Rather, it seems to me, this may have been an attempt on the part of manufacturers to fool the consumer into thinking she is still getting the old amount, since in most cases the new package looks almost exactly like the old, but contains less. And I hope the members of this committee will not be misled into believing that all these changes have come about because the density of all these commodities has suddenly increased.

There was a letter to the editor by Milton Davis from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce indicating that this was one of the reasons, and also pointing out that it might be very expensive to go back to the old amounts. However, this argument that it is a change of density doesn't really hold water.

Salted peanuts today are the same density as they were 2 years ago and 4 years ago. Chocolate cookies are exactly the same as they have always been my younger son, who is an expert on chocolate cookies, can testify to that fact; he will eat only one brand. Paper napkins are still paper napkins-and so on, ad infinitum.

Again, one of the arguments that has been made over and over again during these hearings is that standardization of size packages will be very costly to the manufacturers and therefore to the consumer, and that legislation which might require manufacturers to change from the package sizes they are now using would not be in the consumers' interest. If this protest is sincere, I think this committee might want an explanation of the constant change in package sizes which manufacturers are making every single day.

Let me show you the results which a very limited survey made by the Consumers Cooperative of Berkeley, Calif., turned up in just 1 month-March 15-April 15, 1965. Here are changes made by the manufacturer without any law which forced him to do it, and which must have entailed costs which of course are passed along to the consumer who also did not force these changes:

1. Shredded Wheat, Nabisco, from 111⁄2 ounces at 31 cents to 12 ounces at 31 cents. For this change consumers should commend the manufacturer; the package is better, and the price is better.

2. Team Flakes, again you get a more compact package, and the contents are the same and the price is the same. Either it didn't cost them anything to make these changes or they were very good to us.

3. Cream of Rice, both packages are the same height, but the new package is not as deep, but quickly looking at them on the shelf you might think they were the same size. The contents changed from 1 pound 111⁄2 ounce to 1 pound. The package price stayed the same The result in increased cost was from 41 to 45 cents a pound, almost 10 percent. The new package is preferable, but was the manufacturer hoping the consumer would not realize the 10-percent increase in cost? 4. Fishers Wheat Germ. The old package was 14 pound at 41 cents, and the new package is 8 ounces at 29 cents. We don't really object to the quantity in each. They are good, round numbers. But there is no longer a large package available. Did the cost of changing over to a small package really warrant an increase of 25 cents a pound? And who demanded the change?

5. Here is Wheat Chex. The old package, 1 pound 2 ounces at 39 cents; the new package 141⁄2 ounces at 39 cents. The packages are

the same size. The ingredients are the same. There is a gift coupon in both. But there is an 8-cent per pound increase, or about 20 percent increase. Why did they go from 1 pound 2 ounces to 141⁄2 ounces! If they were going to go down, why not go down to just 1 pound, which we would have preferred.

6. Corn Chex. Again the two packages are the same size. There is a different coloring. The old package had 9 ounces for 25 cents: the new package is 8 ounces for 25 cents. The ingredients are exactly the same. The only thing new that I could find was the ad copy on the side panel. Apparently Corn Chex in the new package is now more fun to chew. But do you really think consumers want to pay 6 cents more a pound, almost an 8-percent increase, or would they prefer to spend their budget allotment for fun in some other way?

7. Here are Chex-Mates, two identical packages, except for color. The old package contained 9 ounces, the new package contains 7% ounces. Why didn't it go to 8 ounces? I don't know. The price for both was the same, and the increase is 11 cents per pound. In addition, the old package had a gift coupon inside.

8. Shredded Wheat (Sunshine) old package 12 ounces, new package 11 ounces, price 27 cents for each. Packages the same, contents the same, price per pound from 36 to 39 cents, over 8-percent increase. Is this another example of a hidden increase? Why not keep the old contents, since the package is the same size, and not annoy the consumer with a more difficult arithmetical problem? Or did the manufacturer hope the consumer would be misled by the accustomed package and would not check to see if the contents had been changed?

Senator NEUBERGER. I am sorry, your 10 minutes are up. (Balance of prepared text follows:)

Incidentally, these packages which are the same size but with different amounts also point out the fallacy of the statement made by some of the opponents of this bill that completely new machinery and new packages would be needed to change the contents. Obviously without running into the slack fill complaint, these packages which remaimed the same size show a variation of from 1 ounce to 12 ounces (Shredded Wheat) to 3.5 ounces in Wheat Chex. In other words considerable leeway in contents is now being used in packages of the same size, and there is no reason to believe that today's 15 ounce package could not be packed to contain 16 ounces by the same machine or the 64 ounce can could not be packed with 8 ounces of peanuts on the same machine.

