consumer thinks the price has been, in fact, lowered. The reason is that the package looks either the same size or larger and the total price is somewhat lower than the old price.

Reasonable weights and measures certainly have not injured the liquor industry.

The purchaser of liquor, for instance, knows that no matter what shape or size the package, he is still buying a pint, fifth, or quart and he can readily compare prices between competing fifths. It has been suggested that the housewife buying soap flakes at the supermarket should have the same protection against unfair and deceptive packaging practices as are now given her husband when he buys whisky at the liquor store.

It should be noted that the advantages of standardization in this country have been recognized since former President Herbert Hoover was Secretary of Commerce in 1926, and the Department of Commerce since that time voluntarily has established, with industry cooperation, 500 commodity standards. Department of Commerce spokesmen have described the many advantages to the producer, manufacturer, jobber, wholesaler, retailer, and consumer from its standardization program.

In this regard, the bill now provides that weights and measures can be not inconsistent with these standards. As a result, manufacturers adhering to commodity standards need fear no adverse results from this legislation.

The advantages both to the consumer and manufacturer from some standardization of weights and measures long has been recognized by the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Its law and regulation committee pointed out to the 48th annual conference that "the consumer is best served and true competition exists when it is possible to make easy price comparisons. To facilitate this, the consumer must be able to make comparisons based on packages of like commodities packed in standard units."

Second, (e) (2) would prevent the distribution of commodities for retail sale in packages of sizes, shapes, or dimensional proportions which are likely to deceive retail purchasers as to the net quantity of contents.

This subsection is aimed at three practices: First is the slack-filled containerthe package that has more empty space than is reasonably necessary considering the nature of the product and the technological problems of fill. It seeks to limit, therefore, nonfunctional slack fill. Next, it is concerned with those packages wherein the dimensional proportions have become so distorted as to be likely to deceive the buyer as to the amount inside. Finally, it is concerned with those containers which are so shaped as to be likely to deceive the buyer as to the amount of content inside. This subsection is keyed to deception. It does not seek to interfere with convenience-packaging in any way, unless the package is likely to deceive.

Some have argued that prominent "net weight" should lessen the need for a provision preventing this type of deception.

But the point has been made that the inclusion of the weight marking should not be a license to permit the manufacturer to cheat the consumer by manipulating the size, weight, and shape of the package.

Because of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of computing price per unit because of some of the practices heretofore discussed, the ordinary purchaser is guided to a considerable degree by a visual appraisal of size by comparative dimensions of a package. J. L. Littlefield, chief, Foods and Standards Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture, has said:

"Manufacturers appear to be capitalizing on this knowledge of consumers' purchasing habits by utilizing containers which apparently enhance the size and hence the value of the commodity. Buying by container size, the consumer feels she is getting the most of a product. However, a small package right beside it may hold more product at a cheaper cost per unit."

A Government survey of consumer behavior also has indicated that a significant number of purchases are based largely on container size.

This subsection, of course, does not go so far as to suggest or require standard sizes. But it does provide a means to prohibit these extreme examples that are likely to deceive.

Third, (e) (3) provides for the defining of size nomenclature relating to quantity such as "small," "medium,” or “large." It is, for instance, concerned with confusions arising when one manufacturer's regular is greater than all of his competitors' "large," as was documented at previous hearings.

One witness testified that in most stores "large" is the smallest size of toothpaste.

The purpose of this section is to make size nomenclature meaningful as between competing products in the same product line so that one manufacturer's "king size" does not represent less than another manufacturer's “large." Should such standards be established on a product line basis, there is no compulsion for the manufacturer to use them if he chooses to use no size designation whatsoever. If, however, he wishes to use size designations, they would have to be those established for the range of quantity into which the amount within his package falls.

Fourth, (e) (4) would allow the establishment of serving standards. Ellen Ann Dunham, vice president of General Foods Corp., has stressed that in certain areas with certain products “servings" were important to consumers. Yet this serving information can vary markedly between competing brands of the same product even though the content may be the same. The manufacturer who wants to puff up his servings can thus obtain a competitive advantage over one who is more conservative in his claims.

