The same manufacturer, through ingenious packaging, can offset these disadvantages through superiority on the grocery shelf where Mrs. Consumer makes the fateful decision. Two years ago our company, now in its 58th business year, created a new package design for a long-established product that was distributed only in the central United States. The package proved to be so distinctive in its design and so practicable from the standpoint of consumer usage that national distribution was accomplished within a year. Today our product successfully competes again similar products made by much larger manufacturers. This would not have been possible unless management and its design personnel had complete freedom to innovate and, in the end, bring the consumer something better. Some of the provisions of Senate bill 985 strongly imply that such freedom could be drastically curtailed if the bill became law. All the evidence our company can bring to bear indicates the bill is not needed, not wanted by the consumers it is designed to "protect," and would impose unnecessary restrictions on an industry that has grown to $80 billion through continuous improvement in products and packaging. We respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the record. Cordially, R. H. MARRIOTT, Vice President in Charge of Sales and Advertising. PACIFIC HAWAIIAN PRODUCTS CO., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: May I take this opportunity to express my opposition to the Hart packaging bill (S. 985) ? The governmental controls this bill authorizes are not only unnecessary, but will place restrictive limits on packaging design, which will tend to increase, rather than reduce, prices. Rigid regulatory control of package sizes, shapes, and volumes will slow down packaging development and increase manufacturing costs through heavier capital outlays in machinery and equipment. The result will be higher prices to the consumer. As chief executive officer of a company that has prospered by providing the housewife with quality products, attractively packaged and reasonably priced, I cannot believe that consumer intelligence has dropped so low, nor that industry's ethics have deteriorated to the point that this type of legislation is necessary. Your opposition to this bill is earnestly solicited. Sincerely, Subject: The Hart packaging bill (S. 985). Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. REUBEN P. HUGHES, President. DULANY, FOODS, INC., Fruitland, Md., April 6, 1695. SIR: As a longstanding packer of frozen foods and canned foods who has been engaged in business for over 65 years and has been serving the American housewife for as long a period, we wish to register a protest to the above bill. We feel that it is a needless bill and in some respects the bill merely duplicates provisions in existing law. The Chairman of both the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration publicly testified that their agencies already possessed power to prevent false or misleading labeling in packaging where it occurs. We also feel that it is an extreme bill; other provisions of the bill go far beyond existing law by authorizing intensive Government control of package sizes and shapes without regard to deception and prohibiting cents-off label promotions altogether. For the consumer, the bill will tend to increase rather than decrease the prices of market-basket goods. Rigid regulation of package sizes, shapes, and volumes will slow down packaging progress, require heavier capital outlays in machinery and equipment, and raise prices at the retail level. On canned foods particularly, a requirement of net weights and even pounds or half pounds would cause incredible confusion and expense because of the difference in density of products which are now packed in a single size. In reality the bill is a package standardization bill which will limit the housewife's freedom in a range of choices and impair her ability to choose real values. It is a "smear industry" bill as far as we are concerned, because modern packaging is held up to ridicule, and the image of the consumer goods industry is slurred by intemperate charges of deliberate deception of the consumer. We earnestly request that you give consideration to the packers of long standing who have served the housewife and the public faithfully over a long period of time and that this bill will be defeated as one that goes far beyond regulation but is strictly a political football. Very truly yours, L. PETCHAFT, President. LIBBY, MCNEILL & LIBBY, Hartford, Wis., April 7, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. MAGNUSON: My purpose in writing this letter is to ask for your cooperation in opposing bill S. 985 as relates to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Since the food industry is a very vital part of the apparent American people's life and economic structure, I feel it is important as a consumer and a member of the food industry, and in the interest of our company, its stockholders, employees, and customers that this bill be opposed. The following points I feel exemplify a need for opposing this bill: Almost every section of the bill duplicates existing provisions for controlling deceptive and dishonest labeling and packaging in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Federal Trade Commission Act. The bill would boomerang on consumers because it would increase total costs of market basket goods by necessitating substantial outlays of money for new packaging machinery and equipment. The effect of the bill would reduce governmental tax revenue through greater deductions for increased manufacturing costs. If there are violations of present adequate laws, the failure to enforce these laws is odd rationale for enacting new laws. Consumers will be deprived of new and better products to meet their changing needs if restrictive provisions become laws, whether in foods, cosmetics, soaps, detergents, or other household products. Any manufacturer who tries to trick the housewife into buying his