No business can exist on "first orders" alone and any firm that would deliberately promote "slack filled" packages is throwing away any chance he has for the repeat business required for survival in our competitive economy. If any one of our competitors used the tactics Senator Hart believes to exist we would move in immediately to take advantage of such stupidity and take the business away from them. It is quite impossible to have "even pound" packages of standard dimensions because of the wide differentials in specific gravity for one product over another. Packaging and filling costs would be increased substantially and if packaging costs increase these increases must be passed along to the consumer. For example, if you fill a 1-quart dispenser with a typical borax hand scouring powdered soap compound the material itself will weigh approximately 24.7 ounces, because it is an abrasive mineral with a high apparent specific gravity. If you fill the same 1-quart dispenser with a vegetable scrubber granulated skin cleanser the material will weigh only 13.3 ounces as it has a low apparent specific gravity. The weight or volume of one brand is meaningless in comparing it to another. One product might be packaged as 1 pound in a big box with instructions to dilute 1 to 1 with water. Another product might be concentrated and have 1 pound packaged in a box only half the size, but still represent far greater economy for the housewife, because it can be diluted and satisfactorily used 20 to 1 with water. If each package weighs 1 pound, Senator Hart would probably buy the first product mentioned as he would buy the biggest box, while the second product mentioned, although packaged in a much smaller box, is by far the most economical purchase. We have more Government bureaus now than the taxpaying consumer can afford. Let's not create another one-especially when it isn't needed. Very sincerely, ROBERT L. BALFOUR, Vice President, Marketing and Sales. DRAPER CANNING CO., Milton, Del., April 9, 1965. Hon. PHILIP A. HART, DEAR SENATOR HART: We believe you are sincere in your conviction that the provisions of your packaging bill, S. 985, would be beneficial to the American public, but it is evident a lot of other people do not believe as you do, because essentially the same bill was proposed a year ago and met a lot of opposition. This should be food for thought. There are more than enough laws on the books already to punish any manufacturer who follows deceptive practices in packaging; in fact, the American people are not so dumb that they would continue to be a customer for products packaged or labeled in such a manner as to deceive them. Such a manufacturer would commit economic suicide. I do not believe you will deny that the American people have the widest selection at the lowest price of packaged goods of all the people on earth. This has become possible because of our system of free enterprise. If initiative is taken away by increasingly restrictive Federal controls, you, and all the rest of the people who use the products of American manufacturers, will suffer in the long run. Do not lead us into regimentation and big brotherism. Let not the Government lead us into any "ism" and that includes socialism. Let us find ways to make the laws we have work, rather than continuously tacking on new laws as an easy way out. Our laws are now so complex that the courts creak with the very weight of them, and the small businessman, unable to afford an expensive law department, is even now fearful that each decision, each new idea, each new approach may find him violating one of them. Please try to find ways to help us, not saddle us with more. Respectfully, HARRY R. DRAPER. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, LIBBY, MCNEILL & LIBBY, Janesville, Wis., April 9, 1965. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I have studied Senate bill S. 985, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and feel that I am in almost complete disagreement with this proposed legislation. The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission now have sufficient authority to prevent any false or misleading packaging or labeling. I would, however, be in favor of requiring that the net weight be specified on the label where it could be easily seen by the customer. I certainly would violently object to having the Government specify the size, shape, or dimension of any food container.. I believe it is up to the food packaging industry to meet the requirements and demands of the consumer in our competitive market, rather than "big brother," the Government, telling us what the food container size, shape, and dimension should be. Sincerely yours, O. C. ZOEBISCH, Assistant Director, Agriculture Research. OXFORD ROYAL MUSHROOM PRODUCTS, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on the Hart packaging bill, S. 985. This bill proposes: To empower the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration to adopt and enforce rigid regulations over the packaging and labeling of consumer nondurable goods. The effects of this bill will not improve the protection of the consumer beyond the scope of legislation already controlling the canning industry. A more rigid enforcement of existing laws is needed. Senate