Now these napkins come in so-called showcase dispensers priced at two for 27 cents. This new dispenser is the type that sits on the table holding the napkins upright and exposing more than half of all of them. This didn't seem sanitary or convenient to me, and so I decided after some deliberation to stuff most of the napkins from the new showcase dispenser into the old box-type dispenser on the wall and to wrap the rest of the new napkins into some waxpaper for protection.

To my surprise the contents of the new dispenser went quite easily into the empty dispenser on the wall. Sure enough, there are only 60 napkins instead of 70 in the showcase. It doesn't amount to very much in dollars and cents; but the inconvenience of the new dispenser seems to be accompanied by a price increase of slightly over 25 percent.

Mrs. D.F.P.

COSTA MESA, CALIF., January 5, 1965.

DEAR CU: I always like to compare price per quantity for different size packages of the same product. A recent purchase proved to me that this is not always easy, unless you just happen to be carrying your metric-English conversion table and slide rule.

Prior to buying a tube of White's A and D ointment, I was confronted with two different size packages. One was labeled as a 4-ounce tube and priced at $1.35. The other was labeled as a 42-gram tube and priced at $0.81.

Making

a guess instead of a calculation, I purchased the larger tube. Calculations made later (with conversion table and slide rule) proved my guess had been correct. The small tube was priced at 54.7 cent per ounce. The larger tube was priced at 33.8 cents per ounce. This is a factor of 1.62, which is considerable:

Not only should package contents be indicated on the label, they should be indicated in the same units on different sizes of packages.

J.N.B.

ST. LOUIS, Mo., February 19, 1965.

DEAR CU: Perhaps your labeling expert would be interested in the enclosed labels of Yuban coffee and Pine-Sol disinfectant. We find that the "price on the cap" remains the same in most cases, whether the "10 cents off" legend appears on the label or not.

H.E., Jr.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH., April 23, 6195.

DEAR CU: We have three small children and a job which is fast "on the way,” but not "arrived" financially. We have the ironic, but not unusual, situation of having more take-home pay, but less left over, than ever before. We're both University of Utah Business School graduates and vitally interested in national economics and our own economy. We read, vote, budget, pay our bills-like so many, many others.

With an afternoon's effort, I manage to compute our income tax forms. We have compiled market research reports on several occasions. I graduated at the top of my senior class, but I could easily make use of a calculator at the grocery store.

I read and compare food ads before embarking on this mathematical venture. We eat 21 meals a week and I plan accordingly. I am aware that luxury foods and precooked items seldom can be included on my list. I know the reasons, but also the cost, of advertising, and try manufacturers' off brands and specials. I am very concerned that every purchase is the best value at the price, and I do not have much brand or store loyalty. Our budget and my interest in marketing demand these actions, and every time I discover a deceptive package, I boil. Many consumers do just as I do; they have to buy food, and they do the best they can. However, many others cannot afford time or effort to turn shopping into a math bee, except when buying a large item such as a house or car. They're tired, hungry, in a hurry, or don't have to budget that closely. But I get mad in behalf of these people, too.

I'll go along with the producer who wants to produce package, and advertise his wares so attractively that I'll consider them necessities instead of luxuries.

But why does he spend so much effort making it hard for us to find out if his product really is a good value? I wish he'd use the same talent and money to send me a good product at a lower cost, or at least one I can calculate. To spare you, I'll mention but a few examples:

1. At a Safeway store, I had my choice of their White Magic Bleach in 1 gallon bottles (128 fluid ounces) or a new "jumbo" bottle of Clorox which contained 1 gallon, 1 quart and 1 pint of bleach (no ounce notation). Unable to compare these in the allotted time, I brought home the White Magic. It had a small deception of its own: a "Special Offer!" label on the front for buttons. When I pursued this. I found a small box on the back which explained that the buttons were offered for 50 cents and a label from Empress Preserves (not White Magic).

2. Whisk detergent recently changed from can to a handy plastic container. The price per one-half gallon accompanying this change was increased from $1.17 to $1.49. Gerber's Baby Food, now in bottles, has also increased.

3. I searched a package of Kitchen Charm paper napkins for the contents. Finally on the bottom back corner I found "60 napkins" in type half the size of this. Incidentally, the package size is very nearly the same as several competitors' which contain 80 napkins.

4. Canned goods come in Nos. 300, 303, 21⁄2, ad infinitum. Why not in pounds, grams, fluid ounces, or some meaningful and computable amount? Why not in about six standard can sizes?

