Healthy public relations: The FDA's 1930s legislative campaign

Bulletin of the History of Medicine

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 446-487

  Kay, Gwen ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food and drug legislation; Public health; Radio; Twentieth century United States; U.S. government

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRUG LEGISLATION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROMOTION; HISTORY; HUMAN; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH FAIRS; HEALTH PROMOTION; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; LEGISLATION, FOOD; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 0035465069     PISSN: 00075140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/bhm.2001.0126     Document Type: Article

References (213)

1. George Hoffman, New York City, to Dr. Glover, Director of Drug Administration, Bureau of Chemistry, 27 August 1920, Cosmetics (580), General correspondence, 1920, RG 88, National Archives, College Park, Md. (henceforth NACP 88).
2. "I might also add that the Department of Health of the City of New York has had the Empress Co. under supervision some little time. Mr. Ridley is in charge of the Drug Department in this Department of Health. He informed me that he had purchased before I saw him a package of this dye and that it was being analyzed" (ibid.).
3. Glover to Hoffman, 15 October 1920, ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. For example, the Bureau received a letter in 1919 from a manufacturing concern asking to be advised "if the word 'Food' can be used legally in the trade name of a toilet preparation, such as 'Skin Food' or 'Flesh Food'? If we remember right the word 'Food' as applied in the above sense was first prohibited when the food and drug laws were first enacted" (Joseph Elehu, De La Claire Mfg. Co., Mishawaka, Indiana, to Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Drug Division, 27 May 1919, Cosmetics [581.8], General correspondence, 1919, NACP 88). The writer's concern is the proper (legal) use of this word; he assumed that cosmetics were included in the 1906 Act. Similarly, in 1927, shortly before the FDA began its publicity campaign, the president and manager of a New Orleans department store asked the Bureau of Standards for "information regarding cosmetics and [to] find out those that contain lead or other injurious ingredients"; after the letter was properly directed, the Bureau of Chemistry replied that it could provide information on food and drugs only: F. W. Evans, D. H. Holmes Company, New Orleans, to United States Bureau of Standards, 3 August 1927; M. D. Moore, Correspondence Clerk, Bureau of Chemistry, to D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd., 15 August 1927, Cosmetics (580.2), General correspondence, 1927, NACP 88.
6. Gustavus A. Weber, The Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration: Its History, Activities and Organization (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1928), esp. chap. 1.
7. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
8. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food a4nd Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
9. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
10. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
11. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
12. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
13. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
14. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
15. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
16. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
17. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
18. James T. O'Reilly, Food and Drug Administration, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: Shepard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1993), esp. chap. 3. For a brief overview, see also John Swann, "Food and Drug Administration," in A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government, ed. George T. Kurian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 248-54. Enforcement activities of the FDA and other subagencies within the United States Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control have been examined. For more on the activities of the FDA, see in particular James Harvey Young, The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967); idem, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); idem, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). For other aspects of the Public Health Service, see Fitzhugh Mullan, Plagues and Politics: The Story of the United States Public Health Service (New York: Basic Books, 1989); Ralph C. Williams, The United States Public Health Service, 1798-1950 (Washington, D.C.: Commissioned Offers Association of the United States Public Health Service, 1951); Victoria Harden, Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Research Policy, 1887-1937 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Elizabeth W. Etheridge, Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Focusing on the 1930s and New Deal health policies in particular, see Michael R. Grey, "Poverty, Politics and Health: The Farm Security Administration Medical Care Program, 1935-1955," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1989, 44: 320-50; idem, "Dustbowls, Disease, and the New Deal: The Farm Security Administration Migrant Health Program, 1935-1947," ibid., 1993, 48: 3-39; idem, New Deal Medicine: The Rural Health Programs of the Farm Security Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
19. In JAMA, the notices typically appeared in the "Bureau of Investigation" column. A listing of "Abstracts of Notices of Judgment Issued by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture" in the 7 January 1933 issue included an editorial note explaining their presence: "The Food and Drug Administration . . . publishes, in bulletins issued at frequent intervals, reports on 'patent medicines' whose sale has been found to violate the national Food and Drugs Act. Unfortunately, this information is buried, so far as the general public in concerned. For that reason, THE JOURNAL has always published abstracts of these notices" (JAMA, 1933, 100: 58-59).
20. See, for example, Francis P. Wall and Louis D. Zeidberg, Health Guides and Guards (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1936), pp. 308-11; William Burkard et al., Personal and Public Health: A Text in Health Education (Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan, 1930), pp. 388-93; Hibbert Winston Hill, The New Public Health (New York: Macmillan, 1922).
21. See, for example, Francis P. Wall and Louis D. Zeidberg, Health Guides and Guards (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1936), pp. 308-11; William Burkard et al., Personal and Public Health: A Text in Health Education (Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan, 1930), pp. 388-93; Hibbert Winston Hill, The New Public Health (New York: Macmillan, 1922).
22. See, for example, Francis P. Wall and Louis D. Zeidberg, Health Guides and Guards (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1936), pp. 308-11; William Burkard et al., Personal and Public Health: A Text in Health Education (Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan, 1930), pp. 388-93; Hibbert Winston Hill, The New Public Health (New York: Macmillan, 1922).
23. George Sparr Luckett and Harold Farnsworth Gray, The Elements of Public Health Administration (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1923), p. 142. The FDA activities to which I refer in the context of this paper are discussed in W. W. Bauer and Thomas G. Hull, Health Education of the Public (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1937). Young certainly discusses other Bureau of Chemistry/FDA public health activity in his books, and see James Harvey Young, "Food and Drug Regulation under the USDA, 1906-1940," Agric. Hist., 1990, 64: 134-42; idem, "From Oysters to After-Dinner Mints: The Role of the Early Food and Drug Inspector," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1987, 42: 30-53.
24. George Sparr Luckett and Harold Farnsworth Gray, The Elements of Public Health Administration (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1923), p. 142. The FDA activities to which I refer in the context of this paper are discussed in W. W. Bauer and Thomas G. Hull, Health Education of the Public (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1937). Young certainly discusses other Bureau of Chemistry/FDA public health activity in his books, and see James Harvey Young, "Food and Drug Regulation under the USDA, 1906-1940," Agric. Hist., 1990, 64: 134-42; idem, "From Oysters to After-Dinner Mints: The Role of the Early Food and Drug Inspector," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1987, 42: 30-53.
25. George Sparr Luckett and Harold Farnsworth Gray, The Elements of Public Health Administration (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1923), p. 142. The FDA activities to which I refer in the context of this paper are discussed in W. W. Bauer and Thomas G. Hull, Health Education of the Public (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1937). Young certainly discusses other Bureau of Chemistry/FDA public health activity in his books, and see James Harvey Young, "Food and Drug Regulation under the USDA, 1906-1940," Agric. Hist., 1990, 64: 134-42; idem, "From Oysters to After-Dinner Mints: The Role of the Early Food and Drug Inspector," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1987, 42: 30-53.
26. George Sparr Luckett and Harold Farnsworth Gray, The Elements of Public Health Administration (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1923), p. 142. The FDA activities to which I refer in the context of this paper are discussed in W. W. Bauer and Thomas G. Hull, Health Education of the Public (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1937). Young certainly discusses other Bureau of Chemistry/FDA public health activity in his books, and see James Harvey Young, "Food and Drug Regulation under the USDA, 1906-1940," Agric. Hist., 1990, 64: 134-42; idem, "From Oysters to After-Dinner Mints: The Role of the Early Food and Drug Inspector," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1987, 42: 30-53.
27. One reason for the "sudden" movement for an amended or completely new bill included an administration with a new legislative agenda. This proposed revision of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, first suggested at the end of the first "Hundred Days," is usually considered one of the final pieces of legislation of the Second New Deal. Roosevelt's support for the bill over the years wavered; Copeland's stance against Roosevelt's agenda, including his Supreme Court plan, cost him presidential support in 1937, which was regained after the deaths from the Massengill elixir (see below). The difficulties Copeland faced in shepherding this bill through the Senate are recounted in Ole Salthe, "A Legislative Monument to Senator Royal S. Copeland," Food, Drug, Cosmet. Law J., 1947, 3: 253-63; for broader political shifts, see Vincent A. Kleinfield, "Legislative History of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act," ibid., 1946, 2: 532-76.
28. One reason for the "sudden" movement for an amended or completely new bill included an administration with a new legislative agenda. This proposed revision of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, first suggested at the end of the first "Hundred Days," is usually considered one of the final pieces of legislation of the Second New Deal. Roosevelt's support for the bill over the years wavered; Copeland's stance against Roosevelt's agenda, including his Supreme Court plan, cost him presidential support in 1937, which was regained after the deaths from the Massengill elixir (see below). The difficulties Copeland faced in shepherding this bill through the Senate are recounted in Ole Salthe, "A Legislative Monument to Senator Royal S. Copeland," Food, Drug, Cosmet. Law J., 1947, 3: 253-63; for broader political shifts, see Vincent A. Kleinfield, "Legislative History of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act," ibid., 1946, 2: 532-76.
29. One reason for the "sudden" movement for an amended or completely new bill included an administration with a new legislative agenda. This proposed revision of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, first suggested at the end of the first "Hundred Days," is usually considered one of the final pieces of legislation of the Second New Deal. Roosevelt's support for the bill over the years wavered; Copeland's stance against Roosevelt's agenda, including his Supreme Court plan, cost him presidential support in 1937, which was regained after the deaths from the Massengill elixir (see below). The difficulties Copeland faced in shepherding this bill through the Senate are recounted in Ole Salthe, "A Legislative Monument to Senator Royal S. Copeland," Food, Drug, Cosmet. Law J., 1947, 3: 253-63; for broader political shifts, see Vincent A. Kleinfield, "Legislative History of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act," ibid., 1946, 2: 532-76.
30. I am using the term "FDA" in broad statements applying to the same entity through several name changes when referring to activities in the 1920s and 1930s. Specific incidents, such as Hoffman's letter, reflect the correct agency name.
31. This episode is dramatically told in both Young, Medical Messiahs (n. 7), esp. chap. 8, and Charles O. Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation in the New Deal (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), esp. chap. 1.
32. This episode is dramatically told in both Young, Medical Messiahs (n. 7), esp. chap. 8, and Charles O. Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation in the New Deal (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), esp. chap. 1.
33. Walter Campbell, "A New Food and Drug Act," [draft; n.d.], Food and Drug Act (A), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
34. Young, Pure Food (n. 7); idem, Medical Messiahs, chap. 8 (n. 7); Mitchell Okun, Fair Play in the Marketplace: The First Battle for Pure Food and Drugs (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986); Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13).
35. Young, Pure Food (n. 7); idem, Medical Messiahs, chap. 8 (n. 7); Mitchell Okun, Fair Play in the Marketplace: The First Battle for Pure Food and Drugs (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986); Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13).
36. Young, Pure Food (n. 7); idem, Medical Messiahs, chap. 8 (n. 7); Mitchell Okun, Fair Play in the Marketplace: The First Battle for Pure Food and Drugs (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986); Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13).
37. Young, Pure Food (n. 7); idem, Medical Messiahs, chap. 8 (n. 7); Mitchell Okun, Fair Play in the Marketplace: The First Battle for Pure Food and Drugs (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986); Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13).
