law has provided for a level of protection of the American people that the Food and Drug Administration has not had the facilities to achieve. This budget provides for a big forward step in this direction." [Emphasis supplied.] Again in the 1966 budget, for the Food and Drug Administration, there is a statement that the agency concerns itself with: "The laws enforced hereunder are designed to protect consumers against adulterated and misbranded foods, drugs, cosmetics, therapeutic devices, and household products containing haz. ardous substances." We believe with this financial encouragement, the proposed bill, S. 985, which would leave our industry to the mercy of administrative fiat, should not be enacted. The increases provided in the Food and Drug Administration appropriations in recent years should be ample to permit this agency to do a far more effective job under existing laws. This we endorse. For years the label manufacturers have worked with the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to insure that label proposals conform to existing laws and regulations. Our association has worked closely with other industry groups on this problem. We know that our customers are interested in complying with existing law and should not be included with those charged with intentional deception and falsity in the marketing and sale of consumer goods. We believe that the voluntary programs on the part of many of our customers have been exemplary and gratifying. Label users generally have consulted the Food and Drug Administration of HEW on frequent occasions prior to the development of a label and have found the Advisory Opinion Division of that agency to be very helpful. Greater emphasis on this kind of voluntary cooperation, reflecting a sincere effort on the part of manufacturers to comply with existing law, will provide greater benefits for the consumer. We join with the many witnesses who have appeared before your committee in opposition to S. 985, and endorse the various cogent reasons set forth in opposition to its enactment. Our approach is a simple one: With the expansions granted by the Congress in recent years, we believe that existing law and regulations should be given a fair trial. The uncertainty of present proposals differing as they do between the House of Representatives and the Senate has left industry in great confusion. We urge that the simple solution can be found under existing laws. We submit the foregoing for the record and ask that it be included at the proper place. Respectfully, FRANCIS R. CAWLEY, Mr. EDWARD P. MORGAN, ELSINORE, CALIF., May 25, 1965. DEAR MR. MORGAN: The City Council of Elsinore, Calif., passed resolution No. 1168 May 24, 1965, unanimously, This is in relationship to the Honorable Philip A. Hart's bill pending before Congress called Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The mayor and city council as a whole looked at this bill with a most favorable condition, Mr. Morgan, and I am sending you this little message that it was brought about through your voice coming to me over the radio. Copy of this approval will be mailed to Senators Hart, Kuchel, and Murphy, and Congressman Tunney. Should you have a few moments, please write to Mayor Bartlett thanking him for his support-Mayor Thomas C. Bartlett, City Hall, Elsinore, Calif. Thanks, Mr. Morgan. Cordially and sincerely, EUGENE J. CARTER. ADVERTISING FEDERATION OF AMERICA, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With regard to the hearings currently being held by your committee on Senate bill 985, Senator Philip A. Hart's so-called Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Advertising Federation of America, on behalf of its membership, wishes to reaffirm the stand it has taken in previous years in opposition to this bill. The Advertising Federation of America is the oldest and largest advertising organization in the world. It is the only horizontal association in the advertising field and represents every facet and stratum of the advertising business. AFA has 25 other important advertising associations and related organizations directly affiliated with it and represented on its board of directors. Our federation also possesses a very unique and effective public opinion force at the grassroots level in its 130 affiliated advertising clubs throughout the country with a total membership of more than 25,000. Since its founding in 1905, the AFA has been dedicated to and has established an enviable record of accomplishment in the improvement of advertising and its practices, the preservation of its rights and freedoms and the protection of its vital role in stimulating our Nation's economy and in contributing substantially to our people's high standard of living. Many years ago, the association which is now known as the Advertising Federation of America was responsible both for establishing the better business bureaus throughout the country and the Federal Trade Commission as we know it. We have read the April 16 letter to you submitting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 985 which recommends minor amendments to the bill. We have heard the testimony of the Honorable Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, speaking for the President, that this letter expresses the administration