just as any other private or public agency would utilize its resources. On the other hand, to saddle an agency whose primary role is regulation with a scientific mission will be a sure way to cripple the effort of the latter before it begins.

Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude by relating a personal problem in the field of consumer protection. Part of my duty at Children's Hospital in Seattle is to oversee the operations of a poison control information center that handles approximately 80 calls per day. A news reporter, Mr. Clarence Hein, at one of our local television stations, KOMO-TV, called me last week to ask about the toxicity of a new dishwashing powder, Palmolive Crystal Clear, that was shortly to be distributed in our area. The television station had been contacted about promotion of the product. Mr. Hein, who is a concerned father as well as an excellent news reporter, became concerned when he saw the package, an attractive milk carton with an extremely pleasant lemon scent.

This package, which 1 have before me, is said to be a convenient new package. However, there is an ominous warning on the bottom. stating that it should be kept out of the reach of children and that it is harmful if swallowed or comes in contact with the eyes. We had no information about this product in our poison information center and neither did the National Poison Clearing House in Washington, D.C. It is not yet on the market. When Mr. Hein called the Colgate Co. in New York and asked about toxicity, he was told not to worry about it because the company would not market a product that was toxic to children.

Having no other information, I had the product tested in our chemistry laboratory at the hospital 2 days ago and found that a 1percent solution had a pH of 11.7. This means that the product is highly alkaline and that if a child places some of the powder in his mouth and swallowed it, he could be critically burned.

Now Congress has passed two major consumer protection bills concerned with poisoning, the Child Protection Act of 1966 and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970. When I called an official at the FDA in Washington, D.C. about stopping this product from getting on the market he told me that if it was labeled adequately there was probably nothing that could be done. We evidently must sacrifice an unknown number of American children before anyone will take action. I have heard about contempt of Congress citations. Can there be any more blatant case?

In conclusion, the Congress of the United States, thanks to the leadership of this committee and with the support of both political parties, has clearly compiled a bill of rights for American consumers through a series of bold and imaginative laws. These laws have been signed by our Presidents and then been promptly filed away in the bottom drawers of program administrators. It will not do any good to pass more consumer protection legislation until Congress creates a suitable agency that will respect the laws of the land.

Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you.

Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Dr. Bergman. Your testimony is certainly pointed and although a little pessimistic with respect to whether we can accomplish anything by passing laws, you do say that we ought to have some kind of a suitable agency that could go into action.

I must say that you have come up with a shocking one on this dishwasher powder. I suppose that we ought to educate the 3-year-old children to read that warning on the bottom and then they wouldn't drink anything out of this package, or put anything in their mouth.

I am just amazed, really. I see from the warning on here it says that it is, "Harmful if swallowed. If swallowed, drink milk and water. In case of contact with eyes, flush thoroughly. Consult physician. Keep out of children's reach."

Dr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chairman, when the consumer product specialist of our TV station in Seattle, Mrs. Katherine Wise, first saw this carton, she said, "Oh, a new drink for the family."

Senator Moss. It looks a little bit like lemonade; the color and shape of the box.

Well, your testimony is always very provocative and certainly puts the finger on many points of failure and lack of effort, perhaps, to go ahead and do what we ought to be doing in this field of safety.

You talked about the failure, of course, to get appropriations, and I know that you have had some experience in observing this process. I wonder in your surveillence program as well as in the product safety agency, how do you suppose we can get the money we need?

How can we convince the appropriators of the Congress to come through with the money?

Dr. BERGMAN. Well, I think that the distinguished chairman of the full committee has something to say about this as far as the Department of HEW is concerned.

The problem is that HEW Appropriations Subcommittee has repeatedly asked the Department to please do something in the field of accident prevention. The chairman has written several letters. But Congress cannot administer the programs. It seems astounding that in an area which should not be contentious that the Department should simply ignore the problem of injuries as if it doesn't exist. The payoff. if one puts money into injury and accident prevention, in terms of lives saved, is probably going to be greater than research into practically any other disease.

The problem really is that there is no lay lobby that is pushing accident research. Many accident victims are poor, and they have been made to feel as if they are dumb. They don't form into national societies, to seek appropriations. For better or worse, funds for research on particular diseases bear some relationship to the strength of their lay backers.

Senator Moss. Well, there are problems of course. You have to have a budget recommendation in the first place from the Office of Budget and Management, and in the second place, if Congress tends to overload that budget by appropriating more than asked-we have had two vetoes of the HEW bills in just the past 2 years.

So there is a problem there.

Then as you point out, perhaps the money isn't the most critical thing. Rather it is the inertia, not go ahead and do with what we do have, even if the appropriation might be smaller than it should be.

In this injury suveillence center, how would you prevent its concentrating on one particular area? You talked about the fragmentation. How would you keep that focused across the board?

Dr. BERGMAN. I don't want to use the term "new institute" because that conjures up all kinds of administrators and desks and pencils, and filing cabinets to me. But the center is operating like one of the institutes of health with a scientific orientation. It means budget for contracts and research grants.

Unfortunately there is so much inertia. Injury research is not considered fashionable in medical circles. The center must act as a catalyst. Were the few people that are interested in injury research brought together, a critical mass would be achieved.

Senator Moss. Perhaps one final question. Is there any reason for limiting the flammability standard to children's sleepwear? Isn't there a need for a standard for more articles of clothing other than sleepwear?

Dr. BERGMAN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. And actually the first time the National Advisory Committee for the Flammable Fabrics Act met, we recommended concentration on children's clothing. Even the representatives of the manufacturers concurred on this emphasis. And yet the delays and delays have been interminable.

