body. It is a burning process, and, when used to excess, will produce a high fever.

Mr. KENNEY. Where does it start?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Its effects are throughout the body. There are various symptoms which manifest themselves in various forms. It causes liver trouble, but primarily the effect is literally to burn the patient up. The use of dinitrophenol has been recognized by certain. medical leaders as having value, particularly for obesity, if it is taken under the direction of a physician who is thoroughly informed as to the consequences of its use and who understands its administration. I think that is the one to which you refer, but there are several of them.

Mr. KENNEY. It should be used, I suppose, only when prescribed by a physician.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. It ought not to be used generally by the unsuspecting public. The reports of the extent of the damage from the persistent use of this drug, dinitrophenol, is amazing. We are receiving those reports from all quarters. Physicians are encountering in their practice every day persons who have been injured through the use of reducing agencies, which are dependent for their therapeutic effects upon the presence of dinitrophenol. There should be some plan by which the public could be protected. Mr. CHAPMAN. The bill is drawn with a view to affording that protection?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEY. How does it do that? Do you leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, sir; the bill forbids absolutely the sale of a drug product that is dangerous to health under the condition of use indicated by the label. It would remove them altogether. In other words, we would deal with drugs in that respect just as we do foods now. Speaking of reducing agencies, there are several general types of them: One depends upon the very active drug dinitrophenol. Another one depends upon the presence of thyroid extract, which is a drug that stimulates the thyroid gland. Then those perhaps most popular now do not depend on drugs at all.

Mr. KENNEY. Do you know what they are?

Mr. CAMPBELL. They are merely concentrated foods. They do not tell you that they are just that, but they are ordinary wholesome food products or various mixtures put up in attractive packages. In the directions you are strictly enjoined to eat, perhaps, one instead of three meals a day. It is a starvation process.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Is it the same as a diet?

Mr. CAMPBELL. You are right. If you follow the directions, you can reduce just as effectively if you do not purchase the article at all. Then there is another type, which is of a purely laxative character. What they undertake to do is merely to rush food through the body before it can be assimilated.

66

The definitions of the terms "territory ", "interstate commerce persons", and "Secretary" in the next paragraphs are to be found in virtually all of the statutes defining such terms.

I want to call attention to the term "label" in paragraph (i), and to the term "labeling" in (j) on page 4. We have divided the material to be found in a package in the form of circulars, or on the

principal label appended to or attached to packages of food products, and so forth, into two primary classifications: The label, which means the principal statement which is found on an article or package, and then labeling, which includes all other material attached to and accompanying the package. The reason for that is this: In various provisons certain requirements are made, as, for instance, that the net weight shall appear on the label. This is to prevent the insertion of such required declarations on some side panel. It is to guarantee that they shall be placed upon the label where they may be readily observed by the consumer. Some products, for instance, will have it on the printed label pasted on the box. Sometimes it is stamped on the food itself, as, for illustration, on cheese, rather than having it appended in the form of a pasted label.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The matter attached to the carton or container would come under the first provision, and the labeling accompanying the carton or box would be included under the second provision? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHAPMAN. If stamped on the food itself, it would be a print. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEY. Does that apply to retail sales, or does it also apply to wholesale sales?

Mr. CAMPBELL. It also applies to wholesale sales. There are exemptions later on which permit certain existing trade practices, where no imposition is involved on the consumer, without the necessity of labeling.

The definition of the term "advertisement", of course, is new. That is not to be found in the existing law. It includes all representations of fact or opinion disseminated to the public in any manner or by any means other than by labeling.

The term "medical profession " is also defined. That is made necessary by the definition of "misbranding ", as it applies to curative and therapeutic claims.

We will observe that in section 402 the term "official compendium " means the Pharmacopoeias and National Formulary.

Mr. CHAPMAN. I am familiar with the Pharmacopoeia in a general way; that is, with what it is, but what is the difference between the Pharmacopoeia and the National Formulary?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The United States Pharmacopoeia is a reference book that is issued by the Pharmacopoeial Association. That association meets every 10 years. It is over 100 years old. It sets out in this standard text a list of materials that are suitable for use as drugs or medicine, and it gives formulae by which they may be prepared. It also provides standards or tests by which their purity or strength or quality can be determined. Now, the National Formulary is a book of formulae prepared by the American Pharmaceutical Association and is relief upon by retail pharmacists in compounding the preparations mentioned in its text.

Mr. CHAPMAN. They are the national standard compendiums for that type of manufactures.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. Those standards have the force and effect of law. They are legal standards for drugs, but we do not have any legal standards for food other than a legal standard for butter.

Mr. KENNEY. Should we have such standards?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; and if the committee would follow our recommendation, and the House should follow the leadership of the committee, we would have, because this bill provides legal standards for food. It is an utter impossibility to enforce a regulatory law of this sort without standards. The public does not appreciate the fact that we do not have legal standards, and it is a surprising thing that only a small percentage of the food manufacturers of the country are aware of the fact that we do not have legal standards. It is a handicap, the proportions which cannot be easily recognized, to undertake the establishment of common-law standards through the costly and difficult procedure I have outlined as a preliminary to the effective action against the adulteration of foods under the provisions to which I have referred. The States have legal standards and municipalities have legal standards, but the Federal Government, even though it makes legal standards for 20 or more States, has no standard for food products that it can plead in court.

Chapter 3 deals with the definitions of the adulteration and misbranding of foods. Section 301 deems food to be adulterated as defined in the four subsections or paragraphs.

