Mr. BLUM. I think every person ought to be protected against anything that is dangerous. I don't wish this committee to think that we are trying in any way to foist upon the community any dangerous preparations, but I do say that if 1 person out of 300,000 will suffer a mild skin irritation by using a dusting powder, which is exactly the same in formula as the dusting powder used in a hospital, save for a little perfume, which makes no difference, then under those circumstances no Government department should be given the power to put that preparation off the market; and that if this law is enforced according to the broad language thereof, there isn't a single cold cream, a single powder, there is no product in the cosmetic industry which can remain upon the market.

For example, when this bill was originally proposed before the Senate it had the very broad provision that if a cosmetic was dangerous to the health of the user it should be banned. That when we pointed out to Dr. Copeland what that sort of legislation would do, that it would put every cosmetics manufacturer out of business, because if you found one person in the United States injured by putting a baby powder upon his skin, and then the preparation was adulterated, the language of the bill was changed to what it reads at the present time; and I think the intent was that if the most that could happen would be that a very small percentage of the community might suffer a slight skin rash from using a baby powder of exactly the same type as is used in a hospital, the same formula, the same ingredients, the same tolerances, that the preparation should not be banned for that reason; but I do not believe that the amendment which was accepted by the Senate will fulfill that purpose, in view of the very broad language which was used by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Lexington Mill case, which is Two Hundred and Thirty-second United States Reports, page 399. The fact that that statute cannot be carried out in practice I think is shown by this. We have here one of the most remarkable statutes ever attempted to be enacted in which the Secretary of Agriculture has the power to suspend the enforcement of the act, merely by not bringing prosecution, and likewise he has the power, in minor violations, merely to issue a warning and not institute any prosecutions. In other words, the people who are behind this bill I think realize that if the bill is carried out according to the strict letter thereof a great many types of business which are perfectly legitimate are going to be destroyed. They therefore seek to give to the administrative official the power to suspend the statute by merely refusing to file prosecutions, and in cases of minor violation, so-called, he has the right merely to give a warning and not enforce the act in any other way.

Mr. CHAPMAN. May I ask you the language of the Maine statute? Mr. BLUM. The language of the Maine statute generally provided that every formula had to be deposited with the State commissioner of health, that the State commissioner of health had the power to disapprove of any formula for any reason under the sun, that it was not subject to court review, that, specifically, there should not be a tolerance of more than one-tenth percent either way, and we proved it was impossible to make a soap or cosmetic without wider diversions in manufacturing processes, and there were a number of other pro

visions. There were some specific provisions relative to the use of certain injurious substances in cosmetics.

As to that, we do not make the slightest objection. Likewise, if this committee feels that certain specific ingredients, no more than about two or three, are dangerous to health, and they should be banned from cosmetics, or at least carefully regulated, we would not care about that at all.

In other words, we are not trying to "box" with this committee, or to slip something into the bill which should not be there.

We say that if you look at our formulas you will find those formulas in the Pharmacopoeia and in the National Formulary, except there is a little perfume or coloring matter added.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The Maine statute, you claim, would drive practically every one of your concerns out of business?

Mr. BLUM. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Therefore you contested that suit?
Mr. BLUM. We did.

Mr. CHAPMAN. And the court upheld you.

Mr. BLUM. We got a temporary injunction and had a sort of an agreement with the attorney general who agreed to recommend the bill be repealed.

Mr. CHAPMAN. That I assume was because of the unreasonable exercise by the Maine legislature of the State powers?

Mr. BLUM. That was one of the reasons, another was that it would reveal secrets and valuable formulas, and also place requirements on that would be impossible to fulfill.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Now, you claim this bill will do the same thing to you?

Mr. BLUM. I know it will.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Then why won't the courts, in your opinion, protect you?

Mr. BLUM. We don't want a bill enacted that way. We are in favor of regulation for the very good reason that we want those people who buy these products to know the industry fears nothing from regulation and that the products are absolutely safe. Likewise there isn't any question that there has been one or two very small concerns which have not advertised properly, and which has cast disrepute on the industry, an industry which, I think, on the whole is absolutely honestly run. Therefore we are in favor of regulation for the very purpose of stepping up one or two of the bad boys in the industry, and we want this bill to go through in a reasonable and workable

manner.

