By and large our canners and food manufacturers represent dedicated men and women who are vitally interested in giving the public top grade products at the most reasonable prices. Competition under our free enterprise system compels these conditions. Every producer of food products must basically be concerned with quality of product if he is to enjoy continuous sale of his product in today's marketplace. To assure this we have voluntarily formed National Canners Associations and other associations to assure the ultimate in sanitation, in fill of cans, etc., and in careful examination and testing of the product before it is offered to the public. Under the Pure Food and Drug Administration we already have ample safeguards in inspection and standards of quality and packaging. Our canneries have limited themselves in the variety of sizes of cans and other containers specifically to turn out their products at the most economical cost. Any change in these specifications in order to control the headspace, etc., only would lead to vastly increased costs of production and certainly greater retail cost to the consumer. Today's housewife is no fool. She is discerning in her shopping. In today's well-lighted, carefully arranged stores she has every opportunity to read labels, to judge values, and to use discrimination in her unhurried shopping. She should be left to judge brand, size, and contents. No one knows better than the canner of this ultimate judge of his products and basically all production is geared to giving this lady the product she wants in an attractive package, economically priced. We do not want passage of the Hart bill. We feel it is unnecessary, and in fact harmful. We hope you will work against it for the sake of our producers of food products across the country. Sincerely, G. K. DAVIS. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: On behalf of the more than 385,000 members of the Communications Workers of America and their families who, together, make up a significant portion of the American consumer group, I want to make another plea for the enactment of the "truth in packaging bill," S. 985. With all the emphasis at my command, I most respectfully urge you and the members of your committee, as you prepare to open hearings of this bill, to act expeditiously and favorably in reporting it out for final passage by the Senate without any crippling or weakening amendments. The only argument against the bill that I have heard is that it is not needed and the present law is adequate. There has been no documentation in support of this argument, only a great volume of self-serving statements from those who want to go their merry unrestricted way playing the great national con game with the consuming public as its victim. As you may know, on April 24, 1963, I appeared before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly Legislation of the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO and my own union in support of S. 387, a very similar bill. In addition to the testimony I offered at that time, there were a number of others, including representatives of the Kennedy administration, who testified in favor of the bill and buttressed their testimony with a great amount of documentation. I will not repeat here even a brief summary of the great number of reasons why the Congress should adopt the bill in the interest of the welfare of the people. The record of those previous hearings is available to you and your committee and I am sure they will be reviewed. One very simple point comes to my mind which I think should be kept in mind by your committee as it proceeds with its work. One expert has estimated that S. 985 could save the average family $250 a year. This is comparable to a 10-cents-an-hour raise. We accept this estimate and we want the protection that will come from the adoption of S. 985. The fact that S. 387 was not adopted in 1963 has cost CWA families $250 each year since then and it has cost all other American families an equal amount. 48-222-65--52 And that kind of money "ain't hay" in any worker's family. It is quite obvious that the present law does not "adequately" protect consumers since the same practices we complained about in 1963 still exist today. This fact has been most dramatically and convincingly demonstrated by Assistant Secretary of Labor Esther Peterson in her capacity as Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, as she has gone about her work on behalf of President Johnson. Under the present law, even if its provisions were applied and carried out with the utmost vigor, it would require 10 to 15 years to bring about the corrections and establish the standards which Congress can establish simply and directly by passing this bill. To you, Senator, I say we do not want to wait 10 or 15 years for the protection and help truth-in-packaging promises. Therefore, I again, most respectfully, urge you to do all in your power to speed the enactment of this bill. Sincerely yours, J. A. BEIRNE, President. CARNATION CO., Los Angeles, Calif., March 22, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In 1963 Carnation Co. took the position that proposed Senate bill 387 would seriously curtail the orderly marketing and distribution of food products and the continued development of new and better foods and new and better packaging for such foods. We wish to take this opportunity to express our opinion that Senate bill 985, the so-called "truth in packaging" bill will, to the same degree as the provisions of Senate bill 387, likewise seriously disrupt and curtail the orderly marketing, packaging and development of food products to the final detriment of the consumer. Carnation Co. for over 60 years has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling food products for human consumption. We today manufacture dairy products such as, for example, evaporated milk, powdered dairy products and fresh milk and ice cream products, milled products such as pancake mix and corn meal mix, pet foods, tomato products, and frozen dessert products such as pies. All of these products are sold in interstate commerce, and substantially all of these products are sold throughout the