We strongly urge that you convey our position to members of the Senate Commerce Committee. Proponents of S. 985 should demonstrate wherein our present laws are inadequate to handle any deceptive problems. Very truly yours, H. O. NELSON, Division Manager. NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC., Washington, D.C., May 10, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Enclosed is a copy of the resolution passed by the members of the National Fisheries Insitute in opposition to S. 985. The members of the institute testified against this legislation when it was introduced in the 88th Congress. They are offering you this resolution to support their previous position. The membership requests this resolution be made a part of this hearing record. Very truly yours, F. P. LONGEWAY, JR., NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, APRIL 30-MAY 5, 1965, WASHINGTON, D.C. RESOLUTION NO. III-FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING ACT Whereas there has been introduced into the Senate of the United States S. 985, a bill to regulate interstate and foreign commerce by preventing the use of unfair or deceptive methods of packaging or labeling of certain consumer commodities distributed in such commerce, and for other purposes, otherwise known as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act; and Whereas this legislation will invoke upon the citizenry of the United States additional unnecessary Federal governmental controls; and Whereas this legislation would give Federal administrative agencies virtually unlimited powers to regulate the size, the shape, and the content of all packages, and to control the design of all labeling and to have a voice in the contents of said packages: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the membership of the National Fisheries Institute does unanimously petition the Congress of the United States that S. 985, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, be rejected by the Congress of the United States; and be it futher Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce. Accepted at board of directors meeting, May 5, 1965. F. P. LONGEWAY, JR., Executive Director, National Fisheries Institute. UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The enclosure is a statement which we would appreciate having entered into the record of hearing on S. 985, the Hart packaging and labeling bill, on which you are now taking public testimony. Rather than take the time of the committee in hearing to support the position of many, many other organizations which are testifying in opposition to the bill, we have decided to submit this statement in the hope you will make it a part of the record. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, BERNARD J. IMMING, Secretary. STATEMENT OF THE UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, BY BERNARD J. IMMING, SECRETARY The United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association, with headquarters in Washington, D.C., has some 2,700 member companies which represent all factors in the production and marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables, and which handle about 75 percent of all commercial marketings of these essential fresh foods. At its 61st annual meeting in Dallas, Tex., February 15, 1965, this Association unanimously adopted the following resolution: "A bill was recently introduced into the 89th Congress of the United States by Senator Philip Hart which is destined to become known again as the "truth in packaging" and labeling bill, but which has not been substantially amended from earlier unsuccessful efforts along similar lines. "So it is that the members of this association without qualification reaffirm their subscription to honesty in packaging and labeling, and in merchandising practices, but there is nothing in the new Hart bill which would protect the consumer any more effectively than do existing regulations. Instead, we believe that the impractical and unnecessary restrictions imposed by a Federal agency under the legislation would deprive the consumer of the substantial benefits of competitive, intelligent marketing techniques. "We urge the Congress of the United States to defeat the Hart bill, without reservation and qualification." The United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association is convinced that (1) there is no need for S. 389; (2) there is no real demand for S. 389; and (3) enactment of S. 389 would in fact be a disservice to the consumer. Existing laws and regulations are adequate to take care of any abusive packaging and labeling practices which may exist or which may develop. It is well known that the Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration have all the authority that is necessary to control misleading packaging and labeling and unfair or deceptive practices in commerce. Of course, many State laws deal with the same subject. It seems to us that much of the alleged "demand" for legislation of the kind under consideration is that of individuals rather than a genuine, widespread consumer demand. Generally, consumers seem to be satisfied with packaging and labeling, as reported in reliable studies by research organizations. Our study of consumer viewpoints expressed during the four consumer conferences conducted by Mrs. Esther Peterson, special assistant to the President for consumer affairs, shows few complaints about packaging and labeling, and no call for legislation. Finally, the enactment of S. 389 would stifle the competitive merchandising ingenuity and imagination which together with the integrity of American producers and suppliers has been in such large measure responsible for the amazing standard of living our Nation enjoys today. This is not to say that abuses may not occur from time to time; on the other hand, existing legislation and regulations are adequate to handle those abuses, if and when they occur. We respectfully urge the committee and the Congress to defeat this legislation because it is unnecessary, oppressive, and impractical. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ADVERTISERS, INC., New York N.Y., April 29, 1965. