Senator NEUBERGER. Miss Baumhogger, section 3 of the bill specifically says such regulations may not proscribe the use of package shapes which have been designed to exploit the unique advantages of any material for use in the production of packages of distinctive appearance. Miss BAUMHOGGER. Yes, but it does allow, Senator, it could authorize the standardization and sizes of other cosmetic packages and the weight of their contents. And, depending on specific products, this might be detrimental to our industry. It limits our own limits to design Senator NEUBERGER. This language was suggested by the industry. I don't know whether the cosmetic industry is one of them, to say that it may not, specifically, proscribe the use of package shapes to exploit the unique advantages of any material. Also because of the cosmetic industry the provision that it didn't affect small quantities, like in lipsticks, eye makeup, mascara, perfumes, and so on, because that would be too difficult to promulgate any kind of regulation. Thank you. Miss BAUMHOGGER. Thank you. Senator NEUBERGER. We will take the next witness, Carol Malstrom, chairman of the board of the Federation of Homemakers. STATEMENT OF CAROL MALSTROM, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, FEDERATION OF HOMEMAKERS Mrs. MALSTROM. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am Carol Malstrom, chairman of the board of management of the Federation of Homemakers. This is a nonprofit organization whose board members volunteer their time and efforts to obtain Federation objectives. The board appreciates this opportunity of presenting the views of its members regarding certain dubious aspects of packaging and labeling employed by some manufacturers in the food and grocery field. The board commends this Senate committee for permitting captive consumers and consumer organizations to testify about a deplorable situation which seems to be gaining momentum; creating false and misleading impressions through labeling omissions, difficult-to-decipher printing, deceptively designed packaging, and unintelligible abbreviations. At this moment may I say, I hoped Senator Magnuson would be here, and I want to commend him on cigarette labeling and I certainly want to commend Senator Neuberger on her efforts. This federation was incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia April 1959. It was incorporated by certain housewives after attending hearings on both the Food Additives Act and the chemical preservatives labeling bill. The latter bill eliminated the consumers right to know of the postharvest preservative treatment most fruits and produce now receive. Our members believe that housewives must be informed of the chemical treatment virtually all foods now receive and must be alerted to the possible harmful cumulative and synergistic effects which might result from residues of said chemicals. First, so that these informed homemakers can express their concern to their Congressmen and to appeal for corrective legislation and its enforcement. And, second, so that shoppers can exercise intelligent judgment in selecting wholesome and nutritious diets for their families-so that they may exercise their prerogative of the right to choose, the right to safety, and the right to be informed. We deplore the deceptions practiced as to weights and measures-the "regular" quart and the "giant" quart-but our primary concern is with the quality of the food rather than the quantity. Concern as to the fraudulent adulteration perpetrated in certain food products. With the indiscriminate use of additives today, some of which are definitely suspect and with the modern methods of processing and packaging, the nutritive value of many so-called food products may be negligible. Thus it is imperative that food labels contain detailed and concise information as to contents, with all ingredients used listed. This information to be stated prominently and accurately. With the addition of color, artificial flavorings, cheap, questionable emulsifiers, and with stabilizers, an inferior product can readily masquerade as a superior one, misleading and deceiving the consumer. It is vital that the shopper be provided with the exact knowledge of the contents of the product under consideration so that a wise selection may be possible. Air pollution and water pollution have been widely stressed, and some corrective measures are being taken there, but relatively nothing has been said of, nor anything done concerning, food pollution. This pollution, or adulteration, or contamination has assumed alarming proportions, with no curtailment in sight. It is diabolical that the greed of industry has now invaded baby food. It is indeed incredible to believe that certain suspect ingredients are being added to infant fare, ingredients that have absolutely no nutritive value whatsoever. Our members were appalled to discover that sodium nitrite is now permitted as a preservative of infant and baby meats. A letter expressing this concern has already been mailed to Commissioner Larrick of FDA and to Secretary Freeman of the U.S. Department of Agri culture. World Health Organization's Report No. 228, 1962, has asked for a study of additives in baby food and I quote from page 6 of the above-mentioned report: Foods that are specifically prepared for babies