in 1-pound packs. Seems like an awfully light pound, so she checks it out on the scales when no one is looking. Well, it's just a couple ounces under. Maybe something is wrong with the scales. She doublechecks the scales with her pound of name-brand butter. Amazing! That pound of butter weighs 1812 ounces without its carton. She knows name brand butter producers are too smart to give away 21⁄2 ounces for nothing, so she points out this discrepancy to store manager. "Can't be," he says in a condescending tone. "We're checked all the time by the Bureau of Weights and Measures." "Come see for yourself,” she says, but he is suddenly tied up. Example. Still on the hunt for an honest mushroom, she tries a third chain grocery. At first everything seems OK, and what's more they have a premium coupon deal going. This is to bring her back each week to pick up another piece of crockery for "20 cents less than 'retail' price-plus a free custard cup with a $5 minimum purchase." She starts her set of crockery and comes back for the next 4 weeks trying to complete it. Funny thing-they're always "just out" of the giveaways they're offering for that $5 minimum purchases plus coupon. After a month of this baloney, good little housewife walks off in a huff, leaving her $26 grocery order rolling merrily down the automated checkout counter all by itself. But These are just a few examples among many. And this isn't to say that all grocers and allied personnel are playing the game of petty flimflammery. somebody's getting bamboozled at the grocery store, and it sure isn't the shoplifters. The average "good little housewife" doesn't go looking for trouble, but if she's got an ounce of brains, she resents paying for ounces that are rotten and worthless-and for ounces that aren't even there. Because all those little ounces add up to pounds and dollars. To say nothing of a deep distrust now present whenever Alice goes shopping in Blunderland. Maybe it's often an honest mistake. Certainly the store managers are most gracious about "making things right" for the good little housewife who calls them on it. But they're not so quick, it seems, to "make things right" in general. The (shall we say) careless grocer is a white-frocked reflection of his more subtle suppliers-the ones who eliminate or hide the net weight in the fine print-the ones who deliberately confuse the consumer with fractional, hard to figure weights and varying sizes, the packaging experts in deceit, the ad agencies with their great halftruths. A word in defense of our food values, prices, and selling: The values are often good, though too often not as proclaimed or intimated. The prices, in comparison with "what the Russians pay"; "the percentages of the food dollar spent today as compared with 20 years ago"; "the small profit to the grocer," etc., etc. etc., all look just great on the surface. Again, the consumer must look below the surface, just as in the case of the bright red strawberries on the top layer only, and the bright red meat on the exposed side only. Because these "facts" are the little brainchildren of shrewd public relations people and agencies— trained and ingrained in presenting the positive side of the picture. How do I know? 1 owned and operated a P.R. agency for a number of years-and we were far more ethical than many. As for the selling-packaging, new products, ad claims, display, etc.-it's all superb. And few shelves are collecting dust, though many housewives are collecting gray hairs trying to figure the true value, much less do any comparison shopping. Some possible remedies to all this hanky-panky: standardized sizes in cans, boxes, etc., prominently displayed net weight in standardized locations, prepackaging to show the bad as well as the good. And perhaps a shoppers' panel (volunteer housewives, maybe) to report violators to an enforcing agency. And if strong Federal, or self-imposed controls are impossible--or will take a long time to establish, how about a booklet for the housewife shopper to use in the interim? Wallet-sized, simple to read, with A B C basic charts to help her compute net weights, cents per ounce, cents per pound, etc. A booklet such as this must be easy to understand, because the uneducated housewife on a low budget who needs it most, must be able to use it. The average "good little housewife" will use it too-you bet. If it's written in her language-the language of housewifery, and not the mumbo jumbo of typical Government tracts. If any one is interested in such a booklet, and if I can help. I will volunteer my services. In closing I will say that never before have so many eaten so much that is so downright good. But caveat emptor, as the search goes on for an honest manan honest mushroom. Sincerely, and the very best of luck in what you're doing. Mrs. KAY FULLER. A. & P. FOOD STORES, ROCKVILLE, MD., May 10, 1965. DEAR SIRS: My family does the largest share of its food shopping at your stores and generally I've thought your policies toward the consumers quite progressive. However, recently I came across an example of deceptive packaging and/or pricing to which I object. For years I've purchased Wheat Chex cereal in the 18-ounce package. Your price has been 34 cents. Recently Wheat Chex has come out with a new, “improved" package of 141⁄2 ounces (question-the fraction couldn't be there to make it difficult for the consumer to figure cost per ounce, could it?). The price remains the same-34 cents. I don't object to legitimate price increases if they reflect added costs or other valid reasons. I do object to a price increase of almost 25 percent, hidden by deceptive packaging. According to the local store manager the price is set by A. & P., not the manufacturer. Therefore, I am protesting to you. If he is in error, please forward this complaint to the Ralston-Purina people. It is practices like this which demonstrate time and time again the need for Senator Hart's truth-in-packaging bill. Sincerely yours, SAFEWAY STORES, INC., EDWIN H. MONTGOMERY. ROCKVILLE, MD., May 10, 1965. DEAR SIRS: For years, the only hand soap my family has used has been your Brocade hand soap; priced at 10 bars for 49 cents. Recently, in one of your stores there were 3 different preticketed prices for separate packages of 10 bars of Brocade hand soap-49, 55, and 59 cents-all at the same time. It is obvious that Safeway is trying to gradually increase from 49 to 59 cents (the price on all packages now) with the thought apparently that the consumer is too stupid to notice a 20-percent price increase. I consider this but another example of deceptive