NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., Re hearings on S. 985 before the Committee on Commerce. Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: On May 7, during the hearings on the above bill, Mrs. Mildred E. Brady, testifying for the Consumers' Union of Mount Vernon, N.Y., introduced two samples of bags sent in by a consumer containing our chocolate almond cookies, and the record will show that the members of the committee present had difficulty locating and reading the statement of net weight. We are enclosing herewith a sample of the bag in question marked "Exhibit A.” This is one of a group of similarly packaged products introduced recently by our company. The chocolate almond cookies were first sold only 2 months ago in March of 1965. Enclosed are samples of the packages of the other six products in this line. Please note that the net weight statement appears clearly and prominently on the front panel of each package and that the location of net weight has varied depending upon the design of the particular bag. The samples will indicate also that the net weight legend has been clearly stated on all but the chocolate almond bag. The chocolate almond bag represents one of those production difficulties which occasionally develop when a new product is introduced. As a matter of fact we have rejected in the last 2 months more than 1 million bags printed for this cookie, because the printer encountered technical difficulties which prevented his meeting the standards set by our sales and production departments. The shortcomings of this design were recognized before May 7. The bags presently being printed are changed to meet the technical problems, including a change in position and color of the net weight statement so that it will be more prominent, as shown in exhibit B. This is an example of the type of problem packaged goods manufacturers frequently encounter when introducing a new product. We find that it happens to us occasionally when we add to our line of more than 300 varieties. When such a difficulty occurs, it is either quickly discovered by our own company personnel, as is the case in this instance, or it is called to our attention by a consumer or occasionally by a Government inspector. In any of these instances immediate steps are taken to correct the difficulty. This particular package represents the type of problem that is not foreseen in the planning stage but sometimes develops in the production process. Inspection of the prototype design did not reveal any problem. It only arose during the actual mass production and printing of the package. Additional law would not eliminate this type of difficulty. We respectfully request that this letter and attached exhibit B be made a part of the printed record of the hearings. Sincerely yours, HARRY F. SCHROETER, Vice President of Packaging. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, Senator Warren MagnuUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Commission, Harrisburg, Pa., May 26, 1965. DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of some 6,000 female International Ladies' Garment Workers in the central Pennsylvania district, I urge you to support the "truth in packaging" bill as a guide to better and more honest advertising and as an aid to the average housewife in their everyday shoping. I would also request that this statement be recorded in the hearing records if at all possible. Thanking you for your interest and hopeful support, I remain, Sincerely, EDWARD MILANO, District Manager. NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The courtesy of the committee in hearing me on Wednesday, May 17, in behalf of the National Confectioners Association in opposition to S. 985, known as the Hart packaging bill, is very much appreciated. In connection with my testimony, several questions were raised and comments made to which I would like to make reference in this communication, which I shall appreciate your receiving as a supplementary statement and having printed in the record of the hearings. I. Inquiry was made by Senator Pearson as to the share of the market of the various types of confectionery items. He inquired specifically what percentage of industry sales consisted of bar goods and packaged goods. Attached here to is an exhibit which contains this information. II. Senator Bass requested an elaboration of my statement that in the candy business the industry had found it much more satisfactory in many cases to adjust the package size rather than to change the price, and I pointed out that this would not be feasible in the event there should be standardization of package sizes. Except for penny goods, commodities sold for 25 cents a unit or less most frequently are sold at retail for prices which are multiples of 5 cents; that is, 5 cents, 10 cents, 15 cents, and 25 cents. This is vital in the case of vending machines. Candy is an impulse item and the consumer has made it clear that there is a distinct preference to buy confectionery at these price levels. Although from time to time one may observe candy being sold at 6 cents, 12 cents, and some other odd amounts, such is not the practice generally, and the consumer has a strong tendency to resist buying at these odd prices. In the case of packaged goods sold in the food store, there is also a definite consumer price preference. In the food store the odd cents price has proven to be popular instead of unpopular. Therefore, packages selling at 29 cents, 39 cents, 49 cents, and 59 cents gain much better public acceptance than packages selling at other prices. Therefore, manufacturers have a strong tendency to package candies in sizes which will result in such retail prices. In the case of package goods costing more than $1, the experience of manufacturers varies. Some manufacturers seem to like to price this type of packaged goods at multiples of 5 cents, whereas others seem to prefer the odd prices. In any event, with the weight and contents properly designated on the label, we contend that this is a decision which properly should be made by each individual manufacturer. III. In reference to my statement that it would be possible to rule off the market the popular confectionery item Life Savers since it has a hole in the middle, in the event a regulation should be adopted regarding dimensional proportions which would require all confectionery items to be solid, the statement was advanced in behalf of Senator Hart that the 2-ounce exemption had been inserted so that this result in the case of Life Savers would be avoided. To this statement submitted in behalf of Senator Hart I would like to respectfully inquire, what about confectionery products which weigh more than 2 ounces and are not solid? There are a number of such products, for example, hollow Easter bunnies, labeled as such; hollow Santa Clauses, and other novelties. If S. 985 had been law and the powers used, undoubtedly the American consumer would not have many of the fine and wonderful products which are distributed widely and generally agreed to be valuable to the consumer. IV. Senator Pearson made the comment that in his part of the country confectionery was not generally thought to be an important factor in connection with agriculture. Except for sugarbeet production, this is generally correct in Kansas. However, I would like to point out the importance of confectionery to national and international agriculture. We use about 10 percent of all the sugar consumed in the United States, about two-thirds of the almonds, about 20 percent of the peanuts, huge quantities of dairy products, fruits, and nuts. We use tremendous quantities of foreign-produced agricultural commodities thus contributing to international trade. These include, in addition to sugar, cocoa beans, vanilla beans, and coconut, various tree nuts, and fruits. V. At the hearing Senator Bass handed to me a package of candy peanut clusters which appeared to be improperly filled and made several comments about the package. There are some important aspects of the package which were not apparent at the hearing. First, following the hearing we requested the staff to weigh the package. From this weighing it was apparent that a significant amount of the contents had been removed. We arranged to have several packages acquired locally, and I understand that your staff did likewise, which made it clear that the package presented at the hearing was not a package in the manner sold by the manufacturer, as result of which the confectionery industry received unfair attribution. Packages of that particular manufacturer are widely sold in the Washington area and are properly filled. Please let me assure you that the confectionery industry as a unit strongly opposes improper packaging and will cooperate fully with your committee and the Food and Drug Administration to eliminate any such practices which may exist. I would like to restate the point I made at the hearing regarding improper packaging. Existing law is fully adequate to deal with the matter and if the package which was presented at the hearing, in fact, had been as it appeared to be at that time, there is no question but that the Food and Drug Administration could have proceeded successfully against that package in accordance with section 403 (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which provides that: "A food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading." Respectively submitted. S. BURR SIFERS, Vice President. Major products of the manufacturing confectionery industry—1963 sales |