38. See Weber, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration (n. 6), chap. 3.
39. The number of branch offices varied in the 1930s from sixteen to eighteen. The Eastern Division branch offices were in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, New York City, and Philadelphia; the Central Division branch offices were in Chicago, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New Orleans, and St. Louis; the Western Division branch offices were in Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle: "Housekeeper's Chat," broadcast 7 September 1936, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.22), General correspondence, 1936, NACP 88. In 1928, the branch offices had included San Juan and Rouse's Point (N.Y.), but not Atlanta: Weber, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration (n. 6), p. 64.
40. The number of branch offices varied in the 1930s from sixteen to eighteen. The Eastern Division branch offices were in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, New York City, and Philadelphia; the Central Division branch offices were in Chicago, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New Orleans, and St. Louis; the Western Division branch offices were in Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle: "Housekeeper's Chat," broadcast 7 September 1936, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.22), General correspondence, 1936, NACP 88. In 1928, the branch offices had included San Juan and Rouse's Point (N.Y.), but not Atlanta: Weber, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration (n. 6), p. 64.
41. The number of branch offices varied in the 1930s from sixteen to eighteen. The Eastern Division branch offices were in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, New York City, and Philadelphia; the Central Division branch offices were in Chicago, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New Orleans, and St. Louis; the Western Division branch offices were in Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle: "Housekeeper's Chat," broadcast 7 September 1936, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.22), General correspondence, 1936, NACP 88. In 1928, the branch offices had included San Juan and Rouse's Point (N.Y.), but not Atlanta: Weber, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration (n. 6), p. 64.
42. The assistant to the chief of the FDA served as business and information officer, controlling the flow of information out of the FDA: Weber, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration (n. 6), p. 59.
43. The FDA Information Office dispatched press releases, and also controlled (or tried to) all statements from FDA personnel, ranging from radio broadcasts to speeches and articles for newspapers, magazines, and other publications. The Office strove to ensure that all written and oral communications were of a uniform nature and conveyed a consistent message to the public. Heads of the Information Office, from the late 1920s through 1938, included Morse Salisbury, M. Eisenhower, Solon Barber, and Ruth Lamb. The memos from the Information Office reflect the changes in leadership: see Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1919-38, NACP 88. For more on Ruth Lamb, see the Ruth Lamb Atkinson Papers, Special Collections, Vassar College Libraries, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
44. Drafts of talks to local organizations, or radio transcripts, for example, are included in the monthly reports from branch offices to the district chiefs. While the reports seldom occasion a response, suggestions for improving talks, newspaper articles, and the like almost invariably appear in the files: Food and Drug Act (Aa), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933-38, NACP 88.
45. In 1920, for example, the Bureau of Chemistry had exhibits at both a Citrus Seminar at the Orange Show (an agricultural fair) and the Cincinnati Pure Food Exhibit: E. M. Chase, Citrus By-Products Lab, Los Angeles, to Dr. Pappe, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D.C., 22 August 1920; T. F. Pappe, Chemist, to Dr. Hiscox, Office of Exhibits, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D.C., 4 June 1920, Exhibits (043), General correspondence, 1920, NACP 88. Magazine articles, either written by FDA officials or using information supplied by the Information Office, include Walter Eddy, "A New Pure Food Bill," in Good Housekeeping, October 1933; a four-part series by Solon Barber, "Quelling the Quacks," in Hygeia, February-May 1933; and an ongoing beauty column by Ruth Murrin in Good Housekeeping, 1927 forward.
46. In 1920, for example, the Bureau of Chemistry had exhibits at both a Citrus Seminar at the Orange Show (an agricultural fair) and the Cincinnati Pure Food Exhibit: E. M. Chase, Citrus By-Products Lab, Los Angeles, to Dr. Pappe, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D.C., 22 August 1920; T. F. Pappe, Chemist, to Dr. Hiscox, Office of Exhibits, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D.C., 4 June 1920, Exhibits (043), General correspondence, 1920, NACP 88. Magazine articles, either written by FDA officials or using information supplied by the Information Office, include Walter Eddy, "A New Pure Food Bill," in Good Housekeeping, October 1933; a four-part series by Solon Barber, "Quelling the Quacks," in Hygeia, February-May 1933; and an ongoing beauty column by Ruth Murrin in Good Housekeeping, 1927 forward.
47. In 1920, for example, the Bureau of Chemistry had exhibits at both a Citrus Seminar at the Orange Show (an agricultural fair) and the Cincinnati Pure Food Exhibit: E. M. Chase, Citrus By-Products Lab, Los Angeles, to Dr. Pappe, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D.C., 22 August 1920; T. F. Pappe, Chemist, to Dr. Hiscox, Office of Exhibits, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D.C., 4 June 1920, Exhibits (043), General correspondence, 1920, NACP 88. Magazine articles, either written by FDA officials or using information supplied by the Information Office, include Walter Eddy, "A New Pure Food Bill," in Good Housekeeping, October 1933; a four-part series by Solon Barber, "Quelling the Quacks," in Hygeia, February-May 1933; and an ongoing beauty column by Ruth Murrin in Good Housekeeping, 1927 forward.
48. Jerry McQuade, Topics Publishing Co., to Campbell, Food and Drug Administra-tion, Washington, D.C., 12 April 1933, Food and Drug Act, January-April, Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. In response to a memorandum to bureau chiefs urging them to talk to women's organizations, New York chief Joseph Calloway, Jr., offered to speak before the local chapters of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women (NFBPW), the National Council of Jewish Women, the League of American Pen Women, and the American Women's Association; a version of the memorandum was sent from Larrick to Clarke, chief clerk, late September 1933: Food and Drug Act (D), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. Calloway sent letters to Emily Kneubuhl, Secretary, NFBPW, 18 October 1933; Mrs. Arthur Brin, President, National Council of Jewish Women, 18 October 1933; Miss Catherine Cronin, League of American Pen Women, 24 October 1933; and Catherine Fitzgilden, American Women's Association, 14 November 1933: Food and Drug Act (Aa), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
49. In addition to several long-running series, the FDA broadcast local shows, such as T. A. Retzlaff's talk, "The Food Law in Kitchen Language," broadcast 27 May 1930 on NBC: Radio talks, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88. News bulletins found their way onto the air, including President Hoover signing the McNary-Mapes Amendment into law in mid-July 1930: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 21 July 1930, ibid. Warnings were issued against several specific drugs on "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 3 November 1934: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88.
50. In addition to several long-running series, the FDA broadcast local shows, such as T. A. Retzlaff's talk, "The Food Law in Kitchen Language," broadcast 27 May 1930 on NBC: Radio talks, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88. News bulletins found their way onto the air, including President Hoover signing the McNary-Mapes Amendment into law in mid-July 1930: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 21 July 1930, ibid. Warnings were issued against several specific drugs on "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 3 November 1934: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88.
51. In addition to several long-running series, the FDA broadcast local shows, such as T. A. Retzlaff's talk, "The Food Law in Kitchen Language," broadcast 27 May 1930 on NBC: Radio talks, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88. News bulletins found their way onto the air, including President Hoover signing the McNary-Mapes Amendment into law in mid-July 1930: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 21 July 1930, ibid. Warnings were issued against several specific drugs on "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 3 November 1934: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88.
52. In addition to several long-running series, the FDA broadcast local shows, such as T. A. Retzlaff's talk, "The Food Law in Kitchen Language," broadcast 27 May 1930 on NBC: Radio talks, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88. News bulletins found their way onto the air, including President Hoover signing the McNary-Mapes Amendment into law in mid-July 1930: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 21 July 1930, ibid. Warnings were issued against several specific drugs on "Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcast 3 November 1934: "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88.
53. As James Harvey Young notes, Wiley viewed "fraudulent" as a "'joker' which would nullify the law's intent" (Young, Medical Messiahs [n. 7], p. 50). For the Bureau of Chemistry to successfully prosecute manufacturers, the Bureau would need to prove deliberate intent to deceive; see ibid., chaps. 3 and 5; Young, American Health Quackery (n. 7), pp. 94-97.
54. As James Harvey Young notes, Wiley viewed "fraudulent" as a "'joker' which would nullify the law's intent" (Young, Medical Messiahs [n. 7], p. 50). For the Bureau of Chemistry to successfully prosecute manufacturers, the Bureau would need to prove deliberate intent to deceive; see ibid., chaps. 3 and 5; Young, American Health Quackery (n. 7), pp. 94-97.
55. As James Harvey Young notes, Wiley viewed "fraudulent" as a "'joker' which would nullify the law's intent" (Young, Medical Messiahs [n. 7], p. 50). For the Bureau of Chemistry to successfully prosecute manufacturers, the Bureau would need to prove deliberate intent to deceive; see ibid., chaps. 3 and 5; Young, American Health Quackery (n. 7), pp. 94-97.
56. As early as 1914, there is correspondence urging amendments: "that the definition of 'drugs' be made to include all cosmetics, toilet preparations, face creams, hair dyes and obesity and anti-lean remedies. It is probable that the popular understanding of the term drug includes all these articles" (D. F. Houston to A. W. Lafferty, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 21 February 1914, Food and Drugs, Proposed legislation (061.1), General correspondence, 1919, NACP 88). Similar arguments are raised again in 1919, when Campbell writes to an unnamed "Solicitor," mentioning the Lafferty letter to remind him of both the proposed legislation and the language: Campbell to "Solicitor," 9 September 1919, ibid. An amendment to regulate traffic in cosmetics and protect the public's health, introduced by Senator Copeland, was pending in 1928: J. C. Harrah to Bureau of Chemistry, 15 December 1928, Cosmetics, Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1932, NACP 88.
57. In the first "Hundred Days" of Roosevelt's administration, the USDA had many items on its agenda, such as the approval and formation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to aid farmers. Oversight for revision of the 1906 act became Tugwell's responsibility.
58. Tugwell's role in the revising of the law is crucial, yet somewhat detached. He recognized the need for revision, and pushed Roosevelt and Wallace for support. Different accounts of the drafting of the bill credit different parties in different proportions. Stephen Wilson states in Food and Drug Regulation (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1942), p. 93, that while Cavers and Handler were part of a committee, most of the suggestions for change came from the regular committee members (Campbell, Assistant Chief Dunbar, Chief of Interstate Inspection Crawford, and three solicitors of the Department of Agriculture, P. M. Cronin J. B. O'Donnell, and J. F. Moore): "Tugwell took no part in drafting the bill. He was, however, consulted on major problems of policy." According to Cavers, Tugwell was responsible "for initiating the movement for revision of the Act of 1906" but "took no part in the actual drafting process; he was apprised of its progress and consulted on major problems of policy, but this role was distinctly that of sponsor rather than author of the measure" (David Cavers, "The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938: Its Legislative History and Its Substantive Provisions," in special issue, "The New Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Legislation," Law & Contemp. Prob., 1939, 6 [1]: 5-6). Whether or not Tugwell wrote the legislation, however, he was critical in the process of revising the 1906 law. For Tugwell's own version, see "Tugwell, R. G. An Interview with Charles O. Jackson, June 7, 1968," Oral History Collection, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md. And see the Rexford Tugwell Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y. - esp. boxes 30-32, which contain several versions of Tugwell's diaries, including "The Hundred Days" (box 30), "Diary 1934" (box 31), and "Diary 1935" (box 32).
