Senator DOMINICK. So it is your feeling that if this bill should pass in the interest of the consumers, the effect would be to raise the prices as far as the consumers are concerned.

Mr. CHENEY. I think so, yes.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you.

That is all I have Madam Chairman.
Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Lausche.

Senator LAUSCHE. At the risk of being repetitious, I should like to analyze the present law of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, to find out to what extent within that law there is now available remedy to feret out the evils about which complaint is made. Are you familiar with this Misbranding of Food Act as dealt with by the Congress?

Mr. CHENEY. I have read this, but some time ago.

And as you will note in my statement, we left the matter of labeling to the companies and the industries which do the labeling. We simply furnish the containers. I addressed myself to the problems of the container capacity, size, shape, and so forth. I am not an expert on that subject.

Senator LAUSCHE. You are not familiar with this matter. I understand your position to be that if regulations are adopted, by either the Secretary or the Commission, requiring uniform containers or various sized containers, it may require you to change your complete line of processing, entailing expense.

Mr. CHENEY. No, I wouldn't say it would cause us to change our complete line of processes. We would still make them by the same method. But what it would do is require our industry to make additional sets of molds where one mold is now used, and to run a shorter run, smaller quantity, from each of those additional sets of molds, as against the long run from the present one mold.

Senator LAUSCHE. How many molds are usual in operation, let's say, in a specimen plant X?

Mr. CHENEY. I don't know how to estimate that. If you will think through a supermarket and the many glass containers of many shapes and sizes that you see there, there are a large number of molds in the average plant.

Senator LAUSCHE. If there are a large number of molds now in use, how will the adoption of a regulation impose any heavy burden upon your industry or the consumer or the merchant!

Mr. CHENEY. The way the burden would be imposed would be, in those instances where we have standardized items, long runs now, such as the canning industry uses, as I spoke of, the California canning industry, a jar known, say, as the 303 jar, which has a certain overflow capacity, this is run from one set of molds, long runs, and the canner takes this then and packs a number of products in it of varying densities, and labels them according to the amount of product that he can get in each one. If he then had to furnish these products all at even ounces, he would have to have separate jars for each product that would mean short runs, relatively shorter runs from separate molds in our plants. But probably the greatest increase in cost would occur in the packer's plant where he has to keep an inventory and keep careful control of that inventory of several sizes and be sure that he gets the right size for each product as it goes through.

Senator LAUSCHE. Is this statement fair: To reduce the ultimate cost of a particular item that is sold to the public in a glass container, it has been found that a jar of one size, sent through the manufacturing process, to be used containing materials of different density, is helpful in reducing price?

Mr. CHENEY. Yes, that is right.

Senator LAUSCHE. Now, then, if you require separate containers, the seller will have to have an inventory of separate containers, the manufacturer of those containers will have to have processing machinery for each of the different containers, thus increasing the cost. Is that it?

Mr. CHENEY. Yes, that is generally true.

Senator LAUSCHE. The other day testimony was given by some biscuit cookie company and it presented four cartons, each of the same dimension and appearance, each one carrying a different material, and the density of each material was different. It was said that they used the same size carton because of the savings that were enjoyed in eliminating multiple inventories and eliminating the need of additional machinery to manufacture separate cartons, and that for that reason, while the container was of identical size, inasmuch as the material in it was of different density, it had different weights. Is that about the same principle?

Mr. CHENEY. Yes, I would say it is about the same principle.

Senator LAUSCHE. You haven't calculated what cost this would entail if you were to install in this glass business the different types of machinery that would be needed because you don't know what regulations will be adopted; is that right?

Mr. CHENEY. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Yesterday some testimony was offered about deception being practiced in developing containers that looked large but were made up mainly of glass or vacuum. What do you know about that situation, if it exists at all?

Mr. CHENEY. I don't know of any such situation. It certainly wouldn't be practical just to put in a lot of extra glass, because glass is very heavy and it would make the container more costly and the shipping weight higher. I know of no case where that is being done.

Senator LAUSCHE. I think it was testified by the AFL-CIO that glass containers were used that looked large but had towers in them that contained nothing but air. Have you heard in your position of such practices?