bill, S. 985, will increase the cost of production, it will increase the capital investment, in machinery and equipment. It will shorten or limit the consumers selection. In short the consumer gains nothing but higher prices and smaller selection. It seems ironical, our industry will be made to face higher costs through Senate bill, S. 985, at the same time the Federal Tariff Commission is not increasing needed protection from foreign competition. This is not a healthy condition and might well seriously affect the gross national product. Your assistance is respectfully requested in this matter. Very truly yours, FRED P. MCCARTHY, General Manager. GROCERY PRODUCTS DIVISION, BEATRICE FOODS CO., Detroit, Mich., April 8, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As a private citizen and taxpayer, I am against the mislabeled "truth in packaging" bill, S. 985. It is my belief that S. 985 is proposed legislation which will lead to less competition rather than greater competition. I also believe it will stifle innovation by large and small manufacturers, will lead to regimentation and standardization of weights and measures, will discourage business by its antibusiness attitudes and will hurt the consumer through higher prices resulting from higher costs and less choice of products. It is my belief that this bill will also hurt labor through less jobs and will result in less taxes to the Government through greater deductions caused by increased manufacturing costs. Existing Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration laws are sufficient and effective. Failure to enforce existing laws is not sufficient reason for enacting new ones. Thirty-three Federal agencies and 135 Federal programs at a cost of $953 million are now in effect to protect American consumers. The workers of our country will be hurt by the proposed new law because it will curtail employment needed in innovation and expanison of products. Statements of two AFL-CIO unions are against the major portion of S. 985. Sincerely, E. M. MULDOON, THE ILLINOIS CANNING CO., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I am writing to you, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, who will conduct hearings on the Hart packaging bill. It is reported the hearings on this bill (S. 985) will start on April 27, 1965. As a vegetable canner here in the Midwest, we object to the Hart bill and think this type of legislation is not necessary. We sincerely hope that after the hearings are completed you will agree with us. One objection to the Hart bill from our viewpoint is that this type of legislation would stifle food packers and processors from making new products available and new sizes of containers and packages. We would hope that the American consumer could continue to be the envy of the world in having at her disposal a wide selection of products, both new and established, as well as different sizes of containers and packages. Senator, we sincerely hope that you and your committee will find that Senate bill 985 is not necessary. Sincerely, W. J. REGAN, Vice President. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have received from Mr. Floyd B. Reed, senior vice president of the Dutton-Lainson Co., in Hastings. Nebr., in which Mr. Reed expresses opposition to S. 985, presently the subject of hearings before your committee. I am forwarding this letter in order that the committee may be apprised of Mr. Reed's view on this bill. With best regards, I am, Re bill S. 985, hard packing and labeling control. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. CARL T. CURTIS, U.S. Senator. DUTTON-LAINSON CO., Hastings, Nebr., April 28, 1965. DEAR SENATOR CURTIS: We understand this is soon to be brought up for a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. We have gone over it, as it affects our type of distribution. In our opinion, it reduces competition for it puts a control on our manufacturers, curtailing their initiative. It is competition that now keeps up the quality and variety that gives the consumer greater opportunity for selection. The manufacturer would have substantial costs added in conforming to the ever-changing regulations that would be opposed and, of course, this would be added to the costs of the consumer. It is claimed that this new control would help protect the consumer from deceptive and misleading representations as to the price, quality, conditions of the sale of any product. However, it adds nothing to the regulations that we already have in sections 403 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Why add more regulations and more Government expense to carry out and enforce the act? It will not help the consumer by eliminating some competition. We ask that you use your good office and position to oppose this act. FLOYD B. REED. PLOUGH, INC., Memphis, Tenn., May 11, 1965. Re the Hart bill. Hon. ALBERT GORE, Senate Office Building, DEAR ALBERT: I am not writing to categorically oppose subject bill as in many respects we do not feel it will make too much difference to us as present regulations, etc., of FDA and FTC pretty well control our packaging generally, and I do not feel that this bill is going to seriously affect the medicine end of our business. There is, however, one