United States and in many foreign countries. As a manufacturer of food products, Carnation Co. is a member of many trade associations such as the Evaporated Milk Association, the American Dry Milk Institute, the International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers, the Milk Industry Foundation, the Grocery Manufac turers of America, Inc., and others. S. 985, like the previous bill (S. 387), unnecessarily duplicates many provisions of the present Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations promulgated under the terms of this act provide to that Department all the tools needed for fully protecting the consumer against deception at the marketplace and against false and misleading packaging. For example, section 403 of this act clearly states that the label must contain an accurate statement of the quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count, provides for prominence of required information on the label, prohibits deceptive vignettes or label illustrations, specifically bans slack fill, and in clear and forceful language declares that any false or misleading labeling constitutes misbranding. A wealth of case law has been established interpreting this statutory and regulatory language. In addition to this Federal regulatory control, each of the States has somewhat corresponding laws and regulations which supplement the total control for the protection of the consumer. Within this broad framework the consumer is still exposed to substantial choice at the marketplace, and we as food manufacturers must openly and vigorously compete for her favor and, hopefully, for her choice. We do this on the basis of more attractive and convenient packaging in addition to increasingly more nutritious product for lower and lower costs. Proposed S. 985, in our opinion, will substitute governmental edict for the choice now freely exercised by the consumer. It will, for example, designate specified weights and quantities for specified foods, and establish standards or designations with respect to size, serving, etc. It will in effect stereotype everybody's packaging to size, serving, or quantity which some governmental bureau determines to be in the consumer's interest. It in effect indicts the consumer as having that degree of intelligence which precludes her from exercising her free choice. Since the success of our products is in the final analysis dictated by the consumer exercising her choice in our favor, we have a great respect and appreciation for her intelligence and for her memory. The food industry is highly competitive and the consumer in every instance is the final arbitrator with respect to quality, convenience, labeling, and packaging. The Carnation Co. has rendered the FDA its fullest cooperation in the enforcement of the present Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act in its regulations. We as a company recognize the value to us of this act and always have encouraged its vigorous enforcement by the regulatory officials charged with this duty. We as a member of the Food Law Institute, which has as one of its major goals cooperation with the FDA toward the mutual development of a food manufacturing and distribution system in the United States which is second to none in the world and one in which the consumer has every right to feel fully confident with respect to the wholesomeness, nutrition, and safety of the products which she purchases. You are respectfully requested, therefore, to vote against the enactment of S. 985. ROBERT D. KUMMEL, Vice President. NORTH WEST ADVERTISING AGENCY, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I would like to voice a strong disagreement with the provisions of Senate bill 985, the Hart packaging bill. I would hope you are making every effort to defeat it. I feel the powers this bill would give the Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission go far beyond protecting the American consumer. Rather, this bill could, as I understand it, curtail the freedom of variety of choice the American public now enjoys. Sincerely, LEILA DUNPHY. PATIO FOODS, INC., San Antonio, Tex., February 24, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I cannot emphasize too strongly the problems and complications that the Hart bill, S. 985, will foist on the food industry. Our labels are already subject to complete control by the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Division of the USDA, both of these agencies go to great lengths to see that there are no deceptions or misrepresentations embodied in packaging. But even more than that, Senator, the consumer in the marketplace will stop buying if she feels she has been deceived or that the product has been misrepresented. We packers bend over backward to see that the consumer gets value received, properly and fairly presented. The Hart bill will cause nothing but confusion, but more than that it is not needed. I will appreciate your sincere consideration of this when the bill is brought up for study. I think if you will check with any of the packers in your own State, they will tell you the same thing. I am sure they will be glad to submit labels and products so that you, yourself, can judge to what lengths we go to provide the American housewife with the best in the marketplace. With best regards, I remain, Sincerely yours, LOUIS H. STUMBERG. JANTZEN, INC., Re truth in packaging bill. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Portland, Oreg., March 17, 1965. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Fifty-one years ago, in 1914, the Congress passed an effective and enforceable truth in packaging bill. This law, which is section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, makes "unfair methods of competition" unlawful. Since then, and in more recent years at an accelerated pace, the Federal Trade Commission has been enforcing this law against those who deceptively market, tag, package, or in any other fashion sell their wares. Thus, why the need for the Hart bill? It would seem that this bill is more an indictment of the Federal Trade Commission for failing to use the tools presently at hand, assuming, of course, that additional "protection" is truly needed. But this need, or demand for additional protective legislation, appears to have been generated more by politicians than by consumers. Of course, one can always point to letters of complaint from one or two customers in any line of business. Abraham Lincoln recognized that "you can't please [fool] all the people all the time." But, we are aware of no demand for this legislation which duplicates a law already on the books. Therefore, we urge you to reject it. Very truly yours, PAUL GERHARDT, Attorney. NORTHWEST CANNERS & FREEZERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We are informed that public hearings on S. 985, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, have been scheduled for the period April 27 through May 4 before the Senate Commerce Committee, of which you are chairman. We would like to have the privilege of introducing testimony in these hearings, but the great distance and considerable expenses which would be involved preclude our requesting an opportunity to be heard. As an alternative we are asking the National Canners Association to represent our views, as well as the views of other food processors throughout the United States. We opposed the predecessor bill, S. 387, in the last session of the Congress, and must oppose S. 985 on the same grounds. Under the private enterprise system the economy of the United States has progressed enormously and the standard of living of all of the people has risen to a level which is the envy of all the world. It must be kept that way. Industry generally-and our industry in particular-is now regulated and restricted in the interest of the consumer to a degree which assures adequate protection to the public. The Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, now have adequate authority to protect the public from misrepresentation, misbranding, predatory practices, and misleading promotion and advertising. Both voluntary and mandatory standardization are presently effective and are moving forward with great rapidity. We believe that the effectuation of S. 985 would tend to heap regulation upon regulation which would limit the consumer's choice, would supress innovation and initiative, and raise costs and prices all along the line. As far as our industry is concerned the housewife is the judge and the arbiter in the marketplace and no product long retains its competitive position that does not meet her exacting requirements. Under this highly competitive system food is now the greatest bargain in the history of our country, and with reasonable Government surveillance it will remain that way. We would appreciate very much being informed of your personal views concerning this proposed legislation, and whether you regard our position as a sound one. Certainly we are as interested as any group in protecting the consumer, since our market is dependent on her complete satisfaction; but we are at a loss to understand how this bill can be anything but detrimental to her longrun interests. With best personal regards. Sincerely, C. R. TULLEY, Executive Vice President. AMERICAN PAD & PAPER CO., Holyoke, Mass., March 31, 1965. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Your committee will soon be holding hearings on Senate bill S. 985, truth in packaging. The bill, if I understand it correctly, has two major parts: The first part would set standards by which the use of various size and quantity descriptions would be the same on all packages. The second part deals with sizes, types, and styles of containers that could be used in packaging. While it would be my personal opinion that both of these items could best be settled under normal commercial methods, I fully realize that many of our business community members have carried the "buyer beware" slogan a little too far upon occasion. It seems a shame to penalize all of industry for this by blanket legislation, but here again realize that the Government feels a certain urgency to accept a great many responsibilities that not too many years ago were far outside its sphere of influence. The first part of this bill which would require standardization of terms and other informational material could certainly be beneficial to the average buyer. It might even be equally advantageous to the manufacturer, and would perhaps enable us to set one standard rather than the multiple standards now being developed by the several States. Regarding the second part which gets into the type style and quality of construction of containers, this would seem unduly restrictive on the normal competitive commercial activities, and could result in a standardization of retail packaging. The eventual ramifications of such controls on competition, distribution, and other normal merchandising activities could be catastrophic. This should be eliminated from the bill. Thank you very much for your consideration of this viewpoint. Very truly yours, H. A. FIFIELD, Assistant Sales Manager. MORTON SALT Co., Chicago, Ill., April 1, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: May I respectfully request that the following statement be filed for consideration by the Senate Commerce Committee in connection with hearings on the Hart bill? As one who has spent a lifetime in close association with the great endeavor of supplying the needs of the American consuming public I can say with conviction that the Hart bill is not needed. I say this because the natural forces of competition dictate that producers who would survive in the market must deal honestly with the consumer. Those who would mislead or cheat are soon detected and rejected by today's sophisticated shoppers. In addition, there is already ample legislation in force to provide further protection whenever and wherever it might be needed. Congresswoman Catherine May recently stated that the Federal Government carries on some 296 programs to help the consumer and that these programs involve expenditures totaling $953 million annually and 6,500 full-time employees. The Hart bill is not needed because its provisions simply duplicate similar ones already contained in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Sincerely yours, DANIEL PETERKIN, Jr., President. |