Mr. CHENEY. The only thing I can think of is the push-up bottom of certain wine bottles which has a very practical purpose in the preservation of the wine. But this is such a well-known practice I don't think it is deceitful to anybody. And the labels always show the quantity in the bottle. It is the only thing I can think of that they could possibly be talking about.

Senator LAUSCHE. How long would a seller of the type that I have hypothesized be able to survive in the present market?

Mr. CHENEY. I don't think he would survive in the present market. I think he might make his first sale, but as soon as they got the product home and found they had been deceived in the manner that this man from the AFL describes, I am sure they would never buy that product again. I think the market automatically eliminates those practices.

Senator LAUSCHE. It would seem to me that if he were able to survive engaging in practices of that type, we are possessed of an intelligence far less than we profess to have.

Mr. CHENEY. I would agree.

Senator LAUSCHE. That is all.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Cannon?
Senator CANNON. I have no questions.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you.

Mr. CHENEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

GLASS CONTAINER MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC.,
New York, N.Y., May 24, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Enclosed is the copy received from your office of the transcript of my testimony on May 5, 1965, before the Senate Committee on Commerce in opposition to S. 985, on which I have marked the necessary corrections.

After I had presented my formal statement, and during the course of questioning me with regard thereto, Senator Neuberger held up two jars of instant tea and asked me, "Which one has the most tea in it?" Since the witness chair in which I was sitting was some 10 to 15 feet away from where Senator Neuberger was holding these jars, I was, of course, unable to read the labels. I stated that "I would have to read the labels to know which had the most tea." Senator Neuberger then said that the taller jar had 1 ounce and the shorter jar 11⁄2 ounces (transcript, p. 752, lines 14 through 18) and subsequently she stated that the taller jar stated on the label, "Free, one-third more, save 16 cents" (transcript, p. 762, line 12). Senator Neuberger repeatedly referred to the taller of the two jars as a deceptive package and an example of deceptive labeling (transcript, p. 753, lines 17 and 18; p. 754, line 19; p. 756, lines 3 and 4; p. 758, lines 21 and 22; p. 762, lines 10 and 11). Senator Neuberger also stated (transcript, p. 760, lines 2 through 5):

"I carry these with me everywhere. Every group I speak to on this subject, I say don't buy Tenderleaf tea. I also say don't buy Lipton tea, until they get rid of the is this 5 cents off?"

After the hearings were recessed on May 5, I examined the labels on the two jars. The taller jar was a jar of Tenderleaf instant tea and contained, among other things, the following information on the label :

"Free, one-third more. Save up to 16 cents.

"One ounce net weight.

"No fillers, no carbohydrates; 100-percent pure tea."

Elsewhere on the label it stated that one rounded teaspoon of the product would make one glass of ice tea and two level tablespoons of the product would make a quart of tea.

The shorter jar was a jar of Lipton's instant tea which contained, among other things, the following printing on the label : "Five cents off regular price. consists of equal parts of freshly tect the rich full flavor of the tea. "Net weight, 11⁄2 ounces."

You pay stamped price. Lipton instant tea prepared tea and malto-dextrine solely to pro

This jar also showed that one rounded teaspoon of the contents would make one glass of tea and two tablespoons would make 1 quart of tea.

Since half of the contents of the Lipton jar is malto-dextrine, which is specifically described as being there solely to protect the tea, the 12-ounce net contents actually represent only three-fourths of an ounce of tea. There is therefore, in fact, one-third more tea in the taller Tenderleaf jar than in the other, and, we are told, than was in the previous Tenderleaf jar which contained threefourths ounce and sold at the same price.

This is borne out by the fact that as the taller jar does appear to hold about one-third more volume of product and one teaspoon of each product makes the same amount of tea, therefore it can be assumed that the jar of Tenderleaf tea would in fact make one-third more tea than the jar of Lipton's tea.

All this is not in any way to criticize the Lipton product, but it does demonstrate that the Tenderleaf jar of tea cannot fairly be described as a "deceptive package."