phase of the bill that we feel does not make too much sense and that we should call it to your attention. I think the supporters of the bill are thinking primarily in terms of packages displayed in a supermarket such as cereals, detergents, etc. The wording of the bill, however, is such that it would appear that the standardization of packages that can and would probably result from the passing of the bill would have an undesired effect on the cosmetic industry. We say this because the lady folks seem to enjoy distinctive packaging with a certain degree of elegance and beauty for their dressing tables, etc., and it would appear from the bill that cosmetics are being put in the same class as cereals and detergents. This will not only create a problem for the cosmetic industry but is not something that we can feel to be desired by the general public. We do not mean to say that we object to cosmetic packages being properly labeled from the standpoint of contents and the like, but what we do object to is the possibility of standardization of packaging in the cosmetic industry. We do not feel that the reasons for the bill lie in this area and, hence, it would appear that some modification would be in order. Thanking you for your considerations and with very best regards, we are, Cordially, Mr. GUY RICHARD, HARRY B. SOLMSON, Executive Vice President. NUT HOUSE PRODUCTS Co., DEAR MR. RICHARD: We are in receipt of your letter of May 1 regarding a can of our Nut House mixed nuts which you state you were dissatisfied with because it contained too many peanuts. Because of the price that consumers are willing to pay for mixed nuts with peanuts, we, as well as our competitors, do put a large percentage of peanuts in this mixture. As far as the Hart Commission and their efforts to improve labeling, we are endeavoring to work with them on this. However, because we are a relatively small manufacturer, we are forced to go along with our competitors in their packaging. We would like very much to put out a good mixture, but because of the price at which this would have to retail, we would not be able to compete. We trust you will understand our position and thank you for your interest. Under separate cover we are sending you a can of our deluxe mixed nuts-no peanuts. This is the package we recommend to our customers who prefer the fancy nuts to peanuts, and we are sure you will enjoy these. Very truly yours, HOWARD BETTMAN, President. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., Re hearings on S. 985 before the Committee on Commerce. Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: On May 7, during the hearings on the above bill, Mrs. Mildred E. Brady, testifying for the Consumers' Union of Mount Vernon, N.Y., introduced two samples of bags sent in by a consumer containing our chocolate almond cookies, and the record will show that the members of the committee present had difficulty locating and reading the statement of net weight. We are enclosing herewith a sample of the bag in question marked “Exhibit A.” This is one of a group of similarly packaged products introduced recently by our company. The chocolate almond cookies were first sold only 2 months ago in March of 1965. Enclosed are samples of the packages of the other six products in this line. Please note that the net weight statement appears clearly and prominently on the front panel of each package and that the location of net weight has varied depending upon the design of the particular bag. The samples will indicate also that the net weight legend has been clearly stated on all but the chocolate almond bag. The chocolate almond bag represents one of those production difficulties which occasionally develop when a new product is introduced. As a matter of fact we have rejected in the last 2 months more than 1 million bags printed for this cookie, because the printer encountered technical difficulties which prevented his meeting the standards set by our sales and production departments. The shortcomings of this design were recognized before May 7. The bags presently being printed are changed to meet the technical problems, including a change in position and color of the net weight statement so that it will be more prominent, as shown in exhibit B. This is an example of the type of problem packaged goods manufacturers frequently encounter when introducing a new product. We find that it happens to us occasionally when we add to our line of more than 300 varieties. When such a difficulty occurs, it is either quickly discovered by our own company personnel, as is the case in this instance, or it is called to our attention by a consumer or occasionally by a Government inspector. In any of these instances immediate steps are taken to correct the difficulty. This particular package represents the type of problem that is not foreseen in the planning stage but sometimes develops in the production process. Inspection of the prototype design did not reveal any problem. It only arose during the actual mass production and printing of the package. Additional law would not eliminate this type of difficulty. We respectfully request that this letter and attached exhibit B be made a part of the printed record of the hearings. Sincerely yours, HARRY F. SCHROETER, |