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Association of National Advertisers is a trade association composed of some 700 American companies which use advertising as an important part of their marketing efforts. We respectfully submit the following information to the Commerce Committee in the hope that our objections to S. 985 may be made a part of the record of the hearings on this bill. It is our conviction that S. 985, like its predecessor bill S. 387 which had extensive hearings before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, is not only an unnecessary bill but one which would be costly to producers of goods affected by it, costly to taxpayers, and costly to consumers. Section 3(b) of S. 985 proposes that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare issue regulations for food, drugs, and cosmetics and that the Federal Trade Commission issue regulations for any other consumer commodity. Both of these agencies have testified that they have ample power to deal with deception. This would seem to be sufficient reason to question the wisdom of this section of the bill. This is a great and questionable delegation of legislative power which is also contained in the following section 3 (c). Such an extraordinary delegation of discretionary power is without precedent. The regulations would be triggered not by considerations of health or public safety, but by the needs of "fair competition" between competing products. The logic of this escapes me and we can only conclude that Senator Hart's proposal is directed toward elimination of "confusion" in the marketplace. We have no evidence that such confusion exists beyond the personal opinions of a very few of the many witnesses who testified before the Judiciary Committee. S. 985 proposes to prevent (by standardization) the use of package sizes, shapes, or dimensional proportions which are likely to deceive consumers as to quantity. As you know, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act specifically outlaws containers which are misleading in form or fill. The Federal Trade Commission also has extensive power to prohibit any deceptive container practices. It seems both unreasonable and unduly restrictive to pile additional regulations on top of those which already exist and which have over the years proven themselves effective and in the best interests of both producer and consumer. The hearings on S. 387 showed clearly that there is no popular demand for additional legislation in the consumer area. The series of consumer conferences sponsored by the Federal Government and reported upon in detail by Mrs. Esther Peterson, special assistant to the President for consumer affairs, also showed clearly that consumers in general are well satisfied with the wide choice and the high quality of package goods which they purchase daily in the marketplace. One of the most valuable research efforts to determine consumer preferences is "Women Shoppers' Opinions of Special Offers", a survey conducted for ANA by Alfred Politz Research, Inc., in 1963. The techniques employed by the Politz organization in arriving at these results are the ones used by the Federal Government, including the Bureau of the Census, the Department of Interior, and the Internal Revenue Service, all of which have employed the Politz organization. The results of that survey showed that women shoppers overwhelmingly prefer cents off to any other type of promotion device. In response to questions, the replies were: Percent 80.3 57.2 42.3 6.6 90.7 84.9 83.9 17.8 Women shoppers were asked whether or not Congress should pass a law prohibiting cents off promotions. Their opinions were: A copy of the survey together with the explanatory testimony of Mr. Jerome Greene, of the Politz organization, is attached herewith. We have taken the liberty of sending copies of this survey to all members of the Commerce Committee in the hope that it might be of some value to them. Without belaboring the point, it must be clear that this study and the other studies undertaken by individual manufacturers, by magazines, and other associations overwhelmingly support our position that S. 985 would serve no useful purpose. On the contrary, there is voluminous testimony in the record that the bill will tend to increase rather than decrease the prices of many commonly produced consumer items. Earlier hearings brought out that rigid enforcement of the proposed regulations governing package sizes and shapes will require heavier investment and raise the prices of many items at the retail level. It would deny a careful and thrifty housewife the advantage of cents-off promotion, and as we have seen, this is the one type of promotion which such women shoppers prefer. To summarize, the ANA believes that S. 985, despite the evident good intentions of its sponsors, would be an unnecessary law since there is little if any evidence of the widespread abuses which it proposes to check, and where there are such abuses, Federal and State laws are already broad enough to deal with them. The proposed law would be costly to the consumer, costly to the producer, and costly to the Federal Government. For these reasons we respectfully request that the Senate Commerce Committee withhold its approval of the proposed legislation. Very sincerely, PETER W. ALLPORT. WOMEN SHOPPERS' OPINIONS OF SPECIAL OFFERS A survey conducted for Association of National Advertisers, Inc., by Alfred Politz Research, Inc., in March 1963 Purpose INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to determine women shoppers' preferences among four kinds of special sales offers which manufacturers sometimes make, and women shoppers' opinions as to whether Congress should pass a law making one kind of sales offer illegal. Population studied The population studied by this survey is women living in private households in the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) who do most of the grocery shopping for their households. There are estimated to be about 56 million1 total private households in the United States, of which about 