take the initiative in this effort. It is in the best interests of the maunfacturer and the retailer as well as the consumer. The Government has had, and has exercised, a responsibility toward the consumer in this field for a long time. But the case-by-case trail to which we are limited by existing law is a long and winding one. More clear-cut regulations are needed ***

I would like to comment now, Mr. Chairman, on some of the specific provisions of S. 985.

Like its predecessors, the bill's substantive provisions are divided into two sections. The first group, known as mandatory provisions, would apply across the board to all products covered by the act, with provision for exceptions to take care of the inevitable special cases. The second group, termed discretionary provisions, give the administering agencies authority to promulgate rules and regulations on a product-by-product basis. In general, let me say that the provisions in both section 3(a)-the mandatory provisions and in section 3(c) the discretionary provisions are based on genuine needs of modern day consumers. I cannot emphasize this point too strongly. Section 3 (a) (1) requires the promulgation of regulations that would require the net quantity of contents to be stated on the front panel. Section 3 (a) (2) requires the establishment of minimum standards with respect to the prominence of statements of the net quantity, and section 3(a) (3) is designed to prohibit such meaningless qualifying adjectives as "big" quart, "jumbo" gallon, etc.

These three sections taken together are designed to give the housewife an opportunity to make a rapid judgment on how much is in the package. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to imagine how there can be any serious opposition to such simple requirements, particularly since the bill is drafted so as to allow for exceptions. One consumer summed up the situation cogently when she wrote:

I, for one, am quite out of patience with tiny print ** * I wish I could tell the Congressmen just how tired I am of hunting for the contents and weights portion of the label; how time consuming it is * * *. (Mrs. H. M., North Hollywood, Calif.)

I will have to write this lady and let her know that her views have been made known to the Congressmen.

Section 3(a) (6) concerns itself with pictorial matter which is likely to deceive retail purchasers in any material respect as to the actual contents of the package. Again let me turn to the words of one of my correspondents:

I am enclosing portions of two packages of beef sandwiches. Looking at the pictures, which is all the purchaser has to go by, one would expect sliced beef. I found this was not the case. The sandwiches consisted of a filling of small pieces of beef, such as scraps which are left over when one has sliced a large roast. and small slivers fall off the large pieces *** I feel that value received was not value expected and paid for. (Mrs. H. B. S., St. Louis, Mo.)

The last mandatory provision deals with the prohibition of cents-off labels. It seems to me that when the manufacturer puts a cents-off label on a package or container, he is in effect promising something that he cannot at all times deliver, for the manufacturer has not any control over the prices charged at the wholesale or retail level. The cents-off legend may mean cents-off of the wholesaler or retailer, but it does not necessary mean cents-off to the consumer.

During the past year many business leaders have told me that while cents-off promotions could be abused, and undoubtedly were abused

in some instances, just as often they have resulted in savings to

consumers.

I would suggest to the committee, therefore, that it explore the possibility of amending the bill in such a way as to eliminate the abusive cents-off promotions while allowing legitimate cents-off promotions to continue.

What I have in mind is to move this section out of the mandatory section of the bill to the discretionary section. If such were done, the administering body could draft regulations that would protect the consumer while at the same time protecting the manufacturer by allowing him to use cents-off packages and labels as a legitimate sales promotion mechanism.

Turning to the discretionary provisions, the bill provides that the administering agencies may promulgate regulations on a product-byproducts basis, and only when necessary to establish or preserve fair competition by enabling consumers to make rational comparisons between competing products, or to prevent the deception of consumers as to such product. These regulations would:

Establish reasonable weights or quantities in which a product can be sold.

Prevent the sale of a commodity in a package whose size, shape, or proportions may deceive purchasers as to the weight or the quantity of the product (with proper protection to manufacturers to assure that they can exploit unique advantages of particular kinds of containers).

Establish standards of size terminology such as small, medium and large.

Establish serving standards.

Establish standards to designate the contents of a package where net weight or number is not meaningful.

Require that adequate information about the content ingredients or composition be displayed prominently on the package or the label. Mr. Chairman, the words of consumers themselves best illustrate the kinds of problems these regulations are meant to cure. I offer the following as representative samples of letters I have received from consumers regarding these problems:

Weights and measures should be more uniform on packages and canned goods. How can a shopper intelligently compare prices when the weights are so broken up? It's almost necessary to have a computer along!" (Mrs. L. E. T., Minneapolis, Minn.)

