"How many people are getting bilked this way? If they have no cause to measure, they are none the wiser. I, for one, am getting tired of being made the goat and am turning into a very suspicious person, afraid to believe anything I read."

"DEAR CU: One method of packaging especially irritating to me is the recording of net weight in obscure locations and in fine print. A typical example, which I believe would make a case in court, is the instant mashed potatoes package which appears twice the size of its competitors, yet on closer (much closer) examination, one finds less net weight by 5 to 10 percent."

One measure of the growing intensity of consumer reaction to cheating through packaging is the detailed care with which consumers document their findings. The following letter on another type of processed potatoes is a good example: "DEAR CU: (This) brand of frozen scalloped potatoes comes in one of those small tins used for frozen pies. The outside box is square, 5% by 5% by 116 inches, which would hold 21 ounces of water. It gives the appearance of containing two servings of food. In very small print, 'Net weight 7 ounces' is claimed. The interior diameter of the top (of the tin inside) is 4% inches, of the bottom 3 inches, and the depth is 14 inches. (This tin) holds a measured quantity of 7 ounces of water, or only one-third the volume of the total package.

"In none of the four or five packages (of this brand that) I have bought has the tin been reasonable well filled. I measured one, somewhat inaccurately, to contain 5% ounces of potato. The last two packages I measured accurately, both by weight and volume. The whole packages weighed 7 and 71⁄2 ounces, respectively, and the food alone only 6 ounces in each package, a 'short-change' of about 14 percent.

"As you can see, this is barely one serving of potatoes. And it cost 31 cents." "DEAR CU: I recently came across an advertisement in a trade publication which carries on its face a blatant advocacy of deceptive packaging * * * The ad in question appeared in Chemical Week magazine, issue of December 26, 1959, occupying page 54. This magazine, you may know, is directed primarily to management in the chemical process industries. The ad, by Hooker Chemical Corp., Phosphorous Division, department CW-12, 60 East 42d Street, New York, N.Y., carried the banner line: 'How spray-dried phosphates give your detergents 30 percent more bulk at the same cost *** and the same weight.' The text said that Hooker's spray-dried sodium phosphate, a detergent ingredient, has air bubbles entrapped in each particle. The entrapped air makes it 70 percent bulkier than conventional phosphates and will increase the bulk of packaged detergents by 20 to 30 percent without increasing their cost or weight * * *” The waste and confusion accompanying what sellers refer to as "the battle for shelf space" has been rampant in detergents for some time. But the meaningless product differentiation in this field continues space. The dishwashing detergent. Joy, for example, which made its bow in a quite adequate bottle-orcan choice (12 ounces net weight) some years ago, now commands triple shelf space with its three sizes-12 ounces, 22 ounces, and 1 quart. Each package comes in gleaming white plastic, gaudily labeled in red, green, and blue. shoppers found them priced at 37 cents, 65 cents, and 93 cents, respectively. The net weight of the contents appears at the bottom of the label on the back of these elaborate containers. The cost-per-ounce difference from size to size is less than two-tenths of a cent.

CU's

Among the old-fashioned heavy-duty detergents also there has been an explosion in multiple sizes-regular, large, giant, and king sizes. CU recently picked up seven different brands of the same type of all-purpose sudsing detergents, all of them in the so-called giant size. All seven were identical in package contour-the same height, the same width, and the same breadth. The prices for these packages of the same dimensions varied, however, from 53 to 85 cents a box. The net-weight listing for the contents of the seven (which were so located on the packages as to baffle the seeker almost completely) also differed, as follows (in alphabetical order):

Cheer: 3 pounds, 5 ounces.

Oxydol: 3 pounds, 14 ounces.
Rinso: 3 pounds, 6 ounces.

Sail: 2 pounds, 15 ounces.

Super Suds: 2 pounds, 15 ounces.

Surf: 2 pounds, 131⁄2 ounces.

Tide: 3 pounds, 14 ounces.

The Surf cost 85 cents- -a per ounce price of 1.86 cents. The lowest cost on a per ounce basis was A. & P.'s private brand, Sail: at 1.13 cents it was about 40 percent below the price of the most expensive.

"DEAR CU : Each year I await the annual sale on (a particular brand of shampoo) *** I try to buy enough to last for a year.

"This year, my faith was bady shaken when I discovered the sale shampoo was specially packaged and, although the bottle carried the slogan, 'Regular $2.50 Size,' the ounces in the sale bottle were not the same as the regular $2.50 size. (It was 2 ounces less.) Perhaps the $1 savings is worth 2 ounces less, but not when it is advertised as the 'Regular $2.50 Size.'

