would think that engineering people would have to make the decision about what separate facilities were needed or whether there were plenty of other facilities that could be utilized for the same purpose.

Senator Cook. You may well be correct, but you placed emphasis on the fact that there was a distinction between the two bills as they apply to imminent danger. Don't you think the Government's position has to be clear-cut before it would withdraw a product from distribution when it involves imminent danger and don't you think we have to have the facilities before we can take this position?

Dr. COLEMAN. I would think the facilities would be more ones of surveillance rather than final testing. Engineering testing is a relatively technical field in which I am not expert. I would think it could be obtained in many ways. Surveillance, on the other hand, is something that has to be done by an interested agency on a constant basis. I think a great deal of emphasis has been put on the surveillance portion of it, and rightly so.

Senator Cook. The reason I bring this up is that not too long ago the U.S. Department of Agriculture moved in and closed up a packing facility in the United States because it felt that somehow or other some products that had come out of this facility had come from carcasses of hogs that had been subjected to mercury poisoning. They did almost irreparable damage to this company.

Stores within its trading area had signs on their windows that they didn't carry this particular company's products. When it was all finished, the Department of Agriculture didn't have a leg to stand on, because they did not have the facilities to test. As a matter of fact, it turned out, after having done several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to this corporation, that they found out that the mercury poisoning that, by the way, had shown itself in serious. problems to three children, was the result of a home-slaughtered animal. It put the Government in a very, very serious and precarious position to the extent that there is now a claim against the Government for a tremendous amount of money.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think if we are going to go into this thing that you cannot look at it from the standpoint of contract work, because I think this is going to take a long time. I think it is going to take a tremendous amount of time, for instance, in those products that may be suspect as being imminently dangerous. As a matter of fact, far more time than it may take you to get an injunction in court.

Dr. COLEMAN. That is possibly true, Senator. I will have to leave it to the engineers to decide what is the best way to do such a thing. I would hope that whatever legislation is finally passed would have adequate safeguards, of course, for the manufacturers.

Senator Cook. What I am really trying to say, in essence, is that I think there is some good in both of these bills that can be brought together to make the kind of legislation that you are talking about. To summarily praise one and condemn the other when you will wind up with a combination of both is not the right thing to do. What we really ought to be discussing is how we can bring these two together and come up with a workable operation.

You talk about how unwieldly the HEW is and I won't disagree with you. But I think probably one of the most efficient divisions they have is the National Institutes of Health. I might suggest that this is almost totally run by doctors.

Dr. COLEMAN. That is perfectly true, but it is not a service organization but a research organization.

Senator Cook. It is more than a research organization. I have been trying to get a committee of some 20-odd doctors to see to it that facilities are made available to a medical school in the United States and we can't get a decision at the NIH level. We have to get a decision from the deans of medical schools all over the United States. The problem with this is that that system was established by doctors.

I am wondering when we get into this, if we have a compatible division within the framework of an existing department and it can function with a degree of independence, whether it is conceivable that this can be gotten off the ground much faster?

Dr. COLEMAN. I don't necessarily disagree, Senator. Of course, we would like to see a clearly identified portion of HEW, if that is the way it turns out, clearly visible, with no other motivation than to do this particular job; which, of course, was the appeal of a separate commission. We would also like to see funds clearly earmarked for the purpose we are particularly interested in, in this case, consumer safety. One also worries about the funding getting sort of mixed into a big lump in the budget of a big department.

Senator Cook. I think that my only problem is that I envision, when you talk about separate commissions and organizations, another bureaucracy, and another building and another establishment. I don't see a reduction down of any of the people who are presently working on flammable fabrics or anything else. Consequently, all you are going to do is add to rather than consolidate.

You made a very good point. Do you feel that there should be a section in this bill that in essence reestablishes the power over flammable fabrics and other facilities to take care of packaging and so on, that it ought to be spelled out very clearly in any type of legislation that comes out of here on product safety, that it assumes the authority of the present legislation and sees to it that it comes under this jurisdiction. In this way we can eliminate something, and add it to a new facility rather than to completely overlap and have a state of confusion whereby one agency says one thing and another agency says, "But that is my authority and it is not yours and I am going to take control of it"?

Dr. COLEMAN. Yes; That was exactly my point. I would like to see an additional paragraph consolidating just about all of the previous legislation related to any consumer product under whatever agency eventually administers this type of service.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Dr. Coleman, Secretary Richardson on Monday announced the reorganization of the FDA to include an Office of Private Safety Regula tion. Will this reorganization allay your fears of placing the product safety program in HEW as opposed to an independent agency proposed in S. 983?

