Miss MYERS. Yes, I can't quite take notes on everything you say. Senator NEUBERGER. $12.50 for the night cream. She must find out for herself whether that is better than $2 worth. There is nothing in the bill that would prevent her from paying $12.50.

Miss MYERS. We aren't attempting to talk about standardization or lack of standardization as far as appearance goes in cosmetics. What we are saying is that at this point a woman has the complete freedom of choice to select from all types of cosmetics, all types of cosmetic packages. The choice is completely up to her.

I am sorry you have this feeling about cosmetics because today we are talking in terms in the industry of the natural look where evidently the use of more cosmetics looks less made up than it ever has before.

As far as our trade secrets go, I believe that the intention here, and maybe I wasn't quite clear, was that a trade secret per se is one thing. By listing our ingredient or label information on our products to the extent that this legislation would require, any other competitive company by this knowledge would be in an excellent position to duplicate our products in a small period of time. I am not discussing the trade secrets that are currently considered trade secrets in the industry. This is the only thing we have that we feel gives our products an edge, makes it better or distinct from someone else's product. Senator NEUBERGER. You said on page 4 that this achievement was made possible only by the ingenuous and imaginative development of our products. What does ingenuous mean?

Miss MYERS. Excuse me, where are you?

Senator NEUBERGER. Page 4, the last paragraph.

You are giving the wrong impression if you mean ingenuous. I think women are ingenuous when they pay $12.50 for some night

cream.

Anyhow, you say that this development is what has brought $211⁄2 billion to the gross national product. A lot of us feel, and I think the advertising business feels, that it is advertising that has done this, even more than the ingredient in the product. It is very exciting advertising. You just can't resist it because you think you are going to look like that beauty in the ad.

Miss MYERS. But you will never build a repeat business on a product the second time if it doesn't work. A woman will try a product once because she feels maybe, maybe this is the shade, maybe this is the product. But the industry is built on repeat business. The products we have had in our line for 5 years, 10 years, have to be built on women who come back because they feel that they are satisfied with the effect of the preparation.

Senator NEUBERGER. So about that time they come out with a new product which may be a new bottle or a new price, but we find the ingredient about the same.

And, of course, if she invests $12.50 in night cream she is going to have to go ahead and use it for quite a while. She is not going to throw it out. But the point is, I think that you have greatly overstated the effects of this legislation, because every kind of safeguard has been put in the bill that is possible to keep the trade secrets, and most of the suggestions were made by the industry itself after the hearings last year on the bill.

48-222-65- 45

Miss MYERS. Thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER. Our next witness is Gertrude Brows, director of packaging for the John Robert Powers Co.

STATEMENT OF MISS GERTRUDE BROWS, DIRECTOR OF PACKAGING, JOHN ROBERT POWERS CO., REPRESENTING COSMETIC CAREER WOMEN, INC., NEW YORK, N.Y.

Miss BROWS. My name is Gertrude Brows. I appear here today as a representative of Cosmetic Career Women, Inc., an organization of more than 200 women employed in the cosmetic and toilet goods industry in various executive capacities. A requirement for membership in the organization is that a woman must have been employed as an executive in the industry for at least 5 years.

I have been an executive in the cosmetic industry for a considerably longer period than that-25 years to be exact. In the 1940's I was sales promotion and advertising manager of Jacqueline Cochran Cosmetics. After that I was director of cosmetic merchandising for various advertising agencies handling such accounts as Chen Yu, Revlon, and Charles of the Ritz. For the last 10 years, I have been creative director of John Robert Powers Cosmetics, a part of the Borden Co. since November of 1964.

It has therefore been my responsibility to learn to know what the American woman wants in terms of cosmetics-in order to properly fill her needs, to create cosmetic items which satisfy those needs.

Cosmetic Career Women, Inc., has attempted not only to advance the interests of women in the industry but to cooperate with Government and to advise the Congress in matters pertaining to the industry, based on the knowledge of what women want. As women consumers, we feel that we are perhaps closer to the needs of the industry and the Government than are the men with whom we are associated in our various companies. Were I not a career woman, I would gladly answer to the term "housewife," since I do run and manage my home and serve my family in that capacity. As such, I too, am constantly on the alert for better, more attractive goods at reasonable prices that give consumer satisfaction.

No one can reasonably object to giving the consumer products that satisfy her. Nor should they. However, it has been my experience, both as a merchandising specialist and a housewife, that only a handful of professional, career consumers who have made a business and a living from their efforts to protect Mrs. America, have the temerity to believe that American women, regardless of income bracket or social position, are so ignorant of the facts that they are constantly being duped when they purchase foods, drugs, cosmetics, and other commodities so much a part of our great American standard of living.

I can assure you, they are not being taken; they are shrewd and careful buyers, and the surest way to lose their affection and their custom, would be an attempt to deceive them in any way. Scores of consumer letters cross my desk every week. They do not contain com

plaints of "being duped." Most usually, they request answers to specific problems.

Furthermore, American women and the American public in general, male and female, are sufficiently well informed via all media to purchase what they wish, when and how they prefer to make the purchase. Certainly, we are all aware of the fact that today's consumer is quality conscious and knows how much product she buys for her dollar.

The Federal Government and the several States have the authority to insure that women are well advised. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act passed in 1938 contained provisions covering food, drugs and cosmetics designed to effect this protection. For example, in the cosmetic section a cosmetic is deemed to be misbranded

if in package form, unless it bears a label containing (1) the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor and (2), an accurate statement of the quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical

count.

The law further states that a cosmetic is deemed to be misbranded, "if its container is so made, formed or filled as to be misleading." In addition, the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits "deceptive acts and practices in commerce" which would appear to be a broad, covering statement enabling the Commission in matters not having to do with foods, drugs, and cosmetics, to take any steps which might be necessary to protect the consumer.