I recently bought a prepackaged pizza and I was horrified *** Why this pizza is only 134 oz. and it's in a box size that would fit a 17 or 18 oz. pizza * * * I feel that I was gypped and I want you to do something about it and if I do not hear from you soon I will write to a higher authority even the President if I have to. (Mr. C. R., San Leandro, Calif.)

The (blank) oil is an example. The smallest bottle they sell is called large. I still can't remember which is bigger, super, giant or king. I say a giant is bigger than a king, but my husband uses the theory that a king rules the land and is therefore bigger. The whole thing is stupid. (Mrs. E. A. S., Ceres, Calif.) I am enclosing a bag that contained instant sweet potatoes. The product is very good but the label distinctly says that the package serves four generously. I have bought this product several times but it never serves more than two of us (my husband and myself). Since we are both 70 and not possessed of an excessive appetite, I feel we are being cheated. (H. P. J., Trevose, Pa.)

When I buy aerosal products like hair sprays and deodorants, where I cannot see the contents, net weight means nothing, and I don't know how much

I am buying. I would like to see some other way of determining the amount contained in the can. (Mrs. M. J. J., Bangor, Maine.)

I am extremely allergic to cotton-seed oil, for instance, and I would like for the manufacturer to state on his packaging which vegetable oils are used in his products instead of the wording "vegetable oils." (Mrs. C. D. C., Tryon, N.C.) Mr. Chairman, I would now like to devote a brief amount of time to answer some of the objections to S. 985.

First, it is claimed that S. 985 is unnecessary. On the one hand, it is argued that industry self-regulation can be trusted to correct the infrequent abuses, and on the other hand, that there is already existing authority for the Federal Government to prohibit truly deceptive practices in this area.

I have already touched on the adequacy of self-correction. The fact is that the food industry is highly competitive, and often forces businesses into going along with a practice that is not in the consumer's best interest simply to meet the competition.

As to the adequacy of existing law, no better answer exists than was stated by the President in his consumer message, which I quoted earlier: "The case-by-case trail is a long and winding one. More clearcut regulations are needed."

I think, as the Senator stated, one needs only go to the grocery store every Saturday, when I do my shopping, and see the need.

The second major argument is that enactment of this bill would work to the detriment of consumers by stifling innovation, inhibiting product and package innovation, inhibiting new research, turning the supermarket into a GI-type warehouse-in short, a 1965 version of the plagues brought on the Egyptians in the days of Moses. The facts certainly do not bear out these dire prognostications. I asked you to consider whether innovation and imagination suffer because coffee comes in 1-pound tins; or because whiskey comes in fifths.

The third argument also seems to me to suffer from gross overstatement. It is that consumers would win a pyrrhic victory if this bill were enacted, since the cost to industry would result in major price increases being passed on to consumers.

Throughout the hearing record there has been no substantiation of that claim. Most cost figures that have been bandied about seem to ignore the fact that packages are continually changing. The bill has ample language that would allow manufacturers and packagers to use up existing stocks of packages and labels.

The fourth point is that this legislation, if passed, would be an unwarranted instrusion of government into the everyday life of citizens, and an unwarranted intrusion into the free marketplace.

The obvious inconsistency in this argument is that there is already existing authority in the Federal Government to move against the deceptive practices this bill seeks to reach. We are dealing with a bill that is not regulating a new area of activity, but rather is revising and modernizing the tools available to government to regulate in this area. It is really modernizing and bringing up to date existing authority.

I think Senator Hart and the sponsors of the bill are to be congratulated for the improvements they have made in S. 985 over S. 387 of the 87th Congress. It is clear indication to me that there is a genuine desire on the part of all those who support this bill to enact legis

lation that takes into account the needs of consumers in the modern supermarket and at the same time recognizes the legitimate needs of the industry.

In keeping with the spirit of making S. 985 as good a bill as possible for both consumers and industry, I suggest, finally, that the committee consider the ways in which business could be provided with an opportunity for advance clearance of specific packages and labels. Ample time must be allowed, however, for the review of applications for such clearance, and during this time the applicant should be required to refrain from using the proposed new package and label.

