essary to permit consumers "to make rational comparison with respect to price and other factors." The agencies will not be required to make a showing of actual wrongdoing before an independent Federal court. Real review of the agency's action will be effectively stifled because of the difficulty of showing that the Administrator has abused his discretion in making an inherently abstract determination. 2. Second, it is said that Federal standards of identity have improved the cleanliness and uniformity of many food products; it may, therefore, be expected that Federal packaging standards will have similar beneficial effects. In the case of food, however, we are concerned with the public health. The stern measures needed to satisfy our basic and pressing interest in healthful food are not appropriate or necessary for dealing with deceitful tendencies. As we discussed earlier, there is evidence that food standards have discouraged research effort on standardized products," and we should not impose barriers to improvement unless the need is truly great. After all, the most earnest supporters of the proposed legislation concede that the consuming public is receiving better value for its marketing dollar than ever before." 3. Third, it is pointed out that the bill will permit consumers to make rapid price comparisons. If S. 985 did no more than require that a legible statement of net contents appear at some prominent location on the package and that these contents be expressed in whole units (ounces, pounds, quarts, etc.), then it would be time to discuss the wisdom of adopting such legislation to achieve that stated purpose. The difficulty is that S. 985 embodies more much more than could conceivably be necessary to allow discerning shoppers to compare prices. And it is that something more which occasions our objection. III In summation, we believe that, if enacted, the adverse effects of S. 985, in terms of lost freedom of action, creativity, flexibility, as well as dollars, far outweigh whatever public advantage is intended. We, therefore, respectfully recommend against passage of this legislation. Respectfully submitted. J. P. MCANDREWS, General Sales Manager, Consumer Products Division, Fabrics & Finishes Department. HYDE PARK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, INC., Senator PHILIP A. HART, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HART: It is a practice at our Hyde Park co-op supermart to have informative consumer displays in the store. The enclosed photograph shows the display concerning truth in packaging which was set up for 3 weeks in April. Two folding tables were filled with all the sizes and brands sold in our supermart of four different items-cooking oil, peanut butter, instant coffee, and dishwashing detergent. The price per ounce was calculated, printed on a small card, and attached to each item. There were 24 containers of salad and cooking oils, representing 9 brands and 11 different volumes; 12 containers of peanut butter, representing 5 brands and 7 different weights; 26 containers of instant coffee, representing 15 brands and 7 different weights; 22 containers of liquid dishwashing detergent, representing 10 brands and 4 different volumes. I seriously doubt that the customer needs or wants such a range of sizes. And store managers, always short of shelf space, could better use space for different products rather than the same product in three or four or more sizes. The enclosed mimeographed sheet was also placed on the table with a sign saying "Take One or More." Over the 3-week period, approximately 3.500 copies were picked up. This was an excellent response as the usual distribution is approximately 1,000. Comments received from customers were very gratifying. I do hope some of their reactions found their way to your office. The exhibit also impressed See Ramstad, "Comments." 20 Food, Drug, Cosmetic Law Journal, pp. 193-194, supra. 7 See hearings, etc., on S. 387, 88th Cong., p. 134. Mrs. Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, who saw it on a visit early in April. Our cooperative supermart is owned by approximately 9,000 families and we have over 18,000 customers weekly. They are very interested in seeing the passage of this bill and if there is anything further we can do, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Miss BARBARA GOEDE, Home Economist. LET YOUR PEN SPEAK FOR TRUTH IN PACKAGING Do you mind when a bottle looks like a quart but isn't? Do you mind when a product does not look like the picture on the label? Do you mind if the net contents of a package are hidden in small type on the back of a package? Do you mind when products are measured in fractions of ounces? The food industry feels you have no objections. And they are working hard through leading magazines and television programs using articles and advertising to defeat Senator Philip A. Hart's truth in packaging bill, S. 985 (now renamed fair packaging and labeling). Charles G. Mortimer, chairman of the board of General Foods Corp., wrote an article for the January 26 issue of Look magazine. The article, titled "Let's Keep Politics Out of the Pantry," said in so many words that consumers are satisfied with packaging and labeling as it now is and that the housewife is too smart to be fooled. The editors of Look have refused to print an article by Senator Hart giving the other side of the packaging picture. They have