A Harvard Business Review article told of a poll conducted among 31 New York executives, representing 26 organizations in 17 different industries. The pollster was trying to get an opinion on the relation of the ethical and moral considerations in advertising, product promotion and publicity-concerned with consumer interest. Only 3 out of 31 executives could see any such relationship. The author of the study concluded that the philosophy of the day too often seems to be, "This is a deal-can we get away with it?" (Advertising Age, Mar. 8, 1965.)

Now let me turn to the other main argument against S. 985 used by virtually all industry representatives who have appeared at these hearings; i.e., that the laws presently in effect are sufficient to protect the consumer against the misleading practices which so frustrate and confuse us. The National Consumers League contends that neither the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 nor the Federal Trade Commission Act (adopted in 1914) can provide this protection in today's marketplace. Although the FDA Act requires that the net quantity of content statement appear with "conspicuousness," prevents packages or labels that are "false and misleading," and prohibits containers so made or filled as to be misleading, and the FTC Act forbids "unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce," neither act

authorizes the agency involved to draft regulations that would give meaning to these vague vague concepts by establishing guides for the manufacturers to follow. As a result, the agency must go into court on each individual case, and show actual deceit or capacity to deceive or mislead in each instance.

For example, the cookie packages presented to you by Mrs. Brady of Consumers Union did have on the bags the net weight. Those of you who tried to find that net weight know that it took much longer than it should have-and you each might therefore have judged that it did not appear with "conspicuousness." But to require the manufacturer to change that particular bag, FDA would have had to prove in court that the marking was not conspicuous. This they might or might not be able to do. But even if the court did decide that the label should be changed, that decision would not affect any other products of the same manufacturer, nor any of any other manufacturer. In other words, the same manufacturer or some other could market a different package with the same kind of inconspicuous labeling and consumers would have to put up with it until the next package was decided upon by the courts. The agency must go into court on each individual case and show actual deceit or capacity to deceive or mislead in each separate instance. It is pretty obvious that this way of meeting the situation is extremely unsatisfactory. Under S. 985 standards would be promulgated so that legal action, if necessary, would be for violation of known and readily judged standards. This would be a much more simple and effective means of enforcement, and would be fairer to consumers and manufacturers both. Under S. 985 the FDA could require that the net weight be on the front panel; it could designate minimum type size and face for net quantity statements; it could forbid qualifying adjectives modifying net weights where these adjectives are meaningless and ambiguous. The FDA representative has testified in support of this bill, and has stated that this bill is needed for the FDA to be able to issue the regulations which are needed to give the consumer the information to make intelligent choices.

The FTC has also testified in support of S. 985. Under present law the FTC does not have authority to act to assure consumers sufficient information to make meaningful comparisons between competing products, and has not found it feasible to issue orders requiring affirmative disclosures as to net contents, quantities or disclosures of ingredients. It, too, must provide proof of positive misrepresentation, pictorially or otherwise, or of interest to deceive. The FTC has said it needs a law which will give it authority to issue regulations, with the force of law, to achieve more prompt, equitable and simultaneous corrective action, such as has been given to it by the Congress in the Wool Products Labeling Act, for example.

Neither agency under present law can establish standards for servings. Neither agency can establish standards of meaningful comparisons of quantity when neither weight nor count is significant. By this bill (S. 985) the Congress would be giving clear and precise directions to these agencies together with adequate authority to carry out these directions, so that those practices which tend to confuse and mislead consumers can more easily be brought under control. S. 985 would also put an end to the completely frustrating practice of "centsoff" deals. The National Consumers League strongly suports this section of the bill-not because the league is opposed to manufacturers using a temporary price cut as a competitve technique for enticing consumers to use their products, but because it has been shown time and time again that the "cents-off" on the label in no way guarantees a reduced retail price. I would like to read you a small item which appeared in Bill Gold's column in the Washington Post recently.

"BARGAIN DAY"

"An Arlington housewife files this report about her favorite brand of instant coffee:

"For months, the 9-ounce jar sold for $1.59 at most stores, $1.49 at one discount store.

""Then came the "20 cents off" sale, during which the "regular" price was stated as $1.89. With the 20 cents knocked off, this brought the price down to only a dime more than I had previously paid. I stopped buying it. ""The other day, I noticed that the "sale" is over.

At two different markets, it was priced at $1.43, with no cents off. I stocked up. I hope I have enough to last me through the next "sale." Doesn't the Better Business Bureau care about things like this?"

Since the manufacturer cannot force the retailer to pass along the reduction, it is obvious that "cents-off" on the label can be misleading and deceptive—or at best can be meaningless.

I have deliberately not brought to you the many examples of packaging among the 8,000 or more items on the shelves of today's supermarkets which confuse and mislead and frustrate consumers. My testimony in 1963 and 1961 are part of the record of those hearings and contain many such examples. A recent article in Advertising Age-March 8, 1965, by E. B. Weiss entitled "The Voice of the Consumer Rises in the Land" contains this statement: "The voice of the consumer is rising in the land. It cannot be stilled. It should not be stilled. If business doesn't listen to the consumer-and take positive action in his behalfthen the consumer has no recourse but to turn to Government. *** Back in 1912, the American economist, Wesley C. Mitchell, wrote about the 'backward art of spending money.'