product through deceptive labeling or packaging will soon be out of business. It is my honest opinion that the packaging laws as they exist provide adequate protection for the consumer in all matters of packaging. Very truly, Re: Hart packaging bill (S. 985) Washington, D.C. J. H. HOUCK, Plant Manager. S&W FINE FOODS, INC., DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: With full realization that you have been bombarded with pleas by pressure groups, both pro and con, on the subject proposed legislation, I feel compelled to urge strongly that you take all steps necessary to see that this bill is not passed for the following reasons: 1. The propaganda in support of this bill, primarily instigated by Government officials, has been principally a smear industry campaign. The innuendoes and half-truths that have been expressed by its proponents have done incalculable harm to the country's leading and most vital industry. The passage of this measure would add credence to the misrepresentations that have been made by some of your colleagues who appear to be preoccupied with the popular game of "saving the public"-not because the public is threatened, but because such a course appears to be politically rewarding. 2. One part of this double-pronged bill is entirely unnecessary, since it duplicates provisions in existing law which are sufficiently strong at the present time to prevent false or misleading labeling or packaging. This has been verified in public testimony by the Chairmen of both the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. The second part goes far beyond existing law and is extreme by any standards. Depending on its administration, it would arbitrarily control package sizes, shapes, designs, and promotional devices without regard to the avowed purpose of preventing consumer deception. 3. The passage of the bill would add materially to packaging costs by attempting the impractical standardization of net weights regardless of product density. This would result in heavy capital outlays in packaging equipment, which costs must ultimately be passed on to the consumer. Further, it would tend to stifle innovations and package and product improvements which benefit the consumer. It would also limit the shopper's range of choice and add to the monotony of her shopping chore, particularly in food. No responsible leader in the food industry is in favor of deceptive packaging, nor will any of us contend that such examples cannot be found in the market today. We do contend, however, that adequate laws exist today to correct these few abuses without additional legislative actions which will further subject business to the whims of administrators of these proposed laws * * * a dangerous infringement on the free enterprise system. Our business is a volume business. We must rely on repeated purchases by the housewife in order to survive, so it is in our own interests to provide values that will satisfy her wishes. The shopper appreciates our ingenuity and our efforts to serve her. But she also has the recourse of her patronage and her own good judgment and will not tolerate being deceived or disappointed. You might ask the distaff side of your family when she last bought, for the second time, a package she considered deceptive. The remedy, then, is not in this stringent, uncalled-for legislation, but enforcement of current laws which are perfectly adequate. Sincerely, R. B. MACLEAN. THE MIAMI MARGARINE Co., Re S. 985, packaging and labeling bill. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: If you happen to read this letter, am reasonably sure you will find the motive behind it is sincere. I say this because, as a margarine manufacturer, our packaging code is well regulated, and we would have little or no change to make to comply with most of the provisions of S. 985. The main reason we believe you should consider voting against the Hart bill is that it is not necessary in order to protect the American consumer. Quite frankly, the American housewife enjoys shopping in the modern grocery store, and she welcomes the many colorful packages and shapes and sizes which are available to her. We'll hazard a guess that if you ask your wife, or the person responsible for stocking the larder at home, you will find no more "protection" is needed. True, there are some manufacturers who are lax in quantity and quality, but these manufacturers are falling by the wayside every day, and the consumer is the one who is "voting" them out via her supermarket. It is our opinion that the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission are very effective in patrolling the food markets in behalf of the consumer, and that any more restraints will not only reduce choices to the consuming public, but will ultimately increase the costs. It is just as simple as that. Can appreciate the fact that it is always popular to carry the torch for the poor American consumer, but can also anticipate where it will be mighty unpopular to be in the limelight when the consumer begins complaining over merchandising changes and restrictions which S. 985 would bring about. Sincerely, J. P. WHITEHURST. RALSTON PURINA Co., Re S. 985. