Mr. KALLET. Yes; but you are asking me to hurry.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Kallet, might I suggest that while you make a very interesting statement, I don't feel that you are the only representative of the consumers. We have had the Parent-Teachers' Association, the Women's Clubs of this country. I have interpreted their appearance here as very definitely in the interest of the consumers. They may not have the extremely technical background and advice that you have.

Mr. KALLET. Don't you think that is important, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. Very important, but taken all the way through I think the consumers have had representation other than just through your

appearance.

Mr. KALLET. I don't deny that, Mr. Cole, but if you take the total time which has been given to the representatives of the producers and the distributors on the one hand, and to the consumers on the other, I think you will agree that we, as consumers, have had very little.

Mr. CHAPMAN. There are a good many millions of consumers in this country. Some are organized and some are not. I think that when the hearings are completed the consumers of America will agree that they have had adequate representation and have been sufficiently heard.

Mr. KALLET. I hope so.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Certainly the officials of the Government and health departments of the States and others who have come here, and all the representatives of these women's organizations, of whom Mr. Cole speaks, have represented the general consumers very well, as have you and Mr. Matthews also.

Mr. KALLET. I would say this, Mr. Chairman, that your committee has shown a much fairer attitude toward representatives of the consumers than have any of the Senate committees which have held hearings. We appreciate that, and we hope that such fairness will be carried through to the final determination of what happens to this legislation.

I wish to continue with this question of lead residues.

Mr. CHAPMAN. We are going to adjourn in a few minutes, and I want to call two more witnesses

Mr. KALLET. Then suppose you call them now and let me go on this afternoon?

Mr. CHAPMAN. No; I can't do that.

Mr. KALLET. I have still some more.

Mr. CHAPMAN. You might get permission from the committee to "extend you remarks in the record." It is impossible to give you all the time, to give all the time today to one man or one organization.

Mr. KALLET. You have cut off no one else. Do you feel you ought to cut off a representative of the consumers, when you haven't cut off anyone else?

Mr. CHAPMAN. We have limited nearly everyone. You may proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEY. I thought it was made plain, if I may speak for the chairman, that we are here to ask questions of you and have you make statements so that we may be informed and able to pass upon

30598-35-35

any question we may have when we come to read and decide upon the form and the substance of the bill. Meanwhile, this committee is not making any commitment to you or anybody else. It is our policy to sit here and listen to everybody and decide after the hearing is closed.

Mr. KALLET. I haven't asked for any commitment.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The hearing will adjourn at 12 o'clock and at 15 minutes to 12 I will call for another witness. You may proceed.

Mr. KALLET. I will proceed as far as I can, but I certainly protest against your cutting me off when you haven't cut off any other witness who has appeared here, and when the representatives of the food industries have had 10 times as much time as we have had. Mr. CHAPMAN. You may proceed if you wish.

Mr. COLE. I want to say that is certainly not fair to this committee when, you having been in this room, you know that witness after witness has taken that stand with a 5-minute limitation, which has been enforced, or a 10-minute limitation, or 15 minutes. Here we are, approaching the close of this session, and you, representing this one organization, have been given the whole morning here. Mr. KALLET. Mr. Cole, I wonder if you will indulge me just a

moment?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Kallet, you were allotted an hour, and you have had nearly an hour and a half already. You have lost 15 minutes of it by complaining that you have not enough time. You have been given another 15 minutes.

Mr. KALLET. Let me use another minute of my 15 minutes to ask you a hypothetical question which you need not answer if you do not wish to. Suppose there came to these hearings only one representative of the ultimate consumer, that all the other representatives were from the industries involved. Do you think it would constitute a fair hearing if because you gave the other individuals, 100 of them, each a half hour, if you gave that one representative of the consumers the same amount of time, a half hour? To my mind, if you want this to continue to be a fair hearing, your duty is to give the representatives of the consumers as much time as you gave to the representatives of the industry, if they want it.

Mr. CHAPMAN. I will answer that hypothetical question. The premise on which you base your hypothetical question is a false premise that there is only one representative of the consumers here. If you want to go on for 15 minutes, you may.

