100,000,000 Guinea Pigs, Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics, by Arthur Kallet and F.J. Schlink (Vanguard Press, New York, 1933)

"A hundred million Americans act as unwitting test animals in a gigantic experiment with poisons, conducted by the food, drug, and cosmetic manufacturers," argued Kallet and Schlink in 1933. They highlighted dozens of examples of this experimentation, including a product to remove freckles that contained mercury, fruits and vegetables coated in arsenic and lead, and hair-removal crèmes containing rat poison. This work of experts from Consumers' Research, Inc. (the predecessor of Consumers Union) is one of the most important books of the century, one that named specific dangerous products but also set forth a framework for addressing the problem of unsafe food, drugs, and cosmetics and unethical marketing practices.

The book, along with the death of 100 people from "Elixir Sulfanilamide," contributed to the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It required that products had to be actually tested before they were unleashed on the public. Many attribute the 1938 law to the rise of modern pharmaceutical science, as the uses of products were no longer controlled by ad men, who among other things, recommended that Lysol, the household cleaner, be used as a vaginal douche and that the mouthwash Listerine could be used to prevent tuberculosis.

The parallels between food and drug regulation in that era and privacy legislation today are strong. At the time, protection for foods focused on notice--­companies could market extremely dangerous products as long as they disclosed their contents. Without a floor of standards for quality, to be competitive many cut corners and used dangerous additives to preserve food. Online privacy today is similar in that there are no norms aside from those promised in privacy notices. To be competitive, many engage in privacy-invasive practices or reserve the right to do so. Groups like EPIC are limited in filing complaints with governments when a company contravenes its own promises, so it makes sense to promise very little and to reserve the right to alter their promises when they are made. Whether we ever get an online privacy and accountability act remains to be seen.

--Chris Jay Hoofnagle