Sincerely, HERMAN W. LAY, Chairman of the Board. CHESEBROUGH-POND'S, INC., Hon. W. G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Having carefully read the contents of S. 985 on which your committee will hold hearings shortly, we find ourselves strongly opposed to it. The bill, if enacted into law, could have a detrimental effect on our business individually as well as, we think, the American business system generally. While much of the first part of the bill merely restates existing law, either State or Federal, section 3(a)(5) introduces a novel prohibition which can fundamentally affect our company. This section enjoins any statement on a package that the product "is offered for retail sale at a price lower than the ordinary and customary retail sale price"-whether or not the statement is true. It is common practice in the food, cosmetics, and toiletries industries for a consumerproducts manufacturer to reduce his prices to the trade occasionally or temporarily and at the same time imprint on his packages an indication of the reduction in price the retailer will make to the consumer. Because the price reduction is printed on the package sold to the consumer, and because the dealer's customary profit margin is generally preserved, the retailer will virtually always pass such "cents" savings on to the consumer. We particularly urge rejection of section 3(a)(5) for the following reasons: 1. It is unreasonable to prohibit relevant nondeceptive statements in selling the consumer.-We believe that where manufacturers imprint a "cents off" legend on their packages the savings represented are passed on to the consumer. The consumer, accordingly, is in no way being confused-she thinks she is getting a certain price advantage, and she actually gets it. To condemn this as illegal seems to abandon logic in favor of whimsy. 2. It deprives the manufacturer of a useful sales approach.-Surveys show that women prefer the "cents off" type promotion over all others. A manufacturer using the promotion then benefits because new customers will try the product and because the increased sales volume generated compensates him for the lower price he charges. 3. It will deprive the consumer of actual cash savings.—It is apparent that no manufacturer will deliberately reduce his prices to the trade on an item which is meeting otherwise satisfactory sales acceptance unless this price cut can be promoted at point of sale. Consumers' savings formerly created by manufac turers' price reductions will disappear if this bill becomes law. 4. Popular consumer attractions like combination offers and premiums will be prohibited. The statute certainly is broad enough to cover combination sales such as shaving cream with razor blades or hand cream with cold cream. These are generally offered at a price reduction and commonsense dictates that the consumer be made aware of this. To prohibit advising the consumer of the saving is in effect to prohibit the combination sale, since the manufacturer's incentive has been destroyed. The effect of this bill on premiums is less clear but potentially of much wider import. 5. It discriminates against the small chain and independent store. The sec tion permits a retailer with a private-label product to engage in the practices otherwise forbidden to manufacturers. Smaller drug and grocery units cannot afford private brands, and must rely on manufacturers for their products. The second part of the bill (sec. 3(c)) also seriously affects our company since it could permit rigid restrictions on package design. Section 3(c) (1) in particular could greatly increase our costs without any commensurate tangible benefit to the consumer. This section would permit the Government to stipulate the net weight of a package designed for sale to the consumer. The stated purpose is to do away with "odd" fractions of ounces which make it difficult for consumers to compare competing products on a cost-per-ounce basis. Even assuming there is a tiny percentage of women who buy cosmetics and toiletries on a basis of comparative price per ounce, the convenience provided them would be more than outweighed by the overall increase in cost arising from necessary introduction of new jars, bottles, etc. At the present time, Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc., markets a moderately priced line of creams for cosmetic purposes. Included are cold cream, vanishing cream, dry skin cream, moisture base, and hand cream. Each category shares at least one jar with another category, and three jars are shared by three categories. Nevertheless, because of the different density of each product, net content is different in each case. For example, the jar used in our medium size Pond's vanishing cream contains exactly 4 ounces; the same jar used for cold cream has 3.5 ounces; yet for Pond's moisture base, it holds 4.1 ounces. To require us to change to three different jars just to make ounces come out even strikes us as absurd, when it is recognized that the hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional costs would have to be passed on to the consumers the bill is intended to benefit. In conclusion, we believe the committee should consider the extent to which it will be delegating legislative power under this bill and the scope of the bill's potential interference with the free competitive market. A significant percentage of the country's gross national product would be covered (everything from toothpicks to refrigerators); many of the most important facets of marketing would come under absolute control (packaging, labeling, and promotional activity); and all this would be carried out on what could be an utterly arbitrary basis. The bill provides that agency regulations should be written in the interests of facilitating rational comparison by consumers a somewhat elusive concept. We strongly urge you therefore not to report this bill from your committee. We would appreciate your entering this letter in the minutes of your hearings. Very truly yours, JEROME A. STRAKA, President. NATIONAL FROZEN FOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., New York, N.Y., June 3, 1965. CLERK OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We respectfully request that you incorporate as a part of the record of public hearings concerning S. 985 the attached resolution adopted at the recent meeting of the board of directors of the National Frozen Food Association, individually assembled from 25 States, and acting in behalf of their 1,200 member companies and their more than 100 million consumers who would be ill-served by poorly conceived, straitjacketing legislation that would block the advance of this progressive industry. Sincerely yours, A RESOLUTION HARRY K. SCHAUFFLER. Whereas the board of directors of the National Frozen Food Association in meeting