Hon. E. L. BARTLETT, PINEAPPLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII, DEAR SENATOR BARTLETT: The Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii is composed of all the companies which grow and can pineapple in Hawaii. These companies are: California Packing Corp., Dole Co., Haserot Pineapple Co., Ltd., Hawaiian Fruit Packers, Ltd., Libby, McNeill & Libby, and Maui Pineapple Co., Ltd. There is presently before your Commerce Committee S. 985, of which the principal sponsor is Senator Hart, and which bill is designated as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. This bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration to adopt and enforce rigid regulations over the packaging and labeling of consumer nondurable goods. The Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii does not believe that S. 985 is necessary to accomplish the fair packaging and labeling of canned foods. Moreover, the bill would authorize the Food and Drug Administration to issue regulations that could impose severe restrictions on processing operations and could, by arbitrarily limiting the range of can sizes and products, actually be a disservice to consumers. The reason we believe that S. 985 is unnecessary is that present law, as contained in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, prohibits labeling that is "false or misleading in any particular;" prohibits the use of any container that is "so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading;" requires labeling to show "an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight measure or numerical count;" and provides that all information required by law to appear on the label must "be prominently placed thereon, with such conspicuousness and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual, under customary conditions of purchase and use." If there are any deceptive practices that may be found in the packaging and labeling of consumer goods, we believe that the remedy lies in enforcement of the present law rather than in the enactment of very broad legislation which could lead to the establishment of a multitude of complex new regulations. Canned pineapple products are already subject to Food and Drug Administration standards of identity, quality, and fill of container. Many other canned foods are also subject to similar standards for canned food products which are not currently covered. One of the features of this bill which concerns us is that portion under section 3(c) which would authorize the FDA to issue specific regulations which could. among other things, establish weights or quantities in which the commodity shall be packed. The pineapple companies in Hawaii for years have been alert to consumer needs and preferences, and have been led to produce a variety of products and can sizes to meet these needs and preferences. By the very nature of the product, a No. 21⁄2 can of "fancy" pineapple packed in extra heavy sirup has a net content of 1 pound 14 ounces. The same size can of “choice” pineapple packed in heavy sirup has a net content weight of 1 pound 13%1⁄2 ounces. The same size can of "standard" grade pineapple packed in light sirup has a net weight of 1 pound 13 ounces. If a requirement were imposed to pack these three grades of pineapple, in different sirups, to a single standard weight of, say, 11⁄2 pounds, there would have to be three slightly different can sizes to accommodate the three products. (If all three were to be packed in the same size can to a standard weight of 11⁄2 pounds, then the product with the greater specific gravity would not fill the can to the same extent as that product with the lesser specific gravity, and the packer could be subject to the charge of slack fill.) It seems to us that the bill, in authorizing elaborate Government dictation and standardization of packaging and labeling, is in direct conflict with the aim of the antitrust laws which are designed to foster competitive diversity. We believe that unwise, compulsory standardization would inevitably inhibit the competitive development of the variety of container sizes, shapes, and materials adapted to specific product needs, which in turn have been desired by consumers and provide benefit to them. In summary, it is our belief that S. 985 represents a philosophy of regimentation and standardization which is incompatible with the development and maintenance of a competitive economy, could endlessly complicate our packing opera tions and procedures, could inhibit the development of new products and, above all, would give the consumer of canned pineapple the protection not already available under existing law. We hope, for the reasons cited, that the Senate Commerce Committee will not approve S. 985. Sincerely, H. K. SMOOT, Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D. C. Chairman, Public Affairs Committee.. CALIFORNIA PACKING CORP., Dear DAN: In 1963 you and I had considerable correspondence in connection with Senator Hart's bill, S. 387, which was then before the Judiciary Committee, and our opposition thereto. Specificially, if I may, I would refer you to your letter to me of August 16, 1963, and my rather detailed reply to you of September 20, 1963, with