59. Tugwell's role in the revising of the law is crucial, yet somewhat detached. He recognized the need for revision, and pushed Roosevelt and Wallace for support. Different accounts of the drafting of the bill credit different parties in different proportions. Stephen Wilson states in Food and Drug Regulation (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1942), p. 93, that while Cavers and Handler were part of a committee, most of the suggestions for change came from the regular committee members (Campbell, Assistant Chief Dunbar, Chief of Interstate Inspection Crawford, and three solicitors of the Department of Agriculture, P. M. Cronin J. B. O'Donnell, and J. F. Moore): "Tugwell took no part in drafting the bill. He was, however, consulted on major problems of policy." According to Cavers, Tugwell was responsible "for initiating the movement for revision of the Act of 1906" but "took no part in the actual drafting process; he was apprised of its progress and consulted on major problems of policy, but this role was distinctly that of sponsor rather than author of the measure" (David Cavers, "The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938: Its Legislative History and Its Substantive Provisions," in special issue, "The New Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Legislation," Law & Contemp. Prob., 1939, 6 [1]: 5-6). Whether or not Tugwell wrote the legislation, however, he was critical in the process of revising the 1906 law. For Tugwell's own version, see "Tugwell, R. G. An Interview with Charles O. Jackson, June 7, 1968," Oral History Collection, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md. And see the Rexford Tugwell Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y. - esp. boxes 30-32, which contain several versions of Tugwell's diaries, including "The Hundred Days" (box 30), "Diary 1934" (box 31), and "Diary 1935" (box 32).
60. The hearings on revisions were held in December 1933 (S.R. 1944), February-March 1934 (S.R. 5), March 1935 (S.R. 5), and July-August 1935 (H.R. 6906, H.R. 8805, H.R. 8941, and S.R. 5).
61. After reading the Notices of Judgment, Mrs. Benjamin Affleck wrote to ask Tugwell "is there anything to stop canners, etc. from returning to old, bad habits?"; in reply, she was encouraged to write to her senators and congressmen: Mrs. Benjamin Affleck, Lake Forest, Ill., to Dr. Tugwell, 1 August 1933; P. B. Dunbar to Mrs. Affleck, 8 August 1933, Food and Drug Act (E), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
62. "Memo to All Bureaus," from E. B. Reid, Director of Publications, 23 March 1920, Exhibits (043), General correspondence, 1920, NACP 88.
63. G. P. Larrick, FDA, to W. W. Vincent, FDA Western District Chief, 24 March 1930, Exhibits (043), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88.
64. Hundreds of thousands of people were expected to visit Washington in 1932, in honor of George Washington's bicentennial, and many government departments used this opportunity to showcase their activities. The FDA, however, declined to participate: "While I believe in normal times such an exhibit would be thoroughly worthwhile and the expenditure justified, under our present circumstances trying to make every dollar work overtime in the actual enforcement of the law, I do not believe that we should undertake the time and expense which such a visit would entail" (C. W. Warburton to W. G. Campbell, 20 January 1932, Exhibits (043), General correspondence, 1932, NACP 88).
65. A flurry of discussion ensued to determine the focus of the exhibit. In an 8 September 1932 letter to Paul Dunbar, Warburton, the director of Extension Work, noted that because of the limited space "it will, therefore, be necessary to concentrate our exhibit on the most important features of Department work since space will not be available to make a comprehensive display" (ibid.).
66. "Mr. Cross [the Chicago FDA inspector stationed at the exhibit] also stated that he had received several requests for copies of the proposed law and suggested the advisability of being provided with a number of copies. However, I expressed the belief that this was hardly necessary since it was the intention that interested parties write their Congressmen" (Harry Garrett, Chicago Bureau Chief, to S. Barber, 13 September 1933, Exhibits [043], General correspondence, 1932, NACP 88).
67. "I think we should make our display as popular as possible in its nature . . . since this Exposition will be visited largely by the general public, the consumer, and the producer" (Solon Barber to Paul B. Dunbar and Linton, 27 October 1932, Exhibits [043], General correspondence, 1932, NACP 88).
68. Larrick described each of the panels in a memorandum: G. P. Larrick to Chief, 8 September 1933, Exhibits [043], General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. A week later, Harry Garrett, Chicago Bureau chief, sent a virtual walk-through of the exhibit to Solon Barber, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C., 13 September 1933: ibid. Finally, photographs of the exhibit as a whole, and individual panels, can be found in the Ruth Lamb Atkinson Papers (n. 19), box 4.
69. For more on Chicago's Century of Progress, see Robert W. Rydell, World of Fairs: The Century of Progress Expositions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); John E. Findling, Chicago's Great World's Fair (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1994). The exposition appeared in fiction as well; see, for example, Clair Blank, Beverly Gray at the World's Fair (New York: A. L. Burt, 1935).
70. For more on Chicago's Century of Progress, see Robert W. Rydell, World of Fairs: The Century of Progress Expositions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); John E. Findling, Chicago's Great World's Fair (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1994). The exposition appeared in fiction as well; see, for example, Clair Blank, Beverly Gray at the World's Fair (New York: A. L. Burt, 1935).
71. For more on Chicago's Century of Progress, see Robert W. Rydell, World of Fairs: The Century of Progress Expositions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); John E. Findling, Chicago's Great World's Fair (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1994). The exposition appeared in fiction as well; see, for example, Clair Blank, Beverly Gray at the World's Fair (New York: A. L. Burt, 1935).
72. In an attempt to gain greater visibility for the exhibit, and to get women's organiza-tions involved in the fight for new legislation (as they had been in 1906), a dozen prominent women in Washington, including the First and Second Ladies, were invited to see the World's Fair Exhibit at FDA headquarters. The list included Miss Mary Dewson, Mrs. Blair Bannister, Mrs. Henry Rainey, Mrs. B. H. Snell, Mrs. Joseph W. Byrns, Mrs. Harold Ickes, Mrs. John Allan Dougherty, Mrs. Eleanor M. Patterson, and Miss Mabel Boardman: R. G. Tugwell to Mrs. Garner, 26 October 1933, with attached list of names, Food and Drug Act (September-October), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
73. "The Proposed New Food and Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1, in Scrapbooks, book 1, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
74. "New food bill extends scope to include cosmetics," packet prepared by the Science Service, 22 November 1933, Scrapbooks, book 2, box 1, ibid.
75. Scrapbooks, book 3, box 1, ibid. The clipping service for the FDA gathered at least six other articles on the First Lady's visit: Clippings, box 2, ibid.
76. News Item, Oil, Paint & Drug Reporter (OPDR), 1933, 124 (24): 16.
77. Each industry's journal covered the hearings in a different way. Drug and Cosmetic Industry (DCI), a monthly, had a legislation column as a regular feature but also included expanded coverage; OPDR, a weekly, printed transcripts of key testimony each week, along with editorial comments and other relevant news about the hearings.
78. Members of Congress presented and referred to the "Chamber"
79. Members of Congress presented and referred to the "Chamber" display also. During Senate discussions (not hearings) in 1935, both Senator Copeland and Senator McNary used several panels to emphasize their points: Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935, 79, pt. 4: 4758, 4736, respectively. The following year, Representative Chapman had, and Representative Kenney referred to, specific panels from the display in House discussion about S.R. 5 and the multiple House versions: Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 10: 10, 235, 10, 245.
80. House Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics: Hearings on H. R. 6906, H. R. 8805, H. R. 8941, and S. 5, 74th Cong., 1st sess, 1935, 385.
81. To save space, and to facilitate using the exhibit in talks before various groups, a book of exhibit photographs was sent to local bureaus in place of the larger physical exhibit. This was used through 1938. "With the passage of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938, the utility of the book of exhibit photographs has come to an end. We should like to have the Stations and Districts assemble one full set which each Station may retain for its files, if it so desires" (G. F. Larrick, Acting Chief, to Bureau, District Chief, 29 June 1938, Exhibits [043], General subjects, 1938, NACP 88).
82. L. M. Clarke, Chief Clerk, FDA, to L. M. Barrett, Oakland Public Schools, 19 October 1933, Food and Drug Act, October, Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
83. Mrs. Carrie G. Flint asked for some information for the local League of Women Voters meeting, noting that "we are quite young and poor as yet, but we recognized the tremendous importance of this particular issue"; Clerk Clarke sent a packet prepared by the Science Service and more information about the "Chamber" exhibit, and mentioned the possibility of lending some smaller photos from the exhibit: Mrs. Carrie G. Flint, Chickasha, Okla., to FDA, Washington, D.C., 13 November 1933; L. M. Clarke, Chief Clerk, FDA, to Mrs. Carrie G. Flint, 16 November 1933, Food and Drug Act, Clarke & Moore, Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
84. Although Jackson states that the FDA "retreated from using" the exhibit in 1934 (Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation [n. 13], pp. 47-18), FDA records indicate otherwise: in a 1 June 1936 letter, Lamb affirms that the "so-called 'Chamber of Horrors' in Room 2816" is available for public viewing at any time (Ruth Lamb to Grace Frysinger, Bureau of Home Economics, 1 June 1936, Exhibits [043], General correspondence, 1936, NACP 88).
85. For the uses of film in public health, see Martin S. Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of "Defective" Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Suzanne White, "'Mom and Dad' (1944): Venereal disease 'exploitation,'" Bull. Hist. Med., 1988, 62: 252-70; Susan E. Lederer and John Parascandola, "Screening Syphilis: Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet Meets the Public Health Service," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1998, 53: 345-70.
86. For the uses of film in public health, see Martin S. Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of "Defective" Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Suzanne White, "'Mom and Dad' (1944): Venereal disease 'exploitation,'" Bull. Hist. Med., 1988, 62: 252-70; Susan E. Lederer and John Parascandola, "Screening Syphilis: Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet Meets the Public Health Service," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1998, 53: 345-70.
87. For the uses of film in public health, see Martin S. Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of "Defective" Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Suzanne White, "'Mom and Dad' (1944): Venereal disease 'exploitation,'" Bull. Hist. Med., 1988, 62: 252-70; Susan E. Lederer and John Parascandola, "Screening Syphilis: Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet Meets the Public Health Service," J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1998, 53: 345-70.
88. Deficiencies in the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, Paramount Features, 1933. I wish to thank FDA Historians Dr. John Swann and Dr. Suzanne White Junod for showing me this newsreel.
89. George Larrick to District and Division Chiefs, 18 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
90. S. I. Marks, President, Kurlash-Chicago Company, to Rexford Tugwell, Department of Agriculture, 23 October 1933, ibid. Similar telegrams were sent by Maybelline Company to President Roosevelt and Tugwell; see Ned Swope, Palace Shops, to President Roosevelt, correspondence between Maybelline Company and Rexford Tugwell, 26 October and 2 November 1933; between Ned Swope and Rexford Tugwell, 2, 8 November 1933, ibid.
91. Correspondence between S. I. Marks, President, Kurlash-Chicago Company, and Rexford Tugwell, Department of Agriculture, 23, 25, 27 October 1933, ibid. It does seem curious that Paramount specifically prohibited product names, when radio programs explicitly identified (sponsor) products during broadcasts. Histories of advertising ignore newsreels; the best source on the popularity and profitability of newsreels is Douglas Gomery, Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation in the United States (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), pp. 141-54.
92. See correspondence between Tugwell, Kutill, and L. D. Elliott (Acting Chief, Interstate Supervision), 1, 11, 13 November 1933 (quotation from Tugwell to Kutill, 11 November), Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
93. The press release is alluded to in correspondence with both Kutill and Swope. It is unclear whether it was publicly released or simply mentioned and quoted - but not distributed - in an effort to mollify cosmetic companies; I found no record of such a release.
