Secondly, we are concerned with standard weights and measures. It doesn't do a consumer any good who doesn't know whether 634 ounces, for 43 cents, is better than 934 ounces for 93 cents. We think there ought to be a simple way for a consumer to go in and know a quart is a quart, a pound is a pound, a half pound is a half pound, by the ounces that we learned in school meant, a pound, a pint, a half pint, or the number of liquid ounces contained. Senator LAUSCHE. Yesterday testimony was offered that housewives vary in their judgment about how much goods they need and therefore you just can't prepare poundages or half poundages because they may feel they do not want to carry that quantity or will not consume it with adequate speed to keep it fresh. Miss DUBROW. We are not arguing there can't be a 4-ounce can or a 2-ounce can or a half pint or what have you. What we are saying is make it simple for the housewife to understand what she is purchasing for how much she is paying and for her to know by the label exactly what she is getting. Senator LAUSCHE. No one can disagree with you about the need of having truth. I think my public career will show that I have asked for truth in every operation of the economy and the society. I have asked for truth and obedience to law from everyone. As a judge and Governor and mayor, I have allowed no one to become superior to the law regardless of their political strength. And I don't contemplate changing that view. So that I say to you that whatever needs to be done to have truthfulness, and absence of deception, absence of fraud, should be achieved. But the question is whether or not there is now an adequate law to meet that objective. Miss DUBROW. Mr. Chairman, we feel there is not. We feel the regulations need strengthening, considerable strengthening. We do appreciate the fact that you think as we do, that the consumer has a right to know what he is purchasing when he goes in to buy. Senator LAUSCHE. Now will you explain what you feel is a weakness in the Administrator of the Food and Drug Act having a case by case approach? How do you think these matters should be taken up? Miss DUBROW. Well, as we describe in our testimony, we think there ought to be general regulations under which the Administrator can act, and that where there are cases that can be handled by the Administrator, there ought not to be a need to go into court and take a long time to get a decision, because by that time the consumer has already been deceived or bilked or used unfairly. We feel that as there are in other regulatory agencies there ought to be a broad power in the Administrator to handle these evils without having to go into court for every single one. Senator LAUSCHE. Your view is that the Administrator by regulation ought to give himself power to fix rules and then to enforce those rules with the authority residing in the accused to go to the courts for the purpose of having review? Miss DUBROW. I would like to say, Senator Lausche, that I feel first of all the power should be in the hands of Congress to set up these regulations and the Administrator should have to work with those regulations as set up by Congress. But that the accused should have every right before the law to prove his case or to prove that the charges are not right. We are not suggesting anything but truth and equity for the consumer in this case. Senator LAUSCHE. To simplify it, you take the position that the offender ought not to have the opportunity of going to court and being protected by the present armors that are given to a person charged with a wrong by Government, but should answer to the Administrator? Miss DUBROW. For general regulations set up by Congress, in order to protect the purchaser. Senator LAUSCHE. Has this been the position of the AFL-CIO when in labor bills it was intended to give the Labor Department the authority to adopt regulations that would similarly be binding upon labor? Miss DUBROW. Senator Lausche Senator LAUSCHE. Can you answer that question? Miss DUBROW. Only in part. I know the Labor Department has many laws under which it acts on regulations. And the labor movement is expected to abide by those. And labor, as we suggest, any offender or any accuser may have a right to go into court. But there are general regulations, as cited by Taft-Hartley, parts of the Wagner Act, Minimum Wage. I can think of a lot of areas where the Labor Department has power to make regulations and where labor is expected to abide by those regulations. Senator LAUSCHE. Yesterday testimony was given that in the packaging of goods they have one container, one size, one dimension, and it will contain, let's say, a pound of one ingredient or one material which is dense. But in that same package of the same dimension you put in a less dense material and it will only contain 13 ounces. And then you take the same package with another material which is still less dense, and it will only be 12 ounces. Their argument was that if they have to prepare separate size packages for each article, it would impose an inordinate cost. Have you heard that argument made? Miss DUBROW. I have heard it made. Senator LAUSCHE. Can you make any comment on it? I would like to hear what you have to say. Miss DUBROW. I speak now as a consumer. I don't pretend to be the expert. But I simply say this, that it seems to me that the packager who can tell what the contents are plainly and explains to the consumer, will not be in any trouble. I am now thinking of the consumer, Mr. Chairman, who is at the mercy of the packagers who wish to deceive, not the honest packager who wants to say because this is a solid substance, this is how many ounces we have, because it is a liquid, this number of ounces. I don't think the honest packager has a thing to worry about in the regulations we are asking for. On the other hand, we think the consumer is really being cheated by the dishonest packager these days. Senator LAUSCHE. Well, no one can take exception with you in trying to protect the consumer. On that score I want to say that I have fought for this consumer and against people who want special rates in Government and have done that through my whole life. Now, in your paper you said the record of hearings before the Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee is full of examples of quantity variations among