assembled at Colorado Springs, Colo., May 21, 1965, is greatly perturbed and genuinely disturbed about the antibusiness provisions of S. 985 now pending in the Senate of the United States; and Whereas this bill is euphemistically cited as the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act" instead of "an act to straitjacket, retard and restrict American business from exercising intelligent ingenuity and originality in presenting food products to the consuming public in attractive, appealing, and various sized packages"; and Whereas the said S. 985 would adversely affect the sale of all packaged food products including frozen foods; and Whereas S. 985 would relegate all American business into a pattern of conformity and uniformity; would provide bureaucratic governmental control of all package merchandising and advertising; would destroy initiative, free enterprise, and the right of the producer, packer, and processor to experiment with new techniques, new methods, new packaging, and new and improved presentation of foods to the American housewife unless there were long drawn-out, involved, complex, and expensive governmental bureaucratic hearings; and Whereas the directors of the National Frozen Food Association resent and condemn the assumption that all American businessmen engaged in the food packaging industry are dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent; and Whereas the directors of the National Frozen Food Association resent and condemn the assumption that the consuming public of America, including American housewives, are ignorant, uneducated, gullible, and incompetent to determine for themselves what packaged foods they should or should not purchase; and Whereas the directors of the National Frozen Food Association resent and condemn the assumption that governmental functionaries, agents, and employees should undertake to substitute their judgment for the judgment of successful packers, processors, and manufacturers of food products when in truth and in fact American business has made Americans the best fed, the best nourished, the highest standard of living people in the entire world: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Congress be urged to defeat S. 985 as being impractical, unworkable, and contrary to the spirit of free enterprise and individual initiative which has always proceeded on the proposition that a citizen has the right to experiment and devise new and better methods of packaging and presenting food products to the American consuming public; be it further Resolved, That the board of directors of the National Frozen Food Association express its conviction that only proper packaging and labeling as practiced by legitimate American business makes repeat business and insures business success, and there is no necessity for the Government to interfere in this field of endeavor; Resolved, further, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the clerk of the Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate with the request that it be made a part of the records of public hearings concerning S. 985; that copies be provided to other trade associations concerned with the frozen food business generally; and that each member of the National Frozen Food Association be furnished a copy of this resolution with the request that he immediately contact his Senators and Congressmen expressing opposition to S. 895. W. F. STRAUB & Co., Chicago, Ill., April 20, 1965. Hon. W. G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I would like to testify at the hearings regarding Senate bill 985, the so-called packaging and labeling bill. Unfortunately, I will be unable to do so during the month of May, which may make it impossible for me to testify. However, if the hearings continue into the month of June I would like to be heard and would speak as the head of a small manufacturing concern. Actually, this bill would have little, or no, direct effect on our company's operations in the near future. I am concerned, however, at the power "to make and write recipes" which is involved in this legislation. Our principal product is honey, which is a heavy liquid. It is not too much heavier than sirup which is measured in fluid ounces. Is honey then to be sold by the fluid ounce or, as by custom, continue to be sold by the pound. A few years ago, Mr. Chairman, we went through extensive hearings at the Food and Drug Administration when standards of identity were established for prune juice. The Administration was not going to allow us to include a small amount of honey in the juice as an additive (a natural food) but still would allow the attition of chemical citric acid. The basis at that time was that "they did not feel there was a need for it." It cost us a great deal of money to prove otherwise. It caused the Food and Drug Administration serious embarrassment because they conducted a biased investigation. This bill would involve this kind of partiality where Mr. Big will continue to push Mr. Small around. It is this problem I would most like to speak of. Sincerely, JOHN W. STRAUB, President. SIBERIAN FISH PRODUCTS CO.. Seattle, Wash., April 19, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SIR: We as a small manufacturer in your State, have been increasingly concerned with the implications of the proposed Hart packaging and labeling bill, S. 985-not only as it could affect our small business but in consideration of all manufacturers and canners in our country. By and large our canners and food manufacturers represent dedicated men and women who are vitally interested in giving the public top grade products at the most reasonable prices. Competition under our free enterprise system compels these conditions. Every producer of food products must basically be concerned with quality of product if he is to enjoy continuous sale of his product in today's marketplace. To assure this we have voluntarily formed National Canners Associations and other associations to assure the ultimate in sanitation, in fill of cans, etc., and in careful examination and testing of the product before it is offered to the public. Under the Pure Food and Drug Administration we already have ample safeguards in inspection and standards of quality and packaging. Our canneries have limited themselves in the variety of sizes of cans and other containers specifically to turn out their products at the most economical cost. Any change in these specifications in order to control the headspace, etc., only would lead to vastly increased costs of production and certainly greater retail cost to the consumer. Today's housewife is no fool. She is discerning in her shopping. In today's well-lighted, carefully arranged stores she has every opportunity to read labels, to judge values, and to use discrimination in her unhurried shopping. She