94. This movie appears never to have been made: John Harvey, Western FDA Chief, to Walter Campbell, 8 November 1937, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88. News items appeared in the New York Times (16 November 1937) and the Times Picayune (16 November 1937). Lamb wrote in a 23 December 1937 letter to William Tredt, chief of the Minneapolis Station, that Twentieth Century Fox was to produce the movie: Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88. A little more than a year earlier, in 1936, Jean Laurent, a researcher for the Federal Theater Project, had written to the FDA for some information to help in "thinking about a stage production on medical quackery" (Jean Laurent, New York, to USDA, 15 October 1936, Food and Drug Act, Proposed legislation [062], General correspondence, 1936, NACP 88). Laurent received the Science Service package of eight articles summarizing the deficiencies in the 1906 law, and information on the "Chamber of Horrors" exhibit. Like the film, however, the play does not appear to have been produced.
95. This movie appears never to have been made: John Harvey, Western FDA Chief, to Walter Campbell, 8 November 1937, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88. News items appeared in the New York Times (16 November 1937) and the Times Picayune (16 November 1937). Lamb wrote in a 23 December 1937 letter to William Tredt, chief of the Minneapolis Station, that Twentieth Century Fox was to produce the movie: Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88. A little more than a year earlier, in 1936, Jean Laurent, a researcher for the Federal Theater Project, had written to the FDA for some information to help in "thinking about a stage production on medical quackery" (Jean Laurent, New York, to USDA, 15 October 1936, Food and Drug Act, Proposed legislation [062], General correspondence, 1936, NACP 88). Laurent received the Science Service package of eight articles summarizing the deficiencies in the 1906 law, and information on the "Chamber of Horrors" exhibit. Like the film, however, the play does not appear to have been produced.
96. Solon Barber, chief of information, issued a 1 June 1933 memorandum highlighting public contact: "Our approach in every case should be to show the consumer that this new law will offer him greater protection from both the health and budgetary standpoints" (Food and Drug Act [G], Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88). Giving talks, opening up local bureaus for tours, writing articles for newspapers - all of this behavior was endorsed.
97. In early July, a "Notice to Consumers" was sent to the League of Women Voters, the Massachusetts Home Economic Association, the Consumers' League, Chambers of Commerce nationwide, and various editors and publishers: George Addams to FDA, 8 July 1933, Food and Drug Act (E), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. In mid-September, Dunbar sent Larrick a list of individual women and representatives of women's organizations who should be courted, as they had supported consumer-safety issues in the past; the list included the American Home Economics Association, the National Parents and Teachers Association, the head of the Delineator Institute, and the chair of the Home Economics Department at the University of Missouri, among others: P. B. Dunbar to G. F. Larrick, 13 September 1933, Food and Drug Act (A), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
98. Speaking at the New Jersey Conference of Social Work, East Division chief Wharton explicitly targeted his audience, focusing on products they used: "There could not be any better elaboration of the consumer's point of view than for the consumer to have knowledge of such facts as, for one, the American people are being blinded and disfigured by the use of some of the cosmetics now being sold" (untitled manuscript, Wharton, Food and Drug Act [A], Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88). J. J. McManus, Savannah bureau chief, speaking before a Tampa, Florida, Lions Club, emphasized the position of the men in the community: "Both as business and professional men, and as consumers of food and drugs, you are entitled to know about the new food and drug bill and the reasons which led the Department of Agriculture, with Presidential approval, to draft this bill and introduce it into Congress" (untitled manuscript, Food and Drug Act [G], Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88).
99. After a talk by Mrs. Sarah Dugan, a member of the Kentucky Food Commission, to the Women's Auxiliary of the Kentucky Medical Association, in which she urged members to write to their congressmen, a resolution was passed in support of this action: Proceedings of the Women's Auxiliary of the Kentucky Medical Association, 10-11 September 1933, Food and Drug Act (A), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
100. For more on radio, see Susan J. Douglas, Inventing American Broadcasting, 1890-1922 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Ray E. Barfield, Listening to Radio, 1920-1950 (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996); Michele Hilmes, Radio Voices: American Broadcasting, 1922-1952 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
101. For more on radio, see Susan J. Douglas, Inventing American Broadcasting, 1890-1922 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Ray E. Barfield, Listening to Radio, 1920-1950 (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996); Michele Hilmes, Radio Voices: American Broadcasting, 1922-1952 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
102. For more on radio, see Susan J. Douglas, Inventing American Broadcasting, 1890-1922 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Ray E. Barfield, Listening to Radio, 1920-1950 (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996); Michele Hilmes, Radio Voices: American Broadcasting, 1922-1952 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
103. "November Meeting of the Progressive Garden Club," broadcast 25 November 1930, Radio talks, Various administrators (021), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88. The FDA enforced "offences menacing public health; offences against indecency, such as the distribution of decomposed or filthy foods; adulteration or misbranding, involving serious economic cheats, detrimental both to consumers and to honest manufacturers" (ibid.).
104. W. W. Wharton, "Safeguarding Your Food and Drug Supply," broadcast 11 March 1930, Wharton file, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88.
105. "Radio Talks on Food and Drug Laws," a press release issued by the FDA, listed all the topics for the two series of talks, broadcast as part of the Noonhour Network Program of the Department of Agriculture: Press releases, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88.
106. Shortly before hearings began on S.R. 1944, Senator Copeland's first attempt to improve and greatly change extant food and drug regulations, three broadcasts of "Uncle Sam at Your Service" encouraged citizens to write to their senators in support of the proposed bill. The first week, 6 November 1933, the narrator mentioned the large volume of mail (sent to both the FDA and Congress) from people "interested in this new food and drug bill"; the following week, listeners were encouraged to at least write Congress for a copy of S.R. 1944; two weeks later - the week before the hearings began - the broadcast again ended with a call to action: "The bill is thoroughly up-to-date, flexible, and enforceable. Senate 1944 will become a law if you want that measure on the statute book" ("Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcasts aired 6, 13, 27 November 1933, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88).
107. Shortly before hearings began on S.R. 1944, Senator Copeland's first attempt to improve and greatly change extant food and drug regulations, three broadcasts of "Uncle Sam at Your Service" encouraged citizens to write to their senators in support of the proposed bill. The first week, 6 November 1933, the narrator mentioned the large volume of mail (sent to both the FDA and Congress) from people "interested in this new food and drug bill"; the following week, listeners were encouraged to at least write Congress for a copy of S.R. 1944; two weeks later - the week before the hearings began - the broadcast again ended with a call to action: "The bill is thoroughly up-to-date, flexible, and enforceable. Senate 1944 will become a law if you want that measure on the statute book" ("Uncle Sam at Your Service," broadcasts aired 6, 13, 27 November 1933, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88).
108. W. Vincent, "Safeguarding Your Food and Drug Supplies - No.1," broadcast 5 June 1930, Vincent file, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88.
109. Wharton, "Safeguarding Your Food and Drugs," broadcast 11 March 1930 (n. 64). The call to "read the label" may be one of the most enduring publicity campaigns - most recently, for the new nutrition label and revisions of over-the-counter drug labeling. Wharton continued this theme in episode #35, aired 29 December 1930: "My purpose in this radio series is to furnish you information which will not only enable you to protect yourself, but will also help you to exercise your influence. Let me add that your collective influence is one of the mightiest forces in this country today. I want you to use that influence to the end that labels on food and drug products will give even more completely informing facts than they do at present" (ibid.).
110. In almost every summary of monthly activity, the amount of enforcement was followed by the phrase "at less than one cent per person"; the FDA's budget worked out to about 3/4 of one cent per person living in the United States. This claim was made, for example, in a 24 March 1930 "Uncle Sam at Your Service" broadcast entitled "How the Federal Food and Drug Administration Helps You to Get Your Money's Worth": "Uncle Sam at Your Service," PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88.
111. Thousands of people wrote to the FDA requesting a "Read the Label" booklet, advertised at the end of all "Uncle Sam at Your Service" and "Safeguarding Your Food and Drug Supply" broadcasts.
112. Thousands of people wrote to the FDA requesting a "Read the Label" booklet, advertised at the end of all "Uncle Sam at Your Service" and "Safeguarding Your Food and Drug Supply" broadcasts.
113. Thousands of people wrote to the FDA requesting a "Read the Label" booklet, advertised at the end of all "Uncle Sam at Your Service" and "Safeguarding Your Food and Drug Supply" broadcasts.
114. Walter G. Campbell, FDA, Washington, D.C., to John Elwood, Vice-President, National Broadcasting Co., New York, 12 December 1930, Correspondence, PR manuscripts (021.2), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88.
115. These comments, from more than thirty-five pages of two-to-three-sentence excerpted listener comments, were sent to Wharton, Eastern District Chief, and to Paul Dunbar, Assistant Chief of the FDA, to verify the popularity of the broadcasts: Wharton to Dunbar, 14 June 1930, Correspondence, ibid.
116. "Food and Drug Act," Eleanor Roosevelt Pamphlet Collection, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y. Although the Science Service release claimed six articles, there were in fact eight, each of which formed part of a larger, cohesive argument in support of "Outstanding Provisions of the Newly Proposed Federal Food and Drugs Act (Senate Bill 1944). " The sections were: No. 1. Beauty at Cost; No. 2. Contraptions - or Cures?; No. 3. Ballyhoo or Truth?; No. 4. How Much Poison Is Poison; No. 5. Standards for Some Foods - Why Not for All?; No. 6. Patent Medicine Lies Cost Human Lives; No. 7. Drugs - Beneficial or Deadly; No. 8. Must the Housewife Beware?
