evaporated milk, would result in a capital expenditure of about $8 million. This cost would eventually be borne by the consumer. The second aspect is technological, and is involved in the conversion cost estimate. The many and various products of the industries which would be affected by the bill have many different bulk densities, which cannot be standardized. These differences have not only been accepted, but are demanded, by the consumer. Housewives have demonstrated that they want a variety of product densities and package sizes, depending on end use. The manufacturers, then, provide these differences to satisfy the consumer. The standardization proposed by the bill would deprive the consumer of choise, apparently to make the arithmetic of shopping easier. This solves no problem. It might make shopping easier, but it would also make it unsatisfactory to the consumer. Furthermore, this enforced uniformity would make it impossible for the small businessmen to introduce a new product on the market. He could use no dramatic packaging or labeling, but would simply line his product up on the shelf with the substantially identical ones of his established competitors. And consider two competing products, with similar functions but different bulk densities, sold at prescribed standard weights. Would the lighter product, necessarily packed in a larger container, be deceptively packaged? Another drawback in standardized package content, size, shape, and labels is the predictable effect on new product development. The affected industries spend large sums of money developing new products and containers in their continuing competitive race to produce something more convenient for consumer use. This race involves not only "building the better mousetrap," but also getting it on the market first. Under a rigid set of standardizing regulations, the innovator would have to take his new products to the appropriate agency, either to amend existing standards or to add to them to provide coverage of the new product. By the time the innovator had cleared this hurdle, he would probably have lost his market leadtime, on which he must count to recoup his research and development cost. To the extent that this potential frustration would discourage new product and package development, the country would be the poorer for the passage of the Hart bill. We need not dwell on the insult to the American consumer's intelligence implicit in the whole concept of this sort of legislation, it is obvious. The proposed bill makes ample provision for the implementation of its sponsors' view of what is good for the consumer; but, we submit, it fails to express the consensus of American consumer opinion of what is good for the consumer. And it certainly cannot be said to express what is best for the preservation of a free economy-or a free society. Choice of alternatives is implicit in freedom of action. This bill, in limiting alternatives for both the consumer and the manufacturer, abridges the rights of both in the name of consumer protection from a vastly overdrawn, overdramatized industry bogeyman. SELLERS, CONNER & CUNEO, Washington, D.C., May 26, 1965. Re Senate bill 985. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I am enclosing a statement in opposition to Senate bill 985 on behalf of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc. I request that the committee give consideration to this statement and make it a part of the record of the hearings which were recently concluded. Very truly yours, ROBERT L. ACKERLY, Counsel to Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS As SOCIATION, INC., NEW YORK, N.Y. The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association is a trade association with more than 500 members engaged in the production and distribution of chemical specialty products for retail sale. The six divisions of the association are descriptive of the types of products which are produced and sold by its members. These divisions are: (1) Aerosol division, (2) automotive division, (3) detergent and cleaning compounds division, (4) disinfectant and sanitizers division, (5) insecticide division, and (6) waxes, polishes, and floor finishes division. This statement is submitted by the association on behalf of its members in opposition to S. 985. This association is opposed to this bill for two basic reasons: (1) there is no need for the bill, and (2) it represents an extension of bureaucratic control of private industry far beyond the limits of reasonable regulation. Such extreme bureaucratic authority should not be legislated unless it is absolutely essential in the furtherance of the police power of the Federal Government. This bill is unnecessary because it would duplicate, for the most part, satisfactory existing controls which are in effect at the State and local level. For example, a uniform weights and measures law for use at the State level and uniform regulations for implementing the requirements of this law have long existed and were modernized last year at the National Conference on Weights and Measures sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards. The conference, which is composed of regulatory officials at the State and local level, has dealt satisfactorily with weights and measures problems, including the standards for determining net contents and the labeling of the net contents of retail packages. Among the requirements of the uniform law are requirements that the net contents statement appear on the principal display panel of the retail or consumer package and that the net contents statement be displayed prominently on the principal panel. Specific type sizes for the net contents statement are provided. These requirements were adopted at the June 1964 session of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, have already been adopted by some of the States and are being put into effect currently elsewhere at the State and local level. The currently effective recommendations of the National Conference on Weights and Measures require the statement of net contents to appear on the front panel of the container in a specified size of type to insure that the statement is legible, readable, and readily available to the consumer at the point of purchase. The pertinent portion of the model regulations recommended by the national conference, which have already been adopted in some States, provides as follows: 5. Quantity declaration. "5.1. Location. The declaration, or declarations, or quantity of the contents of a package which appears on the principal display panel, or panels if there are more than one, shall be presented in such a manner as to be generally parallel to the base on which the package rests as it is designed to be displayed. "5.2. Style of type of lettering.-The declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall be in such a style of type or lettering as to be boldly presented, clearly and conspicuously, with respect to other type or lettering or graphic material on the panel or panels. "5.3. Color contrast.-The declaration, or declarations, of quantity shall be in a color that contrasts definitely with its background: Provided, That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled reusable glass containers, for which see 8. below. "6. Minimum height of numbers and letters.