The amendment which we propose, in order to properly define that part of the statute

Mr. CHAPMAN. What kind of regulation do you want?

Mr. BLUM. We want regulation whereby hypersensitive or allurgic cases shall not be construed as branding a cosmetic as being adulterated or deleterious to health. In other words, if we get a complaint from the Department that a certain dusting powder has given somebody a mild skin rash-mind you, not dangerous-I am not trying to foist dangerous preparations on the public.

Mr. CHAPMAN. You object to the word "injurious"?

Mr. BLUM. Yes, sir; and we conclude that that thing has been sold by the millions of dollars' worth for 10 or 15 years without any seri

ous complaint, we could then say that to the Department or to the court and say, "This product is not dangerous to health." If there is one person in a hundred thousand who unfortunately gets a mild skin rash. You could say the same thing about one person out of a hundred thousand who eats strawberries or cucumbers.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Are there any injurious face powders or talcum powders?

Mr. BLUM. No; there can't be, because the product is an inert product. If you take a talcum powder and compare that with the dusting powder used by a surgeon or a baby powder used in a hospital, you will find you have talc, some clay, some coloring matter. Under the coloring matter we are satisfied to use only those coloring matters approved by the Department and which go into confectionery and articles of food. Then there is some perfume added, and nobody claims perfume can be harmful.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Does this powder contain termalite?

Mr. BLUM. Termalite, which I think is a slight abrasive.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Is the presence of termalite in face powder injurious to the skin?

Mr. BLUM. The presence of any abrasive in any substantial quantity in something which is rubbed on the skin might cause some irritation.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Isn't it a fact that some of these powders contain as high a percentage as 10 percent of termalite?

Mr. BLUM. I can say unqualifiedly, no; and I am speaking not only as counsel for the association but as personal counsel for nearly all the leading concerns in this industry.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Are hair dyes injurious?

Mr. BLUM. Judge Goodwin is going to take up that question.
Mr. CHAPMAN. I would like for you to answer it.

Mr. BLUM. I will say that certain hair dyes, to a very small percentage of the community, if not used according to directions may be injurious.

Mr. CHAPMAN. What about one of these analine preparations; is that injurious?

Mr. BLUM. It might be under certain circumstances. I know, for example, there has been regulations passed by the State Board of Health in New Hampshire, but upon those points I have not prepared myself. That was left to Judge Goodwin.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Are you familiar with such products as Lash Lure, and so forth?

Mr. BLUM. No; those are beauty parlor preparations.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Aren't they cosmetics, toilet preparations?

Mr. ВLUM. They are.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Don't you think they ought to be regulated if they are injurious?

Mr. BLUM. I think any product should be regulated if it is injurious.

Mr. CHAPMAN. What do you think of a product like this, called "Lash Lure", that was used by a very personable and attractive young woman, whose picture I hold in my hand, before and after using, and which resulted, after she used it, in searing the eyeballs and destroying her sight and mutilating her beauty? Do you think that ought to be regulated or, rather, prohibited?

Mr. BLUM. Regulated and prohibited.

Mr. CHAPMAN. What suggestion have you for doing it?

Mr. BLUм. My suggestion for doing that is this; that either the word" injurious" be changed to "dangerous ", which I think would be the best general way of doing it, because every one of the preparations you have in mind will be covered if the bill reads if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it dangerous to health. That is exactly the same definition that you will find in the drug section of the bill.

Mr. CHAPMAN. What about preparations for the hair containing silver and mercury and lead, and ingredients like that, which may not be inherently dangerous, as you construe the word "dangerous but are admittedly injurious to the person who uses them?

