Source Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United Arakes Pepartment of Agriculture

Senator Bass. Thank you very much. I might say that I have been authorized by the assistant of the author of the bill, Senator Hart, to inform you that Senator Hart does not intend to fill the hole in the Life Saver. As a matter of fact he has saved the life of the Life Savers by putting a 2-ounce exemption in the bill.

Mr. SIFERS. Very good.

Senator BASS. Senator Pearson?

Senator PEARSON. Tell me about the vending machine problem. I have a stack of letters in my office from the vending machine people who are very much concerned about another problem, and that is the change in the coinage that may be necessary because of certain metal scarcities. They think they may have to modify all their vending machines because of a change in the content of silver in nickels, dimes, and so forth. What is the problem of vending machines, which you mentioned?

Mr. SIFERS. Senator Pearson, the problem there is that you get into the problem of pennies. The only

Senator PEARSON. You mean through an increased price of the product?

Mr. SIFERS. Yes, because of standardization of the package. Senator PEARSON. Most of the change compartments in vending machines are uniform, are they not?

Mr. SIFERS. Yes.

Senator PEARSON. But the problem of the vending machine is that you are going to have to have a nickel slot and a penny slot, is that right

Mr. SIFERS. It could well be.

Senator PEARSON (continuing). If the price of the candy bar had to be increased?

Mr. SIFERS. Consumers resist this. There is a coinage shortage as you are familiar with, as far as the Government is concerned at the present time.

Senator PEARSON. Did you hear the testimony of the representative of the Farmers Union?

Mr. SIFERS. Yes.

Senator PEARSON. This may be an unfair question because I don't associate your industry with the field of agriculture particularly as it relates to our section of the country. Is the spread between the producer and the consumers' price in your industry anything like the chart that he brought here?

Mr. SIFERS. No, it is not, Senator. As you well know, we raise in the State of Kansas, in your State, a lot of sugar beets in western Kansas.

Senator PEARSON. That is right.

You made quite a point of the existing law being adequate and you were frank enough to say that this was repetitious and everybody had said it. Is it your view that the present law is adequate if it is properly enforced?

Mr. SIFERS. Yes.

Senator PEARSON. What do you think of the enforcement of it today?

Mr. SIFERS. Senator Pearson, you are asking me a very difficult question

Senator PEARSON. I intended to.

Mr. SIFERS (Continuing). On which Mr. Gamble and a lot of people have been on this seat about. We feel that the Government officials have the power

Senator PEARSON. To do what?

Mr. SIFERS (continuing). At the present time to do the job.

Senator PEARSON. Do you think there is adequate and complete enforcement of it today?

Mr. SIFERS. They are actively working at it all the time.

Senator PEARSON. New legislation, new rules, and regulations, can come about, I suppose, in two ways: First, if there are inadequate laws on the books; second, that the adequate laws on the books aren't being enforced. If we have a problem-and I take it that you would concede that every once in a while in an isolated case there is a problem. Tell me, how are complaints originated before the Commission? Does the consumer come in, or does a member of the industry come in? How are these things started?

Mr. SIFERS. The Food and Drug and Federal Trade get reports from the consumers, very definitely.

Senator PEARSON. Can they initiate provisions on their own?
Mr. SIFERS. They do, very definitely.

Senator PEARSON. Yes. There has been litigation from time to time that hadn't been successful. Is that right?

Mr. SIFERS. That is right.

Senator PEARSON. Didn't you have something in your testimony about the Commission picking bad cases to prosecute, or something like that?

Mr. SIFERS. Yes, sir.

Senator PEARSON. Do you want to comment on that?

I want to thank you for your testimony. Your points are well made. Senator Bass. Thank you very much.

Mr. SIFERS. Senator, we think we have some excellent 5 cent bars of candy. They are a wonderful, wholesome food.

Senator Bass. The Chair at this time will take one of the prerogatives of the Chair. I have to be away from the committee at 12:30. We have a gentleman here from Tennessee. At this time I am going to call Mr. Roy Clarkson, assistant to the president of Bush Bros., Dandridge, Tenn. A little bit out of order.

Mr. Clarkson, we will be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF ROY CLARKSON, ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT, BUSH BROS., DANDRIDGE, TENN.

Mr. CLARKSON. Thank you.

Senator Bass. I see that your testimony is a little bit on the extended side. If you will cooperate with the committee and condense it, and bring it within the 10-minute range, it will be very much appreciated.

Welcome to the committee.

Mr. CLARKSON. Thank you. My name is Roy Clarkson. I am assistant to the president of Bush Bros., of Dandridge, Tenn. We are vegetable canners.

