INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, Senator WARREN MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Commission, Harrisburg, Pa., May 26, 1965. DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of some 6,000 female International Ladies' Garment Workers in the central Pennsylvania district, I urge you to support the "truth in packaging" bill as a guide to better and more honest advertising and as an aid to the average housewife in their everyday shoping. I would also request that this statement be recorded in the hearing records if at all possible. Thanking you for your interest and hopeful support, I remain, Sincerely, EDWARD MILANO, District Manager. NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The courtesy of the committee in hearing me on Wednesday, May 17, in behalf of the National Confectioners Association in opposition to S. 985, known as the Hart packaging bill, is very much appreciated. In connection with my testimony, several questions were raised and comments made to which I would like to make reference in this communication, which I shall appreciate your receiving as a supplementary statement and having printed in the record of the hearings. I. Inquiry was made by Senator Pearson as to the share of the market of the various types of confectionery items. He inquired specifically what percentage of industry sales consisted of bar goods and packaged goods. Attached here to is an exhibit which contains this information. II. Senator Bass requested an elaboration of my statement that in the candy business the industry had found it much more satisfactory in many cases to adjust the package size rather than to change the price, and I pointed out that this would not be feasible in the event there should be standardization of package sizes. Except for penny goods, commodities sold for 25 cents a unit or less most frequently are sold at retail for prices which are multiples of 5 cents; that is, 5 cents, 10 cents, 15 cents, and 25 cents. This is vital in the case of vending machines. Candy is an impulse item and the consumer has made it clear that there is a distinct preference to buy confectionery at these price levels. Although from time to time one may observe candy being sold at 6 cents, 12 cents, and some other odd amounts, such is not the practice generally, and the consumer has a strong tendency to resist buying at these odd prices. In the case of packaged goods sold in the food store, there is also a definite consumer price preference. In the food store the odd cents price has proven to be popular instead of unpopular. Therefore, packages selling at 29 cents, 39 cents, 49 cents, and 59 cents gain much better public acceptance than packages selling at other prices. Therefore, manufacturers have a strong tendency to package candies in sizes which will result in such retail prices. In the case of package goods costing more than $1, the experience of manufacturers varies. Some manufacturers seem to like to price this type of packaged goods at multiples of 5 cents, whereas others seem to prefer the odd prices. In any event, with the weight and contents properly designated on the label, we contend that this is a decision which properly should be made by each individual manufacturer. III. In reference to my statement that it would be possible to rule off the market the popular confectionery item Life Savers since it has a hole in the middle, in the event a regulation should be adopted regarding dimensional proportions which would require all confectionery items to be solid, the statement was advanced in behalf of Senator Hart that the 2-ounce exemption had been inserted so that this result in the case of Life Savers would be avoided. To this statement submitted in behalf of Senator Hart I would like to respectfully inquire, what about confectionery products which weigh more than 2 ounces and are not solid? There are a number of such products, for example, hollow Easter bunnies, labeled as such; hollow Santa Clauses, and other novelties. If S. 985 had been law and the powers used, undoubtedly the American consumer would not have many of the fine and wonderful products which are distributed widely and generally agreed to be valuable to the consumer. IV. Senator Pearson made the comment that in his part of the country confectionery was not generally thought to be an important factor in connection with agriculture. Except for sugarbeet production, this is generally correct in Kansas. However, I would like to point out the importance of confec tionery to national and international agriculture. We use about 10 percent of all the sugar consumed in the United States, about two-thirds of the almonds, about 20 percent of the peanuts, huge quantities of dairy products, fruits, and nuts. We use tremendous quantities of foreign-produced agricultural commodities thus contributing to international trade. These include, in addition to sugar, cocoa beans, vanilla beans, and coconut, various tree nuts, and fruits. V. At the hearing Senator Bass handed to me a package of candy peanut clusters which appeared to be improperly filled and made several comments about the package. There are some important aspects of the package which were not apparent at the hearing. First, following the hearing we requested the staff to weigh the package. From this weighing it was apparent that a significant amount of the contents had been removed. We arranged to have several packages acquired locally, and I understand that your staff did likewise, which made it clear that the package presented at the hearing was not a package in the manner sold by the manufacturer, as result of which the confectionery industry received unfair attribution. Packages of that particular manufacturer are widely sold in the Washington area and are properly filled. Please let me assure you that the confectionery industry as a unit strongly opposes improper packaging and will cooperate fully with your committee and the Food and Drug Administration to eliminate any such practices which may exist. I would like to restate the point I made at the hearing regarding improper packaging. Existing law is fully adequate to deal with the matter and if the package which was presented at the hearing, in fact, had been as it appeared to be at that time, there is no question but that the Food and Drug Administration could have proceeded successfully against that package in accordance with section 403 (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which provides that: "A food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading." Respectively submitted. S. BURR SIFERS, Vice President. Major products of the manufacturing confectionery industry—1963 sales Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, INSTITUTE OF SHORTENING & EDIBLE OILS, INC., Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This letter is submitted to set forth the views of the Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils, Inc., with regard to S. 985, the socalled Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. We respectfully request that this letter be incorporated as a part of the record of the hearings that have been held on this measure. The Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils, Inc., is a corporation with its principal office at 815 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. It does not engage in trade for profit but was formed to promote the interests of the shortening and edible oils industry to the extent that they are compatible with the public welfare. The institute's members, a list of which is attached, produce about 90 percent of the total edible fats and oils production of the United