ATTITUDE OF THE CHIEF OF THE FOOD, DRUGS AND INSECTICIDE, ADMINISTRATION

Mr. W. G. Campbell, the new chief of the food enforcement unit, having succeeded the former Bureau of Chemistry, recently said:

"Respect for the law can be maintained only when there is a full realization on the part of those who are regulated that disregard of its provisions will be promptly followed by legal action."

This is a concise and perfect statement of the purpose of the Food Law. Not only is it the duty of the officials to enforce these provisions, but the law itself states there shall be no delay.

It seems quite impossible to reconcile this statement of the Director of the Regulatory Service with the following one:

"While the food and drugs act remains what it has always been, a statute of protection primarily in character, but corrective rather than punitive, a course established to meet the conditions of two decades ago will be inadequate as a present day plan."

Here it is stated that a new "course" has been established, yet no change has been made in the punitive provisions of the old law. Only the enforcing bureau has been changed and a new bureau put in its place by legislation illegally engrafted on an appropriation bill. The only conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that a new law has been established by the enforcing officers without the aid of Congress and without any opportunity of discussing its principles.

In further justification of this new law Mr. Campbell says:

"With the change in the attitude of the industry, the Bure;u of Chemistry had more and more as years passed by adopted 'an advisory before the act' attitude in dealing with individuals shipping commodities subject to the law, and that attitude will unquestionably continue to be the keynote of the Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration."

This remarkable statement, coming from the chief of the new Regulatory Unit, proclaims to the world that the chief function hereafter will be the education of those who disobey the act in an effort voluntarily to get them to desist. In other words, the punitive features of the law, which are the only ones in the law, are to be neglected for the sake of the corrective activities established by the enforcing officers.

Continuing the quotation, Mr. Campbell says:

"At the time the agitation for the enactment of the Federal measure had its inception the number of food and drug manufacturers whose conception of business ethics was tersely. 'let the buyer beware' constituted at least a very imposing minority. Today enforcing officials will be unanimous in expressing the conviction that deliberate violations in the distribution of foods and drugs are extremely rare. This change in attitude of the industry during the past two decades has made it possible, therefore, in a large measure to recast the methods of law enforcement so as to emphasize the corrective features of the food and drugs act rather than the punitive side of the measure."

This statement concisely expresses the complete paralysis of the food law. It is to be recast without appeal to Congress. There is nothing in the food law about corrective measures. These corrective measures haVe been at the instigation of the food officials without any warrant whatever from legislation. The food law is exclusively punitive, and this construction of it has been approved more than once by the Supreme Court of the United States. Why then should officials who have taken an oath to support the Constitution and the laws made thereunder, read into the law as its chief feature a meaning absolutely foreign to its purpose? The Bureau of Chemistry as constituted at the time of enforcement of the act was solely concerned in enforcing its punitive regulations. It did not conSider it advisable to waste energy from its sworn duty in setting up a kindergarten or Sunday,School to persuade violators of the law to desist. The law pointed out exactly what it should do, and for a short time only was this purpose of the law carried out. There is no wonder that the administration of the food law has so hopelessly broken down. It would be a matter of interest if those enforcing the food law would take a little time off and read the law carefully once more in order that they might see what their duties really are.

The Moss Committee, on page 5 of their report, after citing all the difficulties placed in the path of the Bureau of Chemistry in its efforts to execute the law, says:

"Thus the administration of the law began with a policy of negotiation and compromise between the Secretary and the purveyers of our national food supplies. * * *

"It was a matter for profound congratulation that the great body of American citizenship yielded prompt and willing obedience to the law, and to such it was only required that the terms of the law be fully explained. The necessary readjustment of their business required time, and it was good administration to grant reasonable opportunity for such a purpose."

At the present time there is no manufacturer of foods in this country who does not understand that he is to tell the truth on his labels and to add no substances injurious to health to his food products. Although the use of various injurious agents has been permitted by the perversions of the law, practically the use of such preservatives as benzoate of soda and borax is today unknown. There is no need, therefore, of any further education or persuasion of food manufacturer§ to obey the law. What is needed now is to brush away all the illegal restrictions which were fastened round the Bureau of Chemistry, and to execute the law as it was written, and as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs. Morgan et al. in a decision handed down December ill 1911, made this pregnant remark:

"Repeals by implication are not favored, and there is certainly no presumption that a law passed in the interest of the public health was to hamper district attorneys, curtail the powers of grand juries or make them, with evidence in hand, halt in their investigation and await the action of the department. To graft such an exception upon the criminal law would require a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislative will."

The above is a hard blow to a repeal by illegally abolishing the Bureau of Chemistry.