the laws of any State or Territory in which sold, the court may by order direct that such article be delivered to the owner thereof to be destroyed or brought into compliance with the provisions of this Act under the supervision of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, and the expenses of such supervision shall be paid by the party obtaining release of the article under bond. Any article condemned by reason of the manufacturer, processor, or packer not holding an unsuspended valid permit when so required by regulations under section 305 shall be disposed of by destruction.

(e) When a decree of condemnation is entered against the article, court costs and fees, and storage and other proper expenses, shall be awarded against the person, if any, intervening as claimant of the article.

(f) The several district courts of the United States are hereby vested with jurisdiction to restrain by injunction, temporary or permanent, any multiplicity of proceedings under this section with respect of any food, drug, or cosmetic, for cause shown which is satisfactory to the court and consistent with the purpose of this act. Such injunction shall contain any conditions deemed by the court to be necessary in the circumstances.

INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS

SEC. 712. (a) In order to avoid multiplicity of criminal prosecutions or libel for condemnation proceedings, the district courts of the United States are hereby vested with jurisdiction for cause shown, to restrain by injunction, temporary or permanent, any person from the repetitious (1) introduction or causing to be introduced into interstate commerce of any adulterated or misbranded food, drug, device, or cosmetic; or (2) dissemination of or causing to be disseminated any false advertisement by United States mails, or in interstate commerce by radio-broadcast or otherwise, for the purpose of inducing, directly or indirectly, the purchase of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics; or (3) dissemination of or causing to be disseminated a false advertisement by any means for the purpose of inducing, directly or indirectly, the purchase of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics in interstate commerce. In such injunction proceedings it shall not be necessary to show on the part of such person an intent to continue the offense.

(b) Violation of any injunction issued pursuant to this section may be summarily tried and punished by the court as a contempt. Such contempt proceedings may be instituted by order of the court or by the filing of an information by the United States attorney; and process of the court for the arrest of the violator may be served at any place in the United States or subject to its jurisdiction. No person shall be deemed to have violated an injunction, issued pursuant to this section, by reason of the dissemination, subsequent to such injunction, of the false advertisement which was the basis of the injunction, if such dissemination was beyond the control of such person.

DUTIES OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

SEC. 713. It shall be the duty of each United States attorney to whom the Secretary reports any violation for institution of criminal, libel of information for condemnation, or other proceedings under this Act, or to whom any health, food, or drug officer of any State or Territory, or political subdivision thereof, presents evidence satisfactory to the United States attorney of any such violation, to cause appropriate proceedings to be instituted in the proper courts of the United States without delay. All suits instituted under this Act other than those pursuant to section 702 and section 711, paragraph (g), shall be by and in the name of the United States. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 876 of the Revised Statutes, subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States, in any district, may run into any other district in any proceeding under this Act.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

SEC. 714. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver to the Secretary of Agriculture upon his request, samples of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics which are being imported or offered for import into the United States, giving notice thereof to the owner or consignee, who may appear before the Secretary of Agriculture and have the right to introduce testimony. If it appears from the examination of such samples or otherwise that (1) any false advertisement

of such article has been disseminated in the United States by the importer or exporter thereof, or any person in privity with him, within three months prior to the date such article is offered for import, or (2) such article has been manufactured, processed, or packed under insanitary conditions, or (3) such article is forbidden or restricted in sale in the country in which it was produced or from which it was exported, or (4) such article is adulterated or mis branded, then such article shall be refused admission.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall refuse delivery to the consignee and shall cause the destruction of any such article refused admission, unless such article is exported by the consignee within three months from the date of notice of such refusal, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe: Provided, That the Secretary of the Treasury may deliver to the consignee any such article pending examination and decision in the matter on execution of a bond as liquidated damages for the amount of the full invoice value thereof together with the duty thereon, and on refusing for any cause to return such article or any part thereof to the custody of the Secretary of the Treasury when demanded for the purpose of excluding it from the country or for any other purpose, such consignee shall forfeit the full amount of the bond as liquidated damages.

(c) All charges for storage, cartage, and labor on any article which is refused admission or delivery shall be paid by the owner or consignee and in default of such payment shall constitute a lien against any future importations made by such owner or consignee.

