STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. MEAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. CHAPMAN. The committee will be glad to have a statement now by the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Mead, who is the author of a bill dealing with this subject.

Mr. MEAD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in appearing before your committee I would like to have it understood that I am more anxious to protect the American people from the evil effects of improper foods, drugs and devices, and cosmetics than I am to have any particular legislation sponsored by me or any other Member of Congress adopted. My views on this subject are in complete harmony with the sentiments expressed by the President in his message to Congress. To protect the public, cooperate with legitimate industry, and to drive out the racketeers should be the object of all interested in the progress of this legislation.

No one has a right to object to proper regulation; in fact, legitimate industry will benefit by regulatory law of that character. The injury will only result to the wrongdoer who is a detriment to the industry or profession with which he is associated.

I became interested in this legislation rather unwittingly and in a manner rather unusual. About 2 years ago there came to my district a representative of the Food and Drugs Administration who delivered a number of speeches before women's clubs and other organizations. I understand he carried with him the well-known chamber of horrors exhibit", and he concluded his talks by urging the women to call upon Members of Congress and demand the passage of legislation recommended by the Department.

Upon investigation, I found that this practice had become widespread and Government agents were making similar speeches throughout the United States. I objected to this practice because it was grossly unfair to the legislative authority.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Mead, was that in regard to the so-called "Tugwell bill "?

Mr. MEAD. That was my understanding.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Which was in the last Congress?

Mr. MEAD. That is my understanding.

In the case of our committee, whenever the Post Office Department desires legislation they confer with the members of the Post Office Committee. I would very naturally resent having their agents take such matters to the country before giving the Members of Congress an opportunity to consider their legislative program.

That is objection no. 1.

Another objection I have to leave with you at this time is to a tendency which should be discouraged because of its effect upon business of the country. Ever since 1906 we have had a pure food and drugs law, commonly known as the "Wiley Act." Why this law must justly become obsolete, why it is necessary for us to depart entirely from the spirit and the philosophy of the original act, why it is necessary to tear down the house, as it were, and rebuild upon new foundations, is more than I can understand. It would be just as sensible for the Post Office Department to recommend the utter and complete destruction of every postal statute and complete revolutionary revision of the law with regard to the shipping and col

lecting and distributing of mail packages and express, and so forth. Imagine the chaos that would result in the various business enterprises throughout the country while that was hanging fire in the Congress.

It is my judgment that when cosmetics came into common and popular use the bill should have been broadened to take in this particular product.

The matter of regulating advertising should have been another subject to take up during a previous session of Congress and, by amendment, added to the original pure food act.

Devices and articles not included in the original act should likewise have been included in the original act and should likewise have been made an addition to the original statute.

The uncertainty which must of necessity result from so complete and revolutionary a change, from a sudden desire, as it were, to depart from the principles contained in the original act, has had a derogatory effect upon the industries affected. Coming at this time with so much uncertainty affects the business of the country. Yet we can readily see the benefits which would result by a proper, gradual, and continuous perfection of the original act, rather than this sudden, widespread, and revolutionary change. An occasional amendment added to the law would make it less difficult for the Members of Congress who are handling this question, and, of course, it would be highly beneficial to the country at large.

The bill which I have introduced, H. R. 6906, is a revision of the present Federal Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. I introduced it by request. I insisted that it follow closely the principles of the original act, that it be broadened to take in those subjects that were not included in the original act and that it recognize agencies of the Government not then in existence, but since created, with some authority over the industry to be covered in this act.

The Federal Trade Commission, for example, which becomes of age this year, was not in existence at the time we passed the original bill, the Wiley Pure Food Act. The Commerce Department was then with the Labor Department and was just about that time separated, and a few years later created, and became a distinct agency of the Government.

Since that time that department has had some, exercised some authority over trade and commerce and I insisted that any bill that was introduced should be referred to those various agencies of the Government to avoid conflict and overlapping of the authority in conferring jurisdiction in connection with these various industries.

And so, my bill follows the text of the original Wiley Act but is increased and broadened to cover the necessities of the present day conditions, and is in conformity with established authority created by Congress and agencies of the Government not then in existence.

Therefore, I referred my bill to those various agencies and to medical and other authorities, and after it was amended, in keeping with their suggestions, it became in reality my bill.

Right there, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I believe the language finally agreed upon should follow closely the text of the act of 1906, expanded, of course, to cope with present day methods of manufacturing, marketing, advertising, and so forth.

To the lawyer this suggestion readily recommends itself, and it preserves the clarity and definiteness which exists as the result of the many court decisions bearing upon these questions. The uniformity of Federal and State questions which have developed throughout the past quarter of a century are likewise maintained. If such a course is followed by your committee, H. R. 6906 can be amended by the addition or insertion of certain provisions contained in S. 5 which are in the judgment of your committee more effective than are similar provisions contained in H. R. 6906.

In following this course, it should be kept in mind that the existence of court decisions rendered upon provisions of the law will obviate the need for further litigation, which, of course, will result with the adoption of legislation which differs in theory and principle from existing law.

No matter what changes are made nor what policy may be adopted by your committee, the new law should bear the name of the distinguished Senator from New York, who is an outstanding authority on such matters as are contained in this legislation. That is just an opinion on my part and I say it in order to assure you that I am not interested insofar as I am concerned, having my name attached to a particular bill nor am I concerned with any industry that might be affected by the passage of the bill. My general interest in the matter, which came about as I indicated in the beginning of my address, is to see to it that the text of the original act is followed, broadened, and continued in conformity with existing Federal agencies created since that time.