analytical. attachments. We have reviewed the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, S. 985, now pending before the full Senate Commerce Committee. The legislation does not in our judgment vary significantly in substance or approach from the bill rejected by the Judiciary Committee during the previous Congress. Our basic contention remains that ample provisions and safeguards already surround the produc-tion and marketing of processed foods; further, that S. 985 is fundamentally wrong in assuming that the consumer is confused and deceived. To grant any governmental agency the ultimate authority to establish weights or quantities in which a commodity must be packed is to impose upon processors restrictions as to size, shape, and dimension of container which they may use in the packing of their commodities. The marketplace should make the determination, therein reflecting the consumer's demand, rather than having a bureaucracy decide what the consumer should have. S. 985 would even establish individual serving sizes. Food industry experience has shown it to be as difficult to standardize servings or portions as it would be to regulate tastes and appetites. In 1925 the National Canners Association, in cooperation with interested Government agencies, issued a "Simplified Practice Recommendation for Cans for Fruits and Vegetables," and in 1934 canners voluntarily adopted a "Descriptive Labeling Program" which detailed all the objectively determinable characteristics important to consumers. These voluntary terms for labels go beyond existing legal requirements, and are set forth for each food item in the industry's "Labeling Manual." Economic and technical arguments supporting the canning industry's voluntary packaging and labeling program were fully explored last year by Senator Hart's subcommittee and led the Senator to comment that "over the years the consumer's interest has been of real concern in the [canning] association's development program." Senator Hart's comments have led some to believe that the canning industry should not be concerned with this legislation; and that a so-called canner's exemption, subsection 3 (c) (1), meets the industry requirements. This is incorrect, for not only is the language vague and imprecise, but under its most favorable interpretation it would mean only the can sizes presently recommended by the canning industry-Commerce Department voluntary agreement could be used. Thus new products, innovations in packaging, etc., would be subject to all of the provisions of the bill. Is legislation the remedy for packaging and labeling practices that might possibly mislead someone, somehow, somewhere? We do not think so. California Packing Corp. continually and voluntarily reviews its labels to determine conformance with legal requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Act, and the industry's voluntary labeling program already recommends that the net contents statement appear on the front display panel. Do we really need more laws or more diligent enforcement of existing laws? The question was adequately answered by FTC Commissioner Everette MacIntyre on January 22, 1963, before the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Section of the New York Bar Association: "I think you will see more and more of our cases involving the question of what omissions in advertising and labeling are material enough and deceptive enough to require an affirmative disclosure of facts. Full implementation of this authority of the Commission to prevent deception by requiring affirmative disclosures may obviate the need for a multiplicity of labeling or packaging laws or laws seeking to provide further protection to the public in the sale of particular commodities. The argument might be made that if the practice is deceptive, let the Commission correct it under present law. If no deception is involved, then it may be the practice is not of sufficient importance from the public interest standpoint to warrant its being given further attention." We strongly urge that you convey our position to members of the Senate Commerce Committee and that the proponents of the bill demonstrate wherein the present law is inadequate to cope with deceptive problems. The National Canners Association will present testimony before the Commerce Committee and we fully support the position taken by our association. You will recall at the time of my writing you in 1963 that I took the liberty of sending a copy of that letter to Hiram Fong and this is to let you know again that I will be contacting him in this same vein at this time. Very sincerely, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. JOHN A. DRIVER, Manager, Hawaiian Division. CALIFORNIA PACKING CORP., Honolulu, Hawaii, May 3, 1965. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We have reviewed the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, S. 985, now pending before your Commerce Committee. The legislation does not, in our judgment, vary significantly in substance or approach from the bill rejected by the Judiciary Committee during the previous Congress. Our basic contention remains that ample provisions and safeguards already surround the production and marketing of processed foods; further, that S. 985 is fundamentally wrong in assuming that the consumer is confused and deceived. Since you have always served as an effective spokesman for northwest food processors, I would like to illustrate why S. 985 is not applicable to the canning industry and specifically those canned fruits and vegetables on which our region is so dependent. In the marketing of canned products, style changes and packing practices sometimes involve changes in the specific gravity of the product. but departure does not intimate deliberate intent to confuse or deceive the consumer. For example: Bartlett pears and freestone peaches Washington State Bartlett pears are generally packed in heavy sirup and in the No. 303 can. This item carries a net contents label declaration of 16 ounces. Freestone peaches, however, also in a No. 303 can, are packed in extra heavy sirup which necessitates a net contents declaration of 17 ounces, the weight of the sirup accounting for the difference. When these two fruit items are packed as halves and slices in a No. 21⁄2 can, the label weight of pears will be 1 pound 13 ounces and that of the freestone peach, 1 pound 14 ounces. Peas For all grades of peas, the label weight on a Del Monte No. 303 can will be 17 ounces. However, for the No. 1 sieve or petit pois, which has not been packed in the Northwest since 1962, it will be 16 ounces. In this latter instance the density of the smaller size pea is less than the density of the brine, thus with more peas in the can in relation to the total volume of the can, the resulting net weight is less. We have a new product, seasoned peas, that contains dehydrated vegetables. and seasonings. This item is again packed in a No. 303 can, but the net weight declaration is 16 ounces. The reason for this is that we anticipate that the dehydrated products will absorb brine and expand; in order to maintain a legal weight declaration, a 16 ounce net contents statement is used. Corn Regardless of style of pack-i.e., whole kernel, “corn 'n peppers," cream style when this item is packed in a No. 303 can, our net weight declaration is 17 ounces. However, when the Midwest variety, white corn, or Country Gentle man pack of Del Monte corn is packed in a No. 303 can, the label weight declaration is 16 ounces, again the result of density variance. Asparagus The three major style packs (ungraded, cuts and tips, center cuts) using the No. 303 can will all indicate a label declaration of 14.5 ounces; however, when packed in a buffet size, the small spears will weigh 8.25 ounces and cut tips, 8 ounces. Green beans, Blue Lake variety Regardless of style of pack-i.e., whole, sliced, seasoned sliced, mixed cutsthis product when packed in a No. 303 can will carry a net weight declaration of 16 ounces. The above detail on major Northwest fruit and vegetable canned products imparts two important concepts with regard to industry practice. First, whereas the weights of products may vary because of density variances, the identical can size is maintained rather than multiplying the number of can sizes on the shelf to accommodate fractional weight differences in the products, and, second, even where distinctive styles of pack have been introduced to stimulate the imagination and increase consumer acceptance, the canning industry has managed in almost every instance to maintain an identical net weight for the product. Is this consumer deception or a voluntary and conscientious ethical consideration? To grant any governmental agency the ultimate authority to establish weights or quantities in which a commodity must be packed is to impose upon processors restrictions as to size, shape, and dimension of container which they must use in the packing of their commodities. The marketplace should make the determination, therein reflecting the consumer's demand, rather than having a bureaucracy decide what the consumer should have. S. 985 would even establish individual serving sizes. Food industry experience has shown it to be as difficult to standardize servings or portions as it would be to regulate taste and appetites. The canning industry has long operated under a joint Commerce Departmentindustry agreement which details all the objectively determinable characteristics important to consumers. This agreement, coupled with Senator Hart's comments regarding the consumer interest of our industry, have led some to believe that the industry should not be concerned with this legislation; and that a so-called canner's exemption, subsection 3(c) (1), meets the industry requirements. This is incorrect, for not only is the language vague and imprecise, but under its most favorable interpretation it would mean only the can sizes presently recommended by the canning industry-Commerce Department voluntary agreement could be used. Thus new products, innovations in packaging, etc., would be subject to all of the provisions of the bill. Is legislation the remedy for packaging and labeling practices that might possibly mislead someone, somehow, somewhere? We do not think so. California Packing Corp. continually and voluntarily reviews its labels to determine conformance with legal requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Act, and the industry's voluntary labeling program already recommends that the net contents statement appear on the front display panel. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, you may also be interested in the attached detailed analysis of S. 985 that has been prepared by the National Canners Association. The California Packing Corp. supports their testimony before your committee. As northwest division manager for Calpak-i.e., Washington and Oregon-I hope you will give serious consideration to the encumbrances that S. 985 will place on those canned products so important to our economy. I am taking the liberty of forwarding this letter to your northwest colleagues, Senators Morse, Jackson, and Neuberger. Most sincerely, J. HELSTROM. CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE OF BERKELEY, INC., Senator PHILIP S. HART, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HART: We are happy to hear that the packaging hearings have been resumed. We hope this year S. 985 will be favorably reported out of the Commerce Committee. When we wrote to you in connection with the 1961 hearings, we described a brief survey we had done relating to all of the cereals on the shelf of one of our member-owned supermarkets. In 1961 we found 93 different kinds and sizes of cereals; of these, only 16 were sold in standard sizes of one-half pound, 1 pound, or 2 pounds. We found 23 different weights for cereals under 1 pound. About 6 months ago we repeated our survey. In 1964 we found 148 different kinds and sizes of cereal packages; of these, 30 were in standard sizes of one-half pound, 1 pound, etc. There were 26 weights under 1 pound. This demonstrates that during the past few years the situation has gotten worse. It is now even harder to shop rationally for an everyday staple food like cereal. We recognize that many decisions and purchases in our economy are and need not be made rationally (women's hats, for example), but this is no justification for preventing consumers from being able to make informed rational choices in shopping for everyday staple foods and food products. Also, despite the publicity afforded certain attempts at industry self-regulation, it is apparent that there has been none. Occasionally, a change which benefits the consumer is accompanied by a hidden increase in the price. For example, one popular cereal changed from a 12-biscuit 9-ounce package costing 25 cents (or 45 cents a pound) to a 12-biscuit, 8-ounce package with a better label and a more readable net weight and contents but selling for 27 cents (or 54 cents a pound). The price difference of 9 cents a pound is arrived at only after a lengthy and complex calculation. Any shopper looking at the 2 packages, each containing 12 biscuits, one priced at 25 cents and the other at 27 cents, would assume the difference to be only 2 cents a pound. Making a mistake of a few cents a pound on cereal each week can have a substantial effect on the family budget. When multiplied by the many packages of cereal purchased by the Nation's consumers every week, it is a billion-dollar invasion of the consumer's pocketbook that also affects the economy as a whole. We are also in favor of the provisions of S. 985 that abolish such misleading designations as "full" or "jumbo" pounds. A similar statute in California since 1963 has not had any harmful effect on our business. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc., is opposed to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, S. 985. Its membership believes existing laws and regulations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, if fully enforced, are adequate to meet the current charges of alleged deception and falsity in the labeling and packaging of consumer goods. The proposed legislative measures over the past several years have not been without their good effects. The label manufacturers industry has noted a considerable upsurge in voluntary compliance with existing laws. During the past year the volume of label clearances with Federal and State agencies on new or revised products has increased 100 percent. The association considers this a valuable service to its members' customers, processors of wholesome products who have provided the American consumer with the greatest protection in the world. Weekly, the association issues numerous "labelgrams" containing Federal and State regulations, proposed and adopted by the respective governing bodies. These in turn are used by label manufacturers in dealing with their customers, the processors of food, beverage, and other items for the American consumer. Their influence is widespread as the label association represents firms who process 20 percent of the $500 million annual volume of label printing in the United States. The growth of the Food and Drug Administration over the past 3 years would seem adequate to obtain maximum compliance under current laws. Comparing its 1964 obligations with that proposed for 1966 shows an increase of $15 million and over 600 additional employees. Significantly, the House Appropriations Committee, in allowing an increase of approximately $7 million in salaries and expenses for 1964, stated: "Ever since the Food and Drug Act was passed, the |