117. Copies of these articles are pasted in the agency's scrapbooks, which only cover 1933: Scrapbooks, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
118. Someone at the FDA kept tabs on who wrote what, and where the articles appeared. The list correlates well both with a clippings file maintained by the FDA and with clippings contained in several large scrapbooks: untitled list, ca. December 1934, box 2, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
119. Some examples include "The Proposed New Food & Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1; "Talk of the Town," New Yorker, 21 October 1933; "Food and Drug Laws," New England J. Med., 28 September 1933; Fred Benchman, "Nation Today Is Reaping Benefits of Pure Food Crusade Launched by the Grange Fifty Years Ago," Nat. Grange Monthly, September 1930; "Radio and Rouge," Survey, November 1933; Editorial (Gertrude B. Lane), "The Press and the Tugwell Bill," Woman's Home Companion [MS in FDA files]; "Eyes and Dyes," Time, 4 December 1933, p. 22, Scrapbooks, books 1-3, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
120. Some examples include "The Proposed New Food & Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1; "Talk of the Town," New Yorker, 21 October 1933; "Food and Drug Laws," New England J. Med., 28 September 1933; Fred Benchman, "Nation Today Is Reaping Benefits of Pure Food Crusade Launched by the Grange Fifty Years Ago," Nat. Grange Monthly, September 1930; "Radio and Rouge," Survey, November 1933; Editorial (Gertrude B. Lane), "The Press and the Tugwell Bill," Woman's Home Companion [MS in FDA files]; "Eyes and Dyes," Time, 4 December 1933, p. 22, Scrapbooks, books 1-3, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
121. Some examples include "The Proposed New Food & Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1; "Talk of the Town," New Yorker, 21 October 1933; "Food and Drug Laws," New England J. Med., 28 September 1933; Fred Benchman, "Nation Today Is Reaping Benefits of Pure Food Crusade Launched by the Grange Fifty Years Ago," Nat. Grange Monthly, September 1930; "Radio and Rouge," Survey, November 1933; Editorial (Gertrude B. Lane), "The Press and the Tugwell Bill," Woman's Home Companion [MS in FDA files]; "Eyes and Dyes," Time, 4 December 1933, p. 22, Scrapbooks, books 1-3, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
122. Some examples include "The Proposed New Food & Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1; "Talk of the Town," New Yorker, 21 October 1933; "Food and Drug Laws," New England J. Med., 28 September 1933; Fred Benchman, "Nation Today Is Reaping Benefits of Pure Food Crusade Launched by the Grange Fifty Years Ago," Nat. Grange Monthly, September 1930; "Radio and Rouge," Survey, November 1933; Editorial (Gertrude B. Lane), "The Press and the Tugwell Bill," Woman's Home Companion [MS in FDA files]; "Eyes and Dyes," Time, 4 December 1933, p. 22, Scrapbooks, books 1-3, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
123. Some examples include "The Proposed New Food & Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1; "Talk of the Town," New Yorker, 21 October 1933; "Food and Drug Laws," New England J. Med., 28 September 1933; Fred Benchman, "Nation Today Is Reaping Benefits of Pure Food Crusade Launched by the Grange Fifty Years Ago," Nat. Grange Monthly, September 1930; "Radio and Rouge," Survey, November 1933; Editorial (Gertrude B. Lane), "The Press and the Tugwell Bill," Woman's Home Companion [MS in FDA files]; "Eyes and Dyes," Time, 4 December 1933, p. 22, Scrapbooks, books 1-3, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
124. Some examples include "The Proposed New Food & Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1; "Talk of the Town," New Yorker, 21 October 1933; "Food and Drug Laws," New England J. Med., 28 September 1933; Fred Benchman, "Nation Today Is Reaping Benefits of Pure Food Crusade Launched by the Grange Fifty Years Ago," Nat. Grange Monthly, September 1930; "Radio and Rouge," Survey, November 1933; Editorial (Gertrude B. Lane), "The Press and the Tugwell Bill," Woman's Home Companion [MS in FDA files]; "Eyes and Dyes," Time, 4 December 1933, p. 22, Scrapbooks, books 1-3, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
125. Some examples include "The Proposed New Food & Drug Act Widens Field of Federal Control," Better Bus. Bull., 1933, 12 (26): 1; "Talk of the Town," New Yorker, 21 October 1933; "Food and Drug Laws," New England J. Med., 28 September 1933; Fred Benchman, "Nation Today Is Reaping Benefits of Pure Food Crusade Launched by the Grange Fifty Years Ago," Nat. Grange Monthly, September 1930; "Radio and Rouge," Survey, November 1933; Editorial (Gertrude B. Lane), "The Press and the Tugwell Bill," Woman's Home Companion [MS in FDA files]; "Eyes and Dyes," Time, 4 December 1933, p. 22, Scrapbooks, books 1-3, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88.
126. Scrapbooks, book 3, box 1, ibid.
127. Walter Campbell, "Why We Need a New 'Pure Food Law,'" Insurance, 13 October 1933, ibid., book 1, box 1.
128. Arthur Kallet and F. J. Schlink, 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: The Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics (New York: Vanguard Press, 1933). Other books published by Consumers' Research members attacking food and drug protection include M. C. Phillips, Skin Deep: The Truth about Beauty Aids - Safe and Harmful (New York: Vanguard Press, 1934); Rachel Palmer and Sarah K. Greenberg, Facts and Frauds in Women's Hygiene: A Medical Guide Against Misleading Claims and Dangerous Products (New York: Garden City Publishing, 1936).
129. Arthur Kallet and F. J. Schlink, 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: The Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics (New York: Vanguard Press, 1933). Other books published by Consumers' Research members attacking food and drug protection include M. C. Phillips, Skin Deep: The Truth about Beauty Aids - Safe and Harmful (New York: Vanguard Press, 1934); Rachel Palmer and Sarah K. Greenberg, Facts and Frauds in Women's Hygiene: A Medical Guide Against Misleading Claims and Dangerous Products (New York: Garden City Publishing, 1936).
130. Arthur Kallet and F. J. Schlink, 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: The Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics (New York: Vanguard Press, 1933). Other books published by Consumers' Research members attacking food and drug protection include M. C. Phillips, Skin Deep: The Truth about Beauty Aids - Safe and Harmful (New York: Vanguard Press, 1934); Rachel Palmer and Sarah K. Greenberg, Facts and Frauds in Women's Hygiene: A Medical Guide Against Misleading Claims and Dangerous Products (New York: Garden City Publishing, 1936).
131. The editor of Food Field Reporter asked how many people had sent the postcard in. Of the twenty-five hundred cards, two thousand were sent by "consumers" (concerned citizens), and the remaining five hundred were sent by "professionals" (members of Consumers' League, for example): V. H. Pelz, New York, to W. G. Campbell, 12 December 1933; Campbell to Pelz, H December 1933, "One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs," PR manuscripts (021), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
132. Earnest Lux encouraged Roosevelt to read the book carefully, and then take action: "Perhaps it would not be asking too much . . . if, as another evidence of the 'New Deal,' you were to ask one of the members of your 'brain trust' to inquire into the truthfulness of these charges. If they are substantially correct I am sure you will take action leading to vital change in the whole situation, if you have not already done so" (Earnest Lux, Kew Gardens, N.Y., to President Roosevelt, 2 April 1933; and see W. G. Campbell to Earnest Lux, 28 April 1933, "One Hundred Million Guinea Pigs," ibid.).
133. J. J. Collins, Yuba County, to Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C., 1 June 1933, Food and Drug Act, Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
134. W. D. Wegaforth to President Roosevelt, 22 April 1933, "100,000,000 Guinea Pigs," Press Releases (021.1), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
135. Paul Dunbar, FDA, Washington, D.C., to W. D. Wegaforth, ibid. This letter was answered even as Tugwell was preparing a draft of a revised version of the 1906 Act. In subsequent letters, writers were directed to examine various laws as a gauge for Congress's attitude toward the charges leveled by Kallett and Schlink.
136. Ibid.
137. Ruth deForest Lamb, American Chamber of Horrors: The Truth about Food and Drugs (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1936). Lamb discusses the title of the forthcoming book in an 11 April 1935 letter to Elsie Danenberg, of the Bridgeport (Conn.) Herald: Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1935, NACP 88.
138. Ruth deForest Lamb, American Chamber of Horrors: The Truth about Food and Drugs (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1936). Lamb discusses the title of the forthcoming book in an 11 April 1935 letter to Elsie Danenberg, of the Bridgeport (Conn.) Herald: Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1935, NACP 88.
139. Lamb wrote to Wharton, seeking information for her book, on 16 August 1934; she also wanted to talk with Florence Wall, cosmetic chemist and cosmetology expert: Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88.
140. Ten-year-old Hazel Fay Musser wrote to President Roosevelt pleading for passage of an improved food and drug law; in a reply regarding the letter, Lamb commented on the possible uses of this letter for the press because "the human interest of the whole thing would have a far-reaching effect. It has us tied up in knots" (Hazel Fay Musser to President Roosevelt, 3 January 1934; Ruth Lamb to Stephen Early, 6 January 1934, Food and Drug Act [general], Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88). The letter was not given to the press, but did appear, in full, in Lamb's book. To wit: I am writing this letter for a certain reason, and that is because I don't want anything to happen to other ladies like it has happened to my mother. My mother suffered a great deal by the cause of some poison which was put in the dye and those applied to the lashes. My mother has been trying to put a new law so that no more poison will be put in this dye. The dye is made by Lashlure Co. in California. My mother is totally blind and we want you to please help us to get the law across. I am ten years old and in the fifth grade. My dog was killed lately but I still have my cat. I will close now, and I hope you will help my mother. (Letter attributed to Hazel Fay Brown, in Lamb, American Chamber of Horrors [n. 86], p. 327) Lamb developed a correspondence with the Musser family subsequent to the FDA receipt of this letter: Food and Drug Act (general), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88.
141. In a reply to a letter asking about the "chamber" exhibit, Crawford, FDA chief, explained the history of the exhibit and took great pains to make it clear that the book of the same title had no connection to the FDA: Crawford to V. H. Goddard, Mena Chamber of Commerce, 26 March 1936, Food and Drug Act (A), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1936, NACP 88. Although the FDA was not officially involved, administration personnel were in no way disinterested in the book and its public reception. Raymond Allen, head of the American Pure Food League, included a review of Lamb's book by Will Maslow in the New Republic in an 8 June 1936 letter to Walter Campbell: ibid.
142. The editorial in the March 1936 issue of DCI was devoted to the release of American Chamber of Horrors: "the American Chamber of Horrors, written by Ruth Lamb, Chief Education Officer of the Administration, indicates without question where the Administration stands. We know that the book is not an official release from the Department of Agriculture, but we well know that the job could not be done outside the Department, and could not be done within the Department without approval of Miss Lamb's superiors" (editorial, DCI, 1936, 38 [3]: 309).
143. The editorial in the March 1936 issue of DCI was devoted to the release of American Chamber of Horrors: "the American Chamber of Horrors, written by Ruth Lamb, Chief Education Officer of the Administration, indicates without question where the Administration stands. We know that the book is not an official release from the Department of Agriculture, but we well know that the job could not be done outside the Department, and could not be done within the Department without approval of Miss Lamb's superiors" (editorial, DCI, 1936, 38 [3]: 309).
144. "News Items," ibid., p. 310. American Chamber of Horrors was determined to be part of the FDA's plan to "not overlook any opportunity to make the industries affected by the bill appear as black as possible before the general public," according to one version (ibid.).
145. "News Items," ibid., p. 310. American Chamber of Horrors was determined to be part of the FDA's plan to "not overlook any opportunity to make the industries affected by the bill appear as black as possible before the general public," according to one version (ibid.).
146. M. D. Moore, FDA, Washington, D.C., to R. H. Carlisle, Cliftondale, Mass., [n.d.], October correspondence, Food and Drug Act, Proposed legislation (062), General Correspondence, 1933, NACP 88.
147. George Larrick, FDA, Washington, D.C., to District and Station Chiefs, 13 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. The attached photostats included Rex Collier, "U.S. Will Quell Beauty Racket," Washington Star, 26 August 1933; "News Behind the News . . . ," St. Louis Daily Record, 20 September 1933; "Law Aids in Killing Hundreds," Boston Post, 4 September 1933; Howard Vincent O'Brien, "All Things Considered . . . ," Chicago Daily News, 27 September 1933; "Drugs Exhibit at Customs House Warns of Frauds," St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 1 October 1933; "Death-Dealing 'Cosmetics' Hit in Copeland Measure," Washington Herald, 2 October 1933.
148. George Larrick, FDA, Washington, D.C., to District and Station Chiefs, 13 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. The attached photostats included Rex Collier, "U.S. Will Quell Beauty Racket," Washington Star, 26 August 1933; "News Behind the News . . . ," St. Louis Daily Record, 20 September 1933; "Law Aids in Killing Hundreds," Boston Post, 4 September 1933; Howard Vincent O'Brien, "All Things Considered . . . ," Chicago Daily News, 27 September 1933; "Drugs Exhibit at Customs House Warns of Frauds," St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 1 October 1933; "Death-Dealing 'Cosmetics' Hit in Copeland Measure," Washington Herald, 2 October 1933.
