the Food and Drug Administration and its methods that the various States have held back as long as they have to await the outcome of Federal legislation on this subject. It indicates a cooperative spirit which has been fostered only because of the fact that splendid help has been given us in the various States by the Federal administration.

Now, I also wish to emphasize what has already been said about retaining the entire enforcement procedure in one administration. That is to say, not to separate advertising from the enforcement of the advertising section, from the rest of the act. The State departments which now enforce State food and drugs acts have a direct contact with the Federal Food and Drug Administration. They have no contact with the Federal Trade Commission. And, in the enactment of State laws to preserve the cooperative action, I feel that there should not be a necessity on the part of the State departments enforcing this law to have to contact one Federal department for one phase of this and another Federal department for another phase of it. I think that is a very important consideration for the committee to have in mind in connection with action on this bill. We feel that with the suggestions that have been made, both by the Food and Drug Administration, and the suggestions that have been made with regard to various clauses that we can whole-heartedly support the principle of S. 5 and we hope that the committee will see fit to recommend it to the House for enactment.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Doctor, is there any other large association of pharmacists in addition to the American Pharmaceutical Association?

Dr. FISCHELIS. There is the National Association of Retail Druggists, which also has delegate representation and the American Pharmaceutical Association, which is organized principally to look after the commercial and industrial activities. The American Pharmaceutical Association looking after the professional activities. They both work very closely together.

I thank you.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

Is Dr. Cohn in the room, of the American Optometrists Association?

(There was no response.)

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. FORBES, ATTORNEY FOR THE NATIONAL PRESERVERS' ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. CHAPMAN. We will hear Mr. Daniel R. Forbes. Mr. Forbes, we have 10 minutes, if you would like to consume that much time. Mr. FORBES. If the chairman please, I do not think I will need quite 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAPMAN. All right. Will you state your name and the name of the organization you represent to the reporter?

Mr. FORBES. Daniel R. Forbes, attorney for the National Preservers' Association.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Where are you from, Mr. Forbes?

Mr. FORBES. Washington, D. C.

I just want to offer some exhibits, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize the absolute importance of the early passage of this bill from the viewpoint of the preserve manufacturers.

The preserve manufacturers in the National Preservers' Association, which consists of about 85 percent of the total production of the industry, has been working for a great many years to obtain legal enforcement of standards. Under the present law we have practically no standards at all. We have had administrative standards of the Department, but they have not proven as effective as statute law. The result is that the Department is required to go to a great deal of expense to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a court just what is a preserve before he can prove that the product at bar is not a preserve.

I have here a pound jar of pure apple butter made in accordance with the standards of the Department of Agriculture that our association has always stood for. If you add to this pound jar of apple butter these 10 ounces of water, you will produce 1 pound 10 ounces of a product that is today on sale as apple butter and it is an entirely catable product under the present law.

Mr. CHAPMAN. What portion of that is apple butter?

Mr. FORBES. Well, there is 16 ounces of apple butter and 10 ounces of excessive moisture.

The chairman might understand that apples have a very, very high moisture content and the method of preserving is to produce a concentration by cooking down to expel that excessive moisture. Under our present standards and under the present law we cannot require a manufacturer to eliminate any particular amount of excess moisture.

Now, I want to assure the chairman and the members of the committee that exhibit I have just submitted is not an exaggeration. The product, the large jar there, is actually on the market today.

So long as one manufacturer is prevented from having in his finished product 30 or 40 percent of excess moisture, it is impossible for anyone to compete on any basis except the basis of selling water for apple butter.

Mr. Campbell on Monday described the results of litigation on bread spread. This exhibit here, I think, will emphasize the point that he brought out. Here are three-tenths of a pound of pure preserves as I would say 90 percent of the manufacturers in the industry want to put up. That is what we call a pure preserve.

Here [exhibiting jar] is seven-tenths of a pound of a mixture of sugar, water, and pectin. There is only 1 percent of pectin, 30 percent of water, and 65 percent of sugar. When three-tenths of a pound of pure preserves is added to the seven-tenths of a pound of the so-called "pectin jelly ", it produces a product which under the present law can be sold as tasty spread, raspberry flavor, as in this case, according to present conditions. It can be sold as bread spread or can be sold under any other distinctive names which does not tell the consumer

that the product is actually not preserves but permits the retailer to pass it off directly as a preserve.

Now, I could multiply these examples. It does seem to me that is an industry that has been working with the Department of Agriculture for a great many years seeking national legal enforcement of standards where honest manufacturers can meet competition such as illustrated by those samples; that we have pretty well demonstrated the absolute necessity for the early passage of this bill.