The purpose of this subsection is to make serving information meaningful. For instance, most cookbooks consider a half cup as a serving. If a similar standard were adopted on a product line basis, and within a reasonable range to take into account varying product densities, then the consumer could depend on the serving designation to give him a measure to compare with competing products accurately.

It has been argued that serving information would be impossible to establish because of the varying tastes of consumers. One industry witness stated that what would be a serving to a midget would not be a mouthful to a giant. Aside from the fact that the National Canners Association has successfully established serving standards for scores of products, this argument evades the point.

It makes no difference whether the agency involved, after industry consultation, sets one-half cup or a cup as the standard. The important thing is that, once it has been established, a standard of comparison between the finished product of competing products will be available where none exists now. And the consumer will be assured that "serves two" on each of the competing packages means that the finished quantity of each will be the same. He has no such assurance under present marketplace conditions.

As in the size designations, a manufacturer need use no serving designations at all, if he does not desire to do so, regardless of whether they have been established.

Subsection (e) (5) relates to those products in which it is claimed that net weight or number designations are meaningless. For instance, Albert Halverstadt, vice president of Procter & Gamble, testified that in the field of detergents, a statement of weight is not significant. And this testimony was echoed by E. Scott Pattison, manager of the Soap & Detergent Association.

If net weight or number is not any guide upon which a consumer can base a price comparison, another standard is needed. This subsection would allow the establishment, in those few product lines where net weight or number are not significant, of a standard which would allow a rational comparison between the competing products in that line. For instance, a unit of cleaning powder could be established. Like serving information, it would make little difference whether that unit was keyed to a large wash or a small wash, a slightly soiled wash or an exceptionally dirty wash. The important point is that there would be a meaningful designation available for the consumer to assist in evaluating best buys in terms of price between competing brands.

The last of the discretionary sections, (e) (6), would allow the agencies involved to require that sufficient ingredients or composition information be placed conspicuously on the package, consistent with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The reason for this subsection is to allow the consumer to know what he is buying when necessary. The present law requires that information as to ingredients be placed only on food packages (and percentages are not required, although in some cases they might be significant) and to a limited extent, active ingredients, on proprietary drug packages. There may well be other classes of commodities covered by the bill where either ingredient or composition information are matters of importance to the consumer who wants to choose intelligently between competing products. (For equally compelling reasons, proprietary trade secrets are exempted from this provision.)

CONCLUSIONS

It is seldom a still wind whips up such sound and fury.

S. 985 is legislation the consumer wants and needs. It is legislation the efficient operation of our economy requires. It is legislation that will benefit every legitimate manufacturer who packages and labels commodities covered by its provisions. It is legislation which will benefit every retailer who is on the firing line for practices over which he has no control, and which cost him money.

Why, then, does industry protest so much? Some industry spokesmen have said they are not happy with the present state of the marketplace. But fear of antagonizing their corporate brothers; fear of the unknown have forced them to adopt the industry line.

But fear and timidity should not be allowed to suffocate legislation which responds to an important need in a responsible and reasonable manner.

APPENDIX. COMMENTS OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT ON COST TO INDUSTRY OF TRUTH IN PACKAGING (S. 387), MAY 27, 1963

It is difficult to be precise about what costs may be incurred by manufacturers as a result of the enactment of the truth-in-packaging bill. First, no one knows, at this time, what exact regulations will be formulated under the bill, so it is impossible to tell the extent to which present packages do or do not conform to the provisions of the bill. Second, once the regulations are known, undoubtedly it will be found that there will be wide variety in the extent to which packages require change in order to conform to the provisions of the bill and the regulation; some will require no change at all, some will require minor change, some more extensive change. Third, there are many types of packaging used on the products covered by the bill; for example, bags, paperboard boxes, plastic boxes, metal or fiberboard cans, glass or plastic bottles, metal or plastic tubes, aerosol containers, and others, and each of these types of packages has its own cost structure which will determine the cost of changes.