"I can only conclude from this bit of skulduggery that this company has joined the ranks of advertisers who think the consumer is an idiot and will buy anything if it is marked 'sale' or 'special.'"

"DEAR CU: Having used Kleenex tissues exclusively now for 8 years, I could not help noticing the shortening of the tissue recently. Close measurement revealed the tissues are now a full one-half inch or more shorter without a corresponding shortening in price. Samples of the old and new lengths are enclosed as visible proof.

"I should imagine that the resourceful brain power of Kimberly-Clark (manufacturer of Kleenex) would be able to come up with a more honest way of cutting costs in order to maintain a profit position. *** This 'sneaky' kind of marketing by a great corporation holding almost 50 percent of the cleaning tissue market makes me want to report it to Consumers Union."

"DEAR CU: This makes me boil. Today I bought a new bottle of Lavoris which we use daily in our home as a mouthwash. Yesterday I looked all over for the 20-ounce bottle for which I have never paid over 79 cents plus New York City 3 percent sales tax. Everywhere I saw only 17-ounce bottles. A printed tag on the bottles read, 'Save 15 cents.' The retail price written on by the store was 89 cents. How do you explain charging 89 cents plus 15 cents for 17 ounces, when previously I paid 79 cents for 20 ounces?

"This kind of skulduggery is all too common.

"DEAR CU: Enclosed are samples of three items purchased in our local post exchange:

"1. Ban deodorant: While the bottle itself was full, it filled about half the box (in which it came), with a large empty airspace on each side. The item appears to be effective and I like its method of application, otherwise the deceptive packaging would turn me against it. The deceptive packaging cannot help but increase the cost of packaging and shipping, which, of course, is pyramided by profit by the time we pay for it.

"2. Sheaffer's fineline thin leads HB medium F15, 7 centimeters long: Each of four boxes, one-fourth full, contained 12 leads. I combined them into one box and added four more leads for a fairly snug fit-and they don't rattle around with danger of breakage in shipment. At the Army PX price of 2 boxes for 25 cents, 48 leads cost 50 cents. A good portion of this price must have gone into the fancy metal boxes. By filling the boxes, the price could be considerably reduced, perhaps by 50 percent or more.

"3. Parker writefine leads, medium, 31⁄2 centimeters long: Two boxes (for 15 cents) contained 26 and 24 leads respectively. I combined them into one box and added two more for a snug fit. By filling each box, this price could also be reduced, though not by as much as Sheaffer's.

"Comparing the two leads in terms of 7-centimeter leads: "Sheaffer's: 48 for 50 cents, or 1.04 cents each.

"Parker's: 50 for 30 cents, or 0.6 of a cent each.

"Sheaffer could at least be competitive with proper packaging."

"DEAR CU: I am a subscriber, a happy one, and have a problem which I hope you can help me with. I shop at (a big chain supermarket) and frequently buy center-cut pork chops. Every time I unwrap the package when I get home. the two or three pork chops that are completely visible are center-cut chops. but those that are tucked underneath are rib chops. I have talked to other housewives and they all have the same complaint.

"I was wondering if there was any way you or I could bring this 'deceiving of the consumer' to the attention of the Government since center-cut chops cost more than rib chops and we are paying for something we aren't getting

And another writer on the same theme:

"DEAB CU: I would like to say a few words on deceptive packaging. As if bacon packaging isn't deceptive enough, (a national packing house) has the quaint little practice of putting 100 percent pieces of fat slapped together under the bacon completely out of sight. I have started the practice of pushing, bending, opening the packages of bacon until I can see what I am shelling out 69 cents for ***"

"DEAR CU: Recently (a big chain supermarket)

** featured as special:

3 boxes of Procter & Gamble's Duncan Hines Cake Mixes for $1. I fell for this stunt and bought an assortment of three boxes for $1 (33% cents per box). At home I checked these special-sale boxes against ones I had bought earlier at the regular price of 37 cents a box. [The] special-buy boxes, I found, contained 14 ounces while the regular boxes contained 19 ounces net weight.

This reader, by the way, did not complain about the difficulty of checking the net weight, although the net-weight designations on cakemix boxes are frequently extremely difficult to find-printed in small type and all but hidden by where they are placed on the package.

"DEAR CU: While incurring the risk of self-flattery, my wife and I claim to be members extraordinary of the 'shopulation' (a new advertising term to describe careful shoppers). We shop with a sliderule.