require separate consideration from all other foods as regards the use of food additives and toxicological risks. The reason for this is that detoxicating mechanisms that are effective in the more mature individual may be ineffective in the baby. The committee strongly urges that baby foods should be prepared without food additives if possible. If the use of a food additive is necessary in a baby food, great caution should be exercised both in the choice of additive and the level of use. Noting that one brand of baby food used this sodium nitrite, members were greatly alarmed to learn that yet another manufacturer was using this same toxic chemical. As you know, Gleason's 48-222-65- --46 Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957, page 90, gives sodium nitrite a toxicity rating of 4, whereas sodium nitrate is given a less toxic rating of 3. Pages 162 and 163 of said source give symptoms and treatment of poisoning by nitrite and mentions inability of infants and certain individuals to eliminate it after ingestion. Dr. Franklin Bicknell, consulting physician for French Hospital, London, an internationally known authority on vitamins, says in his book, "Chemicals in Your Foods." page 51: Nitrites are all illegal in fresh meats; but it seems they may be used surreptitiously by butchers to prevent putrefaction. A very dubious emulsifier, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose made from cotton litners treated with a caustic, is also used in strained chicken for infants. Again Dr. Bicknell says "artificial emulsifiers should not be used in foods." FDA's standards of identity, which originally must have been intended for protection, would seem to have lost that protective designation, and are used too often as a cloak for concealing vital facts from the shopper. It is a term meaningless to the average unsuspecting consumer. "Ice cream" is a strong example. There is no indication that this universally accepted product may contain any of more than 60 ingredients in various combinations, without requiring any to be named on the label, other than "artificial flavoring" if such is present. In communicating with Dr. H. F. Kraybill, Ph. D., National Cancer Institute, we quote from his report (reprinted from "Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics," St. Louis, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 73-87, January-February 1963) pages 78-79: As a stabilizer and emulsifier in ice cream manufacture, carboxymethyl cellulose has been used. Feeding experiments with rats on this material have been negative, but subcutaneous injections in rats for a 2-year period resulted in sarcomas. Whereas the critical appraisal is on the basis of oral feeding and certainly a proved carcinogen, by this technique would be rejected by Food and Drug authorities if tumors are demonstrated by skin painting or injection, this may also be the basis for rejection. Bread too is exempt under standards of identity. Dr. Ancel Keys, a consultant for World Health Organization, in his book "Eat Well and Stay Well" points out that 58 chemical additives are used in bread baking, while the housewife believes that only one, sodium propionate, is being added. Dr. W. C. Hueper, Director, Environmental Cancer Section, National Cancer Institute, and a recepient of a World Health Organization award for his cancer research confirms our convictions as to the undesirability of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose in foods. An excerpt of his reply (letter of May 13, 1965) is as follows: Since the long-range effects and particularly any actual or potential carcinogenic effects of many of the presently used food additives either have not been determined or have become apparent so far in experimental animals only, any introduction of such chemicals into the human food supply represents in my opinion an unjustified, if not socially irresponsible gambling with the health and the life of the consumers. Such unnecessary and avoidable hazards are especially reprehensible when known carcinogenic chemicals are added to the food of babies, who are more susceptible to the action of chemical carcinogens and can be expected to live sufficiently long for surviving the usually long preparatory period of chemical carcinogenesis. It is for this reason that I vigorously oppose the addition of carboxymethyl cellulose to baby foods. Cottage cheese is another example of fraud foisted upon the consumer. Only very recently has FDA permitted the use of calcium sulfate, a refined plaster of paris, to be added to this heretofore bland product. We quote from page 82 of Gleason's "Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products" an excerpt on calcium sulfate : Because it hardens quickly after absorbing moisture, its ingestion may result in obstruction, particularly at the pylorus. Surely this odd substance has no semblance of nutritive value. The trend today is toward increasing the use of additives, not diminishing. It would thus seem obligatory that a "permitted list" of emulsifying agents and other additives be circulated instead of the present "prohibited list," these additives having no relation to food. There are so many devices of blatantly deceptive packaging with which we are all familiar-in no way harmful, but reprehensible nevertheless. The