5. Why do I have to buy shredded wheat to get rose bushes, pancake mix to get dishtowels? Why not just cut out the offers and lower the price?

6. The cereal boxes in my cupboard today have the contents clearly printed. The amounts run as follows: %, 1316, and 8.5 ounces. Why not 1, 10, and 15 ounces?

Among other things, I am moderately conservative, probusiness, against rigid legislation. But I don't like to be deceived by anyone: moocher, sales clerk, manufacturer, or the President.

Mrs. L. J. Y.

GLENDORA, N.J., January 8, 1965.

DEAR CU: Recently this happened which, in my opinion, is not quite ethical in practice.

I purchased 2 pounds of Allsweet Oleo. The price I had been paying for this was 2 pounds for 53 cents. This purchase had a special price of 2 cents off regular price, which, in this case, was 2 pounds for 55 cents. Upon examining the package, I noticed a sticker pasted on this same package. This I removed and underneath, the price of the same package was 2 pounds for 51 cents. I am enclosing this portion of the package and am wondering how you would explain this.

E.M.B. BROOKLYN, N.Y., March 8, 1965.

DEAR CU: Barricini's stores have large signs in their windows: Almond Bark $1.08. It doesn't say per pound or per box or what weight-it says nothing else.

My question to the saleslady produced the following reply: It is 12 ounces. Upon my query: "Does it say so on the box?" she replied "I'll try to find it for you. They want people to think it is 1 pound." I enclose the "12 ounces net weight" marking she found on the box; print about 332 inch high in a color blending into the color of the box.

This proves again how necessary legislation is as to size and contrasting color of print concerning contents.

Should there already be a regulation by the Department of Markets of New York City or by some other Government agency, I request that you call their attention to this.

B.G.F.

TRENTON, N.J., March 17, 1965.

DEAR CU: Here is another one to add to your "misleading" labeling practices. Johnson & Johnson's Micrim label says in big bold print, "NEW! 18-oz. SIZE"

but when examined closely the new bottle contains 2 ounces less than the old bottle although the price remains the same.

Mrs. H.A.M.

KINGSTON, N.Y., March 25, 1965.

DEAR CU: I have for several years purchased Johnson's Dental Floss in a small white plastic case containing 100 yards and usually costing 89 cents. I purchased some Johnson's Dental Floss today but found a new package was being sold. It was in a new plastic case contained in a much larger cardboard carton with a clear plastic display window. The overall impression was one of larger size. When I got it home and compared it to the old package, I found that its cost was 9 cents more (98 cents) and it contained only 265 feet (not yards). Notice the cleverness of switching to feet instead of yards, and use of the larger package. I felt that I had been taken; I paid more and received less.

N.B.K.

YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO, March 29, 1965. DEAR CU: Bouquets from the stockholders of Lever Bros. and boo's from other consumers for the company's ingenuity in reducing the contents of the familiar 3-pound can of Spry by 14 percent and raising the price of the can 9 percent.

Currently on the shelves of the local supermarket, the consumer has the option of the regular (now obsolete) 3-pound can at 77 cents or the "new, improved" version-improved by inflating the product to fill the same can with 2 pounds 10 ounces-with the inevitable "7 cents off regular price" at the same net 77 cents. Assuming that the "introductory" price is temporary, my slide rule informs me that the former price of approximately 1.6 cents per ounce raised to 2 cents nets an overall price increase of 25 percent.

Please continue airing these sneaky tactics of our food processors and distributors. I prophesy that Proctor & Gamble, etc., will soon be introducing the 14ounce "pound."

G.D.H.

FALLS CHURCH, VA., January 21, 1965.

DEAR CU: Addenda for the growing list of hidden price increases: While shopping in my local A. & P. store last week, I paused midway down the paper goods aisle to note a large "Just Reduced" sign prominently displayed in front of the display of boxed Marcal white napkins. The price stamped on the end of the box was 2 for 0.19, the price it has been for the last 2 years in our area. Closer examination revealed a slight redesigning of the display printing on the box; it was soon apparent that the large "80" which had formerly appeared in several locations on the box was now missing. It took me well over a minute to locate the new information regarding the quantity-"70"-printed in a minute face in a very inconspicuous location.

The "Just Reduced" sign, then, really referred to the quantity, I suppose. And it goes on and on and on.

J.F.D., Jr.

NEOSHO, MO., February 3, 1965.

