CONCLUSIONS It is seldom a still wind whips up such sound and fury. S. 985 is legislation the consumer wants and needs. It is legislation the efficient operation of our economy requires. It is legislation that will benefit every legitimate manufacturer who packages and labels commodities covered by its provisions. It is legislation which will benefit every retailer who is on the firing line for practices over which he has no control, and which cost him money. Why, then, does industry protest so much? Some industry spokesmen have said they are not happy with the present state of the marketplace. But fear of antagonizing their corporate brothers; fear of the unknown have forced them to adopt the industry line. But fear and timidity should not be allowed to suffocate legislation which responds to an important need in a responsible and reasonable manner. APPENDIX. COMMENTS OF COMMERCE Department ON COST TO INDUSTRY OF TRUTH IN PACKAGING (S. 387), MAY 27, 1963 It is difficult to be precise about what costs may be incurred by manufacturers as a result of the enactment of the truth-in-packaging bill. First, no one knows, at this time, what exact regulations will be formulated under the bill, so it is impossible to tell the extent to which present packages do or do not conform to the provisions of the bill. Second, once the regulations are known, undoubtedly it will be found that there will be wide variety in the extent to which packages require change in order to conform to the provisions of the bill and the regulation; some will require no change at all, some will require minor change, some more extensive change. Third, there are many types of packaging used on the products covered by the bill; for example, bags, paperboard boxes, plastic boxes, metal or fiberboard cans, glass or plastic bottles, metal or plastic tubes, aerosol containers, and others, and each of these types of packages has its own cost structure which will determine the cost of changes. It should be noted that even without passage of the bill, packaging changes at the present are more or less frequent for many of the products covered in the bill. Entirely new products are being introduced regularly, and some older products are being dropped. New advertising appeals are developed for an existing product, and this frequently calls for change in the design of its package. New recipes, special offers, menu suggestions, toys and games, such as on the backs of cereal packages, are being developed frequently and require changes in packages. Sometimes the package changes are merely changes in surface printing, but ofttimes they are complete changes in the type of package, such as the shift from a fiberboard can to a plastic squeeze bottle to an aerosol container. Any packaging changes required by the provisions of the bill and the regulations might well be accommodated in the above changes which the manufacturer contemplated making in the ordinary course of events for purposes of improving the convenience of the package, or heightening its appeal to the consumer, or tying in with a new advertising campaign. In such a case there would be no special cost to the manufacturer because of packaging changes required by the bill. In any case, the manufacturer would be allowed to run out his present inventory of packages before making any changes so that there would be no loss or wastage. Section 3A(c), which covers the mandatory provisions of the bill, would require packaging changes in terms of surface printing only. These changes would be of two main types: (1) Minor changes in type only, probably in one color only, to comply with the requirements on how the net quantity within the container must be stated. For those packages not already complying with these provisions, it is conceivable that many of them could achieve compliance by slug changes, which would be made on the printing plates presently being used. While the cost of these slug changes would vary widely and depend upon the package involved, in most cases it can be expected that the cost would be no more than $100 per package type, (2) Changes in the illustrations, which may well be four color or more process printing, to comply with the requirement that the illustrations not be deceptive. For those packages—probably a small number-not already complying with this provision, this will require a number of new printing plates, plus new design work and probably new color photography work. Here, too, the cost would vary widely depending upon the type of package, but as a general rule, these changes would in all likelihood be accomplished at a cost of $10,000 a package or less. One of the mandatory provisions of the bill (sec. 3A (c) (4)) could result in savings to the manufacturer. It calls for the elimination of "cents off" printed matter. Companies frequently make up extra printed plates carrying these extra captions and keep them in inventory for use from time to time. up such extra plates and maintaining inventory would no longer be necessary if this provision became law. Making Section 3A (e) of the bill, covering those products which individually are determined to require further regulation beyond the mandatory provisions, might require additional cost in complying with the provisions of the bill. Some of the requirements under this subsection would involve changes in surface printing only, such as the requirement with respect to the printing of ingredients. In these cases the same cost factors would apply as noted above for compliance with the mandatory provisions of the bill. Compliance with some of the other provisions of this subsection, however, would require a change in the size and shape of the package itself. If the package were to retain its shape but be made only slightly larger, this might mean slight additional cost in the packaging material itself. On the other hand, it might mean a cost savings if the package were to be made smaller. Costs would be higher if the changes in size or shape required new molds, as in the case of plastic containers, for example. Any change in the size and shape of the package would, of course, require a change in the surface printing, which in all likelihood would require new design, new plates, etc., at the average cost figures noted above under discussion of the mandatory provisions of the bill. Beyond that, a change in the size or shape of the package would also involve changes in the packaging line, which includes the machinery for sorting, weighing, measuring, filling, package forming, closing, sealing, labeling, and packing into shipping cases. Where the packaging line is set up for a large volume operation, the line is specifically designed to serve a specific package. The machinery is adaptable to other packages, but the changeover may well require 2 or 3 days downtime and it may involve a cost of $12,000 to $15,000 per packaging line. The impact of this change would, of course, be lessened if it were done in connection with a change which the manufacturer was planning to make in any case for reasons of his