striped cellophane bag for wrapping carrots, giving the vegetable a rosy appearance, indicative of freshness. Carrots used to come in bunches with the tops on so that one could readily see that they were newly dug. Now they are detopped, washed, and sometimes dipped in a preservation before being placed in these colored casings. The bottle with the camouflaged bottom, holding a smaller amount of fluid than visible to the eye. The use of hollow dividers in some candy boxes. The package of meat with the better pieces on display at the top and the less desirable ones underneath. The ingenuity of constructing containers to make them appear larger but actually contain less. Sometimes pictorial matter too tends to deceive. All of these examples are not conducive to honesty and reliability to which the would-be purchaser is entitled. We believe that in the best interests of the consumer, food products and household supplies should be labeled accurately and conspicuously, giving the net contents of the containers, listing all ingredients, and that these labels be legible, printed so that they may be seen without recourse to the magnifying glass. Factual labeling is essential to the diabetic or to the ones suffering from allergies. If industry will not take the initiative in this proper labeling, we feel it is imperative that Congress provide this protection. We have just learned that Britain has introduced a labeling of foods bill designed to force the disclosure of chemical additives in groceries, meats, fruits, vegetables, and toilet preparations. The first reading bill was supported by all parties in the House without revision. It was introduced by Mrs. Joyce Putnam. We thank the committee for permitting us to give our views and we congratulate you upon undertaking this needed study for consumer legislation. Senator NEUBERGER. We are glad to have your testimony. I am rather shocked at that quotation you gave about cottage cheese. The quote is not from the FDA regulations. I can't find it anywhere in the amendments. So I think I will write FDA and ask them about that. Mrs. MALSTROM. We can provide you with this information. Senator NEUBERGER. Did you know that in ice cream it is not required that you have artificial coloring added on the package? Mrs. MALSTROM. Someone just told me that. I thought you still had to put it on. Senator NEUBERGER. No. Butter is usually colored artificially. Cheese most always is. And ice cream most always is. But they are exempt. Mrs. MALSTROM. We feel, Senator, that it is imperative that the labels should have all ingredients listed. So many people are suffering from allergies, and they should be allowed to make that choice. We think that is imperative. Senator NEUBERGER. Oranges are all, practically, artificially colored. The injection is in the skin. Your contention is that many colorings are ingested. Mrs. MALSTROM. Yes. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you. (The information requested follows:) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1965, concerning the testimony of the Federation of Homemakers before your committee. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the topics discussed by the representative of the federation. Mrs. Malstrom expressed particular concern about optional ingredients that are not listed on food labels, meats in infant foods containing nitrite, ice cream manufactured with sodium carboxymethycellulose, and the use of calcium sulfate in cottage cheese. We will comment on these matters in that order. 1. Label declaration of food ingredients.-The fact that some food labels show all the ingredients while others do not has long been a source of confusion to consumers. This results from the fact that the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not require a complete statement of ingredients on foods which are standardized. Section 401 stated that "In prescribing a definition and standard of identity for any food or class of food in which optional ingredients are permitted, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of promoting honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, designate the optional ingredients which shall be named on the label.” The "optional ingredients" referred to, generally speaking, include the various kinds of food additives and other substances mentioned by the federation representative. A great many of these new food ingredients have been developed since the 1938 law was passed, and a new law, the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, was enacted to insure their safety. The food standards regulations specify what optional ingredients may be used and those which must be declared on the label. In drafting these regulations the FDA has followed the principle that the optional ingredients should be named whenever the information is needed to promote "honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers." Now that the safety of all food ingredients is required to be established in advance, food manufacturers can be given a wider choice of optional ingredients. At the same time there is an increasing need to declare such ingredients so that FDA inspectors can check to see that they are being properly used. New food standards reflect both of these considerations. An example is the recently issued |