Mr. KALLET. Very well. I will simply place in the record many of these statements relating to the danger of these lead sulphates. I ask that you take out of this bill this business of permitting poisons to remain in foods if they are required by good manufac turing process.

There is only one statement in that connection I want to read, because it is a statement from an authority which the industry concerned will have to accept as authoritative. It was made, appropriately enough, in the course of the Wiley memorial lecture on food preservation in relation to public health, by Dr. W. D. Bigelow, director of research laboratories, National Canners Association. This statement relates especially to food preservatives, but I am sure Dr. Bigelow would agree, and everyone who has knowledge of the situa

tion would agree, that it applies to an even greater extent to the poisons which are commonly and regularly consumed with foods.

At the present time it is universally admitted that some of the chemical preservatives that were formerly used are definitely injurious to health; some preservatives still remain the subject of controversy, while still others are generally regarded as noninjurious when used in the customary quantity. It should always be remembered that the amount of these chemicals which reach a consumer cannot be controlled by the manufacturer of a single food. There is always the possibility that an individual may consume several foods treated with a single preservative and thus receive a heavier dose than was contemplated by the manufacturer of a single food.

Moreover, since the experimental work done on this subject some 30 years ago the laboratory methods available for such study have been greatly improved, and a repetition of that work might not give the same results. Another important consideration is that the feeding experiments conducted in connection with this work were necessarily limited to less than 1 percent of the life span of the human subjects and were, therefore, by no means a measure of the wholesomeness of the products studied. In the study of various dietary factors with animals, it is sometimes found that the animals will thrive for a considerable period of their life span and then gradually show the deleterious effect produced by the presence or absence of the factor studied. Indeed, it sometimes happens that animals will continue to thrive through one or more generations, and then succeeding generations will show a diminution in the number or size of their offspring. This experience with experimental animals demonstrates the limitations in studying questions of this character with human subjects. Under these circumstances the rational point of view of the hygienist appears to be that the use of chemical preservatives should be restricted to the utmost practicable extent.

And your bill as you have it here would not even require such restriction. All that it would require is that we should have no more poison than is required by good manufacturing and production practice.

Mr. KENNEY. You have demonstrated one thing, that you can work fast if you want to.

Mr. KALLET. Mr. Chairman, if I had any assaurance that our statements would receive some consideration later, the same attention in the reading of the report, I would be more inclined

Mr. CHAPMAN. I am inclined to think, Mr. Kallet, that the things you have written have received probably more attention than the things you speak. You are one of the authors, are you not, of the book, One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs?

Mr. KALLET. That is right.

Mr. CHAPMAN. That received a great deal of attention, I think. You are a very good writer. Was that written as a part of your work in connection with the Consumers' Research?

Mr. KALLET. It was written as a result of it; yes.

Mr. CHAPMAN. May I ask if the proceeds of that book go to the authors or to the Consumers' Research?

Mr. KALLET. They go to the authors, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The Consumers' Research is a nonprofit corporation entirely?

Mr. KALLET. And we took all the liabilities involved, which you must admit were great. We expected to be wiped out completely, even though we were sure of our facts. There was no assurance also that the book would bring back any return.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Has any litigation ever arisen from the publication of that book?

Mr. KALLET. None at all. I want to say, though, that I am not paid by the Consumers' Research. I am not a member of the staff. As a result of my work in that connection, I have lost the paying jobs I had, and if you feel I am in this for profit, Mr. Chairman, I assure you you are mistaken.

Mr. CHAPMAN. There was no implication to that effect in the question I asked you.

Mr. KALLET. I would like to say one reason we feel a particular responsibility toward this legislation is that before anything appeared in the press, or anywhere else, I have reason to believe, even before the Food and Drug Administration knew there was to be any legislation. we were informed by a high official in Washington that it was assult of our book, One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs, that Mr. Tugwels had been directed to take steps to bring such legislation into being. For that reason, we feel a sense of responsibility.