This is my second appearance in front of this Hart bill. I want the 1963 testimony made a part of my total testimony.

Senator BASS. Without objection, if that is still available, you may make it a part of the record, by reference.

Mr. CLARKSON. It is available, yes.

(The 1963 testimony of Mr. Clarkson before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and which appears on pp. 441-455 of the hearing entitled "Packaging and Labeling Legislation" is on file with the committee.)

Mr. CLARKSON. I am going to condense this.

The last witness in testimony phrased his a little differently from mine. I state that there has been no successful contribution to the testimony offered by industry that existing law is adequate.

Many qualified attorneys and executives of great companies and other sound-thinking persons, lawyers and so forth, tell that existing law legally will take care of any infractions to date by any producer of a packaged article.

There are many Government agencies today that exist to protect the consumer. I have here a booklet which is entitled "Consumer Protection Activities of Federal Departments and Agencies." This is quite an elaborate book prepared by the Committee on Government Operations.

There are 22 agencies in Federal Government who protect the consumer. I want to offer this book as part of my testimony that there are already adequate Government agencies and programs that will protect the consumer from any evils.

Senator BASS. That book looks like it will be a little bit weighty. Mr. CLARKSON. It is. I want it as part of the record that it is available.

Senator BASS. We will incorporate it in the record by reference. Mr. CLARKSON. The third point I want to make, and this has notand I speak as a canner in the tin canning of vegetables-there has not been a successful contribution that food canning industry could meet a standardized 1 pound, half a pound, or what-have-you, because the specific density of many foods would require different size

cans.

Here is sauerkraut-I want to offer these as exhibits-here is sweet peas. Notice the can size. Here is pork and beans. And there is a fractional difference. There are 1,200 items in a tin can. I think you would have to get a statistical department to sit down and take 1,200 items to see how many can sizes you would have to have.

These illustrate three of them. I want them as part of my testimony. Incidentally, this is pork and beans, sweet peas, and sauerkraut.

Senator Bass. Are those standard cans?

Mr. CLARKSON. These are cans that were produced to show, to pack 1 pound of food, the various can sizes. Today canners of vegetables use a can of a given dimension and put the food in it that has been, over the years, ruled as a standard of weight, of fill.

In putting this standard fill into a standard size can of given dimension, you will get uneven ounces because the can will only hole so much. Sauerkraut, to get a pound of food in it, would take a talle can than the sweet peas, and this could go on indefinitely.

Senator Bass. Let me interrupt you. You now conform with the tandards prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce?

Mr. CLARKSON. We do.

Senator Bass. This bill, then, would not change any of the practices that are now prescribed and approved by the Secretary of Commerce in this area.

Mr. CLARKSON. It would not prescribe prior to a given date, but who is there to say that a Government agency would not under this law propose, make any edicts that could affect our ability to compete in the market in later years.

We see no reason that we should be frozen to a given date. We may need additional sizes. Forty percent of the population of America today is less than 20. Many children are marrying at a young age today, therefore they may need a different can size than we today have. We don't want to be frozen to what has taken place over the years.

I can assure you of this, and this I heard in testimony this morning: we as a company belong to the National Canners Association. This association has for many years sponsored standards of identity, standards of fill, proper labeling of products.

We do not take any exception to fair packaging or fair labeling. The fact is, we are a strong sponsor of that. We police our own company in this regard.

We cannot, as a company, feel that this bill will be good for the consumer because if we have to add first the invested capital to have more area of plants, to have a different size machine to close the can, because the can size would be different if we have new can sizes as such, if we have to have new label sizes, if we have to have new carton sizes, costs will go up and that will be reflected in the consumer increase.

So we do not feel that this part of Senator Hart's bill is a practical one for the food canners.

I again want to point out that in past testimony there is nothing miraculous about a new bill being introduced. It seems to me that superimposing another law on top of already adequate law can only bring costs totally in Government and in business that can only reflect in people paying more for a product and not less as you would like to see it, Senator Bass.

It seems further, and this has not been successfully debated, we hear consumers making statements. I heard consumer witnesses here make statements that are not factual. I think it is not their deliberate intent to be non factual. I think they just don't recognize what existing law provides.

I have here, if you choose, this is from one of the Senators of this committee, who as recently as March 16, Mrs. Neuberger, who stated in testimony here-she entered an article from Look magazine that over many years the food industry has waged war against the passage of the very laws it now seeks to prohibit.

In my testimony I point out here, and I would like to read them, that the National Association of Food Canners has for many years supported good legislation and I go back to 1929 when there was in front of a committee:

An act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded, poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein and for other purposes.