ADVERTISING UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT 185 or any other cosmetic, to cease and desist from disseminating any ad- vertisement which represents, directly or by implication, that any such product was manufactured or compounded in France (7). The same Order prohibited advertising which "Uses any French name or word as a trade or brand name, or as a part thereof, or any name, word, term, or depiction indicative of French origin in connection with any product manufactured or compounded in the United States, unless it is clearly and conspicuously revealed in immediate connection and conjunction therewith that such product was manufactured or compounded in the United States." On the basis of this Rule and this and other Orders of the Commission, the Bureau of Consultation has taken the position that when a disclosure is required it must appear conspicuously and in direct connection with the term suggestive of French origin. This means, for example, that an ex- planation will appear on the front face of a package if any term suggestive •of French origin appears on that face. Any domestic manufacturer or cornpounder of perfume or other cosmetic, who uses language suggesting French origin without explanation of the actual source, can expect to be contacted by the Bureau of Consultation in the near future. The broad authority and the varied activities of the Federal Trade Commission in many instances touch upon those of other Federal Agencies. This is especially true of the Food and Drug Administration, charged with responsibility for the labeling of these products. While Section 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act excludes labeling from the definition of false and misleading advertising, the jurisdiction of the Commission over false and misleading statements on labels as a violation of Section 5 has not been revoked. In order to correlate more effectively the work of the Commission and the Food and Drug Administration and to prevent overlapping activities and duplication of effort, a working agreement between the agencies was devised. It was agreed that the Federal Trade Commission would exercise sole jurisdiction over advertising and the Food and Drug Administration over labeling, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary. I should like to close my remarks by quoting from a statement by Chair- man Earl W. Kinter before a meeting of the Association of Consulting Chemists and Chemical Engineers, about a month ago. His comments are equally a challenge to this group: "When our attention has been focused on an advertising claim supported by scientific testing we commence our investigation by examining the raw data supporting the laboratory reports. In the course of this examina- tion we employ a set of universal criteria regardless of the nature of the test examined. These are the questions that we ask:

186 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS (1) Has the experiment been properly designed? (2) Has the experiment been performed correctly? (3) Have a significant number of tests been conducted ? (4) Have the test results been recorded accurately ? Are the results internally consistent and coherent ? (5) Do the test results warrant the conclusions drawn ? (6) Can the conclusion be expressed in a meaningful, accurate way to consumers who lack scientific training ? The distribution of responsibilities between the consulting scientist and the advertiser becomes clearer when we refer to these questions. The first four questions are addressed primarily to the scientist. They relate to method, not to characterization of results. The fifth question is hy- brid. If the scientist states the conclusions to be drawn from the test re- sults then this criterion clearly lies within the realm of his responsibility. However, it has been our experience that the advertising agency often enters the picture at this point. Members of the agency staff often par- ticipate in the statement of conclusions and, in some instances, the agency has simply asked the scientist for his test results and then proceeded to state the conclusions without consultation. The sixth criterion princi- pally relates to the responsibility of the agency. The agency's specialty is communication and it is at this point that communication skills take over. I suggest that both the public interest and the self-interest of scientists demand that scientists insure that any conclusions drawn from the results of tests conducted by them are logical, accurate and strictly limited to the arebit of the results. I suggest also that the scientist has an immediate interest in insuring that conclusions are communicated to the consumer in an accurate and meaningful manner. The discharge of these additional responsibilities requires some imagination on the part of the scientist. Communication between scientists is often conducted in a kind of verbal shorthand. In addressing another scientist, a scientist can express a naked conclusion knowing that his communicant understands any inherent limitations upon the conclusion that may exist. But this form of shorthand cannot be used in communicating with the lay public where all limitations must be spelled out and great care must be exercised to prevent deception. I do not think it inappropriate to ask scientists to assume a measure of responsibility in these areas principally within the domain of the agencies. If an advertisement based upon your test re- sults is challenged by the Federal Trade Commission, your professional reputation will suffer even though you are not subject to the pains and penalties of an Order to Cease and Desist. Therefore, both the public in- terest and your own self-interest dictate the full discharge of your pro- fessional responsibility in this area." REFERENCES (1) O-JIB-WA Medicine Co., et al., Docket No. 6548 Renor Co., Inc., et al., Docket No. 6617. (2) Livigen I.aboratory Sales Corp., et aL, Docket No. 7469. (3) Max Factor & Co., Docket No. 7280. (4) Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., Docket No. 6856. (5) Natone Co., et al., Docket No. 6365. (6) Loesch Hair Experts, et al., Docket No. 6305 Ward Laboratories, Docket No. 6346 Bishop Hair & Scalp Specialists, Docket No. 6554, etc. (7) Maxwell Distributing Co., Inc., et al., Docket No. 6745.