DEAR CU: Enclosed is a label from a Steele's can of blackberries that I purchased recently which I consider, to put it mildly, inadequately labeled and misleading.

Most fruit cans state weight and number of cups per can. However, this particular can states only the net contents. The can shows 1 pound so I thought two cans would be sufficient for a 9-inch pie shell.

Nowhere on the label does it tell there is actually only 1 cup of berries and the remainder is water. I weighed the berries myself and it reads only a very small amount of the actual weight.

It takes five cans to sufficiently fill one 9-inch pie shell. At 29 cents a can it would cost over $1.45 for one pie.

I do not believe this is fair to the consumer. I'm looking forward to the day when regulations are more strict, regarding labeling, and I believe you people are just the ones to get the job done.

Mrs. D.W.

PASADENA, CALIF., March 23, 1965. DEAR CU: Since one of our local supermarket chains was taken over by a national organization last summer we have noticed some decided changes. This weekend they are featuring a special sale on Del Monte foods. The 14ounce bottles of catsup are 8 for $1-the 20-ounce-size bottles are 4 for $1. You've just got to read the labels.

M.T.B.

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y., March 9, 1965.

DEAR CU: Libby McNeill is marketing frozen zucchini in a package at 23 cents which the copy on the back says serves approximately 3 or 4. It reads "3 or 4 servings" actually. By actual count, there were 34 pieces of zucchini, some of them mere snips. Contents when cooked filled a teacup, although copy also stated "contents when cooked, 14 cups." Size of package looks just like the regular 4-portion package, natch. Copy on front reads "Zucchini-Quartered and Cut" etc., which again, is misleading. Only midgets could find what Libby McNeill describes as "servings" adequate. Isn't it time that the term "serving" be defined legally, since it is being so abused?

E. J. ALBANY, GA., January 14, 1965.

DEAR CU: As countless others have probably written to you about the deceptive packaging of Maxwell House Instant Coffee, let me add a bit. Maxwell House offers a "free" decanter, now on sale, with 10 ounces of coffee enclosed. The ordinary 10-ounce jar is currently priced at $1.32. The "free" decanter and its 10 ounces of coffee sell for $1.58.

R.J.Q.

MURRYSVILLE, PA., March 4, 1965.

DEAR CU: I am most unhappy with the new "Whipped" Spry, because you cannot measure it like other shortening as the label indicates. After making two batches of a favorite cooky recipe and wondering why the cookies were so dry, I realized that there was not enough shortening in them. I made them with a different vegetable shortening and they were nice and moist.

As far as I am concerned Lever Bros. are beating more air into their product so that the old 3-pound can now contains 2 pounds, 10 ounces, and in order to compensate for the air, one has to add more shortening. If they wanted to make more money per can, why didn't they just raise the price?

Since I do not intend to adjust all of my old recipes, I will buy brands which give the consumer a full 3 pounds and not buy Spry any more.

Mrs. W. H. W., Jr.

WHARTON, N.J., March 15, 1965.

DEAR CU: You might want to add this to your collection. My favorite cereal (Life) was on my shopping list Tuesday, and when I took the package from the shelf in the local Shop-Rite I noticed it was considerably smaller in size than the one on my shelf at home, although the price was the same (31 cents). I thought to myself, "This is very good-CU finally got the message across and they're putting it in a box that accurately shows how much you're getting, instead of finding one-third of the box full of air." When I got home, however, I found that such was not the case.

The new box, 31 cents, contained 10 ounces, and the old box, also 31 cents, contained 15 ounces. I'm not very good at math (one reason why it takes me an hour to shop, instead of 15 minutes-I have to do a lot of figuring to decide if something is or is not a good buy) but this seems to be a pretty healthy price increase. Because only a few cents, actually, was involved I was too embarrassed to go back to the Shop-Rite to ascertain if the price was in error, but I did check the same item in another supermarket and found the 10-ounce box priced at 35 cents. All this did, of course, was to convince me that the price wasn't an error, and that the Shop-Rite really does have lower prices.

I realize that if the Quaker Oats Co. announced on the box "This is a smaller quantity at the same price as formerly charged. We are sorry it was necessary

to increase the price due to rising costs in production" they might lose a few customers, but basically, people are reasonable and are willing to pay the correct price for a certain product they like. Mrs. R.H.J.

Senator HART. The committee will adjourn, to resume on May 17 at 9 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee was adjourned to reconvene at 9 a.m. on May 17, 1965.)