I believe that most persons in possession of the above information would agree that the Tenderleaf package is not a "deceptive package," and yet this was offered as a glaring example of why S. 985 is needed and should be passed. In fairness to the manufacturer of Tenderleaf tea, I believe the record should be set straight. I respectfully request, therefore, that this letter be printed as a part of the hearings on S. 985 as a supplement to my testimony.

Respectfully yours,

R. L. CHENEY.

Senator NEUBERGER. The next witness is Ernest Giddings, legislative representative for the National Retired Teachers Association and the American Association of Retired Persons. Mr. Giddings, we are glad to have you. You may make your statement.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST GIDDINGS, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL MILLER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, NATIONAL RETIRED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Madam Chairman, accompanying me is Mr. Michael Miller, legislative assistant of our two organizations.

I am the legislative representative of these two nonprofit organizations, the National Retired Teachers Association and the American Association of Retired Persons. I appear before you today on behalf of the 950,000 members of these two organizations, which represent a cross section of the 18 million elderly persons in the United States today, to voice our support of S. 985, the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act."

The membership of NRTA consists of approximately 200,000 retired teachers. The membership of AARP consists of approximately 750,000 retired persons age 55 or over. National, State, and local or chapter officers of the two organizations number between 500 and 600 persons.

Of the many services performed by these organizations, the most significant are: (1) the preparation of bimonthly publications which contain information of interest to our members, (2) a low-cost travel service, (3) a hearing aid service, (4) low-cost health insurance plans, (5) a low-cost drug service, (6) a full program of educational courses offered through the Institute of Lifetime program, (8) low-cost accommodations plus information for members visiting in Florida or California, (9) a consultant service to private and government groups on preretirement and retirement programs and (10) a consultant service to churches on programs and problems of older people.

As the above services indicate we have worked and will continue to work for the mitigation of the particular problems of the aged. Our past and present support of legislative efforts to eliminate deceptive packaging and labeling is one way in which we have worked in the best interests of our members. We shall continue to support all such efforts.

INCOME LIMITATIONS OF THE AGED

In serving their membership, NRTA and AARP are constantly striving to find ways to increase, and to eliminate practices that place further limitations on, the income and purchasing power of the aged. We believe that the deceptive practices at which this legislation is directed do place limitations on the income and purchasing power of the aged. Our concern for this legislation can readily be seen from the statistics I will now present.

The population aged 65 and over reached 17.6 million at the end of 1963 and the proportion of persons aged 65 and over to the total population has more than doubled since 1900. Today, one out of eleven persons has passed his sixty-fifth birthday.

The median income of families headed by persons aged 65 or over was $3,204 in 1962, just $200 over the "poverty line," and considerably lower than the median income for families headed by younger persons. Three million elderly families live on the wrong side of the poverty line with incomes of less than $3,000 a year. At least 1.9 million aged couples live on less than $2,500 a year. Over 5 million aged individuals live on less than $1,800 a year.

Seventy-two percent of the population aged 65 or over were receiving OASDI benefits at the end of 1963. The average monthly benefits paid to ASDI beneficiaries in 1962 were as follows:

Having just made a reference to the benefits received by a widowed mother and two children, this is an appropriate time to note that 1 out of 3 persons 65 or over is supporting an aged relative.

In 1963 over 2 million aged persons were receiving old-age assistance under the Federal-State public assistance programs and the average monthly payment received under those programs in 1963 was $77.

According to a survey of the aged conducted in 1963 by the Social Security Administration with the Bureau of the Census carrying out the field collection of data, between 16 and 17 percent of the married couples and 5 percent of the nonmarried persons in the United States were receiving income from private pensions in 1963. Furthermore, for many of the persons who received them, private pensions provided a substantial part of retirement income. At the end of 1962 approximately 5 million persons were receiving average monthly benefits of $137 a month under State and local public retirement systems.

We present the above statistics to show and emphasize the fact that most elderly persons have a fixed, low level of income, and that the income and purchasing power problems of the elderly have been and will continue to be of increasing significance as this population group increases in size unless preventive measures are taken.