(d) A food, drug, device, or cosmetic intended for export shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded under this Act if it (1) accords to the specifications of the foreign purchaser, (2) complies with the laws of the country to which it is intended for export, and (3) is labeled on the outside of the shipping package with the words " For Export." But if such article is sold or offered for sale in domestic commerce, this paragraph shall not exempt it from any of the provisions of this Act.

PUBLICITY

SEC. 715. (a) The Secretary shall cause to be published from time to time reports summarizing all judgments, decrees, and court orders which have been rendered, including the nature of the charge and the disposition thereof.

(b) The Secretary may also cause to be disseminated information regarding food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics in cases involving imminent danger to health or gross deception of the consumer. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohib't the Secretary from collecting, reporting, and illustrating the results of the investigations of the Department.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 716. If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the Act and the applicability thereof to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE AND REPEALS

SEC. 717. (a) This Act shall take effect twelve months after the date of approval. The Federal Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as amended (U. S. C., title 21, secs. 1-15), shall remain in force until such effective date, and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, is hereby repealed effective upon such date: Provided, That the provisions of sections 701 and 703 shall become effective on the approval of this Act, and thereafter, the Secretary is authorized hereby to (1) conduct hearings and to promulgate regulations which shall become effective on or after the effective date of this Act as the Secretary shall direct, and (2) designate prior to the effective date of this Act food having common or usual names and exempt such food from the requirements of subdivision (2) of paragraph (1) of section 302 for a reasonable time to permit the formulation, promulgation, and effective application of definitions and standards of identity therefor as provided by sections 303, 701, and 703: Provided further, That the Act of March 4, 1923 (U. S. C., title 21, sec. 6; 42 Stat. 1500, ch. 268), defining butter and providing a standard therefor, and the Act of July 24, 1919 (U. S. C.. title 21, sec. 10; 41 Stat. 271, ch. 26), defining wrapped meats as in package form, shall remain in force and effect

and be applicable to the provisions of this Act: And provided further, That amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, section 10A, approved June 22, 1934, shall remain in force and effect and be applicable to the provisions of this Act: And provided further. That nothing in this Act shall impair or be construed to impair or diminish the powers of the Federal Trade Commission under existing law.

(b) The provisions of this Act shall not be held to modify or repeal any of the existing laws of the United States except as provided by paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Meats and meat food products shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act to the extent of the application thereto of the Meat Inspection Act, approved March 4, 1907 (U. S. C., title 21, sec. 71-93; 34 Stat. 1260 et seq.), as amended.

Passed the Senate May 13 (calendar day, May 28), 1935.

EDWIN A. HALSEY,

Secretary.

The first witness to be heard this morning is Mr. W. G. Campbell, Chief of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Agriculture, whom we shall be glad to hear at this time.

STATEMENT OF WALTER G. CAMPBELL, CHIEF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is my purpose to speak on the Copeland bill, S. 5.

May I say that as the culmination of a country-wide crusade led by Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, the Congress enacted the present food law in June of 1906. That was almost 30 years ago.

The limitations of that law for an effective regulation of traffic in foods and drugs were recognized even then. Subsequent developments, scientifically and commercially, have served to accentuate them.

With the discovery of vitamins in foods there have appeared on the market a number of food accessories that were not known 25 years ago. Many developments in nutrition were wholly unanticipated at that time. Furthermore, the more general, and apparently the more generous, use of cosmetics has created a condition that calls for modification of an antiquated law that at the present time in nowise provides for the regulation of cosmetics.

With the advent of the radio and its popularity, advertising has been accentuated. High-pressure salesmanship did not exist prior to the passage of this law, when the statements on the labels of products were themselves their principal means of advertising. But from the standpoint of law-enforcement operations, perhaps one of the most radical developments has been the tendency of traffic to forsake the conventional steam, rail, and waterway routes for the automobile truck.

Mr. KENNEY. Does not this bill break down the law-enforcement provisions of the old law?

Mr. CAMPBELL. It does not.

Mr. KENNEY. The old law had mandatory penalties.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The old law has no more mandatory penalties, as I understand it, than the present bill has.

The automobile truck has completely obliterated State lines. Very few food or drug commodities now can be said to be wholly of an intrastate character in their traffic.

There is a great lack of understanding about the present law, its nature, and its requirements; there is some very positive misunderstanding; and I think it would be well, if I may, to say a brief word about it.