should be left to judge brand, size, and contents. No one knows better than the canner of this ultimate judge of his products and basically all production is geared to giving this lady the product she wants in an attractive package, economically priced. We do not want passage of the Hart bill. We feel it is unnecessary, and in fact harmful. We hope you will work against it for the sake of our producers of food products across the country. Sincerely, G. K. DAVIS. COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: On behalf of the more than 385,000 members of the Communications Workers of America and their families who, together, make up a significant portion of the American consumer group, I want to make another plea for the enactment of the "truth in packaging bill," S. 985. With all the emphasis at my command, I most respectfully urge you and the members of your committee, as you prepare to open hearings of this bill, to act expeditiously and favorably in reporting it out for final passage by the Senate without any crippling or weakening amendments. The only argument against the bill that I have heard is that it is not needed and the present law is adequate. There has been no documentation in support of this argument, only a great volume of self-serving statements from those who want to go their merry unrestricted way playing the great national con game with the consuming public as its victim. As you may know, on April 24, 1963, I appeared before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly Legislation of the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO and my own union in support of S. 387, a very similar bill. In addition to the testimony I offered at that time, there were a number of others, including representatives of the Kennedy administration, who testified in favor of the bill and buttressed their testimony with a great amount of documentation. I will not repeat here even a brief summary of the great number of reasons why the Congress should adopt the bill in the interest of the welfare of the people. The record of those previous hearings is available to you and your committee and I am sure they will be reviewed. One very simple point comes to my mind which I think should be kept in mind by your committee as it proceeds with its work. One expert has estimated that S. 985 could save the average family $250 a year. This is comparable to a 10-cents-an-hour raise. We accept this estimate and we want the protection that will come from the adoption of S. 985. The fact that S. 387 was not adopted in 1963 has cost CWA families $250 each year since then and it has cost all other American families an equal amount. 48-222-65--52 And that kind of money "ain't hay" in any worker's family. It is quite obvious that the present law does not "adequately" protect consumers since the same practices we complained about in 1963 still exist today. This fact has been most dramatically and convincingly demonstrated by Assistant Secretary of Labor Esther Peterson in her capacity as Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, as she has gone about her work on behalf of President Johnson. Under the present law, even if its provisions were applied and carried out with the utmost vigor, it would require 10 to 15 years to bring about the corrections and establish the standards which Congress can establish simply and directly by passing this bill. To you, Senator, I say we do not want to wait 10 or 15 years for the protection and help truth-in-packaging promises. Therefore, I again, most respectfully, urge you to do all in your power to speed the enactment of this bill. Sincerely yours, J. A. BEIRNE, President. CARNATION CO., Los Angeles, Calif., March 22, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In 1963 Carnation Co. took the position that proposed Senate bill 387 would seriously curtail the orderly marketing and distribution of food products and the continued development of new and better foods and new and better packaging for such foods. We wish to take this opportunity to express our opinion that Senate bill 985, the so-called "truth in packaging" bill will, to the same degree as the provisions of Senate bill 387, likewise seriously disrupt and curtail the orderly marketing, packaging and development of food products to the final detriment of the consumer. Carnation Co. for over 60 years has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling food products for human consumption. We today manufacture dairy products such as, for example, evaporated milk, powdered dairy products and fresh milk and ice cream products, milled products such as pancake mix and corn meal mix, pet foods, tomato products, and frozen dessert products such as pies. All of these products are sold in interstate commerce, and substantially all of these products are sold throughout the United States and in many foreign countries. As a manufacturer of food products, Carnation Co. is a member of many trade associations such as the Evaporated Milk Association, the American Dry Milk Institute, the International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers, the Milk Industry Foundation, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., and others. S. 985, like the previous bill (S. 387), unnecessarily duplicates many provisions of the present Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations promulgated under the terms of this act provide to that Department all the tools needed for fully protecting the consumer against deception at the marketplace and against false and misleading packaging. For example, section 403 of this act clearly states that the label must contain an accurate statement of the quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count, provides for prominence of required information on the label, prohibits deceptive vignettes or label illustrations, specifically bans slack fill, and in clear and forceful language declares that any false or misleading labeling constitutes misbranding. A wealth of case law has been established interpreting this statutory and regulatory language. In addition to this Federal regulatory control, each of the States has somewhat corresponding laws and regulations which supplement the total control for the protection of the consumer. Within this broad framework the consumer is still exposed to substantial choice at the marketplace, and we as food manufacturers must openly and vigorously compete for her favor and, hopefully, for her choice. We do this on the basis of more attractive and convenient packaging in addition to increasingly more nutritious product for lower and lower costs. Proposed S. 985, in our opinion, will substitute governmental edict for the choice now freely exercised by the consumer. It will, for example, designate specified weights and quantities |