Mr. BLUM. I would say from what I know about those preparations that there is a very marked division of opinion upon that point, and then I am not addressing myself to that. I am merely making this reservation, that if you find a cosmetic on the market of the same formula as in the Pharmacopoeia which may give a mild skin rash to 1 person out of every 200,000, don't pass a law which is so broad as to ban that preparation from the market. For example, if I went to a hospital and I got some of their dusting powder and I distributed that to 200,000 people, you will find 1 or 2 really get a mild skin rash as a result of it. Obviously you would not want to ban that preparation. If that was put out as a drug, then it would not be banned unless it was dangerous to health. Mr. CHAPMAN. Those things I am asking you about are not put out as drugs. They are the kind of preparations you are talking about and you admit they are injurious to the persons who use them, whether they are dangerous or not, as you construe the term "dan

gerous.

Mr. BLUM. The words "dangerous to health" come from the drug section of the bill. In other words, before a drug can be banned under this proposed bill the drug must be dangerous to health. Mr. CHAPMAN. Are you right sure

Mr. BLUM. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Are you right sure you want any regulation of the cosmetic trade at all?

Mr. BLUM. Yes; we do. The amendment which my partner proposed before the Senate committee was, and I ask you to bear with me for one moment, because I think it is a very clear and absolutely harmless type of amendment

In construing and enforcing the provisions of this act reasonable allowance shall be made for abnormal individual reaction to cosmetics.

I don't think that is any attempt to foist dangerous preparations upon the public. If you take the language of the Cosmetic Act as it stands now and apply that to foods, you could not put a single food on the market, because then it would read:

A food which contains any poisonous or deleterious substances which may render it injurious to health under such conditions of use as is customary or usual.

You would have to take strawberries off the market immedi because they give some people a strawberry rash; you would have to take oysters off the market. Medical literature shows bananas

and cabbage will give some persons a mild eczema. Therefore there is absolutely no reason why the cosmetic industry should be regulated more seriously or more severely than the food industry or the drug industry.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Did you ever hear of oysters putting anybody's eyes out?

Mr. BLUM. No; please.

The amendment which I have suggested does not attempt to put preparations like that upon the market. It merely says reasonable allowances shall be made for abnormal individual reactions to cosmetics. We are not trying in any way

Mr. CHAPMAN. We are very glad to have your suggested amend

ments.

Mr. BLUM. May I make one other statement, if I have the time. That is about the privilege of inspection, in other words, the rights of the Secretary to send inspectors into every plant. We have not the faintest objection, if there is any reasonable ground for suspicion that a plant is not being run in a sanitary manner, to having the Secretary send his inspectors in.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Don't you think the inspector really would be more welcome if the plant were being run in a proper manner than if there were something wrong with its operation?

Mr. BLUM. No.

Mr. CHAPMAN. If he runs it all right, what-why do you object to the inspector going there?

Mr. BLUM. We object to it for this reason: Perfumery and cosmetics are not something which is subject to chemistry. There are many textbooks on it, and there isn't anyone in this country, except one man, who gives more than an elementary course. It is a matter of trade secrets. If you go before the Customs Department and you claim a certain product has been undervalued, they don't analyze it; they give it to a number of persons who smell it, like tea testers or coffee testers. Now, then, to allow an inspector to come into our plant, under the provisions of the present law, to look at and examine all intermediate products, everything used in its manufacture, is going to give that man a knowledge of the trade secrets which have been accumulated during 20, 30, or 40 years of experience. For that reason, if a product is on the market, if it has anything filthy in it, that can be detected with the utmost ease. Under those circumstances I

am in favor of unlimited inspection. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason why an employee of the Federal Government should be allowed to examine all intermediates, all the materials that go into it, and thereby become the repositary of all the trade secrets which are of the greatest value. If he wants inspection of the finished product, we do not care. By that time it is made up. If he wants to see the pipes, to see that everything is sanitary and clean, all right. We do not care about that at all. He is always welcome. But we do not see why it is necessary, for the purposes of this bill, or for any reasonable regulation of the public, that we should be compelled to disclose to this man all the individual ingredients before they are assembled, when there isn't the slightest necessity for doing that from the viewpoint of the public health. To that extent I