packaging and/or pricing. It is practices like this which demonstrate the need for Senator Hart's truth-inpackaging bill. Sincerely yours, EDWIN H. MONTGOMERY. UNDERGARMENT & NEGLIGEE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 62, Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In the name of our 15,000 women members, most of them housewives and mothers, in addition to being wage earners, I want to make a strong plea for the passage of S. 985, the truth in packaging bill. The packaged food industry insists that the consumers' rights are protected by competition. Correct, but competition implies truth in the labeling of a package's contents. A pound should be 16 ounces, a quart exactly a quart, and packages which have the same weight should not vary dizzily in size. Quality of the contents should be the criterion for the purchaser, not false and misleading packaging. Distrust of business is a serious thing in any community and this result is to be feared if housewives are further imposed upon by misleading labeling. We know how large food costs loom in working people's budgets, and how important knowledge of exact content amount, fairly and legibly stated on the package, is to our members. I hope this request for the passage of S. 985, for the benefit of consumers (and to industry too), will be included in the official records of the Commerce Committee. Very respectfully yours, MATTHEW SCHOENWALD, WAKEFIELD FISHERIES, E. L. BARTLETT, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR BOB: I have before me a bulletin of the National Fisheries Institute urging that I write you and other members of the Senate Commerce Committee in opposition to S. 985, Senator Hart's truth in packaging legislation. The NFI does not speak for our company on this matter. In fact, it embarrasses me to be a member of a trade association taking such a backward position. We pack more consumer-sized packages of crabmeat than any firm in the United States (or anywhere else, for that matter). We try our very best to make every package an attractively, but at the same time honestly, presented value to the consumer. We have a strong quality-control department, and we employ the continuous inspection services of the U.S. Department of Interior. There is no food more nourishing, healthful, and tasty than fish and other seafoods. Yet it is not popular with the American consumer, and the average person buys a fish product less than once a month, let alone once a week. It seems to us that any firm interested in correcting this sad state of affairs has everything to gain and nothing to lose from the sort of legislation now before you. Sincerely, LOWELL WAKEFIELD, President. NALLEY'S FINE FOODS, April 9, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR: As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, you will certainly play a big part in determining whether Senator Hart's bill (S. 985) is passed by the Senate or dies in committee as it did last year. We urge your careful consideration of these facts: 1. Virtually every "evil" with which Senator Hart is concerned is covered by antitrust laws or by pure food and drug laws. 2. Enforcement of existing laws will mean more to the consumer than enactment of new legislation based on a somewhat idyllic interpretation of what is thought to be needed. How can anyone say we need additional legislation of this type when we aren't enforcing laws already in the books? 3. Business needs no additional Government agency restrictions on its packaging and marketing methods. There are plenty now. 4. Business would welcome with open arms legislation which made it easier to do the job of production and marketing rather than more difficult-legisla tion designed to help lower the cost to the consumer rather than raise it. 5. Without exception the consumer soon eliminates from the scene any item which is deceptively packaged. For that matter, the consumer soon eliminates any company which uses a fraudulent approach of any kind. Your usual careful consideration of the facts will convince you, I am sure. that this bill (S. 985) is not needed. Sincerely, GEORGE H. HUTCHINGS. DIAMOND FRUIT GROWERS, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We represent 300 fruitgrowers in the Hood River Valley. We pack, process and market members' fruit production both in the fresh and processed form. We are seriously disturbed by the provisions of the Hart bill as we understand them. All our fruit and fruit products are packed in standard containers and labeled according to Government rules and regulations. We have had no complaints from our customers regarding our packaging and labeling practices. It seems to us that this bill is in effect using the shotgun approach to correct buses-if any-that should be singled out for individual attention. In this espect the bill is unnecessary in its present broad scope. It appears to us that the bill would be extreme in that it goes far beyond the xisting law by authorizing intensive Government control of package sizes and hapes without regard to deception. Finally, we think that this bill by implication indicts the whole food industry, vhen we know that consumer support and purchases do not indicate such lissatisfaction. This bill should be killed or greatly modified to eliminate the extreme features. Very truly yours, J. E. KLAHRE, General Manager. STAR-KIST FOODS, INC., Terminal Island, Calif., March 19, 1965. Senator W. G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Senator Philip Hart of Michigan has reintroduced his so-called truth in packaging bill in this session of Congress as S. 985, under the title of the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act." Our company strongly objected to this legislation last year and must call upon your good offices in considering our reasons why this bill should not become law. Our industry carries a large share of the responsibility for feeding the American people, and we are proud of our record in supplying safe, nutritious, and palatable foods. We have also achieved a high level of performance in the fair and honest packaging and labeling of our products. We further advocate and follow a policy that voluntary industry action in presenting the consuming public with full information about its products is not only good business, but also is a major contribution of business to good government and to the public interest. It is also pointed out that regulatory officials have given public recognition and acknowledgment to the voluntary action achievement of our industry. The present laws relating to food and the