These divisions are: (1) Aerosol division, (2) automotive division, (3) detergent and cleaning compounds division, (4) disinfectant and sanitizers division, (5) insecticide division, and (6) waxes, polishes, and floor finishes division. This statement is submitted by the association on behalf of its members in opposition to S. 985. This association is opposed to this bill for two basic reasons: (1) there is no need for the bill, and (2) it represents an extension of bureaucratic control of private industry far beyond the limits of reasonable regulation. Such extreme bureaucratic authority should not be legislated unless it is absolutely essential in the furtherance of the police power of the Federal Government. For This bill is unnecessary because it would duplicate, for the most part, satisfactory existing controls which are in effect at the State and local level. example, a uniform weights and measures law for use at the State level and uniform regulations for implementing the requirements of this law have long existed and were modernized last year at the National Conference on Weights and Measures sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards. The conference, which is composed of regulatory officials at the State and local level, has dealt satisfactorily with weights and measures problems, including the standards for determining net contents and the labeling of the net contents of retail packages. Among the requirements of the uniform law are requirements that the net contents statement appear on the principal display panel of the retail or consumer package and that the net contents statement be displayed prominently on the principal panel. Specific type sizes for the net contents statement are provided. These requirements were adopted at the June 1964 session of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, have already been adopted by some of the States and are being put into effect currently elsewhere at the State and local level. The currently effective recommendations of the National Conference on Weights and Measures require the statement of net contents to appear on the front panel of the container in a specified size of type to insure that the statement is legible, readable, and readily available to the consumer at the point of purchase. The pertinent portion of the model regulations recommended by the national conference, which have already been adopted in some States, provides as follows: 5. Quantity declaration. "5.1. Location.-The declaration, or declarations, or quantity of the contents of a package which appears on the principal display panel, or panels if there are more than one, shall be presented in such a manner as to be generally parallel to the base on which the package rests as it is designed to be displayed. "5.2. Style of type of lettering.-The declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall be in such a style of type or lettering as to be boldly presented, clearly and conspicuously, with respect to other type or lettering or graphic material on the panel or panels. "5.3. Color contrast. The declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall be in a color that contrasts definitely with its background: Provided, That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled reusable glass containers, for which see 8. below. "6. Minimum height of numbers and letters.-The height of any letter or number in the required quantity statements shall be not less than those shown in table 1, with respect to the square-inch area set forth in section 3.3. above: Provided, That the height of the numbers of a common fraction shall be not less than one-half the dimensions shown: And Provided further, That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled reusable glass containers, for which see 8. below. TABLE 1.-Minimum height of numbers and letters Square-inch area of principal panel 4 square inches and less___ Minimum height of numbers and letters No minimum. 1/16 inch. Greater than 4 square inches and not greater than 25 squares inches__ Greater than 25 square inches and not greater than 120 square inches. 1/8 inch. Greater than 120 square inches and not greater than 400 square inches__ 1/4 inch. Greater than 400 square inches_ 1/2 inch. "7. Free area. The declaration, or declarations, of quality shall be presented in an area sufficiently free from other printing, lettering, or marking, to make said declaration, or declarations, stand out definitely with respect to the surrounding printing, lettering, or marking." These provisions are clearly sufficient to assure in every case a clear and prominent statement of net contents on every consumer package. If these regulations become effective and enforced, the major problem which S. 985 seeks to reach will no longer be a problem and will have been successfully and completly answered by these recommendations of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. In addition, weights and measures officials, with the assistance of the National Bureau of Standards, are engaged in the development of accelerated tests procedures for checking the actual net contents of consumer packages at the point of sale. This is an outstanding example of the success of control at a State level. There is no need for additional Federal control. Sufficient regulatory authority already exists at the Federal level to control certain areas of special interest such as food, drug, and cosmetics