The first subdivision of paragraph (a) is new. It is not to be found in the existing law. It declares food to be adulterated if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it dangerous to health. When the present food law was being considered, Dr. Wiley opposed one suggested provision because it defined a food product as adulterated if it was injurious to health. His position, which was well taken, was due to the fact that such a provision would outlaw tea and coffee and other articles of food which contain normally some element that might be injurious to health. However, there is a vast difference between those products which may be injurious to health in a mild way and those that are unquestionably dangerous to health in a very definite way. I do not believe we should undertake to interfere with nature's formula and prevent the consumption of rhubarb because it naturally contains some oxalic acid; but I do believe there should be power conferred upon the enforcement officials to prohibit the marketing of poisonous mushrooms, which are not only injurious to health, but definitely dangerous to health. A kind of bean known as the "Burma bean is sometimes dangerous, but we are able to exclude it by the export section.

However, we could not handle those things in domestic production. There is a shellfish, or mussel, on the west coast which at certain seasons of the year, as a result of biological manifestation, is definitely dangerous to health. State regulations preclude that product being sold for food during those periods; but if it should be brought out and should go into the commerce of the country, there is no provision, under the terms of this law, by which it could be stopped. That is the explanation of the reason for that addition.

Subparagraph 2 defines food to be adulterated also if it bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health. Up to that point it is precisely the wording of the existing law, but you will note from continuing the reading of that section that it says

or which is prohibited by section 304, or in excess of the limits of tolerance prescribed by regulations as provided by sections 304, 701, and 703.

If you will turn now to section 304, which is to be found at page 10, you will see what the purport of that section is.

Mr. REECE. There is no provision which definitely excludes such articles as coffee and tea from the provisions of subsection 2. Would that be left to the administrative officers?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, sir. The use of the word "dangerous" in that subsection, rather than the word "injurious ", would prevent the application of that subsection to coffee or tea. While there may be some scientific support for the allegation that caffeine in coffee and tea is injurious to health in a small way, it could not by any stretch of the imagination, or by any available scientific evidence, be shown to be dangerous to health.

Mr. KENNEY. What is the difference between fresh coffee and socalled "stale" coffee, or coffee that has been standing a long time? Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not know whether there is anything more than an imaginary difference between them. I do not know.

Section 304, you will note, in the first place absolutely prohibits the use of poisonous or deleterious substances in food. It then provides for exemptions of two types: First, in those cases where it is required in the production of the food product; and, second, in those cases where it cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practice.

The use of sprays in the production of fruits and vegetables illustrates the first. As you well know, the enemies of crops-plant pests-do appear in such numbers and in such variety as to make impossible the development of crops to maturity unless poisons are used to kill these pests. So the innovation of spraying began some 70 years ago under the tutelage of the Department of Agriculture and of State agencies, who told the farmers how to spray and what to spray with.

The use of poisonous sprays can be regarded as absolutely essential in the production of our supply of fruits and vegetables, and it is necessary for us then to undertake to deal with it as an established fact, and see by what plan the effect produced on the pests can be prevented insofar as consumers are concerned.

The second type of exemption is to be found in innumerable food products. There are very few things, as an illustration, in which you will not find contaminating products in some small degree. With our industrial development, it is extremely difficult to acquire absolute purity in the production of our food supply. Let me illustrate, in an effort to make that concrete, by citing the experience of a manufacturer of preserves, who was extremely careful and extremely exacting, not only in observing the standards of identity. but in excluding all contaminating agencies that might make the product injurious to health. He made repeated analyses to see that no spray residues were in the fruits that he used, and found, to his surprise, that in some of his finished products there was a considerable quantity of arsenic. He traced this down and found it to be due to contaminated sugar. The sugar had been produced at one of the biggest refineries, and had been placed in barrels on one of the warehouse floors, with the windows open, before the barrels had been headed up. The smoke from the smokestack of a nearby plant

was sufficient to introduce quantities of arsenic into that sugar. So the general industrial condition is one that involves its own hazards. Now, under the terms of the present law and under the terms of this measure as I have read it so far, action would be authorized in such cases only when the amount of that added deleterious ingredient was sufficient to injure health. There is a complete exclusion of added deleterious ingredients by this section, except where necessary in the production of the product or where unavoidable. In those instances the poison will be permitted or tolerated in amounts corresponding to the need of using the poison, or its unavoidability, in each particular food. The total of the amounts so allocated will not be enough to jeopardize health. Contrast this provision with the requirements of the present law, under which the consumer cannot be protected against the full load of arsenic or of lead in each item of food so long as each item by itself is not injurious. Now, if you multiply the total number of the items of food in your daily diet that may contain these contaminating agencies by the limit imposed on each, you can see how many times over the tolerance safe for consumption the average individual would ingest in the course of a day.

The provision that is made here, following the language of section 304, authorizing the Secretary, in the protection of the public health, to establish tolerances for the amount of arsenic or the amount of lead or the amount of any other injurious ingredient that may be found, is for the purpose of protecting the public against the results of having large quantities of those injurious ingredients. A great many products are contaminated through lack of attention. The use of lead pipes in manufacturing plants will operate to give lead contamination to a food product, and obviously that can be done away with.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Dr. Campbell, the committee will be glad to have you return Wednesday at 10 o'clock, if you will, and complete your statement. At that time the members of the committee would like to ask you some questions.

Mr. CAMPBELL. All right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAPMAN. The general plan of the committee in conducting these hearings will be to hear the proponents first. In one instance we are going to make an exception today. Dr. Burritt, representing the Medical Society of New Jersey, is here. He has some very important operations this week and cannot possibly return. In a case where life and death may be involved, the committee feels that it should make an exception.

We will hear Dr. Burritt now for 15 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. NORMAN W. BURRITT, REPRESENTING THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. CHAPMAN. Dr. Burritt, will you state your name and identification?

Dr. BURRITT. I prefer, Mr. Chairman, to identify myself as the Medical Society of New Jersey, if you please, and present my credentials.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)