packagers of competing products, extending to the use of fractional measures that have I emphasize this-that have no practical basis whatsoever, except, if this can be called practical, to make it almost impossible for a shopper to make price comparisons. May I repeat, yesterday they put four cartons on the table, each one was of the same size. The witness testified that one carton, let's say, had in it 14 ounces, the other 12.5, and the third one 11. Those are not the exact figures. But he gave as a justification for that the fact that if they had to have separate boxes, cartons, each capable of containing the same quantity in ounces, it would require increased inventories, the installation of new machines, the increase in prices, and finally a added burden to the housewife. Now, let me have your version on that item. Miss DUBROW. I don't have any idea what the production of different size boxes would be. I think, probably, Mr. Chairman, that this is an exaggeration in many ways of what would happen. I think if the regulations were there, it would be convenient for packagers to be able to set up these separate containers without too much trouble. And I really think in this case, there again, there is an attempt to make it sound as though the consumer is asking for something that is outrageous. All the consumer is asking for is to know what is in the package, in big enough letters, without making it complicated for him to purchase whichever product he chooses to. Senator LAUSCHE. But doesn't the present law require that the lettering be not misleading and adequately large? Miss DRAPER. Can I say something on that last question? Senator LAUSCHE. Yes. Miss DRAPER. Yesterday when I was in the supermarket, I was looking at cleanser packages. I saw a Babo, two for 27 cents and it said 20 percent more in this can, 16.8 ounces for the price of 14 ounces. We didn't know, of course, what the price of the 14 ounces was or why anybody would put in 16.8 ounces. Safeway's White Magic was two 14-ounce cans for 25 cents. Ajax had two for 45, 1 pound and 5 ounces, each. Comet had four 6-ounce cans in a four-package container, a total of 1 pound 8 ounces, 39 cents. Giant size, 1 pound 5.5 ounces, 21 cents, 3 cents off, 81 cents. Dutch Cleanser, 14 ounces, two for 31 cents; less 4 cents, two for 27 cents. Comet 14 ounces, three for 42 cents. I don't quite understand the logic of why we should have 1 pound 5.5 ounces; 1 pound 5 ounces; and 16.8 ounces and 14 ounces. This is what we are objecting to. Miss DUBROW. As a matter of fact, that in a sense answers the question. If they have to have different packages for 12.5 ounces and 634 ounces and 7% ounces, why is it any different than saying we would like to have packages that say 12 ounces, 16 ounces, 14 ounces. We consider this misleading labeling, because the housewife who goes has got to know how to use fractions. And I don't think it is fair to ask a housewife who may or may not have the education, to handle this kind of problem. The AFL-CIO has specifically endorsed the legislation proposed by Senator Hart. I quote from a policy resolution passed by the most recent constitutional convention of the AFL-CIO, in 1963: We urge the early congressional approval of Senator Hart's truth-in-packaging measure which demands no more than integrity from the packaging industry. This is not too high a price for the privilege of doing business with the American public. The truth-in-packaging bill then pending was S. 387. The current bill offered by Senator Hart is S. 985, which contains substantially the same provisions. S. 985 represents the culmination of 4 years of hearings and debate. It also has our support. However, as I will indicate as I go along, we have some reservations about some of the changes made in its terms since the last Congress, and hope the committee will consider certain improvements. Basically the bill is designed simply to give the ordinary retail buyer a fair shake in today's markets and supermarkets, in which the packaged product is now so predominant. Most of the 8,000 or more items in the modern supermarket come in packages, and the buyer's main information about a product before a purchase is actually made must now be gleaned from the package itself. Unfortunately, as the previous voluminous hearings have brought out, the modern package too often falls down on this basic information job. It is strong on sales messages and weak on plain facts like just exactly what is inside and how much of it. And you can't carry on a conversation with a package in order to make it speak up clearly about what you want to know. S. 985 makes it mandatory upon the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission, for the products within their respective jurisdictions, to draw up a set of rules covering what information must be displayed on a package, and what kind of misinformation is forbidden. These mandatory provisions are listed in section 3(a). Net quantity of contents must appear on front panels of packages, and standards must be established as to how big the type should be. Sales pitches that puff up the quantity statements such as the jumbo quart or the full quart or the big 12 ounces-are banned. Also forbidden are manufacturers' messages, incorporated into the printed labels, that offer cents off the regular price, or that promise that a large package will cost less than a small one. We are all in favor of reduced prices-if they are really reduced; and we gladly accept the offer of lower unit prices on larger sizesif they are really lower. But as any shopper can testify, the most applicable description of these bargains, though it may have grammatical shortcomings, is the line from Porgy and Bess: "It ain't necessarily so." To evaluate the cents-off claim, a shopper must know from previous purchases what the regular price really is. To evaluate the unit price of the large economy size--for reasons I will shortly discuss the shopper must have a thorough knowledge of ratio and proportion, the ability to multiply and divide fractions and the time and patience to apply these talents in the aisles of the supermarket. I submit that this kind of gimmickry is an unjustified imposition on consumers. Finally, section 3(a) calls for regulations prohibiting pictures on packages which are likely to deceive buyers about what is inside. |