Senator LAUSCHE. I asked that question yesterday on the same theory you did and the answer is that they have the same dimensions of package, each package containing a different density of material, and therefore the weight differs according to the density of the material contained. Now, I have to go to the White House Miss DUBROW. May I say one word on that, Mr. Chairman? In this case Miss Draper was talking about cleansers, all of which have the same kind of density. I have used them all, Ajax, Dutch Cleanser. So I don't think that holds up as an excuse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator LAUSCHE. There will be a 5-minute recess. Mrs. Neuberger will be here to chair the meeting at that time. (Recess.) Senator NEUBERGER (presiding). Our next witness is Mr. William B. Murphy, president of Campbell Soup Co. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. MURPHY, PRESIDENT, CAMPBELL Mr. MURPHY. Campbell Soup Co. and the National Canners. Mr. MURPHY. Good morning. My name is William B. Murphy. I am here as president and chief executive officer of Campbell Soup Co. We have been producing packaged goods for the consumer since 1869, for 96 years. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the distinguished Senate Committee on Commerce. I spent some time this morning listening and I really feel like a company that bamboozles the consumer. But I want to assure the committee that neither my company nor I, to our knowledge, has ever bamboozled the consumer, although I think the testimony this morning would have indicated that this is the general practice among package goods manufacturers. Along with Milan D. Smith, its executive vice president, I also represent the National Canners Association, a trade association including among its members approximately 600 canners of fruits, vegetables, and other foods. I have read the statement Mr. Smith will give to the committee and endorse it fully. My appearance here stems from a strong personal conviction that S. 985 would do substantial damage to the food industry and, at the same time, be contrary to the interests of the majority of the consuming public. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL WOULD REPLACE FREE CHOICE In a subtle way, this proposed legislation changes the entire theory under which the food industry is regulated. In effect it would substitute a form of centralized and rigid Government control for the present system which prohibits any deception or abuse but otherwise allows free play for individual ingenuity and initiative. From its beginning in 1906, food and drug legislation has worked on the theory that the Government would establish basic ground rules for the food industry to protect the consumer from deception and danger-would move vigorously against abuses wherever they appearedbut would not otherwise interfere with industry operations. This same philosophy underlies the Federal Trade Commission legislation-almost all legislation, in fact, except where a public utility is involved. This follows our historic concept of governmentnamely, that the citizen has a freedom of choice in all things—so long as he does not endanger others or infringe on their rights. Only then does the Government step in. Recognizing the necessity for sound ground rules of this type, my company and I believe the food industry in general have given overwhelming support to the food and drug laws. S. 985 would, however, depart from this typically American concept. It would prohibit altogether certain types of labeling, whether truthful or not, simply because of a Government belief that labeling of this type might be deceptive under some circumstances or might be abused by a few. The test of actual deception would be replaced by broad and necessarily personal administrative discretion. All persons would be rigidly controlled to prevent abuses by a few. This concept would even be carried to the extent of conferring on administrative agencies the authority to determine the weights in which packaged foods are to be distributed and the size and shape of the packages that can be used. This type of regulation not only is unnecessary-but could prove costly to the consumer while taking away her right to make a free choice. Even more, I believe it is a dangerous precedent. CENTS-OFF PROMOTIONS BENEFIT THE CUSTOMER A good example of what I am talking about can be found in section 3(a) (5) which is designated to prevent the so-called cents-off promotions. I personally do not like promotions of this type very much-or deals of any kind, for that matter-and my company does not use very many of them. This is not because there is anything inherently wrong with them, but simply because our theories of merchandising happen to run in other directions. But it cannot be denied that merchandising promotions are an important fact of our economic life. At any particular time the typical supermarket can have as many as 200 or more promotions of one kind or another running at the same time. About 40 percent of these are likely to be on-the-label promotions and a very high percentage of the latter will be those where the label spells out the amount of saving to the consumer. These are known as cents-off deals. (A list of the on-the-label promotions found in one chain supermarket at one time is attached as exhibit 1.) Recap of instore promotions and special label offers, chain supermarket, Glenside, Pa.; store checked Apr. 12 and 13, 1965 |