-The height of any letter or number in the required quantity statements shall be not less than those shown in table 1, with respect to the square-inch area set forth in section 3.3. above: Provided, That the height of the numbers of a common fraction shall be not less than one-half the dimensions shown: And Provided further, That this section shall not apply to permanently labeled reusable glass containers, for which see 8. below. TABLE 1.-Minimum height of numbers and letters Square-inch area of principal panel 4 square inches and less... Minimum height of numbers and letters No minimum. 1/16 inch. Greater than 4 square inches and not greater than 25 squares inches__ Greater than 25 square inches and not greater than 120 square inches 1/8 inch. Greater than 120 square inches and not greater than 400 square inches____ Greater than 400 square inches--- 1/4 inch. 1/2 inch. "7. Free area. The declaration, or declarations, of quality shall be presented in an area sufficiently free from other printing, lettering, or marking, to make said declaration, or declarations, stand out definitely with respect to the surrounding printing, lettering, or marking." These provisions are clearly sufficient to assure in every case a clear and prominent statement of net contents on every consumer package. If these regulations become effective and enforced, the major problem which S. 985 seeks to reach will no longer be a problem and will have been successfully and completly answered by these recommendations of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. In addition, weights and measures officials, with the assistance of the National Bureau of Standards, are engaged in the development of accelerated tests procedures for checking the actual net contents of consumer packages at the point of sale. This is an outstanding example of the success of control at a State level. There is no need for additional Federal control. Sufficient regulatory authority already exists at the Federal level to control certain areas of special interest such as food, drug, and cosmetics under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301-392 (1958, as amended supp. V, 1959-63)), and economic poisons under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135–135k (1964)). Whether the requirements of these Federal laws have been enforced to the fullest extent is open for discussion but irrelevant to the current hearings. It is a strange logic that proposes new legislation as a substitute for proper enforcement of existing legislation. The remedy is better enforcement and not new legislation. The Federal Government should not act in regulatory areas which are being adequately handled and policed by State and local officials. To justify extension of Federal bureaucratic control, there should be a showing that the States are inadequate to deal with an existing problem. Once the need is defined, legislation responsive to the need should be considered. But there has been no showing of inadequacy at the State or local level. In fact, the history of weights and measures enforcement indicates that the State and local regulatory officials are doing a most adequate job in policing and checking net contents and the labeling of retail or consumer packages. It would be quite impossible for the Federal Government to duplicate the inspection and enforcement teams which have been put together by State and local governments. The cost would be prohibitive and it would be impossible to secure the number of qualified people necessary unless the Federal Government simply raids the State and local enforcement staffs and puts them on the Federal payroll. To put the Federal Government in competition with State and local governments in matters of regulatory control, such as weights and measures and packaging, is absurd and the absurdity is demonstrated most forcefully by simply stating the proposition. That this competition must result if S. 985 is approved is evident already from the testimony before the committee. Witnesses from the Food and Drug Administration have explained what they would do with their additional authority even though they have failed satisfactorily to explain their lack of initiative and activity in enforcing the regulatory authority they already have. However, witnesses from the Federal Trade Commission have made the proposal that all of the authority under this bill be delegated to the Federal Trade Commission. Thus, a competition has already arisen between the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration for this overwhelming, new regulatory authority. Regardless of the identity of the victorious agency, this authority will overwhelm existing State and local programs. Certainly the administration should not permit various agencies of the Federal Government to compete with each other for authority from Congress to increase the size of an agency and increase its budget when the result will be to duplicate existing programs. Such a performance is disgraceful, but is indicative of the regulatory picture that will emerge if S. 985 is approved. Not only is there no need for additional legislation over and above that already existing at the Federal, State, and local levels, but Congress should be reluctant to usurp State authority in regulatory areas by overwhelming and overpowering Federal legislation when this is totally unnecessary. Witnesses who have already appeared before the committee have outlined in great detail the tremendous burden and impact that this legislation will have on the retail industry. No attempt will be made to reiterate or even summarize these basic and sound objections to the bill. The committee will surely consider them carefully before acting on this bill. When regulatory controls over consumer packages can be properly and adequately administered and enforced by State and local officials, the Federa Government should act only in those limited or special areas where the States might not have adequate controls. This the Congress has already done in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. When Congress was considering the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1261-73 (Supp. V, 1959-63)) it made absolutely no reference to net contents or net weights of the packages recognizing that this was adequately controlled at the State and local level. When this principle is applied to S. 985, it becomes dramatically clear that the Congress should not enact this bill into law. There has been no showing of a need for the sweeping controls established in this bill. It is fundamental that the police power be exercised in a reasonable manner and then only when and to the extent necessary to satisfy the aims of that power. Some abuses have been brought to the committee's attention. James Madison once said, "Some abuse is inescapable in the proper use of any thing." This logic is equally forceful and valid today. The State programs are more than adequate to deal with the problems presented to this committee. To ignore this and approve bureaucratic