Dr. COLEMAN. Not entirely. Unfortunately the Department of HEW and Public Health Services have undergone a number of reorganiza

tions in the last few years, some of which we have felt have been relatively unhealthy. In particular the entire field of injury control, rather than being consolidated, has been relatively fragmented under the organization.

There is one portion of it dealing with behavioral aspects of injury control that is still sitting out in Cincinnati. The section which was identified as the Accident Prevention Branch is no longer in existence, which we feel was not a good thing to do. Through some other organizations, including the American Public Health Association, we have been urging that this be reestablished.

Senator SPONG. Thank you.

Recently the distribution of free razor blades in newspapers caused an uproad due to the potential hazards to children. Similar public reaction resulted from doorknob sampling of a detergent in University City, a suburb of St. Louis.

Dr. COLEMAN. Yes, that was the one that burned Dr. Harrison's grandchild.

Senator SPONG. I gathered as much. From your testimony I take it that you believe that jurisdiction of a product safety agency should be extended to include the power to promulgate standards to cover the distribution of products?

Dr. COLEMAN. Yes, and their promotion also by these various means. A few years ago, for instance, a drug company gave out door-todoor samples of a cold remedy in a flavored tablet containing aspirin. The package was rather small and a child eating one package of it wouldn't have been hurt. However, the director of the poison control center in Boston, Dr. Alpert, found that a little child he knew went around the neighborhood and collected 42 packages. Had he eaten them all he would have been seriously injured. We consider this an improper promotional method and would hope that all of this would stop. We would hope that it wouldn't have to be spelled out that whatever agency administers this type of legislation could have something to do with safe promotional practices also.

Senator SPONG. Doctor, we appreciate very much your appearance and testimony here this morning.

Thank you.

Senator Cook. Doctor, let me ask you one question because you brought it up. You don't believe that the United States should abstain from dictating the safety standards of other countries by requiring that U.S. exports meet certain standards of safety which may not be the standards of safety that are set in other countries?

Dr. COLEMAN. No, sir; that is not exactly what I said. I would say that if another country has a standard of its own and the export conforms to it, I see nothing wrong with that. But I would hate to have the United States accused, as it has been in the export of certain drugs in the past, of exporting material which we would not use and would consider dangerous in this country.

Senator Cook. I have to get this point in. We are talking about the razor blade situation. I think it was almost incumbent on the United States to immediately put a stop to that, but I will say with all due respect, because we read so much about it in the nature of condemnation, that I have not noticed that any newspapers apologized for the fact that they took that advertising and took the revenue to put those

razor blades in their Sunday supplements so that everybody in the United States could receive them.

Dr. COLEMAN. I agree heartily.

Senator Cook. Thank you, Doctor.

Senator SPONG. I trust the press will cover that, Senator Cook. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ALLAN B. COLEMAN, M.D., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ACCIDENT PREVENTION, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

The American Academy of Pediatrics presents these views regarding the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1971 on behalf of the children of this nation. Children, though politically impotent, do represent a significant portion of our population and indeed embody our nation's greatest resource. The Academy is also speaking on behalf of the pediatric community of this nation whose membership daily is involved in educating parents toward accident prevention and child protection. Each day the members of the pediatric community also provide medical attention to the young children who are victims of burns, the preschool and school-age children involved in accidental poisonings, the youngsters injured by unsafe children's furniture, the many victims of broken glass from doors and windows, and the thousands of youngsters harmed by unsafe toys. Data on these incidents are contained in the Report of the National Commission. The Report of the National Commission on Product Safety contained a chapter entitled "Lessons of Federal Law" which very capably discussed the Federal experience regarding consumer product safety. The contents within that chapter and other chapters of the report will not be repeated, yet it is incumbent upon us to discuss recent experience, regarding Federal responsibility affecting children as a basis for recommendations contained within this statement.

The passage of the Child Protection and Toy Safety Act during the 91st Congress was viewed as a long overdue step toward protecting children from unsafe toys and other products. Unfortunately, however, months elapsed without implementation.

History will indicate that it was largely the impetus provided by concerned consumer organizations through legal action against the Federal government which prompted the implementation of this Act. This is certainly an unfortunate commentary.