It should be noted that even without passage of the bill, packaging changes at the present are more or less frequent for many of the products covered in the bill. Entirely new products are being introduced regularly, and some older products are being dropped. New advertising appeals are developed for an existing product, and this frequently calls for change in the design of its package. New recipes, special offers, menu suggestions, toys and games, such as on the backs of cereal packages, are being developed frequently and require changes in packages. Sometimes the package changes are merely changes in surface printing. but ofttimes they are complete changes in the type of package, such as the shift from a fiberboard can to a plastic squeeze bottle to an aerosol container. Any packaging changes required by the provisions of the bill and the regulations might well be accommodated in the above changes which the manufacturer contemplated making in the ordinary course of events for purposes of improving the convenience of the package, or heightening its appeal to the consumer, or tying in with a new advertising campaign. In such a case there would be no special cost to the manufacturer because of packaging changes required by the bill. In any case, the manufacturer would be allowed to run ont his present inventory of packages before making any changes so that there would be no loss or wastage.

Section 3A (c), which covers the mandatory provisions of the bill, would require packaging changes in terms of surface printing only. These changes would be of two main types:

(1) Minor changes in type only, probably in one color only, to comply with the requirements on how the net quantity within the container must be stated. For those packages not already complying with these provisions, it is conceivable that many of them could achieve compliance by slug changes, which would be made on the printing plates presently being used. While the cost of these slug changes would vary widely and depend upon the package involved, in most cases it can be expected that the cost would be no more than $100 per package type. (2) Changes in the illustrations, which may well be four color or more process printing, to comply with the requirement that the illustrations not be deceptive. For those packages-probably a small number-not already complying with this provision, this will require a number of new printing plates, plus new design work and probably new color photography work. Here, too, the cost would vary

widely depending upon the type of package, but as a general rule, these changes would in all likelihood be accomplished at a cost of $10,000 a package or less. One of the mandatory provisions of the bill (sec. 3A (c) (4)) could result in savings to the manufacturer. It calls for the elimination of "cents off" printed matter. Companies frequently make up extra printed plates carrying these extra captions and keep them in inventory for use from time to time. up such extra plates and maintaining inventory would no longer be necessary if this provision became law.

Making

Section 3A (e) of the bill, covering those products which individually are determined to require further regulation beyond the mandatory provisions, might require additional cost in complying with the provisions of the bill. Some of the requirements under this subsection would involve changes in surface printing only, such as the requirement with respect to the printing of ingredients. In these cases the same cost factors would apply as noted above for compliance with the mandatory provisions of the bill.

Compliance with some of the other provisions of this subsection, however, would require a change in the size and shape of the package itself. If the package were to retain its shape but be made only slightly larger, this might mean slight additional cost in the packaging material itself. On the other hand, it might mean a cost savings if the package were to be made smaller. Costs would be higher if the changes in size or shape required new molds, as in the case of plastic containers, for example. Any change in the size and shape of the package would, of course, require a change in the surface printing, which in all likelihood would require new design, new plates, etc., at the average cost figures noted above under discussion of the mandatory provisions of the bill. Beyond that, a change in the size or shape of the package would also involve changes in the packaging line, which includes the machinery for sorting, weighing, measuring, filling, package forming, closing, sealing, labeling, and packing into shipping cases.

Where the packaging line is set up for a large volume operation, the line is specifically designed to serve a specific package. The machinery is adaptable to other packages, but the changeover may well require 2 or 3 days downtime and it may involve a cost of $12,000 to $15.000 per packaging line. The impact of this change would, of course, be lessened if it were done in connection with a change which the manufacturer was planning to make in any case for reasons of his own, including product modification, new promotions, new advertising appeals, etc. The cost of adapting the packaging line is comparatively low per package because it is amortized over a large volume of packages.

In the case of a low-volume product, the packaging line is much less complex and it is not profitable to design it for use with that one package alone. Therefore, the machinery is adjustable, and with some types of packaging machinery the adjustment can be made by hand in a matter of a few minutes. Here the changeover in the machinery from one package to another would cost almost nothing.