also refused to print any letters from consumers objecting to the article. PACKAGING CAN GET WORSE What's likely to happen if Congress doesn't approve a truth in packaging bill? Will the packaging mess worsen, or will the situation improve? One indication came from Boston on February 9. At a purchasing agents' seminar, Harry Broome, an advertising man, said no "functional differences" exist among competing products that cover 75 percent of the consumer goods field. Therefore, Broome concluded, the package "may be the only way to differentiate the product meaningfully in the eyes of the customer." A product's performance, its price, even its advertising is so similar to competing products' performance, price, and advertising, he said, that each manufacturer must rely on the package to set his product apart. It's difficult to imagine, under such pressures, any marked trend toward honest, more informative, more rational packaging. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of Senator Hart's bill is to require intelligibile packaging, thereby helping people get their money's worth in food stores. In addition, the bill provides that if Federal Trade Commission finds for a particular product that rules are needed (a) to prevent deception, or (b) to preserve competition based on rational consumer choice, FTC may, after full public hearings— establish reasonable weights or quantities for retail packages of that product; ban deceptively shaped containers; define the word "serving" if a firm wants to use it; and require prominent listing of ingredients. Senator Hart originally proposed this as an amendment to the antitrust laws. Hence, it went to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which refused to bring the bill to the Senate floor. This year Hart proposed it as a separate act, resting on Congress power to regulate commerce. The bill was sent to the Commerce Committee on February 19. This committee is headed by Senator Warren Magnuson. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO Ask your Senators to urge the Senate Commerce Committee to get hearing started right away on S. 985. Write a short letter to the point and in your own words. Give your views on the proposed legislation. Thoughtful appeals are more effective than emotional ones. Address your letters to Senator Paul H. Douglas, Senate Office Building, Room 109, Washington, D.C. Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Senate Office Building, Room 204, Washington, D.C. Send copies to Senator Philip A. Hart, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Consumers Lobby, 1012 14th Street NW., Washington, D.C. MCCORMICK & Co., INC., Baltimore, Md., May 14, 1965. Subject: Proposed bill, S. 985. Hon. W. G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR Magnuson: This letter is in reference to Senate bill 985, the fair packaging and labeling bill. McCormick & Co., Inc., is a manufacturer and distributor of many food products primarly spices and flavoring extracts. We have hundreds of different items, as well as package sizes. However, in our retail containers we package approximately 25 different spices in the same size tin container, and approximately 100 different spice products in the same size glass bottle container. We strongly oppose S. 985, and we endorse the objections which have been expressed by many of the witnesses who have already testified in opposition to this bill-in particular, the views expressed by Messrs. Paul Willis, president, and Frank T. Dierson, general counsel, of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. I will not impose upon your valuable time by restating all of these objections; however, I would like to emphasize the most salient of them and set forth several specific examples of how this bill would affect our business. We are in sympathy with the basic objectives of this legislation; however, there are adequate laws to accomplish these objectives. The provisions dealing with standardization of net weights, we feel, are extremely objectionable and would prove very costly to the manufacturer and, eventually, to the consumer. In addition, they would impose unwarranted interference on the manufacturer's freedom of choice which would stifle ingenuity and progress. The provisions outlawing "cents off promotions" are equally objectionable. This is a legitimate, well-accepted merchandising technique which is of direct benefit to the consumer and, also, of great value to smaller manufacturers in particular. To depict the problems net weight standardization would impose upon McCormick & Co., Inc., we are forwarding with this letter a photograph of our gourmet line of bottle spices in a three-shelf spice rack. This is how these spices are seen in the housewife's kitchen. These spices are selected for special quality and visual appeal, and the attractive, uniform packaging is a substantial part of that appeal. If we were required to standardize the net weights for all of these items, at least 10 additional sizes of this type bottle would be required to accommodate the various items now packed in quantities of 2 ounces or more. Inevitably, the cost to produce these items would increase substantially, and these increased costs would have to be passed on to the consumer. We would face this same problem in our retail size tin and carton containers, and an even more graphic example is available. Two bottles are forwarded with