Senator LAUSCHE. Now, then, there has been considerable testimony offered about deceptive and fraudulent containers. This language, and I repeat:

(d) A food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its container is so made, formed or filled as to be misleading.

And so you take the position that there is now on the statute books laws dealing with false containers?

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE (continuing):

(e) If in package form, unless it bears a label containing (1) the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure or numerical count.

That is, we now have a law that says you have got to show on the label what it contains.

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Are you familiar with the penalties that are provided for under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?

Mr. GREINER. I have the penalties act with me, Senator. I am not familiar with exactly-I cannot dot the i's and cross the t's.

Senator LAUSCHE. That is, if someone is found violating this law which is now on the books, it is my understanding that he can be prosecuted criminally, sent to jail, or fined in money, or both. And the Secretary also has the legal remedy of going into a court of equity and procuring an injunction against the fraudulent practices.

Mr. GREINER. That is correct. And as a matter of fact we heartily support that procedure under which the present Secretary must operate.

Senator LAUSCHE. All right.

Is

Now, under the Federal Trade Commission, if and when it finds that there has been mislabeling or deceit, it has separate remedies. that a fact or not?

Mr. GREINER. As I understand it, it is a fact.

Senator LAUSCHE. It can go into court and procure an injunction against the practice of deception.

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. And it also can go into court and procure an injunction against falsifying, is that correct?

Mr. GREINER. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Now, then, if this is false advertising, as has been pointed out with regard to these two items, is it or is it not a fact that the Federal Trade Commission could go into court and, if it proved its case, obtain an injunctive order to cease and desist from the practice?

Mr. GREINER. Senator, may I first ask that the record indicate that the products under consideration are not dairy products. I would answer your question by saying yes; as far as I know, this remedy is available to enforcement agencies.

Senator LAUSCHE. Yes; I see. I am just told that with respect to food products, it would be the Food and Drug Administration, and with respect to other products it would be the Federal Trade Commission.

So that, if we pass this bill-and I am not sure that something need be done we will then have on the books the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; we will have on the books the laws dealing with the Federal Trade Commission; and also this new law. That is, we will have three sides from which the attack can be made.

Will there be duplication or not, in your opinion?

Mr. GREINER. Well, this is the entire brunt of our testimony, that there will be duplication in this area, because we have had instances already where local weights and measures officials take one position, States weights and measures officials take another, considering the placement of the net weight statement on a can of evaporated milk, for example. Now, if we come along with a Federal agency, we conceivably will have a third party interjecting themselves into the same controversy, shall we say, if it becomes controversy.

Senator LAUSCHE. Arguments or testimony was offered here within the last 2 days that, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Secretary has no authority to adopt regulations in addition to the special prohibitions that are contained within the law as it is now written, and that this handicaps the Secretary in protecting the consumer as he purchases the goods that he seeks.

Are you in a position to discuss that phase of this issue?

Mr. GREINER. May I comment this way, Senator? We, first of all, in the dairy industry feel that the Secretary does have enough power in the present law.

A case-by-case approach is highly underestimated, in our opinion, by the Secretary or by the Food and Drug people. First of all, it is always the final threat that a processor faces, obviously. Whenever he is examined by an inspector and found to be lacking or deficient in certain labeling or packaging or other types of what may be termed infractions of the law, certain actions are taken; and the final action, of course, is into court. And this, we think, has a great salutary effect upon many, many processors-facing the threat.

And hundreds of decisions are made that we never hear about, in favor of the Commission or in favor of the Secretary, where negotiations or a voluntary action on the part of the processor brings his product into line.

Senator LAUSCHE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREINER. In other words, the only cases you hear about are the ones that go to court. But you do not hear about the hundreds that do not go to court, that are negotiated or where they comply with the law.

Senator LAUSCHE. On the basis of the testimony given, it would seem that the argument asking that the Secretary be given the authority to adopt regulations which shall have the effect of law, on the one and takes away from Congress its responsibility that it ought to write the laws and not the Secretary, with advice and conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act.

I would like to have you express your opinion as to the dangers that reside in having appointive officials write law instead of Congress writing the law.

Mr. GREINER. Well, it is my understanding that we are a country of law and not of men making laws wherein they enforce them of their own opinion as to what things might be. And this is exactly the sit

uation that we would have if we had regulationmaking power placed in the Secretary's Office.

In other words, if he can adopt regulations, then, frankly, you are not found in violation of the law, you are simply found in violation of the regulation, as I understand it, and from a legal standpoint have no recourse except: Did you or did you not violate this particular regulation, regardless of the merit of the regulation to begin with?

In other words, the law only becomes a steppingstone on to further restriction by regulatory officials.

Senator LAUSCHE. There is a man by the name of Ehrlich who testified 2 days ago, and he, in effect, said that we are a nation of laws passed by the representatives of the people duly assembled in Congress, and that under our system of laws an accused is entitled to the due processes of law, and whether justice is or is not done is not dependent upon what the particular administrator feels but what the courts are doing; and that, if we abandon this system of protecting the accused he ended up by saying "God help us."

Mr. GREINER. Well, I will use the same language. May I comment that I do not mean this to be a sacrilegious comment at all, but almost next to the Holy Bible, which is our foundation for all people, all business people these days-or all people, I should say-in America: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is the next bible. It is the one bible that our processors, operating in interstate commerce, must and do attempt to comply with.

Senator LAUSCHE. That is all.

Senator Scott?

Senator Scort. I have no questions, Senator.

Senator LAUSCHE. All right, that is all. Thank you.

Mr. GREINER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator SCOTT (assuming chair). The next witness is the Pennsylvania secretary of internal affairs, Miss Genevieve Blatt.

Miss Blatt, the committee welcomes you here, and I regret that there were other witnesses scheduled that caused some delay, but we would be very pleased if you would go right ahead and testify in whatever fashion you wish.

STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE BLATT, SECRETARY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, HARRISBURG, PA.

Miss BLATT. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to offer the testimony regardless of the time.

As Pennsylvania's secretary of internal affairs, as I think you know, I am charged with the responsibility, through our bureau of standard weights and measures, to protect both buyer and seller in the Commonwealth's marketplaces-the buyer from short weight or measure, and the seller from overweight or measure. It is to the economic advantage of both that this job be done efficiently and well.

I have observed over the years that it is the buyer-the consumerwho seems to benefit most from our work, for we find many more instances of shortage than overage. Perhaps this is because there are so many more consumers or buyers-than sellers. Be that as it may,

I am convinced that Senate bill 985 is in the public interest. It is a long-not a giant-step forward in the direction of protecting the consumer and aiding him in his struggle to enhance the purchasing power of his dollar. It is not a perfect bill, but few are. We need it, and I fervently hope the Congress will pass it in this session. It will benefit the Pennsylvania consumer, along with other consumers throughout the country, by giving him and them protection which we are unable to provide at the State level.

Many of the provisions of Senate bill 985 are included in the model. State weights and measures law, which strives for uniformity in weights and measures regulations among all States, and which we hope Pennsylvania will enact, but it will go much further along the road that States cannot effectively or legally go.

As I see it, Senate bill 985 will extend to the consumer easier, clearer identification of quantity.

It properly places responsibility for stating quantity on the packer who labels the packaged commodity and distributes it, thus relieving the retailer of responsibility for the misleading or deceptive information which may appear on a container.

It will put an end to the "jumbo" quart and the "5 cents off" wordings, which create confusion, at best, and resentment directed toward the innocent retailer, at worst.

It even provides for a definition of what is to be meant by a "serving." And certainly ambiguity has no place in weights and measures or quantity declarations.

As the committee knows, for years there was little interest, concern, or drama in the area of consumer protection. This was because buying was not done en masse, but rather as a personal adventure. Our grandmothers shopped at the corner grocery store for foods they did not raise and preserve themselves, and at the downtown emporium for other articles. The corner grocer and usually even the downtown store clerk was a friend.

Weights and measures inspectors simply checked scales and measuring vessels for accuracy. And many times our grandmothers merely sent their own gallon jug or bushel basket down the street to be filled with vinegar, kerosene coal oil as many of us called it-or apples or potatoes or whatever. Anything they needed to know about any product could be learned for the asking from their friend, the grocer or the store clerk.

How times have changed.

Our grandmothers were far better protected in the stores of their day than we are now in the giant modern supermarkets where we are confronted with aisle after aisle, shelf after endless shelf bearing colorful boxes, bottles, cellophane wrappings, jars and cans ad infinitum, almost ad nauseum.

The corner grocery not only has become a rara avis, but the very concept of "grocering" has altered. The phenomenon of "running down to the store to pick up a few things" is a lot like going for a leisurely Sunday drive. As one of our well-known comedians used to say, "You can't hardly do that no more." We have become a mass society, one of mass movement, mass congestion, mass commercialism, mass consumption.

48-222-65--30

"Grocering" today is modern merchandising, controlled by corporate entities far away from the point of sale. And at the point of sale, the customer, alone, serves himself, makes his own judgments as to the merits of competing products-and waits in line to pay for them. The package is usually his only source of information. The scale is far away, at the factory. The grocer and the clerk have disappeared. Selections today may be based on several factors as the customer examines the package and what its label says and how it looks. In the last analysis, however, two elements will influence selection: individual taste or preference, and price. And price is a quantity value. I would hope that under this bill we will eventually get regulations standardizing quantity packaging, of certain frequently used items at least, for quick and easy price comparisons.

Individual preference is or should be a private matter between the shopper and the product, although we are all aware of the pressures of advertising and the millions spent on motivational research by industry.

The shopper, however, should have the right to be able to make quick and easy and on-the-spot price comparisons among competing products, so that the decision to buy or not to buy can be made solely on the basis of price and price alone if so desired.

Our grandmothers would have ridiculed the notion that price comparison in a store was difficult. All they had to do was ask if things came by the peck, or pound, or bushel, or quart, and then compare prices. Can you imagine their sending down to the corner for 1534 ounces of cornmeal? Or for a "jumbo" gallon of coal oil?

We cannot ask today's salesman, the label on the package, and get a quick answer as to which of many different sized packages of the same commodity may be the best buy, and certainly we cannot take time to figure it out. Take, for example, several containers of liquid detergents on the shelves of just 1 supermarket 1 day last week: 1 pint, 6 ounces at 62 cents (8 cents off); 12 ounces at 35 cents (5 cents off); 28 ounces at 52 cents (15 cents off); 12 quarts at 59 cents; 1 quart 4 ounces at 71 cents (7 cents off); 1 pint 3 ounces at 36 cents (3 cents off); 15 fluid ounces at 29 cents (10 cents off).

This listing represents about one-half of the liquid detergents for sale on 1 day. If it takes a good 5 minutes to figure the best buy for one particular item-and frankly, I think it would take me more than that-how long do you think it would take to go through a shopping list of 15 items?

Senator LAUSCHE. May I interrupt at this time, Mr. Chairman ? Senator SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Were these containers in which the items were carried of different sizes?

Miss BLATT. Yes.

Senator LAUSCHE. They were of different sizes?

Miss BLATT. That is right.

Senator LAUSCHE. They were not of a uniform size?
Miss BLATT. No.

Senator LAUSCHE. All right, that is all.

Miss BLATT. My only point was that they were of such varying sizes and such varying prices, with cents-off marking that it would take a mathematical genius to figure what was the best buy if you wanted to make your judgment alone.