52 million contain 1 woman who is principal grocery shopper. The findings of this study are intended to represent these 52 million U.S. women who are the principal shoppers for their households, within margins for sampling variation which are reported herein. Sample size and selection A total of 1,402 personal interviews were completed with an area-type probability sample of the defined population. The sample was selected in this way: Within the 48 States, "primary sampling units" were defined as metropolitan areas and as nonmetropolitan counties. Sixty-five such units were selected with known prabability. Within each selected primary sampling unit, "locations" were defined as blocks demarcated by streets, in the case of cities and towns; and as small land areas clearly demarcated by roads and other civil and natural terrain features, in the case of open country. A total of 140 locations was selected with known probability. Within each selected location, "segments" were defined as small groups of consecutive dwelling units, of a size such that one interviewer could usually canvass one segment in one visit. One segment was selected with known probability within each location, for a total of 140 segments. Within each selected segment, all occupied dwelling units or "households” were selected, with probability equal to one (certainty). Every selected household was visited for interview, and a record kept of the results of household calls. A summary "Record of Field Calls" is included in the appendix to this report. All interview visits were made in the evening, to include daytimeemployed women shoppers in the sample. At each household wherein someone was found home and cooperative, it was 1 Estimated as 55,850,000 from Bureau of the Census data. 2 Estimated as roughly 51,630,000 by this survey, as subsequently explained. first established whether there was any woman member of the household who did most of the grocery shopping. If no such person existed, the household was skipped because it did not contribute to the population under study. A total of 93.7 percent of households wherein someone was home and cooperated were found to contain a principal woman shopper. This percentage was projected against the estimated 55,850,000 total U.S. households, to estimate the total number of woman shoppers as roughly 51,630,000. The interview questions were always addressed individually to the particular woman who was the principal grocery shopper. If she could not be interviewed, no one was interviewed in her place-substitutions were not permitted. Interview refusals were minimized by making a second call the same evening on people who were temporarily too busy at the first call to grant the interview (cooking, dining, telephoning, entertaining, etc.). We discuss subsequently (see "Estimating Procedure") the steps taken to represent women shoppers who did not happen to be home when called on, or who permanently refused the interview. Interviewing Seventy-four interviewers worked on this study, each an experienced member of our field force who has done good work for our firm on prior surveys. A printed questionnaire form was used for every interview, to assure standard wording of the questions asked, and standard recording of the answers given. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the appendix to this report. Each interviewer received a printed set of interviewer instructions explaining all phases of his assigned work. The 1,402 interviews were completed between March 2 and 6, 1963. Coding of answers The recorded answers from each interview were numerically coded and punched into standard business machine punchcards. Several survey questions asked the shopper to give her reasons for holding a certain opinion. These reasons were recorded verbatim by the interviewer, and later numerically coded into appropriate categories. A set of code sheets is included in the appendix, showing the kinds of individual answer included in each reported category. Estimating procedure After transferring the answers from each interview to a separate punchcard, the card for each interview received an individual tabulating weight according to the respondent's probability of being selected for the sample. For example, respondents with half the average probability of selection received twice the average tabulating weight, since the proportion of such respondents in the sample (before weighting) was half their proportion in the population. Such weighting is an integral part of probability sampling theory and practice, and depends only and entirely on respondents' known probabilities of being selected for the sample. Each respondent's probability of selection depended, first of all, on the probability of selecting the respondent's household, which is known as a consequence of the sampling methods previously outlined. Weighting each respondent according to this probability represents principal women shoppers whose households were not in the sample. In addition, each respondent's probability of selection depended on her probability of being home in the evening when our interviewer called. This probability was estimated at the end of each interview by questioning the respondent about her past at-home frequency in the evening. Weighting each respondent according to this probability represents principal women shoppers who were not home at the times our interviewers called on their households,3 Adjustment for principal women shoppers who refused the interview was made by assuming that a noncooperating shopper in a particular sample segment would have answered similarly to the average shopper interviewed in the same segment. After sample weighting, all tabulations were performed on standard business machines. For a full technical explanation of this procedure, see "An Attempt to Get 'Not at Homes' Into the sample Without Callbacks." by Alfred Politiz and Willard Simmons, Journal of the American Statistical Association, March 1949, vol. 44, pp. 9-31. Since 1949, this procedure has been endorsed by leading statisticians and frequently used on major market surveys done by many firms. |