authority to an extent unprecedented in the history of this Government is totally unwarranted. AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Toledo, Ohio, May 18, 1965. DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed find a copy of the statement made by International President George M. Parker, American Flint Glass Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, on bill S. 387 and appendix thereto which are self-explanatory. We respectfully request that the original statement and the attached appendix be read into the record of the committee report on bill S. 985. You will please note that while we are in complete sympathy with the intent of bill S. 985, we do strenuously object to section 3 (c) (1 and 2) because of the detrimental effect it will have on employment opportunities of our members. Thank you for any consideration given our request, I am, Respectfully yours, ALBERT VOTTERO, STATEMENT TO U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, RE S. 387 ("TRUTH IN PACKAGING"), FROM GEORGE M. PARKER, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION, TOLEDO, OHIO It is without question that S. 387, known as the "Truth in Packaging" bill. has a worthy and necessary purpose. As spokesman for the 30,000 members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, who are both consumers and employees in the glass packaging industry, I can heartily endorse the intent of such legislation. I believe it pertinent, in the light of the purpose of this legislation, to call to the committee's attention certain historical facts which have a bearing on the accomplishment of that purpose. Members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union are, in the main, highly skilled participants in America's first industry-the glassmaking industry. founded in Jamestown in 1608. They possess a pride in both their skills and the multitude of end uses to which their products are put. They also possess pride in the integrity of their industry, and have joined with others in efforts to accomplish exactly the purpose of S. 387-protection of the consumer from false representations as to quantity contained in glass packaging. May I cite one example? In 1954 the American Flint Glass Workers' Union published a brochure prepared by its revered former President Harry H. Cook, titled "A Story of Glass," and dedicated as follows: "This brochure is dedicated to the American glassware industry, to bring about increased interest in forming glass and a deeper understanding of the rare dexterity and skill required in forming articles of glass. "It is also intended to encourage business leaders, together with representatives of labor and government, to preserve and expand this industry, which has contributed so much to civilization." Mr. Cook records the history of glassmaking and its modern forms but also records an example of self-policing unique in industry and of significance to the committee's considerations. The American Flint Glass Workers' Union, with the National Better Business Bureau and the American Glassware Association, evolved and subscribed to certain "glassware definitions." "Intended as a guide to accurate and informative advertising of glassware, they were developed to promote better mutual understanding of glassware terms by advertisers and consumers.' The various definitions spell out the descriptive terms which are considered truthful, complete and understandable to the consumer. Not only was this positive step taken but, in addition, a warning was sounded, a warning against the very practices which S. 387 is planned to eliminate. May I quote this section in full? "STATE ACTUAL CAPACITY OF TUMBLERS "Beer, highball, old-fashion, ice tea, and other similar beverage tumblers with thick bottoms are sometimes produced in the same mold that is used for thinbottomed or shell tumblers. The actual capacities of these thick-bottomed tumblers are, however, less than that of the corresponding shell tumblers. Care should be taken never to advertise the capacity of the heavier bottom of the sham glasses as the actual capacity of the shell glasses. It misleads the purchaser and local bureaus of weights and measures frown on such practices. Some have already taken legal action in the matter. Reasonable plus or minus manufacturing tolerances in overflow capacities are recognized and are allow able." This warning was sounded many years ago and its philosophy has been perpetuated by the actions of the entire glassware industry ever since. Some 4,000 glass mold makers, who are members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union and whose skills produce approximately 98 percent of the molds from which glass containers are made, can testify that they are called upon to make possible thinner, rather than thicker bottoms on glass containers of all descriptions. Their only limitations are the tensile strength of the design. Design research is another factor that distinguishes the glass container industry from other branches of the packaging industry. A veritable revolution is taking place in the applications of this well-known and commonly accepted material. The fruits of design and materials changes are already passed on to the consumer and to the American defense effort as well. Discoveries in ceramics and glass in combination have made both missile nose cones and lighter but stronger bottles. There is a most palpable difference between the weight of a gallon bottle today and that of only a decade ago. In addition, it is possible to pass on to the consumer the saving in packaging costs which result from increase in the quantity contained by a single package rather than multiple packages. A most notable example relates to milk bottle designs of today. Glass packaging designs of today are as revolutionary and as worthy as the outstanding example in glassmaking history-the oil lamp chimney. It was discovered that crimping the top of the chimney increased the total strength of the chimney and allowed lighter glass weights to be utilized, with an ultimate saving to the consumer. It is an easily discernible fact that the uses of glass as containers are currently in a ferment of discovery and, for that reason among others, grave consideration should be given any legislation which would tend to standardize and thus stifle the ingenuity and skill of an entire industry. I join enthusiastically with the sponsors of S. 387 in demanding that packaging of any commodity contain, assurances as to weight, measure, or count of the contents but respectfully submit that section 3 (e) (1) and (2) of the proposed legislation are extraneous to its purpose and constitute an economic threat to thousands engaged in the glass container industry. Perhaps it is a misnomer to call S. 387 a "truth in packaging" proposal. Rightfully, its purpose is "truth in labeling" and pertains to packaging only insofar as the design of and materials for packaging are intended to deceive the consumer. Obviously, this is difficult to accomplish in clear glass packaging or in any but totally opaque glass containers. But it can be done through varied shapings of the container, if the intent to deceive is present. 48-222-65--48 |