States. The industry's products are marketed both in bulk packages for use by food processors and in consumer packages for grocery sale. The institute and its members are strongly opposed to the enactment of S. 985, or any similar legislation that would impose additional and unneeded controls on the packaging and labeling of shortening and edible oils and other consumer commodities. We believe that existing Federal and State law is more than adequate to control such abuses as may occur in the packaging and labeling of consumer products, whether intentional or inadvertent. We believe, further, that the proponents of this measure have misconstrued the views of the American consumer, and that there is, in fact, no feeling on the part of the average housewife that she is being taken advantage of, victimized, or deceived by the manufacturers and distributors of grocery products. Our objections to this legislation are essentially the same as those presented by the many industry witnesses who have testified before this committee. These repeated statements demonstrate that manufacturers of consumer products in this country do not accept the thesis that there is chaos in the marketplace that must be corrected by comprehensive Government regulatory controls. We are confident that this committee-and the Federal officials who have spoken out in support of S. 985-have noted the universal opposition to this bill expressed in the testimony of the executive officers of many of this country's leading grocery product companies, and by trade association spokesmen who represent virtually every aspect of consumer product manufacturing and distribution. This testimony by these industry leaders belies the charge made by some proponents that only the marginal or questionable operator need fear the controls that would be authorized by S. 985. Industry witnesses before the committee have repeatedly endorsed the desirability of effective enforcement of Federal and State prohibitions against deceptive packaging and labeling practices. None have questioned the necessity for vigorous enforcement of existing laws by the Federal Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. What these witnesses have said, and what we would like to emphasize, is that where this bill duplicates existing law it is totally unnecessary, and where it goes beyond existing law, by authorizing arbitrary controls and by prohibiting practices without regard to deception, it is wholly unwarranted and indeed destructive of many of the benefits now enjoyed by American consumers. There appears no need for a provision-by-provision review of our objections to S. 985. As previously stated, some sections would do no more than duplicate the protection that now exists, and would thus have no impact upon industry and provide no benefits to consumers. As food processors, the members of our industry have no objection, for example, to the requirement that the net contents be stated on the principal display panel, or that a reasonable type-size scale be adopted for such statements, or that deceptive label illustrations be prohibited. Although the absolute prohibition of all qualifying words or phrases to the net contents statement seems totally unnecessary to prevent deception, such a prohibition is without practical consequence to producers of shortening and salad oil. As citizens, however, we are reluctant to see the Congress of the United States spend its time in enacting legislative tautologies that merely duplicate existing law. Certainly there are more pressing matters to occupy the time of this committee and of Congress. But the primary basis for our opposition to S. 985 is not that some of the sections restate existing law, but that other provisions of the bill go far beyond the prohibition of deceptive packages and labels. The bill would introduce an entirely new concept of Government control, under which Federal agencies would be authorized to specify details of packaging and labeling without regard to whether such regulation is necessary to prevent deception of the consumer. Comprehensive packaging controls, atuhorized in sections 3(c) (1) and (2), could be imposed upon any consumer commodity solely on the basis of a finding that such controls will enable consumers to make comparisons of competing products. There can be no doubt that this unprecedented authority would take the basic responsibility for package design out of the hands of the manufacturer. No longer would consumers be able to choose for themselves which packages they liked for reasons of convenience, price, appearance, or utility. These manufacturer and consumer decisions would be made by Federal officials, in the light of their own predilections, as to what consumers want, or should have. The potential cost of these packaging controls to industry and consumers has been well documented by a number of witnesses. And by the close of the hearings no proponent of S. 985 had come up with an explanation as to how such comprehensive regulation would benefit consumers. The legal case for these controls appears to be based almost solely on the fact that in an isolated lawsuit a Government agency was unable to convince a Federal court that a particular candy package was misleading to consumers. The proponents apparently believe that there should in the future be no such judicial check on the decisions of the enforcement agencies. It is somewhat difficult to comment on the section of the bill that would prohibit cents-off promotions, because there have been several different versions endorsed by various proponents of S. 985. The bill as written would ban all such promotions, thereby denying to consumers significant savings on their purchases of grocery products. A number of Government witnesses proposed that this prohibition be made discretionary, rather than compulsory. We must admit that we do not understand what is intended by this proposal. Would it mean that the enforcement agencies could, if they wished, prohibit cents-off promotions for all commodities for just some selected commodities, for the products of one or more companies when a manufacturer failed to reduce his invoice price by an equivalent amount, or when a distributor failed to pass along the saying? Whatever is intended, it seems to us that the proposal does not make that intent clear. In our view, this effort to save the cents-off provision by proposing a hopelessly vague amendment typifies the fact that no amount of patchwork can justify enactment of a bill that is ill-conceived, totally unnecessary, poorly drafted, and inconsistent with the degree of marketing freedom that has proven itself in the consumer interest. We respectfully request that this committee recommend against the enactment of S. 985. Respectfully submitted. JESSIE L. KRINER, Secretary. MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE OF SHORTENING & EDIBLE OILS, INC. Anderson, Clayton & Co., Foods Division, Post Office Box 35, Dallas, Tex., 75221. Armour & Co., Post Office Box 9222, Chicago, Ill., 60690. Capital City Products Co., Division of Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., Post Office Box 569, Columbus, Ohio, 43216. Durkee Famous Foods Division of the Glidden Co., 2333 Logan Boulevard. Chicago, Ill., 60647. Hum Ko Products, Division of National Dairy Products Corp., Post Office Box 398. Memphis, Tenn., 38101. Hunt-Wesson Foods, a division of Hunt Foods & Industries, Inc., 1747 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, Calif., 92634. Lever Bros. Co., 390 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10022. Planters Peanuts, a division of Standard Brands, Inc., Post Office Box 1460-90, Suffolk, Va., 23434. |