149. George Larrick, FDA, Washington, D.C., to District and Station Chiefs, 13 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. The attached photostats included Rex Collier, "U.S. Will Quell Beauty Racket," Washington Star, 26 August 1933; "News Behind the News . . . ," St. Louis Daily Record, 20 September 1933; "Law Aids in Killing Hundreds," Boston Post, 4 September 1933; Howard Vincent O'Brien, "All Things Considered . . . ," Chicago Daily News, 27 September 1933; "Drugs Exhibit at Customs House Warns of Frauds," St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 1 October 1933; "Death-Dealing 'Cosmetics' Hit in Copeland Measure," Washington Herald, 2 October 1933.
150. George Larrick, FDA, Washington, D.C., to District and Station Chiefs, 13 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. The attached photostats included Rex Collier, "U.S. Will Quell Beauty Racket," Washington Star, 26 August 1933; "News Behind the News . . . ," St. Louis Daily Record, 20 September 1933; "Law Aids in Killing Hundreds," Boston Post, 4 September 1933; Howard Vincent O'Brien, "All Things Considered . . . ," Chicago Daily News, 27 September 1933; "Drugs Exhibit at Customs House Warns of Frauds," St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 1 October 1933; "Death-Dealing 'Cosmetics' Hit in Copeland Measure," Washington Herald, 2 October 1933.
151. George Larrick, FDA, Washington, D.C., to District and Station Chiefs, 13 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. The attached photostats included Rex Collier, "U.S. Will Quell Beauty Racket," Washington Star, 26 August 1933; "News Behind the News . . . ," St. Louis Daily Record, 20 September 1933; "Law Aids in Killing Hundreds," Boston Post, 4 September 1933; Howard Vincent O'Brien, "All Things Considered . . . ," Chicago Daily News, 27 September 1933; "Drugs Exhibit at Customs House Warns of Frauds," St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 1 October 1933; "Death-Dealing 'Cosmetics' Hit in Copeland Measure," Washington Herald, 2 October 1933.
152. George Larrick, FDA, Washington, D.C., to District and Station Chiefs, 13 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (G), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. The attached photostats included Rex Collier, "U.S. Will Quell Beauty Racket," Washington Star, 26 August 1933; "News Behind the News . . . ," St. Louis Daily Record, 20 September 1933; "Law Aids in Killing Hundreds," Boston Post, 4 September 1933; Howard Vincent O'Brien, "All Things Considered . . . ," Chicago Daily News, 27 September 1933; "Drugs Exhibit at Customs House Warns of Frauds," St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 1 October 1933; "Death-Dealing 'Cosmetics' Hit in Copeland Measure," Washington Herald, 2 October 1933.
153. See James Harvey Young, "Sulfanilamide and Diethylene Glycol," in Chemistry and Modern Society: Historical Essays in Honor of Aaron J. Ihde, ed. John Parascandola and James C. Whorton (Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, 1983); Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13), chap. 7.
154. See James Harvey Young, "Sulfanilamide and Diethylene Glycol," in Chemistry and Modern Society: Historical Essays in Honor of Aaron J. Ihde, ed. John Parascandola and James C. Whorton (Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, 1983); Jackson, Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13), chap. 7.
155. Statutes at Large 41 (1919): 68, still in effect, states: "That hereafter no part of the money appropriated by this or any other Act shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or any other device, designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers and employees of the United States from communication to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business." The statute was often quoted in replies to concerned citizens asking what the FDA was doing; e.g., Paul Dunbar, Washington, D.C., to Mrs. T. R. Fisher, Chairman, Committee on Living Costs, Syracuse League of Women Voters, 9 February 1934, Food and Drug Act (general), February 1934, Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1934, NACP 88.
156. In addition, Mrs. Sarah Dugan, of the Kentucky Food and Drug Commission, was retained; both women were hired at the request of M. Eisenhower: G. F. Larrick to W. G. Campbell, 18 October 1933, Food and Drug Act (A), Proposed legislation (062), General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88. The "network" included the American Association of University Women, the American Dietetic Association, the American Nurses' Association, the Girls' Friendly League, the League of Women Voters, the Medical Women's National Association, the Parent-Teacher Association, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the Women's Homeopathic Medical Society, the Women's Trade Union League, and the Young Women's Christian Association: Alice Edwards, in "Hearings before a Subcommittee" (n. 45), p. 215.
157. I interpret senators' use of the FDA exhibit as deliberately ignoring the 1919 statute. That senators and representatives were aware of the statute became clear during the FDA-FTC battle over advertising. Reference to the exhibit was made most frequently by Copeland (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935, 79, pt. 5: 4758; also Cong. Rec., 73rd Cong., 2d sess., 1934, 78, pt. 8: 8967); Rep. Chapman, N.Y., pointedly refers to several parts of larger panels (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241), and Rep. Kenney, N.J., encourages all members of the House to visit FDA offices and examine the exhibit (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241).
158. I interpret senators' use of the FDA exhibit as deliberately ignoring the 1919 statute. That senators and representatives were aware of the statute became clear during the FDA-FTC battle over advertising. Reference to the exhibit was made most frequently by Copeland (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935, 79, pt. 5: 4758; also Cong. Rec., 73rd Cong., 2d sess., 1934, 78, pt. 8: 8967); Rep. Chapman, N.Y., pointedly refers to several parts of larger panels (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241), and Rep. Kenney, N.J., encourages all members of the House to visit FDA offices and examine the exhibit (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241).
159. I interpret senators' use of the FDA exhibit as deliberately ignoring the 1919 statute. That senators and representatives were aware of the statute became clear during the FDA-FTC battle over advertising. Reference to the exhibit was made most frequently by Copeland (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935, 79, pt. 5: 4758; also Cong. Rec., 73rd Cong., 2d sess., 1934, 78, pt. 8: 8967); Rep. Chapman, N.Y., pointedly refers to several parts of larger panels (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241), and Rep. Kenney, N.J., encourages all members of the House to visit FDA offices and examine the exhibit (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241).
160. I interpret senators' use of the FDA exhibit as deliberately ignoring the 1919 statute. That senators and representatives were aware of the statute became clear during the FDA-FTC battle over advertising. Reference to the exhibit was made most frequently by Copeland (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935, 79, pt. 5: 4758; also Cong. Rec., 73rd Cong., 2d sess., 1934, 78, pt. 8: 8967); Rep. Chapman, N.Y., pointedly refers to several parts of larger panels (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241), and Rep. Kenney, N.J., encourages all members of the House to visit FDA offices and examine the exhibit (Cong. Rec., 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936, 80, pt. 1: 241).
161. For more on the Pure Food League, see the correspondence of Robert Allen and Alice Lakey, both in Scrapbooks, box 1, Miscellaneous Subject files, General Office of Commissioner, 1905-38, NACP 88; and the papers of Anna Kelton Wiley, Library of Congress, Manuscripts and Archives, Washington, D.C.
162. The most common error was assuming that cosmetics were covered by the 1906 Act. Miss Helen Miner wrote to the Bureau of Chemistry in July 1922, inquiring about the efficacy of Wyeth's Safe and Sulfure [Hair] Compound. If it was harmful, she wondered, could the Bureau suggest another, safer, product? In reply, Dunbar explained that such products did not fall with the Bureau's purview: Miss Helen Miner to Bureau of Chemistry, 20 July 1922; P. B. Dunbar to Miss Miner, 26 July 1922, Cosmetics (584.1), General correspondence, 1922, NACP 88.
163. Walter Campbell, Washington, D.C., to Miss G. C. Freeman, New York, 28 April 1922, Cosmetics (580), General correspondence, 1922, NACP 88.
164. Miss A. Goldstein, San Francisco, to United States Government, 4 April 1927; M. D. Moore, Washington, D.C., to Miss A. Goldstein, 22 April 1927, Cosmetics (580), General correspondence, 1927, NACP 88. Referring people to the American Medical Association was both prudent and likely to yield results. The AMA operated a Bureau of Investigation that analyzed products in response to queries from members; the results appeared in a column in JAMA. If a product analysis had not been performed, it was often because not enough letters had been received seeking additional information. If the Bureau had already performed laboratory tests, the results were freely dispensed, often with a citation or off-print of the column discussing the item in question. On the structure and function of the Bureau of Investigation, see Bliss Halling, "The Bureau of Investigation," in A History of the American Medical Association, ed. Morris Fishbein (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1947), pp. 1034-38. For a brief description of how the Bureau functioned, and a detailed list of items examined, see Arthur Hafner, James Carson, and John Zwicky, eds., Guide to the American Medical Association Historical Health Fraud and Alternative Medicine Collection (Chicago: AMA, 1992), pp. v-xi.
165. Miss A. Goldstein, San Francisco, to United States Government, 4 April 1927; M. D. Moore, Washington, D.C., to Miss A. Goldstein, 22 April 1927, Cosmetics (580), General correspondence, 1927, NACP 88. Referring people to the American Medical Association was both prudent and likely to yield results. The AMA operated a Bureau of Investigation that analyzed products in response to queries from members; the results appeared in a column in JAMA. If a product analysis had not been performed, it was often because not enough letters had been received seeking additional information. If the Bureau had already performed laboratory tests, the results were freely dispensed, often with a citation or off-print of the column discussing the item in question. On the structure and function of the Bureau of Investigation, see Bliss Halling, "The Bureau of Investigation," in A History of the American Medical Association, ed. Morris Fishbein (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1947), pp. 1034-38. For a brief description of how the Bureau functioned, and a detailed list of items examined, see Arthur Hafner, James Carson, and John Zwicky, eds., Guide to the American Medical Association Historical Health Fraud and Alternative Medicine Collection (Chicago: AMA, 1992), pp. v-xi.
166. Miss A. Goldstein, San Francisco, to United States Government, 4 April 1927; M. D. Moore, Washington, D.C., to Miss A. Goldstein, 22 April 1927, Cosmetics (580), General correspondence, 1927, NACP 88. Referring people to the American Medical Association was both prudent and likely to yield results. The AMA operated a Bureau of Investigation that analyzed products in response to queries from members; the results appeared in a column in JAMA. If a product analysis had not been performed, it was often because not enough letters had been received seeking additional information. If the Bureau had already performed laboratory tests, the results were freely dispensed, often with a citation or off-print of the column discussing the item in question. On the structure and function of the Bureau of Investigation, see Bliss Halling, "The Bureau of Investigation," in A History of the American Medical Association, ed. Morris Fishbein (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1947), pp. 1034-38. For a brief description of how the Bureau functioned, and a detailed list of items examined, see Arthur Hafner, James Carson, and John Zwicky, eds., Guide to the American Medical Association Historical Health Fraud and Alternative Medicine Collection (Chicago: AMA, 1992), pp. v-xi.
167. Barnet Naiman, College of the City of New York, New York City, to U.S. Bureau of Chemistry, Division of Food & Drugs, Washington, D.C., 20 April 1927; M. D. Moore, Washington, D.C., to Barnet Naiman, 7 May 1927, Cosmetics (580), General correspondence, 1927, NACP 88.
