« PrécédentContinuer »
REPORT No. 360
PROVIDE FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND REPORT OF LOSSES RESULTING FROM THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE ERADICATION OF THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
MARCH 13 (calendar day, March 21), 1935.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. Smith, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, sub
mitted the following
(To accompany S. 933]
The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the bill (S. 933) to provide for an investigation and report of losses resulting from the campaign for the eradication of the Mediterranean fruit fly by the Department of Agriculture, having considered the same, recommend that the bill do pass with the following amendment:
On page 3, line 13, strike out the figures "$25,000,” and insert in lieu thereof the following "$10,000,"
The report of the Secretary of 'Agriculture on this bill is quoted below:
In response to your request for a report on the legislation, you are advised that the Department has no objection to the conduct of an investigation and survey to determine what losses, if any, were sustained in the eradication of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Florida with the distinct understanding that the survey is to provide information only and that the report of such information shall not be construed as imposing any legal or moral obligation upon the Government of the United States.
Upon reference of this matter to the Budget Bureau, as required by Budget Circular 49, the Department was advised by the Acting Director thereof under date of March 4, 1935, as follows:
“You are advised that, insofar as the financial program of the President is concerned, there would be no objection to this proposed legislation, provided it be amended to authorize an appropriation of not to exceed $10,000."
It will be noted that the bill has been amended so as to comply with the suggestion of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. It will also be noted that a similar bill passed the Senate during the last session of Congress.
MARCH 13 (calendar day, MARCH 26), 1935.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. COPELAND, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the
[To accompany S. 5)
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 5) to prevent the manufacture, shipment, and sale of adulterated or misbranded food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics and to regulate traffic therein; to prevent the false advertisement of food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics; and for other purposes, has considered the bill and reports thereon with amendments. As so amended the committee recommends that the bill do pass.
The bill is intended to strengthen and extend the Federal Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as amended (U. S. C., title 21, secs. 1-15), popularly known as the “ Pure Food Law" for which Dr. Harvey W. Wiley labored so long and valiantly. Since the passage of that law, profound changes in methods of manufacturing and selling foods and drugs have resulted from developments in scientific, technological, and economic fields. These changes have not been devoid of opportunities for the unscrupulous to profit, without contravening the provisions of the present law, by endangering the public health and defrauding the consumer. Court decisions have revealed textual weaknesses in the measure that were not foreseen when it was enacted. Very few substantial alterations of the law have been provided through amendments to meet its demonstrated deficiencies. Yet the confidence the law has inspired in food and drug products imposes a corresponding responsibility on the Government that it be made adequate to meet modern conditions.
For the past 2 years there has been a rapidly growing public recognition of the great need for a thorough revision of the law of 1906. In June 1933, the chairman of your committee introduced a hill, S. 1944, prepared in the Department of Agriculture with this end' in view. Hearings were held on the bill in December of that year by a subcommittee of this committee. A storm of protest had
arisen against stringent provisions of the bill which the regulated industries believed would place undue restrictions upon legitimate commercial operations. Even at that time there was a universal agreement among both proponents and opponents of the bill as to the need for strengthening legislation. The most violent opponents of the bill conceded the existence of abuses which should be corrected. The whole question resolved itself into what method of correction should be employed.
The bill was twice revised, first as S. 2000 and later as S. 2800, for the purpose of allaying the apprehensions of honest manufacturers without sacrificing the essential requirements for consumer protection. Extensive hearings were held on S. 2800 in February and March of 1934, after which your committee favorably reported the bill. It was not acted upon in the last Congress because of the brief time intervening between its favorable report and adjournment, because of the press of other legislative matters, and because the revisions had not served to allay powerful opposition from some elements of the regulated industries.
Since the adjournment of the last Congress the chairman of your committee has spent a great portion of his time in revising and perfecting the measure. Further hearings have been held by a subcommittee of your committee on March 2, 8, and 9, 1935. In amending S. 5 as now reported, your committee has made every effort to preserve the worthy objectives of consumer protection in all bills pending in the present Congress and in those considered by the last Congress. The provisions which had aroused the apprehension of honest manufacturers have been rejected or appropriately altered.
The bill now contains all features of the present law that have proved valuable, through the 28 years of its enforcement, in promoting honesty and fair dealing in the sale of foods and drugs. Its principal differences from the present law lie, first, in the elimination of those provisions whose terms have compelled the courts to reach interpretations that have afforded avenues of escape for the unscrupulous; second, extension of its provisions to false advertising and to harmful or falsely represented cosmetics; third, amplification and reinforcement of the provisions designed to safeguard the public health and to promote honesty and fair dealing; and fourth, strengthening its procedural provisions better to effectuate its purpose.
One of the innumerable objections originating with those who are opposed to any new food and drug legislation is that the bill is in the form of a revision rather than amendments to the present law. It is urged that by appropriate amendments court decisions under the old law will be preserved and that uniformity with existing State laws will be promoted.
In drafting S. 5 the language of every worthy provision of the present law has been included. Only that language which afforded loopholes for the escape of the unscrupulous has been rejected. Court decisions on the provisions that have been perpetuated will thus continue to be applicable.
The form of the present law does not lend itself to the incorporation of amendments of the number and scope required if the public is to be effectively protected. Any attempt at such procedure would
create an obfuscating hodge-podge out of which would inevitably arise avenues of escape for evaders and chiselers.
It is true that many State laws are modeled after the existing Federal law. But the problem of uniformity is not more easily solved by amendment than by revision. The contrary is true. In bringing their own laws in line with modern requirements the States would encounter the same difficulties your committee has found in efforts to amend. The States have unanimously urged the Federal Government to take leadership in modernizing existing law. Greater uniformity can be guaranteed by the logical, orderly form of this bill than by a confusion of amendments.
While the bill has been drafted primarily as a consumers' measure, its operation will be of distinct benefit to honest producers, manufacturers, and dealers in food, drugs, and cosmetics, and to advertising media and agencies interested in promoting the sales of those commodities. The bill, if enacted in its present form, will be of incalculable benefit to consumers. It will place no undue burden on any honest manufacturing or advertising practice.
SECTION 201. DEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 201 of the bill consists of definitions of terms. The defini. tion of food is substantially that of the present act. The definition of drug has been expanded to include, first, substances and preparations recognized in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States; second, devices intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease; third, substances, preparations, and devices intended for diagnostic purposes; and, fourth, such articles, other than food and cosmetics, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. Such expansion of the definition of the term “ drug” is essential if the consumer is to be protected against a multiplicity of devices and such preparations as slenderizers , many of which are worthless at best and some of which are distinctly dangerous to health. The expression “and not to regulate the legalized practice of the healing art” was inserted in the definition to make it clear that the bill is not intended as a medical practices act and will not interfere with the practice of the healing art by chiropractors and others in the States where they are licensed by law to engage in such practice. It is not intended to permit the sale in interstate commerce or otherwise in Federal jurisdiction of adulterated or misbranded drugs or devices under the guise of the practice of a healing art. It is likewise not intended to permit the false advertising of drugs and devices under such guise.
While the definition of the term cosmetic does not include devices, it is drawn in broad terms to include all substances and preparations, other than ordinary toilet or household soap, intended for cleansing, or altering the appearance of, or promoting the attractiveness of the person. Cosmetics may be used externally, orificially, or even internally as in the case of the use of arsenic for clearing the complexion. The definition therefore must be sufficiently broad to cover potential abuses no matter how the substance or preparation is used. While soaps sold only for ordinary toilet or household use are specifically exempted from the definition of cosmetic and will not be subject to the definition of drug, soaps for which claims