standard for breaded shrimp, which allows any suitable ingredients in the breading material but requires all optional ingredients to be declared on the label. This pattern can be expected to continue in future food standards and modifications of existing standards.

The act specifically requires that when any food, whether or not it is standardized, contains any artificial colors, flavors, or chemical preservatives, it must bear labeling stating that fact. But spices, flavors and colors may be designated as such, without naming each.

2. Nitrite in meat-containing baby foods.-Meats shipped in interstate commerce are subject to the Meat Inspection Act enforced by the Meat Inspection Division, Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and must be packed under the continuous inspection of that agency. Use of combinations of nitrates and nitrites in certain meat products has long been permitted under the Meat Inspection Act. Because such use has received prior sanction under the Meat Inspection Act, nitrates and nitrites for use in meat products within prescribed limits are not food additives under the Food Additives Amendment of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Uses of nitrates or nitrites in foods other than meats are subject to the food additives amendment. Under this amendment, FDA has promulgated regulations establishing safe conditions of use of nitrites, within safe tolerances, in smoked cured tuna, salmon, sablefish, and shad; and for mixtures of nitrates and nitrites for home curing of meats. Before nitrates or nitrites may legally be used in other foods subject to the act, the proponents must demonstrate the safety of the proposed uses. We have not issued any authorization for the use of these chemicals in processed foods intended for infants.

3. Sodium carboxymethylcellulose in ice cream.-Definitions and standards of identity have been established for ice cream. The standard provides for use of sodium carboxymethylcellulose as a stabilizer and emulsifier. It has been tested in the FDA's laboratories and was found not to be carcinogenic when fed to rats at levels of up to 20 percent of the diet for 2 years. We know of no information indicating that this substance may produce cancer on ingestion.

We do know that when this product is injected subcutaneously into rats, this produces tumors, some of which may be malignant, This, however, is not unusual. A number of common food substances produce the same results by injections. This would be significant in a case involving use by injection, but is not a proper way of determining whether the particular substance may be harmful when ingested.

4. Calcium sulfate in cottage cheese.-Standards of identity have also been established for various cheeses, including cottage cheese. The calcium sulfate which may be used is not "plaster of paris" either structurally or in physical grade. The substance permitted for use in cottage cheese is the dihydrated form of calcium sulfate (Ca SO. 2H2O) which must have the purity required for food grade substances. It has been shown to be safe for use in foods and is sometimes utilized in special dietary foods as a source of calcium.

We hope these comments will be helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely yours,

GEO. P. LARRICK, Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Senator NEUBERGER. The next witness is George Burger, vice president, National Federation of Independent Business.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. BURGER, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BURGER. I am George J. Burger, vice president, National Federation of Independent Business, home offices at San Mateo, Calif., and legislative offices at the Washington Building, Washington, D.C.

Our positions are determined by direct poll of our membership. which today is comprised of more than 200,000 individual, directly supporting independent, smaller business, and professional people throughout all 50 States of our country. I might mention that our

membership is a true cross section of all American smaller, independent enterprise.

In connection with your hearings, in our mandate No. 284, we polled our members on S. 387, sponsored by Senator Hart in the 88th Congress.

In this mandate our statement of issue was presented as follows:

S. 387 requires manufacturers of foods, drugs, cosmetics, and other products to mark their packages plainly to inform customers just what and how much they are getting for their money (Senator Hart, of Michigan).

In this same mandate we presented our members with the following statements "for" and "against" to assist them in reaching their voting decisions:

Argument for S. 387: Consumers have a right to full value for purchasing dollars. Merchants have right to give them this value. But neither are able to do so fully today because some manufacturers use fancy, misleading packaging that defies ready price, quality, and quantity comparisons. Product information, if any, is in extremely small type. The results: (1) Consumers are losing confidence in our system and merchants; (2) merchants are forced to carry topheavy inventories; (3) all business suffers because the flow of purchasing power is distorted. This bill would help correct this situation.

Argument against S. 387: There's no need for Congress to pass any law requir ing disclosure of product information on packages. Look closely enough at any package on the shelf of any grocery, drug, or other store and you'll find the facts right there. The facts seem to indicate that sponsors of these bills have a low estimate of the intelligence of consumers, little comprehension of what has to be done these days to move goods, and a strong inclination to change the shape of our business system by adding unnecessary Government regulation. The average American consumer is the best informed in the world.

As reported in mandate No. 285, our members voted as follows on this bill: 79 percent for, 18 percent against, and 3 percent no opinion. On this basis we reported to Senator Hart support for his bill during the 88th Congress. Since no later vote has been taken on this issue, our support continues for legislation which involves the basic elements of S. 387.

In this connection, we are happy to furnish to you, attached, a copy of a national press release which the federation issued at the conclusion of the vote on S. 387, which provides an analysis of the reasoning behind the position taken by our members.

I urge your close consideration to the outcome of this vote. That this is a matter of great import to small business is clearly shown by the overwhelming majority in favor of same. That the needs of small business must be given utmost consideration is clearly shown by the fact that our surveys this year indicate that the Nation must rely heavily on this segment of our economy to provide the new job openings which are needed to provide work for our growing population. In fact, these surveys show that by their expansions and modernizations during the past 12 months, independents provided many more than 3 million of these new job openings.

We must maintain a climate which will increasingly encourage this trend. Your action on this bill will definitely influence this climate. We urge your approval of the measure.

I thank you.

I

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you for your content and brevity. haven't looked ahead at your press release. Do your people say

anything about the cents off? The use of "cents off" as an inducement?

Since you represent independent business, I thought maybe you might have in this release said something about whether that is a special anathema. How do your businesses feel about "cents off" promotions?