168. Dr. Norman Tobias, St. Louis, to Department of Agriculture, Cosmetics Analysis Division, Washington, D.C., 26 July 1927; A. E. Paspdor, Washington, D.C., to Dr. Norman Tobias, 2 August 1927, ibid.
169. Dr. Ira Young, St. Louis, to U.S. Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D.C., 7 September 1923, Cosmetics (580), General correspondence, 1923, NACP 88.
170. P. B. Dunbar, Washington, D.C., to Dr. Ira C. Young, 15 September 1923, ibid.
171. Mabel Grimes, Edmond, Okla., to Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 30 June 1930; M. D. Moore, Washington, D.C., to Mabel Grimes, 15 July 1930, Cosmetics (583.10-.97), General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88.
172. These accidents - which gained national attention, were featured in the "Chamber" exhibit, and were mentioned in the Paramount newsreel - receive brief mention in the histories of cosmetics in the United States. See Kathy Peiss, Hope in a Jar: The Making of America's Beauty Culture (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1998), pp. 185, 197; some of the problems with skin bleaches, or whiteners, are discussed on pp. 211-13.
173. Before widespread evidence of its dangers, the FDA had already received more than a dozen letters requesting information about Koremlu, what it contained and whether or not it was dangerous. Because it had no regulatory powers over cosmetics, the most the FDA could do was (guardedly) warn against the product. The director of standards at Macy's knew of the dangers of thallium poisoning and strove to ascertain if it was permissible, or safe, to sell preparations containing thallium acetate, as Koremlu did; in its reply, the FDA offered information and opinion, although it could not take direct action: "Thallium is absorbed through the skin and exhibits its toxic symptoms after a period of several days. No antidote is known for this product. For this reason it is our opinion that thallium used in any preparation recommended as a depilatory would be injurious to health" (G. E. Cullen, Acting Chief of Drug Control, Washington, D.C., to R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., Bureau of Standards, New York, 23 December 1930, Cosmetics [580.11-.31], General correspondence, 1930, NACP 88).
174. For a partial compilation of court cases, see Romelyn Sammons, Cosmetology Jurisprudence, or A Treatise and Manual on Legal Liabilities (Los Angeles: Parker & Baird, 1938).
175. Nowhere is the FDA's dilemma more carefully recorded than in the press release "Campbell Warns Public against Dangerous Eyelash Dye," which read, in part: "When the Administration was unable recently to proceed against an extremely dangerous depilatory, Koremlu, we were bitterly assailed by many critics who wanted to know why caution was not taken against the cosmetics. . . . In spite of our inability to direct regulatory action against Lash-Lure, Koremlu, and numerous other dangerous cosmetics, we firmly believe that we would be seriously remiss if we did not inform the public by every means possible in our power of the danger involved in using such poisonous 'beautifiers'" (released 26 October 1933, Press releases [021.1], General correspondence, 1933, NACP 88).
176. "It is unfortunate that under the terms of our present inadequate Federal law the Food and Drug Administration is obliged to proceed against this product on a technical and trivial charge of mislabeling" ("Federal Food and Drug Inspectors on Trail of Death-Dealing Drug," 19 October 1937 press release, Press notices [021.1], General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88).
177. Jackson suggests, in Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13), chap. 7, that the FDA was rather pleased at the turn of events, for it highlighted - as nothing else could - the inadequacies of the 1906 Act; Jackson claimed that "had the 240 gallons been consumed, and fatalities occurred in the same ratio, over 4,000 Americans would have died" (p. 160). See "Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Deaths Due to Elixir of Sulfanilamide Massengill," 18 November 1937, Press notices (021.1), General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88. See also Young, "Sulfanilamide and Diethylene Glycol" (n. 94); Andrea Baus, "Sulfa Drugs and the 1938 Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act," paper presented at Joint Atlantic Conference on the History of Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., March 1995.
178. Jackson suggests, in Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13), chap. 7, that the FDA was rather pleased at the turn of events, for it highlighted - as nothing else could - the inadequacies of the 1906 Act; Jackson claimed that "had the 240 gallons been consumed, and fatalities occurred in the same ratio, over 4,000 Americans would have died" (p. 160). See "Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Deaths Due to Elixir of Sulfanilamide Massengill," 18 November 1937, Press notices (021.1), General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88. See also Young, "Sulfanilamide and Diethylene Glycol" (n. 94); Andrea Baus, "Sulfa Drugs and the 1938 Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act," paper presented at Joint Atlantic Conference on the History of Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., March 1995.
179. Jackson suggests, in Food and Drug Legislation (n. 13), chap. 7, that the FDA was rather pleased at the turn of events, for it highlighted - as nothing else could - the inadequacies of the 1906 Act; Jackson claimed that "had the 240 gallons been consumed, and fatalities occurred in the same ratio, over 4,000 Americans would have died" (p. 160). See "Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Deaths Due to Elixir of Sulfanilamide Massengill," 18 November 1937, Press notices (021.1), General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88. See also Young, "Sulfanilamide and Diethylene Glycol" (n. 94); Andrea Baus, "Sulfa Drugs and the 1938 Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act," paper presented at Joint Atlantic Conference on the History of Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., March 1995.
180. Recognizing this difficulty, at least one proposed House bill contained a compromise version of S.R. 5 (the version that had passed in the Senate) with special provisions for advertising: "H.R. 5286 is designed to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act by authorizing specific control under that act of false advertising of food, drug, therapeutic devices and cosmetics" ("Public Health Is a Major Effort of the Food and Drug Administration," 2 November 1937 press notice, Press releases [021.1], General correspondence, 1937, NACP 88).
181. The FTC, Statutes at Large 38 (1914): 717, was created in 1914. For an overview, see Gerald C. Henderson, The Federal Trade Commission: A Study in Administrative Law and Procedure (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1924); Richard A. Posner, Regulation of Advertising by the FTC (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973).
182. The FTC, Statutes at Large 38 (1914): 717, was created in 1914. For an overview, see Gerald C. Henderson, The Federal Trade Commission: A Study in Administrative Law and Procedure (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1924); Richard A. Posner, Regulation of Advertising by the FTC (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973).
183. The FTC, Statutes at Large 38 (1914): 717, was created in 1914. For an overview, see Gerald C. Henderson, The Federal Trade Commission: A Study in Administrative Law and Procedure (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1924); Richard A. Posner, Regulation of Advertising by the FTC (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973).
184. "Resumption of the sidefight between governmental agencies, which blocked the Federal food and drug act last year, is forecast by the revival of the movement to give the Federal Trade Commission specific authority to deal with false or misleading advertising of food, drugs, and cosmetics. No public need is served by the revival of this proposal; no public service is proposed, insofar as it is possible to interpret the proposal in terms of public welfare" (editorial, OPDR, 1937, 131 [10]: 24). S.R. 5, the newest version of the Copeland bill, was debated and approved unanimously by the Senate on 9 March 1937 (Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 1st sess., 1937, 81, pt. 2: 2001-2). The bill was then referred to the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee; on 14 April 1938, more than a year after it had initially been referred, the House took up debate on the bill (Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 3d sess., 1938, 83, pt. 7: 7136). The Wheeler-Lea bill had passed the chambers on 14 March 1938 and been signed into law on 21 March.
185. "Resumption of the sidefight between governmental agencies, which blocked the Federal food and drug act last year, is forecast by the revival of the movement to give the Federal Trade Commission specific authority to deal with false or misleading advertising of food, drugs, and cosmetics. No public need is served by the revival of this proposal; no public service is proposed, insofar as it is possible to interpret the proposal in terms of public welfare" (editorial, OPDR, 1937, 131 [10]: 24). S.R. 5, the newest version of the Copeland bill, was debated and approved unanimously by the Senate on 9 March 1937 (Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 1st sess., 1937, 81, pt. 2: 2001-2). The bill was then referred to the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee; on 14 April 1938, more than a year after it had initially been referred, the House took up debate on the bill (Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 3d sess., 1938, 83, pt. 7: 7136). The Wheeler-Lea bill had passed the chambers on 14 March 1938 and been signed into law on 21 March.
186. "Resumption of the sidefight between governmental agencies, which blocked the Federal food and drug act last year, is forecast by the revival of the movement to give the Federal Trade Commission specific authority to deal with false or misleading advertising of food, drugs, and cosmetics. No public need is served by the revival of this proposal; no public service is proposed, insofar as it is possible to interpret the proposal in terms of public welfare" (editorial, OPDR, 1937, 131 [10]: 24). S.R. 5, the newest version of the Copeland bill, was debated and approved unanimously by the Senate on 9 March 1937 (Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 1st sess., 1937, 81, pt. 2: 2001-2). The bill was then referred to the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee; on 14 April 1938, more than a year after it had initially been referred, the
187. There was a widely held perception among pharmaceutical companies that the FDA would be far more vigorous in enforcing advertising regulations: "Which department is charged with enforcement makes little or no difference except for the reason that the [FDA] department might from its very nature be prejudiced such as would be the case with the Public Health Service" (editorial, DCI, 1937, 40 [2]: 179).
188. "Prospects of enactment of any food and drug legislation at this session of Congress appeared exceedingly slim today, but the House committee . . . intends to get the legislation in form for early consideration in the next session" (News Item, OPDR, 1937, 132 [7]: 3).
189. "Before the present year is over," opined DCI editors, "this increase in public interest in the products will likely make itself felt in the enactment of a new Federal Food and Drug Act. But if it does not happen this year, it will happen within the next few years. And every year that the matter is delayed, the greater will be the public interest, and the more stringent will be the law" (editorial, DCI, 1938, 42 [1]: 29).
190. "The industry can well hope that a new Food and Drug Act will be passed at the short session as a result of this tragedy. We do not believe that we anticipate too much when we express the belief that this occurrence might cause the Federal Administration to lay political reprisals aside [packing the Supreme Court] and allow a new law to be enacted no matter whose name the measure might carry" (editorial, DCI, 1937, 41 [5]: 611). For the role of presidential politics, see News Item, DCI, 1937, 40 (4): 474.
191. "The industry can well hope that a new Food and Drug Act will be passed at the short session as a result of this tragedy. We do not believe that we anticipate too much when we express the belief that this occurrence might cause the Federal Administration to lay political reprisals aside [packing the Supreme Court] and allow a new law to be enacted no matter whose name the measure might carry" (editorial, DCI, 1937, 41 [5]: 611). For the role of presidential politics, see News Item, DCI, 1937, 40 (4): 474.
192. The Wheeler-Lea Bill is Statutes at Large 52 (1938): 111.
193. The 10 January 1938 issue of OPDR, in discussing the Wheeler-Lea bill (S.R. 1877), noted that there would be no action (in the House) on the Copeland bill (S.R. 5) until after the Wheeler-Lea bill passed: OPDR, 1938, 133 (2): 3 . Everyone concerned recognized the impact of the Wheeler-Lea bill on the future of S.R. 5: "enforcement of Wheeler-Lea will remove the dispute between the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration as to which body should have control over advertising" (DCI, 1938, 42 [2]: 158-59).
194. The 10 January 1938 issue of OPDR, in discussing the Wheeler-Lea bill (S.R. 1877), noted that there would be no action (in the House) on the Copeland bill (S.R. 5) until after the Wheeler-Lea bill passed: OPDR, 1938, 133 (2): 3 . Everyone concerned recognized the impact of the Wheeler-Lea bill on the future of S.R. 5: "enforcement of Wheeler-Lea will remove the dispute between the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration as to which body should have control over advertising" (DCI, 1938, 42 [2]: 158-59).