In view of the briefness of time, I want to skip to the end of the bill, and if I have time I will come back. Well, anyway, the stipulation is made in this bill that the control of advertising, the control of trade practices, can be turned over to representative trade associations. In the strongest terms of which I am capable, and if there were time I should like to express my indignation and the indignation of the consumers at any such provision. From some of the things I showed you and read you it must be perfectly clear that the people in these industries are perfectly willing to destroy life and health if they can make a profit by doing so, and yet this bill would turn over the regulation of the industry to those very people.

Mr. Chairman, not only do I request, but in the name of the consumers I demand that you take that section out. It is a terrible thing. In relation to advertising, I feel almost certain that an advertising copy writer must have written section 601 (a). It says:

An advertisement of a food, drug, device, or cosmetic shall be deemed to be false if it is false or misleading in any particular relevant to the purposes of this act regarding such food, drug, or cosmetic.

That is just an invitation to the court to vitiate any control on advertising, any place. An advertiser can make any statement he wants about a disease, about his company, about conditions in general, as long as it does not relate to the particular food product or cosmetic, and it would not be touched by that section.

It ought to cut out "particularly relevant to the purposes of this act." That ought to go out. It is not necessary, and only provides another loophole for action in the court.

But the very worst stipulation there is that

Any representation concerning any effect of a drug or device shall be deemed to be false under this paragraph if such representation is not supported by demonstrable scientific facts or substantial and reliable medical or scientific opinion.

At the last hearing before the Senate committee, Dr. Woodruff, representing the American Medical Association, stated what is known to everyone in the field, that you can get scientific support for anything. It is simply a question of choosing the right facts, and you can build up a case for anything, and if this stands, any advertiser with enough money can get away with anything.

One of the employees of an advertiser in the industry said it is generally accepted that this bill will not have any effect on the large advertisers in the industry.

I wish you would give me time to cite specific advertisements so you could appreciate the validity of what I say. Since there is not time, I will just have to let my statement stand with that. Mr. CHAPMAN. You have 5 minutes more.

Mr. KALLET. I have a great deal more which I think is of the utmost importance to the consumers which I would like to cover. I have no brief on it. There isn't time in 5 minutes, and that means the consumers' case in this connection will have to be unpresented, but since you did allow me 5 more minutes I will leave the bill and proceed to some positive provisions which we think should be written into any food or drug legislation

Mr. CHAPMAN. The members of the committee themselves are very much concerned with the consumers' welfare also, as are so many of the witnesses who appeared.

Mr. KALLET. The most important proposal that we feel should be written into this legislation-of course, it means really writing a brand new bill-is that before any manufacturer, any person, be permitted to go into the production of a food or a product or a cosmetic that is potentially injurious to health, that he be required to get a license from the Food and Drug Control Administration.

Isn't it reasonable that where a manufacturer may have it in his power to jeopardize the health of a great mass of people that he should be required to show that he has some competency-at least that he hires persons of technical ability-and the only way that can be accomplished is by licensing him? The doctor has to be licensed, a dentist has to be licensed, a pharmacist has to be licensed; but the production of many products, and even food and cosmetics, do not. It is not unreasonable that you make these people show competency before they go into or remain in this kind of business.

We propose, secondly, that every potentially injurious article of food, drug, or cosmetics, before it is placed on the market, also be registered and licensed to prevent a product like this diabetes cure or Lash Lure from ever getting on the market. Those things, right now, if that bill is passed, if you pass it as it is, can go on the market and stay there for years before anything is done about it, and do all this damage in the meantime.

Listen to this, to bear out my statement: It is a query that was made to a drug chemical engineer by a manufacturer. He said:

We have been marketing a cough remedy for 40 years and never got into trouble because of claims we made for it. But lately our stuff was questioned. How can we find out what claims we can make?

They marketed it for 40 years and nothing was done about it. We propose the licensing or registration of products, so that cannot be done.

We propose that the Food and Drug Administration be taken out of the Department of Agriculture, because time after time it has been demonstrated that where the protection of the public runs counter to agriculture the interests of agriculture are protected and the interests of the consumers are not protected.