Now, I have here for the record graphs showing the exhibits that I have just discussed. I would be very glad to leave the physical exhibits with the committee. I want to say further to the committee that three manufacturers of rather considerable size and very highly reputable have announced to our office within the last 30 days that competition has required them to go into the production of such as I have illustrated by that tasty spread, or an equivalent bread spread. The inducement has been, for a number of years, for manufacturers to use substitutes for fruit. For example, raspberries are worth about 102 cents a pound, whereas they were 4, 5, or 6 cents up to this spring. All of these fruits have gone up in price. The result is that there is a very definite inducement for these manufacturers to hold on during this highly competitive period and to resort to substitutes.

Unless something is done by this legislation, and done very quickly, I am afraid that we will very soon get a competitive situation which will result in fraud upon the public.

Mr. COLE. What is your idea as to what will happen to these products if this bill passes? Both are marked "apple butter." What will be the difference after this legislation is passed?

Mr. FORBES. If the standards commission proposed in the bill does what I think it will do, this product [indicating], which has that excessive moisture, will have to be called "imitation apple butter." Mr. COLE. You mean marked on the bottle that way?

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir; that is what it is. It is not apple butter. It is apple butter plus excessive moisture.

Mr. COLE. There is nothing harmful in it, is there?

Mr. FORBES. Nothing harmful to health.

Mr. CHAPMAN. But it is fraud on the public?

Mr. FORBES. There is no question about it, sir.

Mr. COLE. All apple butter will be made according to one set recipe?

Mr. FORBES. No; not one set recipe; but the standard would be the minimum standard. No manufacturer could go below that and still call his product apple butter. He could go above that.

Mr. CHAPMAN. But it must contain a certain proportion of apple? Mr. FORBES. Yes.

Mr. COLE. I make apple butter which, I think is better than either one of these, yet I have my own way of making it. The apple butter which I make, I think, is better than either one of these, because it is made right out on the farm, and that is generally better than anything you can get in a bottle. Now, as I understand your idea, it is that if this bill passes it would compel each label to disclose or use the word "imitation " on there if it did not come up to the standard set by the Department.

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir. If it were manufactured so as to be below that standard, it would have to be called by some name that clearly would differentiate it from the standard product. It is my personal view that such a substandard product should be labeled "imitation." It would be entirely up to the Department's standards commission, or the Secretary, under this bill, to designate the form of labeling of substandard products.

Certainly, if I am still the attorney for the association, I will go before that commission and urge that the word "imitation " employed.

Now, there is nothing in this bill or under any standard that the Department might set up that would in any way prevent you from going up in quality and making a better product than that called for by the standard. They would merely provide that he could not make a product which was below standard and still call his product or sell it under the name that is supposed to represent a definite quality.

Mr. COLE. Well, when you are talking about imitation apple butter, imitation is a small part of the real thing, is it not?

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir. We contend, when you break down the integrity of an article like apple butter and add water or leave water in it that you no longer have a preserve. You have something else, and whatever the name is, it should be of such a character and meaning that anybody, the most ignorant of the public, will readily see that it is not a standard product.

Mr. COLE. How many States have laws which permit that to be done?

Mr. FORBES. I think every State in the Union today permits an apple butter, such as is illustrated by the large jar, containing excess moisture to be sold.

Mr. COLE. Every State?

Mr. FORBES. I do not know of a single State that does not. We do not have any enforceable standard for apple butter.

Mr. COLE. Of course, a State has more right than the Federal Government to enforce a legal standard.

Mr. FORBES. Within the State; yes; but unless you have Federal regulation the States are up against an impossible situation of carrying out their laws.

Mr. COLE. What we are trying to do primarily, as I understand, is to protect the health as far as interstate transportation is concerned. Now, you tell me that there is not a State in this Union which by its law establishes a distinction between these two jars?

Mr. FORBES. No, sir; I do not know of a single State that has a standard for apple butter that would say that product containing these 10 ounces of excess water cannot be called apple butter. I do not know of a single State, and I think that I know the State laws. Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you.

Mr. FORBES. Thank you.

(The graphs referred to are as follows:)

1Lb.

Standard

Hpple

Butter

+

Material Cost

ths Lb.

Water, Sugar, Pectin

{

Sold as a
Preserve

"Standard" Preserve 9 Cents per pound

Adulterated Preserve 51⁄2 Cents per pound

Saving to be made by manufacturer under present law, 3/1⁄2 cents per pound, or 42 cents per dozen 1Lb. Jars.

row.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The hearings will be resumed at 10 o'clock tomorThat statement is subject to the possible adjournment of the House until Monday. If the House is in session tomorrow, hearings will be held at 10 o'clock. If it adjourns over until Monday, the committee will resume the hearings at 10 o'clock Monday.

(Thereupon, at 11:44 a. m., the committee adjourned as above indicated.)