195. "The chances for the enactment of a bill appear to be the best ever, and before another month passes by the industry might be busily engaged in studying a new law that will become effective within a year," predicted DCI in April 1938 (News Item, DCI, 1938, 42 [4]: 430).
196. The speed with which a compromise was reached was wryly noted: "It is amazing to see how rapidly the Congress can compromise a measure when it means adjourning a session and getting home, particularly when a Congressional election is at hand. The proposed Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Bill passed the Senate early in the year, but was not reported to the House, and therefore not acted upon by the House until a little over a week before adjournment. Promptly, however, a conference committee went into action to iron out the differences between the Senate and House drafts" (News Item, DCI, 1938, 42 [6]]: 700).
197. Morley Ayearst, a professor at New York University, urged Roosevelt to reject the bill: "The Pure Food and Drug bill (S.5) emphatically demands a veto. As the bill now stands it weakens the powers of the Food and Drug Administration so seriously as to make the Act almost useless - far worse than the existing Act. Your veto of this piece of buncombe will have the enthusiastic approval of all the intelligent consumers in the United States" (Morley Ayearst, New York, to President Roosevelt, 20 June 1938, Food and Drug Act [general], Proposed legislation [062], General subjects, 1938, NACP 88). All of the women's organizations that had worked so hard for passage of this bill also condemned the version sent to the president. They argued that the bill weakened some provisions in the current bill, and offered no additional protection to consumers. The women's organizations included the groups in the network organized by the secretary of the American Home Economics Association, plus the Council of Women for Home Missions, the National Consumers League, and the National Council of Jewish Women: Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 3d sess., 1938, 83, pt. 2: 2021. For more on this group, many of whom were part of the Women's Joint Congressional Caucus, see Nancy Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), pp. 86-97.
198. Morley Ayearst, a professor at New York University, urged Roosevelt to reject the bill: "The Pure Food and Drug bill (S.5) emphatically demands a veto. As the bill now stands it weakens the powers of the Food and Drug Administration so seriously as to make the Act almost useless - far worse than the existing Act. Your veto of this piece of buncombe will have the enthusiastic approval of all the intelligent consumers in the United States" (Morley Ayearst, New York, to President Roosevelt, 20 June 1938, Food and Drug Act [general], Proposed legislation [062], General subjects, 1938, NACP 88). All of the women's organizations that had worked so hard for passage of this bill also condemned the version sent to the president. They argued that the bill weakened some provisions in the current bill, and offered no additional protection to consumers. The women's organizations included the groups in the network organized by the secretary of the American Home Economics Association, plus the Council of Women for Home Missions, the National Consumers League, and the National Council of Jewish Women: Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 3d sess., 1938, 83, pt. 2: 2021. For more on this group, many of whom were part of the Women's Joint Congressional Caucus, see Nancy Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), pp. 86-97.
199. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is Statutes at Large 52 (1938): 1040.
200. Many people believed that Copeland sacrificed his personal health for the bill - hence the rededication of the bill to him (earlier versions were informally labeled the Copeland bill in deference to his work on them, but he distanced himself from the Senate version in 1937 and was responsible for its failure to pass): News Item, DCI, 1938, 43 (1): 28.
201. Brokmeyer Bull., 1 July 1938, Food and Drug Act (general), Proposed legislation (062), General subjects, 1938, NACP 88.
202. "Homemakers' Chat," broadcast 18 July, 1 August, 5 September 1938, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," Radio talks (021.22), General subjects, 1938, NACP 88. As a report in DCI wryly noted, the FDA wasted no time enforcing the law: News Item, DCI, 1938, 43 (2): 150. For a comprehensive list of enforcement activities in the first few years, sec also Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Jr., A Treatise on the Law of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson, 1942), esp. pp. 499-538.
203. "Homemakers' Chat," broadcast 18 July, 1 August, 5 September 1938, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," Radio talks (021.22), General subjects, 1938, NACP 88. As a report in DCI wryly noted, the FDA wasted no time enforcing the law: News Item, DCI, 1938, 43 (2): 150. For a comprehensive list of enforcement activities in the first few years, sec also Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Jr., A Treatise on the Law of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson, 1942), esp. pp. 499-538.
204. "Homemakers' Chat," broadcast 18 July, 1 August, 5 September 1938, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," Radio talks (021.22), General subjects, 1938, NACP 88. As a report in DCI wryly noted, the FDA wasted no time enforcing the law: News Item, DCI, 1938, 43 (2): 150. For a comprehensive list of enforcement activities in the first few years, sec also Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Jr., A Treatise on the Law of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson, 1942), esp. pp. 499-538.
205. "Homemakers' Chat," broadcast 18 July, 1 August, 5 September 1938, "Uncle Sam at Your Service," Radio talks (021.22), General subjects, 1938, NACP 88. As a report in DCI wryly noted, the FDA wasted no time enforcing the law: News Item, DCI, 1938, 43 (2): 150. For a comprehensive list of enforcement activities in the first few years, sec also Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Jr., A Treatise on the Law of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson, 1942), esp. pp. 499-538.
206. Subsequent amendments to the 1938 act include the 1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment, defining over-the-counter and prescription drugs; the 1958 Delaney Clause, banning carcinogenic additives; and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments, requiring that pharmaceutical companies demonstrate the efficacy of a drug before it can be marketed. For more on the FDA, see George J. Annas and Sherman Elias, "Thalidomide and the Titanic: Reconstructing the Technology Tragedies of the Twentieth Century," Amer. J. Public Health, 1999, 89 (1): 98-101. For more on FDA reaction and strategy with the subsequent amendments, see Suzanne White, "Chemistry and Controversy: Regulating the Use of Chemicals in Foods, 1883-1959" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1994); John P. Swann, "FDA and the Practice of Pharmacy: Prescription Drug Regulation before the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951," Pharmacy in History, 1994, 36 (2): 55-70; J. H. Weisburger, "The 37 Year History of the Delaney Clause," Exp. Toxicol. Pathol., 1996, 48 (2-3): 183-88; Louis Lasagna, "Congress, the FDA, and New Drug Development: Before and After 1962," Perspect. Biol. & Med., 1989, 32 (3): 322-43.
207. Subsequent amendments to the 1938 act include the 1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment, defining over-the-counter and prescription drugs; the 1958 Delaney Clause, banning carcinogenic additives; and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments, requiring that pharmaceutical companies demonstrate the efficacy of a drug before it can be marketed. For more on the FDA, see George J. Annas and Sherman Elias, "Thalidomide and the Titanic: Reconstructing the Technology Tragedies of the Twentieth Century," Amer. J. Public Health, 1999, 89 (1): 98-101. For more on FDA reaction and strategy with the subsequent amendments, see Suzanne White, "Chemistry and Controversy: Regulating the Use of Chemicals in Foods, 1883-1959" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1994); John P. Swann, "FDA and the Practice of Pharmacy: Prescription Drug Regulation before the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951," Pharmacy in History, 1994, 36 (2): 55-70; J. H. Weisburger, "The 37 Year History of the Delaney Clause," Exp. Toxicol. Pathol., 1996, 48 (2-3): 183-88; Louis Lasagna, "Congress, the FDA, and New Drug Development: Before and After 1962," Perspect. Biol. & Med., 1989, 32 (3): 322-43.
208. Subsequent amendments to the 1938 act include the 1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment, defining over-the-counter and prescription drugs; the 1958 Delaney Clause, banning carcinogenic additives; and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments, requiring that pharmaceutical companies demonstrate the efficacy of a drug before it can be marketed. For more on the FDA, see George J. Annas and Sherman Elias, "Thalidomide and the Titanic: Reconstructing the Technology Tragedies of the Twentieth Century," Amer. J. Public Health, 1999, 89 (1): 98-101. For more on FDA reaction and strategy with the subsequent amendments, see Suzanne White, "Chemistry and Controversy: Regulating the Use of Chemicals in Foods, 1883-1959" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1994); John P. Swann, "FDA and the Practice of Pharmacy: Prescription Drug Regulation before the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951," Pharmacy in History, 1994, 36 (2): 55-70; J. H. Weisburger, "The 37 Year History of the Delaney Clause," Exp. Toxicol. Pathol., 1996, 48 (2-3): 183-88; Louis Lasagna, "Congress, the FDA, and New Drug Development: Before and After 1962," Perspect. Biol. & Med., 1989, 32 (3): 322-43.
209. Subsequent amendments to the 1938 act include the 1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment, defining over-the-counter and prescription drugs; the 1958 Delaney Clause, banning carcinogenic additives; and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments, requiring that pharmaceutical companies demonstrate the efficacy of a drug before it can be marketed. For more on the FDA, see George J. Annas and Sherman Elias, "Thalidomide and the Titanic: Reconstructing the Technology Tragedies of the Twentieth Century," Amer. J. Public Health, 1999, 89 (1): 98-101. For more on FDA reaction and strategy with the subsequent amendments, see Suzanne White, "Chemistry and Controversy: Regulating the Use of Chemicals in Foods, 1883-1959" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1994); John P. Swann, "FDA and the Practice of Pharmacy: Prescription Drug Regulation before the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951," Pharmacy in History, 1994, 36 (2): 55-70; J. H. Weisburger, "The 37 Year History of the Delaney Clause," Exp. Toxicol. Pathol., 1996, 48 (2-3): 183-88; Louis Lasagna, "Congress, the FDA, and New Drug Development: Before and After 1962," Perspect. Biol. & Med., 1989, 32 (3): 322-43.
210. Subsequent amendments to the 1938 act include the 1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment, defining over-the-counter and prescription drugs; the 1958 Delaney Clause, banning carcinogenic additives; and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments, requiring that pharmaceutical companies demonstrate the efficacy of a drug before it can be marketed. For more on the FDA, see George J. Annas and Sherman Elias, "Thalidomide and the Titanic: Reconstructing the Technology Tragedies of the Twentieth Century," Amer. J. Public Health, 1999, 89 (1): 98-101. For more on FDA reaction and strategy with the subsequent amendments, see Suzanne White, "Chemistry and Controversy: Regulating the Use of Chemicals in Foods, 1883-1959" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1994); John P. Swann, "FDA and the Practice of Pharmacy: Prescription Drug Regulation before the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951," Pharmacy in History, 1994, 36 (2): 55-70; J. H. Weisburger, "The 37 Year History of the Delaney Clause," Exp. Toxicol. Pathol., 1996, 48 (2-3): 183-88; Louis Lasagna, "Congress, the FDA, and New Drug Development: Before and After 1962," Perspect. Biol. & Med., 1989, 32 (3): 322-43.
211. James Harvey Young, "Health Fraud: A Hearty Perennial," J. Policy Hist., 1997, 9 (1): 127. For more on vitamins and FDA regulation of them, see Rima D. Apple, Vitamania: Vitamins in American Culture (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996), esp. chaps. 6 and 8.
212. James Harvey Young, "Health Fraud: A Hearty Perennial," J. Policy Hist., 1997, 9 (1): 127. For more on vitamins and FDA regulation of them, see Rima D. Apple, Vitamania: Vitamins in American Culture (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996), esp. chaps. 6 and 8.
213. Young, "Health Fraud" (n. 130), p. 128.