In addition, the Government's advice ought to be binding unless and until the applicant obtains a reversal after a formal hearing procedure.

Mr. Chairman, passage of S. 985 with the above-mentioned adjust ments would be in accord with the program of the administration, and I thus urge the committee to favorably report this administrationendorsed bill.

Thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER (presiding). Thank you, Mrs. Peterson. I am especially appreciative of your last statement that the administration would support the Hart bill with the modifications regarding safeguards which you suggested in your comments.

Mrs. PETERSON. That's correct, yes. It is an administration-endorsed bill, it has been thoroughly reviewed and fully representswith these points-administration policy.

Senator NEUBERGER. That is heartening to those of us who are sponsors of the bill, and I say that the President, in sending up the consumer message to this Congress, certainly showed a great interest in this subject, and carried out the promises of the Kennedy

administration.

Mrs. PETERSON. I think, Senator Neuberger, that it is a fitting climax to the long history of support. First the consumer message of President Kennedy, then the consumer message of President Johnson in 1964. There was the economic report of 1965, which carried an endorsement. And then the letter from the Bureau of the Budget which was included as part of the record today. And then finally my approved testimony.

Senator NEUBERGER. I always feel that a message from the President of the United States has special importance when we stop to realize that he is the only elected official of this country who is elected by all the people. He must speak then for what he feels is the good of all the people. He must have a feeling that there is an interest and a demand in a subject of this kind.

I think you have indicated in your testimony this is borne out, and refutes articles that all of us have read in trade magazines and other magazines that people are not interested.

Senator Hart?

Senator HART. Madam Chairman, Mrs. Peterson, it is not necessary for me to tell you that I am delighted that the administration supports the bill, and that you come to give us this message.

The Kennedy-Johnson years have seen, I think, consumer concern highlighted by the White House to a degree never before seen in

American history, and this is all to the good. I know that you have made an enormous contribution in sharpening the awareness across the country.

I have no questions. I say thanks. I think really I speak for a great many people in this country to tell you that the support that you now give to this effort could be the key to its success.

Mrs. PETERSON. Thank you, Senator.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Morton?

Senator HART. May I apologize for taking leave. There are other balls bouncing, including the voting bill.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Hart has very important duties these days-leading the civil rights voting bill.

Senator Morton?

Senator MORTON. Mrs. Peterson, I suppose one could say that the best bargain table in the world is the American grocery store. Isn't that true?

Mrs. PETERSON. Yes. I don't know if you noticed the part of my testimony where I say we are so aware of this. I personally testified to that, Senator, because I lived abroad for a number of years and raised my family, my children there. I do know how splendid it is

here.

Senator MORTON. I notice you made this point on page 4 of your testimony. Fortunately in this country we don't have to stand in line to buy. There was a period immediately following World War II when, because of shortages in food, there was such a question and perhaps the industry at that time didn't have to use much imagination, didn't get anywhere. Very few strides were made.

But as soon as we caught up and the supply outreached the demand, then innovations were made and we have seen, as you have pointed out, a revolution in food packaging.

I wonder if attempting to control this and granting that there are those who misrepresent in their advertising the Federal Trade Commission has power against deceptive advertising today-I just wonder if in trying to achieve what you are trying to achieve we won't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. This disturbs me.

Mrs. PETERSON. I don't think we will. I recognize your concern and I think that there is a genuine concern about this. But I feel that that is not-I don't think we need to worry about this.

We do know that there is authority under this on a case-by-case basis. You can tell yourself-I don't know if you do the shopping, but I do for my family.

Senator MORTON. I do.

Mrs. PETERSON. Then you know from experience.

Senator MORTON. I used to be in the business. I was in the food business. I like going into grocery stores. I hated to see them quit selling flour in 196-pound barrels, but this is part of our

Mrs. PETERSON. I grew up when it was in the barrel, too, Senator. But weren't you glad to have the flour in even amounts, in 5, 10 and 100 pounds, and not 1334 ?

Senator MORTON. Yes. We have no problem there. Speaking of that, I remember it always was in a sack, or in a bag. In my own company, I put 5 pounds of flour in a box. It looked a lot larger than a bag.