viewpoint. We have heard the Honorable John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce, testify that S. 985, with these amendments, has full administration support. The Secretary of Commerce, in theory, represents the viewpoints of business and industry. Mr. Albert N. Halverstadt, vice president, advertising. of the Procter & Gamble Co., effectively pointed out in his testimony on April 30 that the proposals made by the Secretary of Commerce for amendment of S. 985 represent the administration position but in no way reflect the attitude of business and industry. We believe that the committee should take cognizance of the fact that the business and industry witnesses submitting testimony before your committee are unanimous in their opposition to S. 985 on the following grounds: 1. An overwhelming majority of consumers are well satisfied with today's packaging and labeling practices. Fewer than 1 in 19 interviewed are in favor of Government agencies determining what changes should be made in packaging practices. Consumer attitude studies reveal that the alleged widespread dissatisfaction has been grossly exaggerated and that the widely heralded "consumer revolt” simply does not exist. 2. The Federal Government already has ample power and full authority under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the FTC Act to proceed against fraud and deception in packaging and labeling. More rigid enforcement of existing statutes would appear to be the solution to many problems in this area rather than additional legislation. 3. If this bill is enacted, consumers would pay more for their groceries and receive less value than they do today. 4. If enacted, this bill would grant individual Federal officials unprecedented powers over the marketing of commodities and would, in fact, give them absolute control and not merely powers of regulation. AFA is concerned with the possible harmful effects and results seen if the proposed Hart bill, as it is now constituted, is enacted. Packaging, which represents an important segment of advertising, is a vitally essential stimulator in the marketplace, particularly with our present-day self-service method of grocery shopping. Elimination of "cents off" and special packaging offers or important discounts, as proposed in the Hart bill, would deprive both consumers and retailers of benefits now enjoyed and would deny manufacturers time-tested business builders which have proven extremely productive over many, many years, particularly in introducing new products. The Advertising Federation of America has always been and is now in basic agreement with those who would be sincerely concerned with the rights and protection of the consumer. The entire advertising and marketing process of our economy has always required that the consumer have full and adequate information regarding products and services offered and free choice in making decisions in the marketplace. Communications between supplier and consumer have never been better than they are today and they are being constantly improved through the dedicated and diligent efforts of American business and industry. It is felt that legislation such as that proposed by S. 985 is unnecessarily and unduly restrictive of a free market economy. The Advertising Federation of America respectfully asks Congress to assure consumer protection by urging vigorous enforcement of all existing statutes and by avoiding the imposition of restraints harmful to consumers and business alike through introduction of new legislation. Respectfully yours, MARK F. COOPER, President and General Manager. WRITING INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C., May 17, 1965. MY DEAR SENATOR: This association desires to file the enclosed statement with the Senate Commerce Committee. The statement pertains to the Hart packaging and labeling bill, S. 985. It will be appreciated if you will call this to the attention of your fellow committee members and incorporate it in the official record of committee hearings on this bill. Thank you very much. FRANK L. KING, Executive Vice President, STATEMENT BY WRITING INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. This association of 82 manufacturing companies, representing an industry having an annual retail sales volume of approximately $450 million and employing about 18,000 persons, wishes to go on record against the enactment of S. 985, the Hart packaging and labeling bill. The members of this association take. this stand for the following reasons: 1. There are presently ample laws under which both the Federal Trade. Commission and the Food and Drug Administration are granted authority to protect the consumer and, from a legal point of view, we believe that S. 985 offers the consumer no broader protection from false and misleading advertising matter than he now has. Both of these Federal agencies, in addition to their voluntary compliance programs, are now fully empowered to outlaw any form of deceptive packaging, and the FDA may even seize such packages to prevent their sale. 2. According to the Columbia Law Review, there are at present 21 agencies in the Federal Government alone involved in policing advertising in a wide variety of ways. Nearly every municipality has its sealer of weights and measures and every State has controls in this area, 43 having adopted statutes prohibiting deceptive statements. In every State of the Union, too, there are common law remedies against deceit, fraud, and breach of contract or warranty. 