It is our understanding that additional provisions for consultation with industry have been added to the bill since hearings were held. During such consultation, consideration should be given to the extent of change, in printing, in package design, in package construction, and in package machinery operation, that would be required by new regulations. Every effort should be made to establish regulations that are compatible with existing standards for package sizes and shapes and for machinery operation.

We trust that this information is helpful. If the committee has any examples it would like us to analyze, or if it requires additional information we would be pleased to be of assistance.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Please find enclosed copies of a statement which I submitted to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in connection with last year's truth-in-packaging bill.

The position of this international union is the same; namely, that we have no objection to legislation which protects the consumer from deceptive merchandising practices; however, we think this can best be done by proper labeling laws and we still object to any legislation which would restrict our employers from supplying their customers with containers of the types, sizes, shapes, and dimensional proportions that they feel the consumer needs and wants.

In other words, we still object to the old sections 3(e) (1) and (2) which appeared in Senator Hart's 1963 bill S. 387.

There are sufficient copies of the aforementioned statement for distribution to the other members of the Committee on Commerce and I would not only appreciate your bringing this matter to their attention, but your also looking favorably to our request to eliminate the aforementioned sections.

Sincerely,

LEE W. MINTON, International President.

STATEMENT OF LEE W. MINTON, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO The Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and Canada, AFLCIO is a trade union representing over 70,000 employees in the glass, rigid plastic container, fiberglass, and allied industries. We are very much concerned about the effect certain provisions of S. 387 will have upon production; hence, employment in the glass container industry.

There is no question that in certain marketplaces consumers have been and are being cheated out of hard-earned wage dollars by deceptive merchandising practices. It follows, therefore, that this international union does support necessary legislation to protect the consumer and we are in agreement with the well-meaning objectives of the Hart bill, better known as truth in packaging.

However, if we are to achieve truth in packaging, it can and should come in only one form, and that is pure, simple, legible, and understandable labeling; not in a quagmire of Government controls.

A truth-in-packaging bill can and should require that every container should have an applied or printed label prominently located; a label which legibly and understandably would reveal the net weight or net content, or both, of the contained product. Qualifying words or phrases and deceptive pictures or illustrations should be prohibited.

With respect to "sales" or "off prices," we think consumers are entitled to legitimate discount prices due to production, marketing, or packaging economies. Federal Trade Commission rules and regulations, as well as existing laws, i.e., Robinson-Patman, should be able to take care of pricing "gimmicks."

This international union, however, is opposed to section 3(e) (1) "establish reasonable weights or quantities, or fractions or multiples thereof, in which that commodity shall be distributed for sales; and (2) prevent the distribution of that commodity for retail sale in packages of sizes, shapes, or dimensional proportions which may deceive retail purchases as to the net quantity of the contents thereof (in terms of weight, measure, or count)." We recommend that section 3(e) (1) and (2) be eliminated or, in the alternative, amended to exclude glass containers. Glass containers are transparent and consumers see what they buy when they buy in glass. There is no possible way consumers can be deceived, quantitatively or qualitatively.

The packaging industry is a $20 billion a year industry employing hundreds of thousands of wage earners. This industry exists not for deception but for business and to stay in business they have to meet the needs of the consuming public. Packages, especially glass containers, are designed the way they are for hundreds of reasons, the most important of which are production and filling line efficiency, ease of shipping and handling, economy and functional end use.

Millions of dollars are spent in research each year to improve sizes and shapes of containers-not to deceive the consuming public-but to give the consuming public a better and cheaper package. To hamstring the industry by sections 3(e) (1) and (2) would produce just the opposite results-increased costs to the consumer. With over 30 percent of each wage dollar being spent for packaged foods and goods, any increased cost would be felt heavily and widely among wage earners who are the largest individual group of consumers.

Equally as important, and of practical rather than selfish concern, these two sections will do untold harm to employment in the packaging industry. Em