However, the absence of a meaningful Federal commitment to protect our chil dren is even further highlighted by recent history regarding the Poison Prevention Packaging Act designed to protect our young children from accidental poisoning. This legislation was passed by the Congress and enacted into law in the closing days of 1970. Weeks went by, indeed months passed. The Presidential Proclamation published in February indicated that the week of March 21 would be National Poison Prevention Week. That proclamation directed "the appropriate agencies of the Federal government . . . to promote better protection against accidental poisonings, particularly as they relate to young children." Federal initiative was anticipated, indeed the stage had been set for what might have been a bench mark in a national effort to protect our young children. Unfortunatley, National Poison Prevention Week came and passed with no new Federal initiative, with no guidelines to implement the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, indeed with no indication that there was any concern for the estimated two million children poisoned each year.

It has been a relief to take note in the past few days that standards are being proposed and the law apparently will be implemented. Unfortunately, since the enactment of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act approximately 150 children have died, over 13,500 were hospitalized for accidental poisonings, and over one million were involved in accidental ingestions. EACH DAY we wait for effective enactment of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act accidental poisonings will claim the life of one child, necessitate the hospitalization of seventy-five youngsters, and involve an estimated six thousand children in accidental ingestions. Data indicate these glum statistics might be reduced by ninety percent with packaging already available.

One further comment along this line pertains to the Flammable Fabrics Act, which for nearly four years now, has stood in testimony to initiative and disregard for product safety within the Department of Commerce. That agency

has not taken action to protect the consumer, but even worse is the diabolical position being taken which will allow the marketing of flammable fabrics.

These comments are not designed to cast aspersions upon the personnel of the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Commerce. The individuals within these agencies charged with the responsibility of consumer protection and product safety are handicapped without a Federal commitment of funds and manpower necessary to achieve objectives. These comments are, however, presented so that some consideration might be raised regarding our national priorities.

Warning statements and labeling for the protection of the public health and safety are fine, and indeed it is commonplace to note on cans, bottles, and other packages within the household cautionary labels of “Harmful or fatal if swallowed," "Danger," "Poison," "Caution," "Warning," "Not intended for internal use." Unfortunately, most potentially hazardous household substances do not afford protection to the young child who does not read, and 75% of the children involved in accidental poisonings have been victims of products which have been stored within sight in the household. The establishment of the Commission on Consumer Product Safety, the appointment of a Consumer Safety Advocate, the establishment of an Injury Information Clearinghouse will refresh our efforts, provide for new vigor and centralize Federal endeavor in assuring that all children are protected from hazards.

It is not reasonable to anticipate that industries will be motivated by so great a surge of concern for the protection of the consumer that they will move forward voluntarily on any large scale to make products more safe. Credit is certainly due to those precious few toy manufacturers, proprietary drug houses, infant furniture manufacturers, etc. who have taken action to further assure safety and safe use of their products. However, too many are concerned with the net figures in the profit column with a cold disregard for the toll of those sustaining injury. The Federal commitment must provide the impetus for the protection of the consumer.

The American Academy of Pediatrics records its wholehearted support for the provisions of S. 983 which calls for the establishment of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Renewed Federal emphasis upon product safety will be meaningful, indeed it is overdue. A Commission dedicated to the protection of the public with its own established priorities for action will not suffer from the handicap currently experienced by a Bureau which is understaffed, underfunded, and competing within an agency with a weak record as a safety advocate.

A visible, viable Commission is needed. Furthermore, the charge to that Commission should assure full range of activities and responsibilitiles in protection of the public health and safety. Fragmentation of responsibility in assuring the safety of consumer products must be avoided, least a hydra-headed effort frustrate the realization of objectives.

The definition of "consumer products" in Section 33 of S. 983 is comprehensive and the Academy is pleased to note that products subject to the Federal Hazardous Substance Act and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act are no excluded from the purview of the Commission.

To further assure the centralization of effort of all consumer protection activity, the Academy would recommend that the Flammable Fabrics Act fall within the scope of responsibility for the Commission. Additionally, it is recommended that responsibility for regulations pertaining to the packaging of products subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act be within the purview of the newly created Commission. The provisions of S. 983 should be clarified in this regard.

Furthermore the authorization of appropriation in S. 983 of $22.5 million through fiscal year 1973 is a necessary measure of commitment. The authorization of appropriation stands in contradistinction to the proposal of the Administration which provides no authorization and adds a further responsibility to a department which has been an "under achiever" in the areas of child protection and product safety. Although the enactment of S. 983 would provide for a significantly better consumer protection program, it is recommended the Congress include a specific authorization for appropriation within S. 1797 so that funds might be earmarked for consumer protection activity, should this less desirable alternative be adopted.

Accident prevention and consumer safety long ago should have been declared a priority of our nation. One might point an accusing finger at the victims of an