EDITOR'S OUTLOOK
T
RUTH IN ADVERTISING. Some years ago, when admiring a beautiful rural estate, we heard an anecdote which may possibly he apocryphal but which is none the less pointed. It appeared that the owner of the estate in question had founded his fortune by shrewd exploitation of a proprietary remedy. Once, when an acquaintance made the charge that the remedy was worth nothing, the owner is reported to have replied with a shrug that it had beeh worth twenty million to him. It is no secret that many of the proprietary remedies on the market today are of value only to their proprietors, and that some are actually deleterious. For many others which possess some merit highly exaggerated claims are advertised. The American Medical Association has accumulated and published sufficient evidence along this line to make detailed discussion superiluous here. That the Association has not been overwhelmed by a deluge of successful libel actions would seem a sufficientproof of the truth of its charges. The defects of the present Pure Food and Drug Act are numerous and some of them should have been obvious when it was drawn. I t is of little avail, for instance, to prohibit false and misleading labeling if false and misleading advertisiugis to go on unrestrained. We must not lose sight of the fact, hpwever, that it was a stupendous achievement to place the law of 1906 on the statute books a t all. Few of us can now credit the abuses that then existed. That the operation of the pioneer law over a period of nearly thirty years can have demonstrated so clearly the need of snpplementary legislation is in itself a recommendation rather than a criticism. Few regulatory measures survive that long without convincing every one that we need less rather than more of them.
A new bill which will come before the next Congress proposes to plug the loophoIes in the present law. For one thing, it is the intention to put an end to irresponsible advertising claims. For another, cosmetics are embraced along with foods and drugs. In 1906 cosmetics had achieved neither the fiscal nor the social standing that they enjoy today. There was perhaps some popular sentiment to the effect that anyone who suffered through their use experienced divine retribution for vanity. Despite the obvious merits of the proposed bill, it will undoubtedly meet with hitter and well-heeled opposition. Those who have made it a principle from youth never to give a sucker a break do not permit the escape of their natural prey without protest. Most of the objections already being raised are so palpably specious that one would think they must defeat their own ends. To think so, however, would he to appraise both the reasoning powers and the statesmanship of our legislators rather,optimistically. Publicspirited individuals and organizations will do well to offer some counter-attack to the assaults which a predatory and determined minority is already making upon the proposed measure.
It i s a far cry from the origind jm~wrcdoth patented by Nathan Smith i n 1763 to the modern molded inlaid linoleum which issues from the machine pictured on our couer. I n his article beginning on the opposite page Dr. Cooke traces the evolution of the product and describes modern ingredients and processes of manufacture. Photo by courtesy of the Armstrong Cork Co.