Mr. BURGER. I think the best way to answer your sentence is to read into the record the release of June 17, attached to the statement. Senator NEUBERGER. I will be glad to look ahead at it. Do you have a particular place there which refers to the cents off?

Mr. BURGER. I don't get your question.

Senator NEUBERGER. I was trying to find out if you made any explanation about the use of "cents off" promotions.

Mr. BURGER. No; we did not.

Senator NEUBERGER. This will become a part of the record. (The press release follows:)

PRESS SERVICE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, INC., RELEASE, JUNE 17

(NOTE.-All facts, any opinions herein based solely on majority result of individually voted ballots by national membership of more than 190,000 independent business proprietors. Documentary support is on file and open to inspection at headquarters.)

The Nation's independent business proprietors, even though many of them are engaged in retailing and wholesaling, are in favor of regulations ending deceptive practices in packaging.

This is reported by C. Wilson Harder, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, in announcing that in a just completed nationwide poll of the organization's membership, 79 percent favor the Hart bill, only 18 percent oppose, and 3 percent had no opinion on the matter.

The proposed legislation introduced by Senator Philip A. Hart, of Michigan, would require packages, especially in food, soap, drug, and cosmetic items, to be plainly marked as to the exact weight of the contents. The proposal would also set up standards as to where this information would be displayed on the package, and the degree of prominence that it must be given. It would also establish standards of size terminology for terms such as "small," "medium," or "large." It would also prohibit the packer from stating on the package that the product is being offered below the normal retail price, or that a price concession is being made because of the size or quantity of the container.

The measure would also outlaw "trick" packages that deceive the consumer through the use of unusual shapes, sizes, or proportions.

Commenting on the vote among independent businessmen, Mr. Harder said, "When Senator Hart introduced this bill, it was considered primarily as protection for the consumer. However, since putting the issue up to a nationwide vote, we find that independent merchants are complaining about the loading tactics that often accompanies package changes. In other words, a packer will change his package to contain a part of an ounce more or less, or redesign the package to give the impression of great contents, and immediately this move obsoletes the merchandise which the independent stores have in inventory."

Independent packers and processors also report that the constant change of packages by some big national concerns is causing them unwarranted competitive problems.

A processor or packer marketing on a regional basis must amortize the cost of package redesign and production over a small number of unit sales than a big national operator who can spread the cost over much higher unit sales.

"Thus," Harder comments, "when a big national marketer changes a package to give an illusion of greater value, or comes out with a giant economy container, in order to stay on the shelves the regional operator must go to extra expense to try to meet the competition."

"This entire practice is resisted by the independent retailers and wholesalers as it requires finding room for new package sizes which only vary slightly from the normal sizes, as well as additional inventory capital," Harder states.

In addition, the independent retailer, because he does meet customers face to face, takes the brunt of criticism from the consumers when they learn that they have been duped into paying more for less value.

"And, above all," Harder commented, "there appears to be a feeling that merchandise should be sold on the basis that a pound is a pound, and the fact that a package contains, or does not contain, a full pound should be clearly established."

Senator NEUBERGER. Are there any others here who have not been called upon, who wish to be heard or to submit testimony?

(No response.)

Senator NEUBERGER. The record will be held open until Wednesday of next week for any additional comments.

The hearings are adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.)

APPENDIX

STATEMENT BY SENATOR PHILIP A. HART, DEMOCRAT, OF MICHIGAN, ON S. 985; THE FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING BILL

INTRODUCTION

Our Founding Fathers gave to Congress in article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution the power and responsibility: To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures. They knew history taught the necessity in any civilized society for standards of weights and measures.

The prepackaging revolution of the past two decades has made the package the modern-day weight and measure. This new proliferation of package weights, sizes, shapes, and their often noninformative labels has played havoc with our traditional system of weights and measures. In effect, these packaging practices now fix the standard of weights and measures.

The truth-in-packaging bill is a response to this condition. It is an opportunity for Congress to reassert its authority for the ultimate benefit of the consumer and the legitimate manufacturer.

This legislation, therefore, is not primarily directed at preventing fraud in the common law sense. It makes little difference to the economy and consumer whether price comparisons are made difficult or impossible because of fraud, deception or only confusing practices. The seller's intent is not the important point-the practice and its effects are. Rather this legislation is aimed at bringing order out of the chaos of the modern marketplace as it pertains to consumable items-those most affected by the packaging revolution.

PRACTICES

That the practices with which the bill is concerned exist-if not proliferatein the marketplace is agreed by most witnesses. Volumes of hearings replete with exhibits representing some of our largest and most responsible manufacturers document irrefutably the condition of our marketplace. And if anyone believes that the exhibits are exceptions—“the few bad apples”—he need only visit any supermarket at any time to verify the record. These practices at which the bill is aimed are:

1. Inconspicuous or nonexistent quantity designations.

2. Deceptive illustrations.

3. Imprinting on the package by the manufacturer of price information implying a retail bargain where the manufacturer has no control over retail price-such as "cents off" and "economy size" designations.

4. Use of adjectives to describe the net quantity that attempt to give the impression of a greater amount than the same quantity of a competitor— such as "giant half quart" in place of "16 ounces" or "pint."

5. A proliferation of weights and measures expressed in odd amounts making price comparisons almost a mathematical impossibility; e.g., 71 quantities of potato chips under 31⁄2 pounds. Or, a consumer, to find the better bargain, must decide between 20 ounces for 35 cents or 241⁄2 ounces for 40 cents.

6. Use of containers of sizes, shapes, and dimensional proportions which give an exaggerated impression of the actual quantity within. This includes nonfunctional slack fill forcing the consumer to pay product prices for air.

7. The use of size designations that have no actual relation to the quantity in order to gain competitive advantage-one manufacturer's "king size" is another manufacturer's "large size" for an equivalent amount. In toothpaste the smallest size often is marked “large.”