Another area of disappointment is delay in issuing standards for mattresses. About 20 percent of the deaths in flammable fabrics are due to mattress fires. There is no argument that it is technically possible to produce flame retardant mattresses. For the life of me, I don't know what we are waiting for.

Senator Moss. They want to use up the stocks that are on hand, perhaps.

Dr. BERGMAN. Even so, in the provisions of the law there is a 1or 2-year waiting period, even after the standard is promulgated. Senator Moss. Well, I certainly appreciate your testimony and your sense of urgency.

If there is anything we need to convey, it is your sense or urgency of the problem, and we want to deal with it as intell gently as we can. So we appreciate your coming to be with us again, and we look forward to seeing you again, although we hope we don't have to send for

Senator Moss. Our next witness will be Mr. Stevens, and Congressman Hanley, from New York, is here to introduce Mr. Stevens, who will be our next witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. HANLEY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful for your accommodation this morning, and I would be remiss if I did not commend you and your committee for having initiated these hearings on this most important legislation.

Certainly the ultimate of it all will produce better consumer products and hopefully assure the safety aspects of it. As we review the history of the issue, I think it is an activity that is long overdue. Senator Moss. Thank you, Congressman Hanley. We appreciate your cooperation and help in this field very much.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With that, it is a great pleasure to introduce one whom I regard as having very special expertise in the field of industrial design, and he is recognized nationally by that fraternity for this expertise.

He is chairman of the Safety Committee of the Industrial Designers Society of America, and along with him is Mr. Charles Mandelstam, who is counsel for the society.

So with that, it is a pleasure to introduce to you and the committee Mr. Philip H. Stevens and his associate, Mr. Mandelstam.

Senator Moss. Welcome, gentlemen. We appreciate having you before the committee and look forward to your testimony.

Thank you very much, Congressman Hanley.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. STEVENS, CHAIRMAN, SAFETY COMMITTEE, INDUSTRIAL DESIGNERS SOCIETY OF AMERICA, NEW YORK, N.Y.; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES MANDELSTAM, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am Philip Stevens, safety committee chairman of the Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA). Beside me is Charles Mandelstam, the counsel for our society. Before commenting on the legislation before this committee, I would like to take a few moments to describe IDSA, in order to give this committee some context in which it may evaluate our position. This statement represents the consensus of our Safety Committee, and has the approval and endorsement of the President and Vice President of the society.

The society is a nonprofit professional organization established for the purpose of maintaining high standards of professional competence and integrity in the field of industrial design. Since it is national in scope and is the only such organization of designers in the United States, it serves as spokesman for the industrial design profession in this country.

IDSA includes both independent design consultants and staff designers of corporations. The basic requirement for membership is that candidates must have carried major responsibility in mass-market design projects which involved the integration of aesthetic technological, and human factors. Such projects include product and product system design, packaging, corporate graphics, exhibits, space planning, and environmental design. We have designers in most of the major industries of the United States, working closely both with other technical specialists and with administrative decisionmakers.

Participation in the area of safety by our society goes back many years. In 1967 this interest culminated in the formation of the Society's Safety Committee. Since that time substantial efforts have been made to intensify concern for safety factors among both practicing and student designers. We have concentrated on such approaches as:

(1) Encouraging design schools to become more involved in teaching safety and human factors.

(2) Contributing to public awareness of problems of safety, and encouraging members of our society to involve themselves in safety oriented activities, locally and nationally.

(3) Promoting awareness of safety problems by designers, and developing concrete applications helpful in responsible practice: the Society's membership has ratified a statement of its principles on safety. In addition, the Safety Committee is currently developing a detailed safety manual for use by anyone engaged in product develop

ment.

(4) Working with other professional societies in the area of safety. I was invited before vou today to represent the society and express its position on Safety Bill S. 983 and S. 1797, and I proceed now with some comments and our general conclusion regarding these bills.

Considering the issue abstractly, the Society's Safety Committee favors S. 983. Aspects of special interest in this bill are commented on below. However, if practical considerations as to ease and economy of implementation (or more strictly political concerns) are seen by Congress to favor S. 1797, we would find the latter bill acceptable and support it. Though less than ideal, it incorporates several of the important features of S. 983.

As for S. 983, we noted especially the following sections:

SEC. 3. The concept of a commission created to minimize political influence is probably the most outstanding feature of this bill. The idea of spreading the responsibility over a group of commissioners concerned with safety seems wiser than confining it to a department already burdened with many diverse responsibilities.

SEC. 4. We feel that the public needs an independent advocate in the specific area of consumer safety. This is one way to counter the lethargic and impersonal aspects of bureaucratic structures, and to make the Government more responsive to the problems of the people. SEC. 5. An independent Injury Information Clearinghouse at the Federal level is essential to a fair and thorough evaluation of possibly hazardous products, and of great value to an intelligent approach to designing new and safer products (see also comment on see. 11, below). As various kinds of national information systems increase, this should not be as expensive as it might first appear; in any event, the social and human benefits would more than justify it. Publication of data on accidents in the Federal Register should help to develop public support for the Commission and its objectives.

We have one reservation concerning this section, however, in 5(c), 2 and in 5(g), the activities and purposes of the Commission should be more explicitly limited to the area of SAFETY in design.

SEC. 6. We commend the emphasis on developing priorities for action, from a periodic review of data.

SEC. 11. The design of new products to meet consumer needs and interests is a serious and complex responsibility. Development by the Commission, as proposed, of safety standards and of evaluation procedures for new products could make an important contribution to this enterprise.

SEC. 14. We strongly endorse the idea that the Commission be empowered to ban hazardous consumer products. While such action may be contrary to the interests of certain companies at times, the benefits to the public make us wholeheartedly favor this aspect of the legislation. In fact, the possibility of such action being taken against industry should improve the climate for the design and manufacture of safer