3. This association opposes the proliferation of Federal laws in this field as tending to lessen competition, increase the cost of distribution and inhibit technological innovation and national growth. We particularly fear the proposal under this bill which would empower the Government to compel, under penalty, a manufacturer or seller to submit to it a sample of "each package and label used by that producer or distributor for or in connection with the distribution in commerce of any particularly described consumer commodity of that class or kind." Except in protection of public health and safety, we do not believe the Congress should permit its citizens to be prosecuted for failure to submit their packaging plans and promotional writings, and their manufactured products, to a Federal bureau for approval. 4. The bill's prohibition against any wording suggesting any retail sale price advantage accuring to the customer "by reason of the size of that package or the quantity of its contents" seems particularly harsh and unrealistic and a denial of the compestitive instincts that have made American's marketplace the most volatile in the history of the world. 5. The requirement for mandatory labeling bearing the ingredients and composition of products, if applied to, let us say, inks in ballpoint pens, would violate the precept of secrecy so closely guarded by the members of this industry and one to which they would seem to have an inviolable right. Senator Philip A. Hart, the bill's author, has assured this association that the measure in question is not intended to cover the products of our industry. However, realizing the propensity of the Federal Establishment for extending its powers, we fear that the passage of such a law would open the door for inclusion of our products at a later date. This association urges your committee to vote to reject the proposed legislation and to permit the hard competition of the marketplace, backed fully by enforcement of existing law, to protect our consumers and our customers in their right to products of honest value and at honest price. KENT, WASH., February 9, 1965. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I have just written a letter to Senator Dirksen applauding his stand on the issue of intervention by the Congress that would restrict labeling and packaging practices by business and industry. I would like to urge you also to oppose any legislation in this area. I am a housewife so I feel I can speak with excellent authority on this subject. After all, I do my grocery shopping each and every week, week after week. I do not feel I am being "taken" by any unscrupluous or ambiguous labeling or packaging practices. My shopping decisions are not so terribly difficult that I need any help from the Government nor anyone else. To go shopping and find all bottles and boxes the same size and shape would be extremely boring. I enjoy the variety in my shopping and I ask you, please, not to pass any legislation restricting this variety. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Sincerely yours, Mrs. SUSAN LANDGRAF. WASHINGTON, D.C.. May 26, 1965. Hon. PHILIP A. HART, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HART: The National Grange supports the passage of Senate bill 985 which is aimed at providing the consumer with sufficient information to make buying decisions. The sponsors of the bill, commonly called the truth-in-packaging bill, reflect a fine group of men and women, not protagonists of a particular group interest, but rather guardians of the national well-being. At the outset, I would like to reassure you and the committee of the National Grange's long-term interest in the consumer. Not the least of these efforts were those directed toward the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. In addition, the Grange has joined other organizations and groups, including the Federal Government, to try to promote the interests of the consuming public through such means as the dissemination of literature and the sponsorship of seminars. But, as you know, in this age of quantity and substitutes-in food, fuel, and fiber-the strides made by these groups have necessarily paled. Such piecemeal efforts to educate and protect the Nation's consumers are in need of such backbone and coordination as Senate bill 985 proposes to effect. In the face of industry abuses in packaging and labeling, it is our feeling that legislation such as S. 985 is solely needed. Under its provisions, we feel the consumer could know what he is buying by studying the package and not be forced as she is today-to open the box at home to see what she purchased. Neither the best interests of producers nor the consumers are served by fraudulent or inaccurate labeling, as to either contents, quantity, or quality of packaged food. It is in the light of these thoughts that the National Grange endorses Senate bill 985, in the hope that with its enactment will serve the best interests of consumers and producers-190 million strong. Respectfully yours, HARRY L. GRAHAM, Legislative Representative, The National Grange, |