production and marketing of food products fully and adequately protect consumers against misbranding, adulteration, false and deceptive advertising, and the results of unfair trade practices. You might note that our own voluntary addition of supplying valuable nonrequired information on our lables has given the consumer protection. The strict control advocated by this bill would delay, because of Government redtape, any benefits that the consumer might receive. It is our feeling that self regulation insures a more vigorous insistence on truth in advertising, as any abuse that may be registered opens the door of threatening Government regulations. Over the past year, four regional hearings have been held to evaluate consumer problems. Practically speaking, all of the reports issued regarding these conferences have pointed out the absence of consumer objections to packaging practices about which the Hart bill concerns itself. You will please find attached excerpts from these conferences indicating the sentiments and findings supporting the lack of consumer objections. I have attempted to outline generally our company's position on this vital legislation. It is my hope that careful consideration be given to these arguments, and I trust your fair judgment will rely on our industry's self-regulation to protect our most important product, "people." Sincerely yours, JOSEPH J. BOGDANOVICH, President. Absence of evidence of consumer dissatisfaction during the four regional hearings held to evaluate consumer problems Practically all of the reports issued regarding these conferences have pointed up the absence of consumer objections to packaging practices about which the Hart bill concerns itself. (1) Following is a quotation from the letter of the National Association of Manufacturers to Mrs. Esther Peterson summarizing their comment on the consumer conferences. It is found on page 2 of their letter of November 6, 1964. "It also is evident that the conferences failed to disclose any insistent consumer demand either for this type of Government action, or for any modification of the Nation's free market system. Legitimate complaints were isolated. Many spontaneous complaints appeared to center upon subjects unreleated to the production and marketing of goods and services, such as the current level of wages, and of welfare payments. These were proper points of discussion for sessions devoted to national economic matters, but not, as you may agree, for sessions examining the shopping problems of the American household." (2) Testimony of Commissioner Larrick of the Food and Drug Administration: The following quote from a speech by Mr. Larrick is taken from a release received from the National Canners Association entitled "The case against S. 387" (similar to S. 985) on page 10. "The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act *** is fundamentally a consumer measure. *** It has provisions to inform the consumer about the food in the package and thus permit her to make intelligent selections at the marketplace. "In 1961 we had out of 8,500 (samples examined), 28 inconspicuous labeling cases, but in this year, 1962, in the first 3 months, in examining 15,000-plus samples, we had only 23 ***” In fairness to Mr. Larrick it should be pointed out that in the 1962 hearings to determine the need for additional packaging legislation, Mr. Larrick testified that existing law was adequate. Subsequently, at hearings following the introduction of the administration bill, the Commissioner urged its enactment. Public Opinion Poll Conducted by Opinion Research Corp. of Princeton, NJ. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Washington Report No. 11 of March 5, 1965, refers to a recently announced public opinion poll conducted by the above organization. We have requested through National Canners Association a copy of the text of the report. The chamber's summary reads in part as follows: "Based on 1,925 interviews, mostly with the 'lady of the house,' the results show consumers in general to be very well pleased with packaged foods and with nonfood grocery products. On questions relating directly to issues in the Hart bill-pictures and information on labels, sizes, shapes, and designs of packages, slack fill-the woman's satisfaction with present packages ranged from 74 to 84 percent. No opinion was voiced by 3 to 8 percent. Those calling for changes ranged from 8 to 22 percent depending upon the change desired. Significantly, though, most consumers felt manufacturers, themselves, could effect the necessary improvements, apparently reflecting the general consumer confidence in grocery product manufacturers. The next largest number voted for 'public opinion' to bring about the changes, apparently reflecting confidence in the traditional consumer strength. Only 2 to 5 percent felt that Government agencies should make the changes." An editorial in Printer's Ink, December 1964, also refers to a report by the Opinion Research Corp. of a study authorized by the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Their summary reads in part: "Only 1 person in 20 expressed any dissatisfaction with food packaging. Of the total, 91 percent were satisfied ('very.' 'extremely' or 'fairly') with the convenience of packages; 86 percent with the range of package sizes; 86 percent with the information on packages: 79 percent with the product pictures on packages; and 70 percent with the accuracy of the number of servings on packages. Survey by Nation's Business The March issue of Nation's Business carries results of a shopping experiment endeavoring to illustrate the ability of teenage high school girls to make intelligent shopping decisions based on the information available on the packages. Six teenage girls and a home economics teacher were selected at random. Each test shopper was given a list of 35 categories of food and household commodities which contained items cited at one time or another in congressional hearings as fooling or confusing the Nation's housewives. The only instructions given to the girls were "buy as if you were a homemaker" and "use your own judgment." At the end of the experiment, their purchases were evaluated by a home economics teacher at the high school and they were interviewed by a Nation's Business editor. In the judgment of the home economics examiner, purchases made by the girls were intelligent and reflected the needs of their particular family environment. The home economics teacher who, like the students, actually made purchases, spent more time and less money than the students but because she was |