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, I want to take this opportunity to advise you of the opposition of Ralston Purina Co. to S. 985, better known as Senator Hart's truth in packaging bill. I will leave it to the lawyers to express the legal objections to this bill which carries statutory prohibitions which should be contained in regulations promulgated under a statute. Existing legislation adequately protects the consumer. The Federal Trade Commission Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, as amended, with regulations promulgated thereunder, provide adequate protection both for the consumer and for business. The excellent records of the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration under statutes which they enforce speak for themselves. The acceptance of packaged foods by the American housewife is ample evidence that today's products are packaged in containers which both preserve cleanliness and inform the housewife of their contents. The growth in packaged foods is dramatic. For instance, the modern supermarket displays approximately 8,000 items and sizes. The Grocery Business Annual Report for 1964 indicates that in 1964, food stores will sell approximately 180 billion units, or nearly 1,000 units for each man, woman, and child in the United States. This volume of merchandise would not move through modern stores to discriminating purchasers if packages were misleading or improperly marked. There is much talk about the inability of the consumer to select competing products because of confusing promotional claims and alleged defects in packaging. The Colonial study which was published by Progressive Grocer, a trade publication of the grocery industry, clearly indicates that the American housewife is an extremely discriminating buyer. This report contains overwhelming proof that housewives carefully examine competitive products before making purchases. Of more direct concern to the food processing and packaging industry is the requirement of S. 985 that packages be uniform as to size and as to weight. At present, package sizes are determined by packaging machinery. It would be extremely expensive for industry to convert packaging machinery so that competing products made by different manufacturers would be contained in the same size packages. These costs would, of necessity, be passed on to the consumer, which would result in higher prices for the same product. Standardization of package sizes and weight fails to recognize the basic demand of the consumer for different size packages of the same products. For instance, our three principal dry cereals are contained in the same size package, but because of density, the contents of the packages have different net weights. Different package sizes are available for the convenience of the different sizes of family units. To prevent any dissatisfaction on the part of the housewife, our filling equipment is adjusted and regularly checked to be sure that packages are properly filled. The experience of industry and the growth in the sale of packaged foods indicates that the housewife is satisfied, and that she is getting fair value for her money. It is our suggestion that S. 985 would contribute nothing to the consumer; rather, that it would cause additional inconvenience and cost to industry which would be passed on to the consumer. For these reasons, we encourage you and your committee to recommend that S. 985 not pass. Very truly yours, WARREN M. SHAPLEIGH. LA CHOY FOOD PRODUCTS, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As a private citizen and taxpayer, I am against the truth in packaging bill (S. 985). I feel the packaging bill is bad for the consumer because: 1. A Good Housekeeping magazine survey says 95 percent of the women read labels and are informed. 2. It prohibits price reductions by manufacturers through "cents off" promotions. Women like "cents off." 3. The standardization and regimentation will cause a great increase in cost of production. 4. Consumers will be deprived of new and better products. 5. Because the consumer will be denied new and a greater variety of products it will hurt the economy, the businessmen, and the workers. Existing Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration laws are sufficient. Sincerely, GORDON SWANEY, General Manager. UNIVERSAL FOODS CORP., April 8, 1965. Hon. W. G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We would like to submit this letter to your file of testimony on bill S. 985, known as the packaging and labeling bill or truth in packaging bill. We believe that there is little need for this bill, or any similar bill, since the Federal Trade Commission already has the authority to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices. False advertisements of foods, drugs, and other consumer items can be met under existing laws by the Federal Trade Commission, as has recently been evidenced by the Colgate-Palmolive decision. Opinion research, in a survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corp., indicated that consumers, in general, are satisfied with present food packaging practices and do not think a change is needed. Similar surveys in the last few years have indicated that an overwhelming majority of consumers get the information they need on labels and packages. We think the most important thing to consider is the amazing record of the food industry in America in providing an ever-increasing number of foods, in ever-increasingly improved packages, at values and prices which have led to the finding that only 19 cents of each of the Nation's disposable dollars is spent on food. This remarkable record, in contrast to the rest of the world, completely exonerates the food industry from any charge of misleading the consumer. A walk through the supermarkets of this country reveals the fantastic choice, under highly competitive conditions, given to the American consumer-and it certainly does not reveal shelves of misleading pricing and packaging. We strongly recommend that this bill not be sent to the floor in any form, as it is absolutely unnecessary. Its encroachment on the food industry might well decelerate the magnificent progress made by the food industry in the past many years and reduce the unique position in which the American consumer finds himself when buying food for the family. It is another attempt at control and restriction of business and private enterprise, which has been the source of all this country's power and standard of living-which many in Congress just don't understand. Please convey our position to the members of your committee. Sincerely, ROBERT T. FOOTE. G. H. PACKWOOD MANUFACTURING Co., The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. The Federal Trade Commission Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and weights and measures laws in every State provide an adequate basis of protection. |