If the language of the House bill is substituted for that of the Senate proposal, I shall present for the consideration of your committee a number of provisions now contained in S. 5, which in my judgment are more effective than is the case with corresponding provisions contained now in H. R. 6906.

I have several other amendments which I shall ask the subcommittee to consider and which I shall not take time to discuss or explain this morning. I want it understood, however, that unless the committee becomes convinced that the amendments which I offer are in the public interest and will, if adopted, permit of the proper regulation of the industry affected, and at the same time are superior to similar provisions in the Senate bill, I shall be in accord with your final determination.

There is one amendment, however, which I would like to discuss briefly with you this morning, and that is the proposal for the retention of advertising control in the Federal Trade Commission, and this indicates the philosophy that I have been attempting to enunciate since I took the floor. It explains the fundamental difference between the Senate bill, with its galvanized administrative authority, and the House bill, which follows closely the text of the original

act.

This one amendment, however, which I would like to discuss briefly with you this morning, the proposal for the retention of advertising in the control of the Federal Trade Commission, is, in my judgment, a very important one and one that should be considered seriously before it is finally approved or disapproved by your committee.

It is contended by those who oppose this proposal that the Federal Trade Commission under the organic act has been primarily interested in the protection of the manufacturer and not concerned to any great degree in the protection of the consumer. In many instances such statements are erroneous, because of the fact that when the Federal Trade Commission stops an unfair trade practice in protection of one manufacturer against the misleading statements of a competitor, that decision offers increased protection to the consuming public. In all instances protection of the public interest must be indicated before a case can be made by the Commission.

A review of the record of the Federal Trade Commission indicates that that agency has given protection to the consuming public to a very large degree in the past. The numerous volumes published by the Commission set forth the many cases which have been terminated in court, the citations which have been issued, as well as the stipulations which have been signed by numerous manufacturers.

Under present conditions the Federal Trade Commission can only proceed when there are unfair trade practices involved, but even under these conditions it has been fairly well established that whenever a manufacturer makes false statements concerning his product. or its therapeutic value, such statements are unfair to some other manufacturer. Therefore, under present circumstances, the Federal Trade Commission has sufficient authority to proceed in matters of this nature.

My bill, however, gives the Commission further authority by eliminating the requirement that the Commission can proceed only in cases where there are unfair trade practices involved.

In section 5 of my bill we find the following:

False advertisements of foods, drugs, or cosmetics within the meaning and for the purpose of this act are hereby declared unlawful.

This provision will, I believe, give the Federal Trade Commission added authority to proceed without the necessity of attempting to show unfair trade practices.

The Federal Trade Commission is a going concern, functioning since 1914. It has a complete staff of attorneys and investigators who have charge over food, drug, and cosmetic advertising and who are experts in this line.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Do they have technical knowledge of the subjects? Mr. MEAD. What is that?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Do they have a technical knowledge of the subject? Mr. MEAD. Yes; they have technical knowledge of the subject, and in addition to that they have the cooperation of the Bureau of Standards and Public Health Service and the scientists in the Food and Drug Administration. They have an elaborate agency already set up and going and it is a case where we either create a dual bureaucracy or we destroy one agency before we create another. This is, in my judgment, a real good illustration of how bureaucracies after they are started spread, of how overlapping of authority takes place. It is a case where we do not care to destroy the authority already existing in one agency and yet we yield to its creation in other agencies, and that is how it creates a complexity that is just too amazing for the average man to understand.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Has the Federal Trade Commission adequately performed its functions in regard to the enforcement of the food and drug laws?

Mr. MEAD. Under existing authority and law, they have. We are broadening the law now to take in advertising and will therefore give them the additional authority which they need.

Advertising, cosmetics, devices, and so forth were not contained in the original act and therefore it would be an invasion of the authority conferred upon the agency were they to usurp this illegal authority that is not yet authorized.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Was any specific authority conferred upon the Federal Trade Commission at all in the original act?

Mr. MEAD. In the original act, if I recall it correctly offhand, the Federal Trade Commission had authority to regulate trade practices, including false advertising and other evil or unethical practices that hindered or helped one competitor over another, and that, of course, included advertising of this particular nature.

Mr. CHAPMAN. But was that not under authority conferred by the general law creating the Federal Trade Commission?

Mr. MEAD. That is it.

Mr. CHAPMAN. And had no specific reference to the pure food and drugs law?

Mr. MEAD. That is correct.

The bill which I introduced has specifically authorized the Federal Trade Commission to go into this subject and give them wide authority in the future in these matters.

Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Mead, up to now, has the Food and Drug Administration had any experience at all in the control of advertising, false advertising?

Mr. MEAD. Very limited, I will say. Perhaps that which would result from its general experience in the investigation of misbranding and false labeling, which to a degree, is carried out in the advertising policy of a concern; but all of the authority

Mr. KENNEY. Is that directed more to the labeling on the bottle or the package, than to the advertising?

Mr. MEAD. Entirely so; yes, entirely so. The experience they would gain in the other field would be just the general experience that they would fall heir to in their routine work.

Mr. KENNEY. Now, the Federal Trade Commission has built up an organization over the past 21 years or so; is that so?

Mr. MEAD. A splendid organization.

Mr. KENNEY. And it has a background and is familiar with the advertising practices, widely, through the country. They know where to look for false advertising and they are in close touch with the newspapers of the country in that connection throughout a long term of years; is that not so?

Mr. MEAD. That is correct, and let me say right there, the newspapers of the country, as I understand it, are now friendly to the sentiment and declaration of this bill.

Therefore, I am not talking particularly for the newspapers, and my argument, of course, can be directly connected with the desire on my part to prevent an increased bureaucracy and dual and overlapping authority.