"Mr. Mitchell contended that the problems confronting American consumers of the year 1912 were so complex, so varied, as to make rational consumer decisions impossible. Fifty years later the problem, clearly, is vastly more complicated."

A witness from the potato chip industry who appeared before you earlier ended his testimony by saying, "If this bill is passed, God help us." (Incidentally, one weights and measures official reported in a previous hearing that potato chips now come in 74 different size packages.) I was brought up to believe that God helps those who help themselves. And speaking for consumers, we will not end by calling on God for help. Instead, we call on you in the Congress to help us out of the frustrations and confusions and chaos back into a sane and fair marketplace.

The problem facing the consumer is that there are no ground rules on which he can rely-no ground rules to govern the manufacturer or his advertising promotion department. S. 985 would make it possible for the FDA and FTC to lay down these ground rules. We strongly urge that this committee report the bill out favorably.

Senator NEUBERGER. I would like some time to ask you a question or two, as I will other witnesses.

It is interesting to me that you have all cereals here. I am sure you could find this carried over into soap or other products. But it is especially interesting because I am sure families with small children would be likely to buy these products. That is where the penny savings are very, very important.

Another thing you made a wonderful point on is that when the producer-manufacturer wants to change the size of his carton, he can, and it doesn't seem to bother him. When we suggest through some legislation or regulation that he standardize it, then he tells us how terrible costly it is.

Mrs. NEWMAN. I think another point that ought to be made is that you can change from 1 to 31⁄2 ounces and still keep the same size carton. So that if you went back from 141⁄2 ounces to a pound, you could probably do it in the same size carton since it works the other way. It wouldn't entail any cost for new machinery.

Senator NEUBERGER. It has always been difficult for me to understand why it is difficult to standardize on 1 pound or 16 ounces or 14 ounces, but it is not difficult at 1 pound 2 ounces, or 734 ounces.

Mrs. NEWMAN. One other point we ought to make, and that is they have said the present law is sufficient. The present law isn't.

Mrs. Brady, the other day, showed two cookie packages, on which it was extremely difficult to find the contents. Now, under the present law they would have had to take that to court and maybe they would have gotten a decision from the judge or jury that was not conspicuous enough or not. Even if they had, that manufacturer then would

have had to change that specific package. Either he or any other manufacturer could have produced materials in similar packages and each time the individual package would have to be taken to court and the long process undergone before there could be correction. That in itself, it seems to me, is an indication that the present law simply isn't good enough.

Senator NEUBERGER. Of course, the two people charged with enforcing the present law, Commissioner Larrick and Chairman Dixon, have both testified that the present law is not adequate to combat the discrepancies that consumers are complaining about.

I do want to ask you about one more thing because I think it affects children and lots of penny spending, and that is about the bottles. Mrs NEWMAN. This probably doesn't affect children. It is Red Cap Ale. [Laughter.]

Senator NEUBERGER. I was interested because we had a bottler testify. I was trying to find out about Pepsi-Cola bottles and so on. What are these?

Mrs. NEWMAN. Here is an old bottle, a 12-ounce bottle. Here is a new bottle just slightly higher. If you really had the two next to each other and didn't see the contents you would think this new bottle contained more. Instead, the old one has 12 ounces in it, the new one has 111⁄2 ounces in it. I call this misleading.

Senator NEUBERGER. I call it deceptive.

Can those exhibits be left here for other members of the committee? Mrs. NEWMAN. Oh, yes; I will be glad to leave them.

This I brought along because it shows you what happens when an American manufacturer has to send to a country where their laws are a little stricter. This is French's instant potatoes. Both have eight servings in fairly large letters. But the one that was sent to Canada has in addition "7 oz. net weight" in almost as large, right on the front panel. Otherwise they couldn't have sold it in Canada. Ours does

not.

It seems to me that if a manufacturer can do it for export, he could do it for domestic trade.

Senator NEUBERGER. A very good point.

Our next witness is Mr. George L. Schultz for the Toilet Goods Association.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. SCHULTZ FOR THE TOILET GOODS ASSOCIATION, CARE HAMEL, MORGAN, PARK & SAUNDERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. SCHULTZ. Good morning, Senator Neuberger. It is a pleasure and an honor to be here this morning to have a chance to address you. I am George Schultz, president of Shulton, Inc., and I appear here today on behalf of the Toilet Goods Association, Inc., a trade association whose members manufacture in excess of 90 percent of all toilet preparations sold in America. The membership of the association is comprised of the smallest and the largest manufacturers of cosmetics and toiletries.

I have spent more than 25 years in the toilet preparations businessfirst as salesman, and then successively as research chemist, engineer,

48-222-65- 44