26 



publication noted that the NBS finding was challenged by Pioneers, 

 Inc., on the ground that the "only practical means of determining the 

 product is through field test." The tests of NBS, the protest continued, 

 "were not run in accordance with our specifications and, therefore, did 

 not indicate the value to be derived from our product." " 



The Federal Trade Commission and AD-X2 



A complaint agahist AD-X2 was filed by the National Better Busi- 

 ness Bureau with the FTC, June 17, 1949. The Commission instructed 

 its San Francisco field office to initiate a field investigation of the 

 product. However, this first field investigation appears to have yielded 

 no adverse information about AD-X2. "Instead of unearthing com- 

 plaints, the [FTC] San Francisco office found wide acceptance for 

 AD-X2 in and around the bay area. The proponents included technical 

 personnel at military installations, the Oakland Chamber of Com- 

 merce, the Oakland BBB, and many individual customers." ^^ 



A second complaint came to FTC, March 10, 1950, from the Asso- 

 ciation of American Battery Manufacturers, transmitting a letter from 

 Keystone Batteries, Inc. The Keystone letter, dated February 2, 1950, 

 said in part: 



When the AD-X2 first came out, we thought they would kill themselves off 

 m short order like most of the other battery additives in the past, but they seem 

 to be getting stronger and reaching out further all the time, and they will probably 

 reach Midwest and East unless something is being done. 



As we understand it, they are now appointing dealers in various cities on the 

 west coast who not only try to sell this preparation but also will recondition a 

 stock of old batteries which they will guarantee for 12 months. * * * This is a 

 sweet business because we have been informed that all they do is charge these 

 batteries or, at the most, reinsulate them, which shows a considerable profit * * *. 



This is a serious situation. We know that we have lost a considerable amount 

 of business for last month alone and the loss of business to large manufacturers 

 must have run into thousands.^^ 



In forwarding this letter to the FTC, the Association of American 

 Battery ^Manufacturers explained its position as follows: 



At one time the association tried to combat the use of dopes or trick electrolytes 

 because after a group of them had been carefully tested in the laboratory it was 

 found that none of the materials tested had been helpful in battery performance 

 and some of them were actually harmful. Many of these were reported to the 

 Federal Trade Commission from"'time to time. Cease-and-desist orders were issvied 

 by the FTC, but the companies would spring up in other localities under different 

 names and it became a hopeless effort. 



Moreover, retailers of the dopes used as an argument for selling the materials 

 that the battery industry is interested in obstructing the use of the materials 

 because they would lengthen the life of a battery and reduce sales. This was not 

 the case. The industry was simply trying to protect its product against introduc- 

 tion of foreign materials and at the same time prevent the public from spending 

 its money for something of no value.'"' 



Faced with these conflicting views, FTC sought technical advice 

 from NBS as to the merits of the additive, by letter of March 22, 

 1950."^ On the basis of chemical analyses of the additive, and earlier 

 experiments with two batteries. Dr. Vinal reported to FTC, May 11, 

 that a series of tests had demonstrated no "significant reduction in 

 harmful sulfation * * *." (Results of these tests were later reported 

 in the NBS Circular 504, Battery Additives, issued in January 1951.) ^^ 



" Ibid., pp. 781-782. 



38 Lawrence. Op. cit., p. 8. 



89 Hearings. Op. cit., pp. 514-515. 



" Idem. 



" According to Lawrence, Op. cit., p. 8. 



<2 Ibid., pp. 8-9. Also, "Report of tlie Committee on Battery Additives." Op. cit., p.U. 