under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301-392 (1958, as amended supp. V, 1959–63)), and economic poisons under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135–135k (1964)). Whether the requirements of these Federal laws have been enforced to the fullest extent is open for discussion but irrelevant to the current hearings. It is a strange logic that proposes new legislation as a substitute for proper enforcement of existing legislation. The remedy is better enforcement and not new legislation. The Federal Government should not act in regulatory areas which are being adequately handled and policed by State and local officials. To justify extension of Federal bureaucratic control, there should be a showing that the States are inadequate to deal with an existing problem. Once the need is defined, legislation responsive to the need should be considered. But there has been no showing of inadequacy at the State or local level. In fact, the history of weights and measures enforcement indicates that the State and local regulatory officials are doing a most adequate job in policing and checking net contents and the labeling of retail or consumer packages. It would be quite impossible for the Federal Government to duplicate the inspection and enforcement teams which have been put together by State and local governments. The cost would be prohibitive and it would be impossible to secure the number of qualified people necessary unless the Federal Government simply raids the State and local enforcement staffs and puts them on the Federal payroll. To put the Federal Government in competition with State and local governments in matters of regulatory control, such as weights and measures and packaging, is absurd and the absurdity is demonstrated most forcefully by simply stating the proposition. That this competition must result if S. 985 is approved is evident already from the testimony before the committee. Witnesses from the Food and Drug Administration have explained what they would do with their additional authority even though they have failed satisfactorily to explain their lack of initiative and activity in enforcing the regulatory authority they already have. However, witnesses from the Federal Trade Commission have made the proposal that all of the authority under this bill be delegated to the Federal Trade Commission. Thus, a competition has already arisen between the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration for this overwhelming, new regulatory authority. Regardless of the identity of the victorious agency, this authority will overwhelm existing State and local programs. Certainly the administration should not permit various agencies of the Federal Government to compete with each other for authority from Congress to increase the size of an agency and increase its budget when the result will be to duplicate existing programs. Such a performance is disgraceful, but is indicative of the regulatory picture that will emerge if S. 985 is approved. Not only is there no need for additional legislation over and above that already existing at the Federal, State, and local levels, but Congress should be reluctant to usurp State authority in regulatory areas by overwhelming and overpowering Federal legislation when this is totally unnecessary. Witnesses who have already appeared before the committee have outlined in great detail the tremendous burden and impact that this legislation will have on the retail industry. No attempt will be made to reiterate or even summarize these basic and sound objections to the bill. The committee will surely consider them carefully before acting on this bill. When regulatory controls over consumer packages can be properly and adequately administered and enforced by State and local officials, the Federal Government should act only in those limited or special areas where the States might not have adequate controls. This the Congress has already done in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. When Congress was considering the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1261-73 (Supp. V, 1959-63)) it made absolutely no reference to net contents or net weights of the packages recognizing that this was adequately controlled at the State and local level. When this principle is applied to S. 985, it becomes dramatically clear that the Congress should not enact this bill into law. There has been no showing of a need for the sweeping controls established in this bill. It is fundamental that the police power be exercised in a reasonable manner and then only when and to the extent necessary to satisfy the aims of that power. Some abuses have been brought to the committee's attention. James Madison once said, "Some abuse is inescapable in the proper use of anything." This logic is equally forceful and valid today. The State programs are more than adequate to deal with the problems presented to this committee. To ignore this and approve bureaucratic authority to an extent unprecedented in the history of this Government is totally unwarranted. AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Toledo, Ohio, May 18, 1965. DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed find a copy of the statement made by International President George M. Parker, American Flint Glass Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, on bill S. 387 and appendix thereto which are self-explanatory. We respectfully request that the original statement and the