Fair Packaging and Labeling, Hearing, 89-1, April 28-May 18, 1965

I wish Senator Cotton was here, because his comment on advertising this morning I think deserves a little extra thought, and that is, that while it may annoy Senator Cotton to have his program interrupted, it is also annoying to some other people who are being educated in the habits of better cleanliness, and this is constructive from the standpoint of public health.

Isn't it possible that a great deal of the criticism of detergent packages the sizes and colors and designs-comes because we keep persuasively trying to bring about a change in living habits, and not just offering a certain number of ounces of a commodity at a price? This goes back to the Chamberlin theory that the latter should be a businessman's sole function.

Any time you try to change habits, you present people with dilemmas of choice which cannot be decided on a cost-per-pound basis. People are confronted with promises of product performance in which whiteness, and softness, and cleanliness itself must be evaluated on some subjective scale of values.

This may be confusing. But you cannot equate this kind of confusion with unfairness and deceptiveness, which is what S. 985 tries to do. And you cannot end this kind of puzzlement with a standard box.

We think it is a healthy kind of dilemma when a housewife sees a new package on the shelf and begins to wonder if it would save her time and money and possibly improve her cleaning results as against the package she has bought and used for years.

Whatever the label says about quantity won't help her much. For a quarter or two she can make the trial. The chances are it will have only a minor variation in overall use value, up or down, from her old favorite. But it's always interesting to try.

We contend further that to regulate or standardize or dissipate this kind of pleasurable choicemaking will not give the customer any significant economic protection. We believe it would cost her, as a taxpayer, more than any minor saving to pay her share of the extra policing of the supermarket shelves.

Finally, let me conclude by reminding you that our smaller companies are the ones more fearful about the effects of this bill.

We went through this with the food additive bill, as it applied to one of our groups making chemicals from fats. The big companies have the professional skills and resources to solve some of the problems mentioned here-to use TV, rather than the package as their main persuasive force.

In the food additive field, some of the smaller companies just quit making the affected lines-the game was not worth the candle. question whether this committee would consider it a potential benefi for the consumer to find still fewer firms producing packaged soap and detergents.

In conclusion, I have here a statement that I would like to file fo the record from the B. T. Babbit Co., in Albany. The B. T. Babbi Co. has been in business 130 years, but it is still a relatively sma company, making just one or two product lines.

They accentuate what I have said before, that they feel they wi be at the mercy of the giants, if you want to put it that way, to

greater degree if this law should be passed, than they are at the present time.

Thank you very much.

Senator NEUBERGER. That will be placed in the record.

(The statement follows:)

Gentlemen this is to inform you, formally, of the opinion of the B. T. Babbit Co. of the current packaging and labeling legislation now in committee.

We have given a good deal of time and attention to the concept of increased Federal interest in package standardization in our industry. We are well aware of the violations which have occurred and still occur in this area which have necessitated consideration of these matters by your committee.

We are also aware of the general feeling among our peers concerning the harmful effect of such legislation as it would be experienced not only by manufacturers in general, but particularly by smaller firms.

After 130 years in business, we find that each day brings more and not less competition to us in presenting our products to the consumer. One hundred and thirty years have also taught us to respect the critical eye of the consumer and to learn that what the consumer truly needs will always be the true criterion of adequate manufacture and supply, just as the fact that what the consumer continues to purchase will always determine the life and death of a particular branded item.

In this regard, increased package standardization, as outlined in the bill as it is currently drafted, will not solve the problems crucial to industry and to the consumer.

These problems are as follows:

1. The price/quality relationship.-The practical experience of the American housewife has taught her that quality is defined not in weight or size of a packaged commodity, but in the ability of that product to suit her individual needs, and to do so with reasonable cost efficiency.

She expects to pay more for a better product and less for a product that does not perform as well as average. More importantly, she has the right to make a choice between two such products.

2. Consumer promotions.-When we put the problem of package standardization into context, we see that what the proposed bill actually intends to do is to take away from the consumer some of the anticipated and welcome competitive tools that the manufacturer uses to fight for her approval and purchase *** the "bonus pack," which involves giving a few extra ounces of the product for the same price *** the "cents-off deal," which, in effect, is a temporary price reduction *** these items are meant to capture the imagination of the consumer and encourage her to sample a product which she may not normally purchase. Manufacturers, in this way, attempt to bring their products into the home to have the final judgment on the adequacy of a product made in what is truly the consumer "laboratory"-the American home.

3. Packaging aesthetics.-It is unnecessary to state the obvious in this case. Small manufacturers often rely on the attractiveness of their packaging to sell their products from the shelf, without the benefit of expensive promotional devices or advertising.

The time, effort and expense involved in this work by the manufacturer are considerable. But this work means more than competitive activity among manufacturers-it is also tremendously important to the American housewife.

It has led to the point where we can say, unchallenged, as American manufacturers, that we have given the American public the finest, most convenient packages and containers in the world. And, what is more important, we have made this high standard not a final goal, but an everyday practice.

With these things in mind, we agree with the great majority of American businessmen that the ethical standards subscribed to by our own industry combined with the current adequate regulatory functions of State Governments are more than enough to guide us.

We believe that a realistic appraisal of the advantages seen in our current method of operation is more important than over-emphasis of the few rare malpractices.

We believe, further, that reflection upon the facts of this issue will lead your committee to reject this new version of the Hart bill as ill-advised, since it is

harmful to the American housewife and to her servant, the manufacturer of packaged consumer items.

RALPH A. SCHWAIKERT, President.

Senator NEUBERGER. Because of the ruling that no committees can sit while the Senate is in session, we will have to adjourn.

Do you have any questions?

Senator SCOTT. I think it has been well covered.

Senator NEUBERGER. We will recess until Monday morning at 9. (Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Monday, May 3, 1965.)

FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING

MONDAY, MAY 3, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9:30 a.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable Frank J. Lausche presiding.

Senator LAUSCHE. The committee will come to order. The hearings on S. 985 will be continued this morning.

The first witness to testify is Mr. Lee S. Bickmore, president of the National Biscuit Co. of New York. Mr. Bickmore, we will be glad to hear what you have to say.

STATEMENT OF LEE S. BICKMORE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. BICKMORE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As president of the National Biscuit Co., I appreciate this opportunity to appear. In accordance with your request I am filing my full statement for the record.

The abundance and variety of packaged foods that the American food industry-under our free enterprise system-offers to the consumer is by now well known to this committee.

That abundance did not develop by chance or accident. It resulted from the tremendous revolution in the food industry-to meet the needs of our rapidly growing population.

Mass production, mass distribution, and mass selling of food products alone permit the food price line to be held.

Essential to it is the packaging operation. Efficiency depends on the time it takes to package. The food industry could not do its job under our old cracker-barrel system of the small grocery store in which the retailer measured out the desired quantities from bulk containers and put them into paper bags.

We at National Biscuit Co. are proud of the part our company has played in the development of the food industry since 1898. Very early we introduced "Uneeda Biscuit," the world's first packaged cracker, and, in fact one of the first packaged grocery-store products. "Uneeda Biscuit" ended the unsanitary cracker barrel and heralded the thousands of grocery packages now arranged in thousands of supermarkets everywhere in the United States. These endless rows of packages contain the finest, most sanitary, most nutritious foods on earth.

In the last two decades alone, National Biscuit Co. has spent more than $225 million on building and equipping the most modern straight