The Procter & Gamble Co., Post Office Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45201. C. F. Simonin's Sons, Inc., Tioga and Belgrade Streets, Philadelphia, Pa., 19134. Swift & Co., 115 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Ill., 60604. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES, Hon. WARREN G. Magnuson, Washington, D.C., May 21, 1965. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: On behalf of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, a nationwide federation of farmer business associations for marketing of agricultural commodities or purchasing of farm supplies, I am presenting our views on S. 985, the Hart packaging bill now being considered by the Senate Commerce Committee. Many of our member organizations have a direct and vital interest in the provisions of this bill as it affects their processing operations and thereby the welfare of their farmer patrons. We are of the opinion that our views in this matter are also consistent with the best long-range interests of the consuming public. The council is opposed to this proposed legislation as a serious obstacle to the business community's need to improve efficiency and service to consumers through orderly and competitive means which would be disrupted by excessive governmental administrative power. The current policy of the national council in this matter is stated in the following resolution: "Modern merchandising methods.-Changing social customs, rising real incomes, and new eating and living habits create a need and desire for new consumer products and services. The maintenance of a dynamic economy requires maximum freedom of opportunity for business firms to create, introduce, and merchandise these products and services, including appropriate research, testing, packaging, advertising, and pricing. Such modern merchandising should seek to inform as well as to persuade consumers and should be consistent with existing laws requiring safety and accurate labeling as to contents of packages and use by consumers. "The existence of numerous closely related products for sale at retail requires more care and intelligence by consumers than was necessary earlier. We strongly support industry testing and reporting on new products and dissemination of information which will help consumers be more skillful buyers. Legislation will not protect buyers from gullibility or carelessness. Intelligent buyers and consumers of food products are adequately protected by frequency of shopping, by easy availability of dozens or even hundreds of closely competing products, by the abundant production of farm products, by availability and use of Federal or State grades, and by intensive competition among retailers and among manufacturers for sales and profits." We endorse the principle of adequate, honest information for consumers, but we do not believe the long-range benefits to consumers through progressive, innovative packaging developments should be risked because of the limited amount of abuses which truly mislead consumers. The extent of these abuses has frequently been exaggerated; it is difficult to place credibility, for example, in some of S. 985's proponents' arguments that such practices as the "giant half pint" approach to labeling, "camouflaged" bottle bottoms, or even "slack filled" packages would cause serious problems in comparison shopping for discriminating consumers. No amount of government regulation, of course, can prevent confusion on the part of that minority of consumers who have careless buying habits. It is our belief also that abuses in this field are to a great extent corrected by consumer pressures. A seriously malfunctioning or misleading package usually leads to reduced sales of a product. When this fails, legal recourse is already available when it can be shown that a clearly deceptive abuse exists. The risk of long-range disadvantage to consumers is serious under proposals of S. 985 which would greatly restrict processors' opportunities to invest in well-tested package improvements or to enhance values of a quality brand product through individualized, imaginative packaging and labeling which assists shoppers in quickly locating a favored brand. Even more critical barriers to innovation would be raised by advance clearance procedures which have been proposed by some who favor this legislation. Manufacturers would be most reluctant to invest thousands or even millions of dollars in new product research if their competitors might share in its benefits immediately through inadvertent, even unintentional, leaks which could occur even with strong efforts toward security in these preclearance procedures by administrative agencies. Another strong danger to innovation in packaging is inherent in the proposed discretionary power to standardize package size by administrative fiat rather than by the traditional economic interplay of complex management factors. Such involved technical considerations as packaging line efficiencies and engineering of packaging materials are extremely difficult to assess accurately, even by experts who live with these problems day to day. The practical problems involved in adopting even units of package weight or volume are great and added manufacturing costs involved in this particular kind of standardization would likely more than offset any benefits consumers might realize from this. In summary, we believe that manufacturers and the packaging industry have already done an outstanding job of assisting consumers in making rational decisions through quality comparisons made possible by brand name merchandising, by providing adequate information as to quantities, ingredients and use, by differentiation to speed up recognition on long, crowded shelves and by extensive packaging research to improve keeping quality, ease of storage and use, and other elements of attractiveness. "Clearly deceptive" abuses are few, as evidenced by the difficulty the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission have had in establishing evidence of this in selected cases. Finally, the added short-range costs of uneconomic, irrational standardization and long-range costs to consumers of restriction would more than offset any improvements made in the limited instances where abuses have existed. Further, costs of administering this program would be great, and problems in administering such a complex program in a manner equitable to all segments of the trade and the public would be almost overwhelming. We would appreciate it if this statement can be included as part of the record of hearings on S. 985. Sincerely yours, KENNETH D. NADEN. KANSAS HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION, April 30, 1965. Senator JAMES B. PEARSON, U.S. Senate, Washintgon, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PEARSON: We are delighted that you are in position to represent our consumers interest so well. Kansas is well served by your membership on the committee responsible for such an important legislative matter as the truth-in-packaging bill. We feel such legislation is needed. Our association, at its 1963 annual business meeting, recognized the deficiencies in package labeling and unanimously adopted a recommendation that Senator Hart be commended for his efforts to improve the packaging situation. Furthermore, it urged the American Home Economics Association to take a positive postion at its annual convention in June 1963. The resolution met with crosscurrents of conflicting interests which resulted in some delay. But I am pleased to report that as a result of full discussion and mail ballot, an overwhelming majority of the assembly of delegates voting favored the resolution. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution as adopted by the American Home Economics Association. The Kansas Home Economics Association has continued its interest in packaging and incorporated into its 1964 four-point consumer legislative program the following statement: "Packaging.-Comparison shopping for packaged goods is frustrating for anyone who has searched package labels for net contents and useful information, and then tried to figure the price per ounce. Oversized packages are expensive and deceptive. The association commends Senator Hart for his leadership in promoting truth-in-packaging." Our four-point legislative program was submitted to the candidates for the office of Governor, and I am pleased to transmit the reactions of two leaders: The attorney general, Hon. William M. Ferguson, said: "Packaging-I would support truth-in-packaging legislation. I fully understand the situation as it exists today and although I have done what I could, the law of Kansas is not sufficiently developed in this area to be effective. I feel that legislation regulating methods of packaging and merchandising is long overdue. I trust that these comments will be of some assistance to you and your organization." William H. Avery concurred with our objectives, but said he was not prepared to concur with the suggested procedures. "We have not had an opportunity to study S. 985 and are not in position to endorse any specific bill. However, you may be sure of two things. First, we want an effective thrust in the direction of improved labeling of consumer goods and do not consider existing conditions to be adequate. Second, we respect your legislative talents and ability, and expect that you shall gain from the hearings such information as may prove helpful to improve the bill so it is both a practical and effective bill; one which can be administered economically and effectively. Sincerely yours, Senator JAMES B. PEARSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. RICHARD L. MORSE, President-Elect, and Chairman of the Legislative Committee. MANHATTAN, KANS., April 30, 1965. DEAR SENATOR PEARSON: I have read the report of the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly on the truth-in-packaging bill and have noted two conflicting claims made to refute the need for more Federal legislation in the area. On page 58 Federal agencies are characterized as having such a thirst for power that "their thrust is to extend their powers to the furtherest reach." Yet, on page 74, Mr. Dixon is quoted to the effect that the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission have not enforced existing statutes to the fullest, implying that no new legislation is needed; only more vigorous and imaginative enforcement of existing statutes is needed. Both of these cannot be true, and I trust you will find out which of these two statements is correct. I would hope, for example, that you would inquire of the Federal Trade Commission what the cost would be of achieving through effective enforcement of its present statutes a level of uniformity in disclosure contemplated by effective enforcement of the mandatory provisions of section 3(a). That is, what might it cost to achieve the level of uniformity in disclosure on market consumer products under existing FTC and FDA legislation as could be achieved under section 3 (a) of S. 985? Or, put another way, would not passage of S. 985 result in accomplishment of the objectives of existing legislation at less cost to the taxpayer and with less delay? There is another cost I wish you would consider as you hear the testimony of experts: This is the cost of the disappointed consumer, who either internalizes her disappointment and remains quiet, or, if she has the power and capacity to rebel, increases the cost of merchandising with returned merchandise and letters of complaint. A labeling problem which brought disappointment to my family and which we did not "charge" back to the retailer or the marketing system is represented in the two slides: one shows my daughter in a sleeveless blouse to which is affixed the label that was visible to my wife when she purchased the blouse. The other slide shows the package as purchased by my wife. You will note the blouse on the label has short sleeves yet the product was labeled "sleeveless." The words are correct; but the picture is wrong. It is the picture that caught my wife's eye. The package was sealed so my wife did not feel free to inspect the blouse. As I understand the bill, such a practice would be prohibited-at least it would have been under the former S. 387. Perhaps such a practice is not in violation of present law. If so, I am dismayed that the practice is allowed to exist. But I am not surprised, for I know of the tremendous cost involved in item-for-item case-by-case administration. Neither I nor the FTC have time or resources to rectify such careless or abusive trade practices under present legislation, so we paid the price of buying a blouse we would not have purchased had it been correctly labeled. With this blouse case in mind I hope you will review the bill to make sure that the words "in any material respect" and "likely to deceive" will not place the consumer in the position of having to engage in extensive legal procedures (sec. 3(a)(6)). These words add a needless burden, it seems to me. I prefer the wording under S. 387 for it would cost less to administer and be more effective. Until the Congress is willing to give the FTC temporary injunctive power, the balance of power lies with the violator who can use