Mr. BAKER. I doubt that there are many industries in this country that do more consumer research than this industry to determine the wants and the desires and the effects a particular product would have in our industry. Senator NEUBERGER. But every so-called poll that we have asked them to submit the questions to us in a consumer opinion poll is always slanted to the industry. It does not give alternatives, it merely asks what the person who pays for the poll wants to find out. And there are a lot of things that have come out through this hearing that havo repeated themselves over and over again. One of them is that the producer of the product always knows what the consumer wants. Well, then I do not know why you would come and say that you might have to change the shape of the bottle. The FTC or the FĎA, whoever it is, according to this bill, can allow you to show that this has been a standard product. You can say: The consumer wants it. Sometimes she wants it because she has got no alternative, of course. And I cannot see how this would affect you in any way. We also have had that bugaboo: The consumer wants whatever you are doing just the way you want it. Then you should never, never, never, never change anything, according to that. The other thing is that you always build up this drunken administrator or illiterate or moren who is going to run these laws. I can say to you, according to the argument you have given me, that it was not safe for you to come here today and testify. If you had gotten on the airplane, it might have crashed; or if you had crossed the street, you might have got hit. Or this light fixture might fall down and bang you on the head. That is exactly the kind of argument you give about this Federal agency to administer a law. And nobody yet-and I have sat here a good many hours-has given me an example of where in the past such a thing has happened. Not one. In fact, they bend over backward to be fair, it seems to me, on the evidence I have. So you negate your whole testimony. I am sure that there are some things in it that concern you. Mr. BAKER. Well, Madam Chairman, just let me add this, if I may. This bill is not the law of the land at the moment. We have stated to you our convictions as to what we would believe to be a danger, a potential danger, on the rights and the ways in which we have done business and which we carry out our research and determine our type of containers within the existing framework of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations that have been promulgated under that. We believe that these are fully adequate to meet the needs of our time. Our people have learned how to live with them. And, as I have said to you, further regulation, further confusion, and further dictation with respect to our bottles relieves us of the right to manage our businesses and the freedoms which we feel we must have and should have, and we are highly suspicious of it. I am aware that we have a difference of view here between yourself and my industry. Senator NEUBERGER. I cannot see any reason why anything in this bill-you bring up the idea that because you have a bottle that is round, the administering agency would have difficulty finding a place for you to put the label. Now, you know that this is not reasonable at all. Mr. BAKER. I did not say that. I said it was difficult to determine what the front panel is. Senator NEUBERGER. Wherever you put the label will be the front of the bottle. Mr. BAKER. Under conditions of display in cartons, in vending machines, and things of this nature, it would not always show there. Senator NEUBERGER. It does not have to. This is the existing standardized bottle you have got. Mr. BAKER. Now you are getting into some of the areas that worry us about administration and an administrator's direction. He tried to apply this to our industry across the board. Senator NEUBERGER. Yes. Mr. BAKER. It seems like an additional burden that is not wanted, that is not called for or required. Senator NEUBERGER. You know what the objective of this bill is. What is it? Not to make an industry throw out everything it has got, change everything. What is the objective of this bill? Mr. BAKER. Apparently the objective of this bill is to put further and more tighter, closer controls, and give the authority to a Government agency to dictate the packages and the labels that will govern the distribution of goods to consumers. Senator NEUBERGER. You obviously have not read the bill. The title of the bill is there. That is such a ridiculous statement. Next witness, please. Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Fred Greiner of the Dairy Industry Committee. Mr. GREINER. Madam Chairman, may I introduce Mr. Ben Habberton of the law firm of Fistere & Habberton, Washington, D.C. We appreciate your having us here for my statement. Senator NEUBERGER. Do you wish to read your testimony in full? Mr. GREINER. Yes, ma'am. I will deviate in one or two spots, and I will try to indicate those to the reporter. Senator NEUBERGER. Do you know what the purpose of this bill is? Mr. GREINER. I think so. Senator NEUBERGER. What? Mr. GREINER. To regulate the packaging. Senator NEUBERGER. What? Mr. GREINER. To regulate the packaging, as I understand it. STATEMENT OF FRED J. GREINER, CHAIRMAN, DAIRY INDUSTRY composed of official representatives of American Butter Institute, American Dry Milk Institute, Evaporated Milk Association, International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers, Milk Industry Foundation, National Creameries Association, National Cheese Insti tute. Our opposition to this bill is based on these facts: 1. Present laws at all levels of government offer adequate and extensive protection to consumers today. This is especially true in the dairy industry as I will indicate later. 2. Consumers are not demanding new protective legislation. The marketplace which reacts with "hair trigger" agility gives no indication that consumers are dissatisfied or confused or deceived. 3. The bill would place additional administrative straitjackets upon ingenuity and creativeness in the marketing of dairy products. The dairy industry, already highly regulated, is particularly sensitive to this point. If you will scan the list of dairy products represented by the dairy industry committee you will note that it includes practically all those marketed in the United States today. To indicate what this means in terms of percentage of food industry affected by this bill, let us look at the facts. Dairy products constitute a major portion of today's sources of nutrition. Today's average consumer spends 17 percent of her food dollar for dairy products-excluding butter. Let me repeat that— 17 percent of her food dollar. This means roughly that today I am speaking for processors responsible for marketing 17 percent of the food dollars covered by this measure. Many of our objections to S. 985 are shared by other manufacturers of food products. These objections have already been presented to you, fully and forcefully, by representatives of these food products. Therefore, I will not burden you with further recitation of these arguments but I only mention them briefly as a matter of recording the dairy industry's position on S. 985. The regulations which this bill directs or authorizes to be promulgated are unnecessary as applied to the products of the dairy industry, would create confusion and would be a step in the wrong direction. If "Bossy," who stands as the keystone to this great dairy industry and from which