Packaging in the cosmetic field cannot, in the nature of things, be considered exactly the same as packaging in other fields. Most commodities in package form enter the household and are put away in closets or cupboards and are brought out only when they go into actual use. They do not require the type of packaging which is essential to the cosmetic industry.

A woman's perfume and cosmetic packages are precious things to her. They are her small, easily affordable jewels. They decorate her, lift her spirits, gladden her heart. They are customarily and constantly on display on her dressing table, in her guest room and bath and often on her person; a compact or lipstick for example. These, then, are not hidden assets. They are meant to be seen; therefore, they must possess attractive and decorative characteristics.

What I am attempting to say is that the cosmetic business is really different from all others. While we produce the so-called mass cosmetics purchased in variety stores, we also make the various prestige lines sold in Garfinkels and Saks-Fifth Avenue, or Lord & Taylor. Both are produced to give consumer satisfaction, each possessing elements of art and decoration as well as utility-within their respective price ranges.

It would seem to me that additional legislation along the lines of S. 985, in view of the provisions of the laws which I have mentioned and the lack of consumer complaints, is completely superfluous. Rather than pile additional law on two important Government bureaus already overworked-would it not be possible or better to secure enforcement of the present labeling requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and similar requirements of the Federal Trade Commission Act. I am not an expert in law or government, but

it seems to me that a simple congressional resolution directing the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to take proper steps in the enforcement of existing provisions would be far better than additional laws with no assurances that the new laws would be any better than the old ones.

I quite appreciate that both agencies must consider other things of more immediate importance, and that, therefore, the question of labeling and marking has not received as much attention as it might. But, if this is the case, it would be better to enforce present laws which seem to be gathering dust in the files of the several agencies.

In other words, the demand for these laws would not seem to be coming from the general public, and the experience of the White House consumer consultant in meetings held in various parts of the country would appear to bear this out. I understand that public interest was very slight, that manufacturers listened politely and that the professional career consumers, for their own particular reasons, were the only ones who were very vocal.

It would further seem to me, that the enactment of a measure that would apparently give the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to prescribe the size, shape, and form of a package is a long step toward the eventual standardization of products of industry throughout the economy.

Applying this same principle to fashion, we can logically assume the next step would be to standardize the colors, the styles of women's clothing. It would, in essence, standardize personal taste, depriving the consumer of part of her satisfaction, the satisfaction of personal choice, and that can lead to uniforms. And the great fashion industry would suffer to the point of disaster.

So, too, it is with cosmetics. The cosmetic industry simply could not exist under a system of standardized packages. Sales would drop, new products could not be launched successfully, and old products would languish on the shelves. And, most importantly, the public would not be served. For every woman has her status symbol, her illusion builder, and to deprive her of them takes away the joy of the purchase, the fashion angle inherent in her cosmetics.

As I read this bill, it appears to regulate some elements going into the value of a product and to emphasize the price factor as the main determination in one's preference. I question that the women of America will thank you for it.

There are other paragraphs in S. 985 which I feel are also too restrictive and capable of accomplishing nothing for the protection of the public. But, those have been discussed by others more technically able than I. I feel the things I have mentioned should, by themselves, be enough to convince this honorable committee that S. 985 is not only unnecessary but actually harmful to a $2 billion industry, the general economy, and more particularly, to the consuming public-the very public it is designed to protect.

I am certain that after further consideration of the existing measures which are adequately protective, and the character of this proposed legislation, your committee will not approve its passage. And, we would further hope that you would have a little more faith in the average woman and her ability to watch her purse. She's been holding tightly to those strings for years.

Thank you for your consideration.
Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you.

Actually I agree with you. I think that in the cosmetic field probably a great deal of the appeal of the product is in the package. In fact, I think the advertising and the package container is often the most costly part and is more important to the woman than the ingredients, because there are just certain things that are basic lubricants.

Probably-I would make a guess-two-thirds of the cost is in the packaging and in the advertising, and sales promotion, and very little in the contents.

You made the analogy about fashions. I think that statement is as extreme as is the fact that this legislation would bring about that kind of standardization in cosmetics. But the funny thing is that it was necessary to make some standards in the fashion area having to do with wool content and with furs, so that people would not be fooled, and it has been a boon to the industry, so that people could be assured that they were buying quality products in that area.

You represent, evidently, a lot of women working in this field.
Miss BROWS. That's right.

Senator NEUBERGER. Therefore, they come from all sorts of different manufacturers?

Miss BROWS. Manufacturers and

Senator NEUBERGER. Are any of these concerns in the export business?

Miss BROWS. I am sure some of them are.

Senator NEUBERGER. So they may have to make different products to meet the requirements of the importing companies of countries? Miss BROWS. As a rule, Senator, I think you will find that our standards here are so very high that we never have to change them for export.

Senator NEUBERGER. As to packaging or labeling?

Miss BROWS. Packaging-well, sometimes labeling, yes. In Canada they have different rules. But foreign countries across the ocean usually will accept what we have.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Bass?

Senator BASS. The only thing I would like to ask is do you have any suggestions to make as far as the packaging is concerned to assist the husbands of one-bathroom families?

Miss BROWS. Senator, with what is coming on in the next 6 months, I would say the gentlemen are going to require as much space as we do for their cosmetics.

Senator Bass. Really?

Miss BROWS. Yes, sir.

Senator BASS. Do you mean we are going to change our

Miss BROWS. Well, I think you are going to use a great many more products than you have been up to now.

Senator BASS. OK.

Do you have any suggestions along this line?

Miss BROWS. Always buy another shelf.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Pearson?