delaying tactics until his investment in the deceptive practice is maximized. Justice then is allowed to step in to "correct" what then has become a noneffective practice. The violator has long ceased before the cease-and-desist order is issued. Two years ago a merchant called to my attention another case of deceptive labeling that he felt unjust. Although he sold the product, the samples from which he made his selections at wholesale were not labeled, so he was not aware of the problem until he stocked the item at retail. Both of us were dismayed when we learned from the FTC that we would need to prove that a significant number of consumers were actually deceived by this labeling. I close with a plea for Federal legislation on two grounds: First, people and goods travel in interstate commerce; national standards are appropriate. Secondly, adequate State legislation is encumbered by the pressure to conform to the practices of the other States. For example, Kansas is considering regulation of the minimum height of numbers and letters on packages of commodities. The minimum proposed is one-sixteenth inch. Some of the elderly consider this too small and are urging one-fourth inch. Despite sympathy their need for the more legible type size, the overwhelming fear is that such a regulation would place Kansas out of step with the other States and jeopardize interstate commerce. Thank you for giving this bill your most careful attention. I hope you will choose to feature this topic for one of your "Reports to Kansas." Sincerely, RICHARD L. D. MORSE. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY MASSACHUSETTS CONSUMER ASSOCIATION Spring conference at Framingham, Mass., May 15, 1965 Whereas present law, both State and Federal, does not assure consumers of truth in labeling and packaging of products; and Whereas deceptive packaging and marketing of products makes it impossible for consumers to make intelligent choices in retail markets; and Whereas Senator Hart has introduced legislation at the Federal level and hearings are now being held on this subject: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by this annual spring conference of the Massachusetts Consumer Association, That full support of this association for Senator Hart's bill, S. 985, be conveyed to every member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation with a request for a vote and support for this piece of consumer protective legislation. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Portsmouth, Va., May 20, 1965. Senator A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: The board of directors of the Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce, after thorough investigation and discussion voted unanimously to oppose S. 985, packaging and labeling control bill. Our congressional action committee has conducted several meetings with local organizations, such as the Portsmouth Women's Club, and after explaining the import of the bill the opposition to the proposed legislation was unanimous in every instance. We recommend, in lieu of S. 985, that sufficient funds be made available to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to permit these organizations to enforce existing legislation to correct abuses that may exist. It is requested that you express our opposition to this legislation to members of the Senate Commerce Committee which is currently conducting hearings on this bill. In any event, we sincerely hope that you will oppose this bill should it be brought to a vote in the Senate. Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a self-explanatory letter from Mr. Ernest A. Bradley, the district sales manager of the California Packing Sales Co., of Mobile, Ala. I wanted to make his views available for the use of your committee in connection with S. 985. With best wishes, I am, JOHN SPARKMAN. CALIFORNIA PACKING SALES Co., Hon. JOHN J. SPARK MAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: After a careful review of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, S. 985-now pending before the full Senate Commerce Committeeit is felt that there is little change in substance or approach from the bill reviewed by the Judiciary Committee during the previous Congress. Our basic contention remains that ample provisions and safeguards already surround the production and marketing of processed foods and further that S. 985 is fundamentally wrong in assuming that the consumer is confused and deceived. Here in the Mobile district sales office we service consumers with a full line of Del Monte products and are continually confronted with the market pressures among competitive items. Many of our products, such as tomatoes, are canned in many styles-juice, sauce, paste, catsup, and soup. Our valuable peach crop is successfully merchandized also in several styles. This has been done to stimulate imagination and increase consumer acceptance. Style changes and packaging practices sometimes involve changes in specific gravity of the product but do not intimate deliberate intent to confuse or deceive. For example, canned tuna may be grated, chunk style, or solid pack. In each instance the weights of these products may vary, but the identical can size is maintained rather than multiplying the number of can sizes on the shelf to accommodate fractional weight differences in the product. The marketplace should be the determining factor reflecting the consumer's demand rather than have a bureaucracy decide what the consumer should have. Any governmental agency with the ultimate authority to establish weights or quantities in which a commodity must be packed would impose upon processors a multitude of restrictions as to size, shape, dimension, and weight which they may use in packing their commodities. S. 985 would even establish individual serving sizes. This is about as difficult to standardize as it would be to regulate tastes and appetites. Senator Hart's bill indicates there is legislative need with regard to packaging and labeling practices that might possibly mislead someone, somehow, somewhere. We do not think so. Our company is continually and voluntarily reviewing its labels to determine conformance with the legal requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Act, and the industry's voluntary labeling program already recommends that the net contents statement appear on the front display panel of the label. Since 1925 when the "Simplified Practice Recommendation for Cans for Fruits and Vegetables" was issued by the National Canners Association in cooperation with interested Government agencies, and again in 1934 when canners voluntarily |