"*** A sliderule permits us to choose 54 ounces of toothpaste for 83 cents over 45% ounces for 69 cents. It also shows us that the highly advertised canned apple juice on 'sale' and prominently displayed is actually significantly more expensive than the regular bottle hidden on a shelf in the back of the store.

"Two or three dollars invested in a cheap sliderule pays for itself in a few weeks. It also gives a gratifying smug sense of satisfaction in the knowledge that you are defeating the amassed forces of evil from Madison Avenue."

"DEAR C.U.: I am writing this in protest to the techniques of changing can sizes. Can't we discourage it?

"I recently returned home with what I thought were two No. 303 cans of peas, only to find that the net weight is 141⁄2 ounces or 411 grams-a new size I have never met with before. The not-too-long-ago abandonment of the No. 2 can in favor of the No. 303 is still in my mind and I don't like it one bit. Newspaper publicity said the public was 'tested' to see whether they preferred the No. 303 over the No. 2 ***. The two never appeared side by side, to my knowledge. But by selling the No. 303 on a "2 for-cents' or '3 for -cents' basis, the No. 303 was promoted so rapidly, that the No. 2 at regular prices didn't have a chance." Another reader complains about the can sizes in a sale:

*

"DEAR C.U.: Recently I bought an 'economy size' can of * * tuna-chunk, light-and found that had I bought two regular 62-ounce cans, I would have had one-half ounce more-at exactly the same price. The so-called economy size contained 121⁄2 ounces for 59 cents a can. The regular 61⁄2-ounce cans are priced at two for 59 cents ** *.”

C.U. has noticed a growing trend toward manipulations of quantity in canned food. The opportunities open to processors to shift to can sizes that are imperceptibly smaller are many-how many can be judged by the fact that the list of common can sizes includes 38 different entries.

The reader reporting his experiences with canned peas probably had been sold a No. 300 can, which he mistook for the No. 303. The No. 2 can to which he had become accustomed in the past held 20 ounces; the No. 303 held 16 ounces; and the No. 300 held only 14%1⁄2 ounces. That's quite a slide downward, from 20 to 141⁄2

ounces.

There is only one answer to the problem of unannounced shifts in can sizes— standardized can sizes. And there is only one answer to the other types of deceptive packaging-standardized package sizes.

Some years ago, the National Conference on Weights and Measures adopted a resolution in favor of Federal legislation to establish standards for all package sizes. Consumers Union would like to urge that weights-and-measures officials revive their efforts toward this end. A Gresham's law is operating in packaging today-deceptive packaging driving out honest packaging as bad money drives out good.

And, in addition to standardized package and can sizes, the size of the print used on the label to list the net weight contents of the package or can and its placement on the package also should be standardized. The careful shopper today has to spend extra hours a month turning packages over and over trying to find the net weight-before he can begin to make calculations on his slide rule.

EXHIBIT D

A few examples of letters CU has recently received on the packaging problem : BARRINGTON, R.I., March 31, 1965.

DEAR CU: Four weeks ago I bought Ann Page (A. & P.) peanut butter, 11⁄2 pounds for 69 cents. Two weeks later, a sign which read 2 cents off appeared on the peanut butter. Then I notice the price on the lid was 71 cents. Last Saturday the label had a 4 cents off price. The lid now was stamped 73 cents. Clever?

I've changed my brand of peanut butter.

Mrs. K.J.

BELL, CALIF., April 30, 1965.

DEAR CU: US "oldsters," families of limited income and ever-increasing living costs, feel something should be done in ascertaining the facts back of same Recently the economy packs have been discontinued. For instance, we purchased Fishers Wheat Germ in a 14-pound package. They now have only the 2-pound pack. The economy sold at 39 cents; the present one at 29 cents; or, figured by the pound, almost a 100-percent increase. So it goes all along the line.

Now we are actually being choked to death, financially, where our incomes are fixed. Sooner or later, something must be done, and we believe it is up to organizations such as yours to lead the way.

F.E.S.

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO., April 5, 1965.

DEAR CU: I have been buying Monarch pear halves off and on for approximately 12 years. They have always had four halves in each can. The can I purchased last week had only three halves. It made me so angry I decided to do a little measuring and checking.

First, each pear half weighed 2 ounces (one was slightly less) for a total of 6 ounces. The water in which they were packed weighed 91⁄2 ounces. At 43 cents a can, this made each pear half cost 14% cents.