The opinion has prevailed and continues to prevail in certain quarters that that law requires, as an illustration, registration of drug products before they can be put on the market; that it has conferred upon the Government the power to withhold approval. No such power exists. There is no preventive measure at all in all of the provisions of that act. Its structure is simplicity itself. In one section it defines adulterated foods and adulterated drugs. In another section it defines misbranded foods and misbranded drugs. I forbids interstate traffic in and exportation or importation of adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs.

It undertakes the enforcement of that mandate by providing for criminal prosecutions, and for the first offense a fine not to exceed $200 for interstate transportation; and for the second offense, a fine not to exceed $300 and 1 year imprisonment-either or both. It provides, furthermore, for the seizure of the offending goods.

Both of these forms of prosecution are enforced through the collection of samples bought in the open market and examined by the Government in its various laboratories throughout the country.

The import provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury, through the Customs Bureau, upon the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, to deny entry at the ports of food products that are in contravention of the act.

For your information, and particularly in connection with the references that I will make from time to time, Mr. Chairman, may I leave with you a copy of the present food and drugs act?

I wish to comment very briefly about the limitations in the definitive or substantive provisions which primarily are responsible for the advancement of remedial legislation with such urgency at this time. One of the outstanding weaknesses of the law is the insufficiency of its penalties. I have told you how nominal the fines were and have told you that there is no power whatever accruing to the Government by which measures can be taken to prevent the commission of the offenses. The misbranding provisions of the act are wholly negative in character; with the exception of the affirmative requirement that food in package form bear declaration of the net content, the misbranding provisions are in the nature of "don't." They say you must not make a statement that is false or misleading, but they do not require you to make affirmatively a statement that is informing.

The rule of caveat emptor applies. You can remain silent in every language of the universe. But if you do make a statement, the law requires it to be a truthful statement. A horse-trader's code would provide that much.

While that is entirely satisfactory so far as the negative misbranding provisions go-and we have sought to retain those provisions in S. 5, the Copeland bill-it is not sufficient to give to the consumer the information that the consumer is entitled to have about foods of the types and of the kinds that are to be found upon the market at the present time.

So this bill, as I will undertake to point out with some particularity as we go through it, does offer requirements for affirmative labeling which will make possible the purchase more intelligently and therefore more discriminatingly of food and drug products.

A popular misconception about the adulteration provisions of this law, particularly as they relate to food, is that it is distinctly and only a health measure; that foods are adulterated only when they contain some contaminating agency which operates to make them deleterious to health, or perhaps when they offend sufficiently in a sanitary sense to be unfit for food; filthy, or putrid, or decomposed. That is not true at all.

The law does make provision for those things, but inadequately. And you will observe from the provisions of Senate 5 that it is proposed for the protection of the public to reinforce both the health and the sanitary requirements. But the law does this additional thing in its definition of adulteration. It imposes safeguards of an economic sort for the benefit of the consumer. It provides against debasement.

In its definition of adulteration, which will be found in section 7 on page 17 of the pamphlet I have given to you, you will note that in the caption, in the case of foods, slightly below the center of the page, it deems food products to be adulterated

First. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.

Second. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article.

Third. If any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted.

Now, what is the significance of those three paragraphs defining adulteration in food? They are intended to effect the preservation of the integrity of the food product. They have said that debasement by any of those three methods shall not occur. They connote and presuppose a standard of identity. But in providing for these three forms of definition of adulteration, Congress overlooked the matter of giving an implementing section for the establishment of standards.

Senate 5 provides for the promulgation of standards that will have the effect of law. Such standards are absolutely essential if effective, if precise, if protective control is to occur.

In its definition of adulteration in drugs, there is no provision whatever for the protection of the public against drug products which, according to the conditions of use advocated on the label,. inay be dangerous to health.

will

Products have been put on the market which have operated definitely to the prejudice of the public. There is no provision whatever in the existing law for the removal of such products. Such provision is essential, not only for the protection of the public, but for the purpose of making self-medication safe. Senate 5, as point out to you later, undertakes to supply that particular need. Also, at the present time, in the regulation of traffic in drug products bearing curative or therapeutic claims, the burden is placed upon the Government, in its effort to show that such curative or therapeutic claims are false, to prove knowledge on the part of the manufacturer or the producer of that medicine of their falsity.

30598-35-4