every drop and pound of our product emanates, could understand the myriad of local, State, and Federal regulations that have been propounded under the guise of consumer protection, I am afraid old "Bossy" would be the one who would revolt today. And now, if I may depart from my script for just a moment, from my statement, I hasten to add that the dairy industry, we feel, is consumer oriented, because when the factory system first started, first began in America and the cow moved from the individual home out to the farm and then was brought back into town by the farmer, we began to see the necessity for regulation. Thus, milk was handled on an intrastate basis. Local consumers were affected. Recognizing that the safety and welfare of consumers were at stake, the dairy industry then accepted the responsibility of helping to draft local ordinances to regulate the sale of dairy products. Practically every hamlet had, and many still have-most still have, as a matter of fact-such regulations. They cover not only the sanitary methods of producing milk and milk products but labeling and packaging as well. Every State has adopted laws regulating standards, labeling, packaging. The industry has always felt a special responsibility because dairy products are vital in feeding infants during those tender weeks after birth, as well as in the nutrition of all Americans, both young and old. I might also mention that special consumer education efforts have been carried on by the dairy industry for years, both through its trade association and through the efforts of the National Dairy Council, in making available information about dairy products to consumers and to school children, to try to teach them the facts of nutrition and the facts about dairy products. So the dairy industry has recognized its obligations to consumers. In support of my earlier statements, Madam Chairman should consider these facts: 1. Congress itself has established statutory standards for butter (21 U.S.C. sec. 321(a)) and nonfat dry milk (21 U.S.C. sec. 321(c)). These statutes provide that the standards therein are established for the purposes of the Food and Drug Act. Thus, they are brought into the full weight of the misbranding section of existing law. 2. Evaporated milk, the food with which I am identified, was one of the earliest foods for which a definition and standard of identity was established. That standard requires complete label identification of the product when its vitamin D content is increased. A recent amendment to the standard requires a label declaration when a newly found useful ingredient is present. 3. In 1960, after many years of public hearing, studies, and deliberations, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare promulgated definitions and standards of identity for ice cream, as well as ice milk, sherbet, and water ices. These definitions and standards prescribe what ingredients the products must contain, what ingredients they may contain, and require elaborate label declarations with reference to flavoring ingredients. The standards and findings together comprise 16 small print pages in the July 27, 1960, issue of the Federal Register. Frankly, we wonder, can it be possible that now, only 5 years later, it is necessary for Congress to pass new legislation enabling the Secretary to promulgate additional elaborate and far-reaching regulations in order to keep the packaging and labeling of ice cream within proper balance. 4. In the case of the cheese industry, definitions and standards of identify have been established for 66 different kinds of cheese. Many of these standards have provisions for specific labeling. Incidentally, this could be of interest to you as men-I think there were some on the committee this morning, and before the committee-for men are responsible in large measure for the purchases of a high percentage of our cheese today. Too frequently we equate "consumers" with a housewife or a woman, but here is an instance where the sponsors of this legislation would say that it is you, the man, who is thoroughly confused and needs "protection." 5. The products of the fluid milk industry-the fresh perishable products of our industry-are presently subjected to regulation not only by the Food and Drug Administration but also come under extensive regulation by municipalities and States. The U.S. Public Health Service plays a major part in this system of regulation. Senator NEUBERGER. Is that good or bad? Senator NEUBERGER. To have regulation. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you. Mr. GREINER. State and local weights and measures agencies as well as the U.S. Bureau of Standards have long been active in decisions affecting packaging and labeling of these products. It has been said that the principal function to be performed by S. 985 is the prevention of consumer deception and confusion by false and misleading labeling and packaging. Now, is it necessary to authorize the Secretary to issue a whole new layer of regulations prohibiting deception and confusion? No, it is not necessary, and the reason it is not necessary is that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act itself already does this and does it very effectively. In addition to the misbranding sections (sec. 301) of this act, the model State weights and measures law has been adopted in most States. Administrative rules and regulations governing the placement of the net weight statement and the prominence of displaying that statement, type size, and so forth, have been adopted in a number of States and is being considered for adoption in others. Every pound of consumer packaged cheese, every box of instant nonfat dry milk, every can of evaporated milk, every pound of butter, and every carton of ice cream where this model has been adopted must comply with these provisions. Why, then, is it necessary to add another layer of laws and regulations on top of the dairy industry as would be accomplished by S. 985? Senator NEUBERGER. You have asked a question. I will answer it. It is because of changes in packaging. Mr. GREINER. In the dairy industry, ma'am? Senator NEUBERGER. In every pound of consumer packaged cheese, every box of instant nonfat dry milk especially, it is the packaging, that is why we have to add the new requirements. Mr. GREINER. Thank you. Not only does this bill duplicate existing legislation at all levels of government in the United States, but in some respects the provisions of section 3 (c) go beyond, far beyond, the reaches of our present laws. Here I refer you to the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which with reference to any consumer commodity would authorize the Secretary (or the Federal Trade Commission) to: (1) and (2) establish reasonable weights or quantities or fractions of multiples thereof in which a commodity shall be distributed and to prevent the distribution of any commodity in any other weight or quantity. (3) Establish a definite standard of designation of size which may be used to characterize quantitatively the contents of packages containing that commodity. Thus, if a new consumer use for a product requiring a different size container, or if production techniques dietate that a different size container would be more economical, or if for any number of other reasons a manufacturer wished to change his container size, he would be faced with long laborious administrative procedures before affecting such changes. (4) Establish and define the net quantity of any commodity which shall constitute a serving. |