attached appendix be read into the record of the committee report on bill S. 985. You will please note that while we are in complete sympathy with the intent of bill S. 985, we do strenuously object to section 3(c) (1 and 2) because of the detrimental effect it will have on employment opportunities of our members. Thank you for any consideration given our request, I am, Respectfully yours, ALBERT VOTTERO, STATEMENT TO U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, RE S. 387 ("TRUTH IN PACKAGING"), FROM GEORGE M. PARKER, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION, TOLEDO, OHIO It is without question that S. 387, known as the "Truth in Packaging" bill, has a worthy and necessary purpose. As spokesman for the 30,000 members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, who are both consumers and employees in the glass packaging industry, I can heartily endorse the intent of such legislation. I believe it pertinent, in the light of the purpose of this legislation, to call to the committee's attention certain historical facts which have a bearing on the accomplishment of that purpose. Members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union are, in the main, highly skilled participants in America's first industry-the glassmaking industry, founded in Jamestown in 1608. They possess a pride in both their skills and the multitude of end uses to which their products are put. They also possess pride in the integrity of their industry, and have joined with others in efforts to accomplish exactly the purpose of S. 387-protection of the consumer from false representations as to quantity contained in glass packaging. May I cité one example? In 1954 the American Flint Glass Workers' Union published a brochure prepared by its revered former President Harry H. Cook, titled "A Story of Glass," and dedicated as follows: "This brochure is dedicated to the American glassware industry, to bring about increased interest in forming glass and a deeper understanding of the rare dexterity and skill required in forming articles of glass. "It is also intended to encourage business leaders, together with representatives of labor and government, to preserve and expand this industry, which has contributed so much to civilization." Mr. Cook records the history of glassmaking and its modern forms but also records an example of self-policing unique in industry and of significance to the committee's considerations. The American Flint Glass Workers' Union, with the National Better Business Bureau and the American Glassware Association, evolved and subscribed to certain "glassware definitions." "Intended as a guide to accurate and informative advertising of glassware, they were developed to promote better mutual understanding of glassware terms by advertisers and consumers." The various definitions spell out the descriptive terms which are considered truthful, complete and understandable to the consumer. Not only was this positive step taken but, in addition, a warning was sounded, a warning against the very practices which S. 387 is planned to eliminate. May I quote this section in full? "STATE ACTUAL CAPACITY OF TUMBLERS "Beer, highball, old-fashion, ice tea, and other similar beverage tumblers with thick bottoms are sometimes produced in the same mold that is used for thinbottomed or shell tumblers. The actual capacities of these thick-bottomed tumblers are, however, less than that of the corresponding shell tumblers. Care should be taken never to advertise the capacity of the heavier bottom of the sham glasses as the actual capacity of the shell glasses. It misleads the purchaser and local bureaus of weights and measures frown on such practices. Some have already taken legal action in the matter. Reasonable plus or minus manufacturing tolerances in overflow capacities are recognized and are allow able." This warning was sounded many years ago and its philosophy has been perpetuated by the actions of the entire glassware industry ever since. Some 4,000 glass mold makers, who are members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union and whose skills produce approximately 98 percent of the molds from which glass containers are made, can testify that they are called upon to make possible thinner, rather than thicker bottoms on glass containers of all descriptions. Their only limitations are the tensile strength of the design. Design research is another factor that distinguishes the glass container industry from other branches of the packaging industry. A veritable revolution is taking place in the applications of this well-known and commonly accepted material. The fruits of design and materials changes are already passed on to the consumer and to the American defense effort as well. Discoveries in ceramics and glass in combination have made both missile nose cones and lighter but stronger bottles. There is a most palpable difference between the weight of a gallon bottle today and that of only a decade ago. In addition, it is possible to pass on to the consumer the saving in packaging costs which result from increase in the quantity contained by a single package rather than multiple packages. A most notable example relates to milk bottle designs of today. Glass packaging designs of today are as revolutionary and as worthy as the outstanding example in glassmaking history-the oil lamp chimney. It was discovered that crimping the top of the chimney increased the total strength of the chimney