own, including product modification, new promotions, new advertising appeals, etc. The cost of adapting the packaging line is comparatively low per package because it is amortized over a large volume of packages. In the case of a low-volume product, the packaging line is much less complex and it is not profitable to design it for use with that one package alone. Therefore, the machinery is adjustable, and with some types of packaging machinery the adjustment can be made by hand in a matter of a few minutes. Here the changeover in the machinery from one package to another would cost almost nothing. It is our understanding that additional provisions for consultation with industry have been added to the bill since hearings were held. During such consultation, consideration should be given to the extent of change, in printing, in package design, in package construction, and in package machinery operation, that would be required by new regulations. Every effort should be made to establish regulations that are compatible with existing standards for package sizes and shapes and for machinery operation. We trust that this information is helpful. If the committee has any examples it would like us to analyze, or if it requires additional information we would be pleased to be of assistance. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Please find enclosed copies of a statement which I submitted to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in connection with last year's truth-in-packaging bill. CONCLUSIONS It is seldom a still wind whips up such sound and fury. S. 985 is legislation the consumer wants and needs. It is legislation the efficient operation of our economy requires. It is legislation that will benefit every legitimate manufacturer who packages and labels commodities covered by its provisions. It is legislation which will benefit every retailer who is on the firing line for practices over which he has no control, and which cost him money. Why, then, does industry protest so much? Some industry spokesmen have said they are not happy with the present state of the marketplace. But fear of antagonizing their corporate brothers; fear of the unknown have forced then to adopt the industry line. But fear and timidity should not be allowed to suffocate legislation whic responds to an important need in a responsible and reasonable manner. APPENDIX. COMMENTS OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT ON COST TO INDUSTRY OF TRU IN PACKAGING (S. 387), MAY 27, 1963 It is difficult to be precise about what costs may be incurred by manufactur as a result of the enactment of the truth-in-packaging bill. First, no one kne at this time, what exact regulations will be formulated under the bill, so † impossible to tell the extent to which present packages do or do not confort the provisions of the bill. Second, once the regulations are known, undoubt it will be found that there will be wide variety in the extent to which pack require change in order to conform to the provisions of the bill and the re tion; some will require no change at all, some will require minor change, more extensive change. Third, there are many types of packaging used o products covered by the bill; for example, bags, paperboard boxes, plastic metal or fiberboard cans, glass or plastic bottles, metal or plastic tubes, a containers, and others, and each of these types of packages has its ow structure which will determine the cost of changes. It should be noted that even without passage of the bill, packaging char the present are more or less frequent for many of the products covered in t Entirely new products are being introduced regularly, and some older p are being dropped. New advertising appeals are developed for an existin uct, and this frequently calls for change in the design of its package recipes, special offers, menu suggestions, toys and games, such as on th of cereal packages, are being developed frequently and require changes i ages. Sometimes the package changes are merely changes in surface Į but ofttimes they are complete changes in the type of package, such shift from a fiberboard can to a plastic squeeze bottle to an aerosol cont Any packaging changes required by the provisions of the bill and the tions might well be accommodated in the above changes which the manr contemplated making in the ordinary course of events for purposeproving the convenience of the package, or heightening its appeal to sumer, or tying in with a new advertising campaign. In such a es would be no special cost to the manufacturer because of packaging cl quired by the bill. In any case, the manufacturer would be allowed to his present inventory of packages before making any changes so that th be no loss or wastage. Section 3A (e), which covers the mandatory provisions of the bill. quire packaging changes in terms of surface printing only. These char be of two main types: (1) Minor changes in type only, probably in one color only, to ec the requirements on how the net quantity within the container must For those packages not already complying with these provisions, it is that many of them could achieve compliance by slug changes, whic' made on the printing plates presently being used. While the cost of changes would vary widely and depend upon the package involved, it it can be expected that the cost would be no more than $100 per pack (2) Changes in the illustrations, which may well be four color or n printing, to comply with the requirement that the illustrations not 1 For those packages-probably a small number-not already complyi provision, this will require a number of new printing plates, plus work and probably new color photography work. Here, too, the cost ployment-from design, pattern, and mold making to selecting and shipping will suffer-this at a time when we are seeking ways and means to bolster employment. In summary, the consumer can and should be protected from deceptive merchandising practices. This can be done by proper labeling laws and better enforcement of existing laws. Section 3 (e) (1) and (2) should be eliminated or, in the alternative, amended to exclude glass containers. HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, THE PROPRIETARY ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., 28, 1965. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As an interested party in S. 985, we respectfully request that the attached statement of the Proprietary Association be filed as a part of the record of the hearings of your committee on this bill. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to make our views on this legislation known to you and the members of your committee. Respectfully submitted. HOWARD A. PRENTICE. STATEMENT OF THE PROPRIETARY ASSOCIATION The Proprietary Association has its office at 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. It was organized in 1881 and has been in continuous existence ever since. Its active members-97 in number-are engaged in the manufacture and distribution of proprietary medicines. These are medicines which are completely compounded, packaged, and labeled with directions for use by consumers. They are over-the-counter items; items which are not restricted by law or practice to prescription sale. There are 130 associate members. They do not manufacture and distribute proprietary medicines, but are interested, as suppliers of various materials and services, in the manufacture and distribution. The Proprietary Association is quite in sympathy with the stated purpose of the bill-S. 985-to prevent the use of unfair or deceptive methods of packaging or labeling of certain consumer commodities. The association believes that medicines and pharmaceutical preparations are now adequately covered in these respects by existing law. Its position, therefore, is that S. 985 should be amended to exempt these products from its provisions-not on the ground that they should not be regulated in the subject matter of the bill, but that under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act they are or may be adequately so regulated. INTRODUCTORY The question of amending the bill to exclude medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations follows upon an introductory question: Whether the public interest would be served by subjecting these products to the added regulation proposed in S. 985. The added regulation would be superimposed upon that now exercised by the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. True, these are the same agencies which would be charged with the enforcement of S. 985, but the question is whether there is need to vest in these agencies the additional and different regulatory powers which the bill would provide. The question cannot properly be disposed of by the fact that the agencies are the same under the bill as under the existing law, or by the fact that the subject matter of the bill is much the same as the existing law. The question persists, and it is lighted up by the principle that laws should be enacted only on the basis of substantial public interest and demonstrable need. The question becomes even sharper when the pattern of enforcement is varied between the existing law and the bill. The pattern of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is-in the principal respects of present interest-to state the requirements in the statute and to empower the Food and Drug Administration to enforce them in the courts. The bill interposes that the requirements be stated in regulations to be promulgated by the enforcing agencies. In the 88th Congress, on September 29, 1964, Senator Hart, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Ju The position of this international union is the same; namely, that we have no objection to legislation which protects the consumer from deceptive merchandising practices; however, we think this can best be done by proper labeling laws and we still object to any legislation which would restrict our employers from supplying their customers with containers of the types, sizes, shapes, and dimensional proportions that they feel the consumer needs and wants. In other words, we still object to the old sections 3(e) (1) and (2) which appeared in Senator Hart's 1963 bill S. 387. There are sufficient copies of the aforementioned statement for distribution to the other members of the Committee on Commerce and I would not only appreciate your bringing this matter to their attention, but your also looking favorably to our request to eliminate the aforementioned sections. Sincerely, LEE W. MINTON, International President. STATEMENT OF LEE W. MINTON, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO The Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and Canada, AFLCIO is a trade union representing over 70,000 employees in the glass, rigid plastic container, fiberglass, and allied industries. We are very much concerned about the effect certain provisions of S. 387 will have upon production; hence, employment in the glass container industry. There is no question that in certain marketplaces consumers have been and are being cheated out of hard-earned wage dollars by deceptive merchandising practices. It follows, therefore, that this international union does support necessary legislation to protect the consumer and we are in agreement with the well-meaning objectives of the Hart bill, better known as truth in packaging. However, if we are to achieve truth in packaging, it can and should come in only one form, and that is pure, simple, legible, and understandable labeling; not in a quagmire of Government controls. A truth-in-packaging bill can and should require that every container should have an applied or printed label prominently located; a label which legibly and understandably would reveal the net weight or net content, or both, of the contained product. Qualifying words or phrases and deceptive pictures or illustrations should be prohibited. With respect to "sales" or "off prices," we think consumers are entitled to legitimate discount prices due to production, marketing, or packaging economies. Federal Trade Commission rules and regulations, as well as existing laws, i.e., Robinson-Patman, should be able to take care of pricing "gimmicks." This international union, however, is opposed to section 3(e)(1) “establish reasonable weights or quantities, or fractions or multiples thereof, in which that commodity shall be distributed for sales; and (2) prevent the distribution of that commodity for retail sale in packages of sizes, shapes, or dimensional proportions which may deceive retail purchases as to the net quantity of the contents thereof (in terms of weight, measure, or count)." We recommend that section 3(e) (1) and (2) be eliminated or, in the alternative, amended to exclude glass containers. Glass containers are transparent and consumers see what they buy when they buy in glass. There is no possible way consumers can be deceived, quantitatively or qualitatively. The packaging industry is a $20 billion a year industry employing hundreds of thousands of wage earners. This industry exists not for deception but for business and to stay in business they have to meet the needs of the consuming public. Packages, especially glass containers, are designed the way they are for hundreds of reasons, the most important of which are production and filling line efficiency, ease of shipping and handling, economy and functional end use. Millions of dollars are spent in research each year to improve sizes and shapes of containers-not to deceive the consuming public-but to give the consuming public a better and cheaper package. To hamstring the industry by sections 3(e)(1) and (2) would produce just the opposite results-increased costs to the consumer. With over 30 percent of each wage dollar being spent for packaged foods and goods, any increased cost would be felt heavily and widely among wage earners who are the largest individual group of consumers. Equally as important, and of practical rather than selfish concern, these two sections will do untold harm to employment in the packaging industry. Em |