this letter-one of garlic salt and one of parsley flakes which are packed in these larger and more economical sizes for homemakers who use large amounts of these products. They are packed on the same production line and in the same standard bottle to take advantage of obvious economies. The bottle of garlie salt contains 15 ounces, but the same size bottle of parsley flakes contains only 1 ounce. Standardization of net weights would create this same problem for manufacturers of cake mixes, breakfast cereals, soap powders, and many other products. We do not feel that this legislation is needed, and this view is supported by a recent survey taken by the Opinion Research Corp., which information has already been placed on record. Please bear in mind that we are not at all opposed to the idea of protecting the consumer from misleading or deceitful practices-such practices damage any reputable company just as they damage the consumer. We agree completely with this objective; however, we don't feel that a price comparison is the only valid distinction between similar products. Factors such as quality, convenience, package design, the integrity of the manufacturer, and many others are equally important to the consumer. The proposed legislation will not afford any significant advantages to the consumer and will, instead, involve both industry and the consumer in irrelevant, costly, and pointless changes. For these reasons we strongly urge that you oppose this bill and do everything in your power to prevent its passage. Yours truly, JOHN N. CURLETT, President. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE COUNCILS OF Re S. 985, "truth in packaging." Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This letter is being written in behalf of 35,000 New York City hotel workers and their families. The We ask your support and approval of S. 985, "truth in packaging." passage of this bill will be of utmost importance to the economy not only of the consumers we represent, but all consumers throughout the Nation, in obtaining proper value for their hard earned dollars. We have a consumer counseling program in our union to advise, educate, and overcome, if possible, the evils of deceptive packaging, among other consumer problems. As part of our program, we distribute a "Budget Gadget," a sample of which is enclosed, to help our members determine the best buys in weight and size. Still. it has been our experience that working housewives and mothers are harassed, and have little time to shop expertly so that even a slide rule such as the "Budget Gadget" does not alter the fact that they are forced to buy on a deceptive packaging basis instead of a cents-per-ounce basis. We would like this letter to be made a part of the record of hearings on the above bill. We would also appreciate your comments. DEAR SENATOR HART: We, the members of Auxiliary to Barbers' Local No. 50, AFL-CIO, of Milwaukee, Wis., earnestly urge you to continue to sponsor bill S. 985, the "fair packaging and labeling" bill, when it comes up for hearings in front of the Senate Commerce Committee in late April or May. As homemakers, we are behind you 100 percent, and wish you success in your fight to attain the passage of this most important bill. Sincerely, LILLIAN MATTHEWS CARR, Secretary. WASHINGTON, D.C., May 7, 1965. Senator PHILLIP HART, DEAR SENATOR: Since your hearings on labeling as to price and resulting confusion in the mind of the shopper, Safeway has been putting signs like this under the instant coffee containers. 48-222-65--54 As Senator O'Mahoney used to tell us when we were working on hearings for him, "a hearing has tremendous results even without legislation." DEAR SENATOR PEARSON: As president of the Ellsworth Chamber of Commerce, I have been amply supplied with literature and well-coached by the U.S. Chamber on action that should be taken with regard to the "truth-in-packaging” bill. Our chamber has not formed an official opinion regarding this legislation; but I. as an individual citizen and consumer, have. As a constituent, I would like to pass along my views. In most any form of business enterprise, restrictive legislation or other controls would be totally unnecessary if it were not for abuses. But along with free enterprise, comes responsibility. It is ridiculous, and even bordering on criminal, the deceptions some manufacturers and distributors will use to peddle their products. It is indeed unfortunate that honesty and integrity must be sheived for the sake of the almighty dollar. One need only shop the supermarket and scan the various advertising media to reach the obvious conclusion that the consumer and distributor are engaged in a daily game of outwit the deceiver. The stakes are measured in millions of dollars. Lobbyists and pressure groups to the contrary, business will not police itself or take any lasting steps to correct shabby practices. Business wields such an economical influence on the press, radio, and television that few spokesmen dare print any arguments in favor of legislation to protect the consumer. Consequently there is not sufficient understanding on the part of the general public. Few people even realize that your committee is studying the problem. As a small voice in the wilderness, I sincerely urge a full and complete investigation and ask that the consumer be given the protection that would be afforded under S. 985. Sincerely, A. D. PAULL |