and allowed lighter glass weights to be utilized, with an ultimate saving to the consumer. It is an easily discernible fact that the uses of glass as containers are currently in a ferment of discovery and, for that reason among others, grave consideration should be given any legislation which would tend to standardize and thus stifle the ingenuity and skill of an entire industry. I join enthusiastically with the sponsors of S. 387 in demanding that packaging of any commodity contain, assurances as to weight, measure, or count of the contents but respectfully submit that section 3 (e) (1) and (2) of the proposed legislation are extraneous to its purpose and constitute an economic threat to thousands engaged in the glass container industry. Perhaps it is a misnomer to call S. 387 a "truth in packaging" proposal. Rightfully, its purpose is "truth in labeling" and pertains to packaging only insofar as the design of and materials for packaging are intended to deceive the consumer. Obviously, this is difficult to accomplish in clear glass packaging or in any but totally opaque glass containers. But it can be done through varied shapings of the container, if the intent to deceive is present. 48-222-65 - 48 Is this problem not one of enforcement of existing legislation and regulation very similar to the manufacture and distribution of clothing following the discovery and utilization of synthetic fibers. It was sufficient to label the wool, cotton, or synthetic content of the clothing rather than standardize the designs of men's suits or women's dresses. * An equally abhorrent result would follow from regulation of "packages of sizes, shapes, or dimension proportions which may deceive retail purchasers as to the net quantity of the contents thereof. * *" Lost would be the creative genius now being displayed in glass packaging without intent to deceive but with full intent to beautify and to utilize a versatile material to its best advantage. Many homes in this country are lit by table lamps whose bases have been adapted from a beautifully designed glass container. Shelves of objets d'art contain empty vials and decanters having the appearance of fine cutglass. More important, the varied composition of foods now being concentrated in powders, liquids, shreds, and cubes dictate the shapes and sizes of their glass containers in order to achieve free flow, prevent wastage, and provide easy access to the commodity. Safe and utilitarian packaging of these nutritional developments are the concern of glass container designer and their economy in filling of concern to the packer and the consumer. Surely a stultification of industrial ingenuity and marketing diversification is not a purpose of S. 387. Yet the above-mentioned sections of the legislation would hamper if not eliminate the efforts now in progress toward full utilization of the desirable characteristics of glass as a packaging material. Standardization would reduce employment among members of our union employed as glass mold makers and their craft, often passed from generation to generation, could be lost. It is also my belief that the American glass industry would suffer greater unemployment as a result of encouragement of enterprise and technological advances abroad in the art of glassmaking and increase even further the imports which have been harmful to employment in the American glass industry. The handmade art and tableware industry has lost 50 percent of its employment opportunities since the end of World War II. To summarize, the fundamental error in these sections of S. 387 cited above is that they would establish unnecessary controls and regulations without implementing the necessary consumer protection contained in other sections of the bill. Establishment of "reasonable weights or quantities" and restriction of "sizes, shapes, or dimensional proportions" of containers would neither reduce nor eliminate the policing problem caused by dishonest packaging. The fault lies, not in the packaging, but rather in the claims made on the label regarding the contents. There presently exists sufficient regulatory authority to enforce observance of honesty in claims for contents of commodities packaged in glass. The technological nature of the moldmaking, molten glass pouring, and automatic finishing render it economically useless to attempt to gain an illicit profit from glass containers designed to deceive the consumer. The expense of such designs, their manufacture, packaging, and special closures would prohibit and additional profit in lessening the contents below the amounts claimed on the labels. For these reasons I respectfully submit that section 3(e) (1) and (2) are superfluous to the objective of the bill in relation to glass containers and that the conditions imposed by these sections would hamper the remarkable advances of the glass container industry and result in increased unemployment in the American portion of that worldwide industry. APPENDIX TO STATEMENT MADE BY GEORGE M. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, 2 YEARS AGO AT THE HEARING ON S. 387 (Before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 88th Cong., 1st sess., as it appears in pt. 2 of the printed record, pp. 759 through 761) The position of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union on bill S. 985 is essentially the same as it was on bill S. 387 which was before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 88th Congress, 1st session. |