Under the list of size of can, weight, number of cups, and servings, approximately 4 servings are listed. Under the analysis of contents, calories are listed on per 4-ounce serving at 26. If 4 ounces are a "normal serving," and the pear halves weigh 2 ounces each, that makes two pear halves a serving. With only three pear halves in the can, I take this to be 11⁄2 servings-not 4. Since the pears are packed in water with sucaryl, the calories refer only to pear halves. This type of mislabeling upsets me.

Mrs. C.E.S.

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., April 26, 1965.

DEAR CU: I'm sure the latest in deceptive packaging will be of interest to you. Up to a few weeks ago I was able to buy a box of 75 Scott Cut-Rite wax sandwich bags for 21 cents. This week end I found that this box of 75 was no longer available but in its place I found envelopes containing 30 Scott Cut-Rite sandwich bags *** 2 envelopes for 21 cents * * What happened to the other 15 bags I used to get for my 21 cents?

Mrs. N.A. PHILADELPHIA, PA., April 9, 1965.

DEAR CU: On a recent shopping trip to the local supermarket (part of a national chain) I came across a not-too-subtle example of the rising cost of living or, should I say, of packaging?

Side by side, on the shelf at the market, were some of the older familiar white boxes of Wheat Chex (Ralston Purina Co.) with what apparently are the newer style boxes, in an orange pattern.

The boxes were of identical size and price, at two boxes for 65 cents. However, the weights of the two different colored packages were not the same. The older

style package contained 1 pound 2 ounces of Wheat Chex whereas the newer box contains just 141⁄2 ounces. This figures out to almost a 20-percent increase in cost for the same weight contents, or a reduction of 20 percent of cereal for the same price.

D.N.

EVANSTON, ILL., April 12, 1965.

DEAR CU: Not only the retail consumers are misled by confusing pricing practices. Even store managers are taken in. The following happened in a local supermarket when I was trying to determine which was the cheaper of two liquid dishwashing detergents. One bottle. Mid-Dream, contained 1 pint 6 ounces at 29 cents; the other, Liquid Gold, 1 quart at 49 cents. I had no pencil or paper and figured mentally that there were only a few mills difference per ounce between the two.

The manager was nearby, and just to be sure I had figured correctly, I asked him if he knew which was the cheaper of the two. He didn't know offhand and stroke over to the shelf to check. He marched back and told me impatiently (in approximately these words), "Of course, the Liquid Gold is cheaper. You get almost twice as much per bottle for only half again as much cost. It's only 20 cents more per bottle. There's no question the Liquid Gold is your bigger bargain." Actually, Liquid Gold is the more expensive of the two, by 2 mills per

ounce.

Now, 2 mills per ounce isn't much to quibble about. But there is something at issue when a store manager can't easily assess the value of his own merchandise as it appears on the shelves. He has vastly more experience than the average consumer in dealing with multiples of prices and greatly diversified merchandise. Yet even he was convinced that a more expensive product was unquestioningly the bigger bargain, the greater savings. Can there be any question that the intent of the producer is to deliberately deceive the consumer by its bewildering pricing system? * *

V.S.K.

ROCHESTER, N.Y., March 3, 1965.

DEAR CU: * I read in one of your recent magazines an article on 3- and 5-cent "off" deals. The enclosed Fab boxtop is an example of what you say is true. If you will raise the gummed sticker you will see the original price is 30 cents. Then it says the priced marked is 3 cents off, and they come up with 32 cents. Very poor arithmetic, don't you agree?

Mrs. R.C.H.

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO, February 11, 1965. DEAR CU: Last week at my local food store I purchased a jar of Nestea (instant tea). It was the same size jar as the jar of the usual tea I purchase. On returning home, an impulse led me to check labels.

Nestea was priced at 69 cents (with a label indicating 10 cents off) but weight was listed as approximately 11⁄2 ounces. My arithmetic isn't too good, but I figured an ounce of tea would cost 35 cents.

Tetley was 79 cents with 15 cents off but approximate weight was 31⁄2 ounces, making the cost of the tea 17% cents an ounce.

What can be done to protect consumers from such startling differences in costs when anyone glancing at the two apparently similar jars would believe that there was saving in buying the Nestea?

J.C.B.

FALLS CHURCH, VA., February 12, 1965. DEAR CU: Here is one more jewel for your-by now probably quite extensivecollection on deceptive packaging, hidden price increases, and the like:

I have been buying and using white 13- by 13-inch Hudson napkins for years. They came in boxes of 70, price 2 for 25 cents at Safeway, where I shop; and these boxes were so constructed that they could be hung easily and conveniently on the kitchen wall exposing only a small part of some of the napkins, which could be pulled out as needed.