convenience, image, color, distinctiveness and exclusiveness as well as by the product inside. The demands and functions of cosmetic packaging have made us leaders rather than followers in the packaging industry because women have come to expect this in the products they purchase. They want their cosmetics to be as individual, as distinctive, as they are themselves. They are buying package personality as well as product personality. They are not deceived by the difference between packages because these differences had their birth in consumer demand. This choice, this variety, this individuality is the concept that cosmetic packages are made of. To say in the same breath they must be standard in size, uniform in shape, similar in design to eliminate confusion and avoid deception is to go against the main principles of cosmetic packaging as they exist today. 3. Section 3(c) (6): Requirement that sufficient information with respect to ingredients and composition be placed in a prominent position on packages. Gentlemen, there is no "copyright" in the cosmetic business. For those of you who are fans of 007, the most publicized secret agent since Mata Hari, I say that he is an amateur compared to the "research" that goes on in the cosmetic industry. For example, company A has an exciting new product in development. Must we necessarily expect or look forward to the fact that in a matter of weeks after this product has come out on the market, one, two, three or more competitive cosmetic companies will introduce almost identical versions of the same product? We are not protesting this. We know it can and does happen today. But when it does, it is due to the healthy, stimulating, high-spirited competition in our industry rather than to an "open book" system of obtaining competitive product information. If we accept the provisions of S. 985 we can expect our products to be duplicated with almost precision regularity because of the "giveaway" provisions stipulated in the label revealing copy demanded by this bill. Our formulas and trade secrets are two of the most important keys to our success in business. Is it unreasonable to want to guard and protect this important product information for the maximum period of time instead of allowing the results of our initiative to be duplicated, at no charge, by our competitors within a matter of weeks? If S. 985 become law and we are required to publish all our ingredients on our labels or containers, we will lose all freedom of product initiative, development, and speculation as well as all the marketing advantages now afforded us by time. I could also make this seem pretty ridiculous by asking you whether this provision will require us to publish the following formula in a space that is approximately 21⁄2 inches wide by 311⁄2 inches high: Polyalkylene glycol Cetyl alcohol Stearic acid Tegin (glyceryl monostearate S.E.) Tegin 515 (glyceryl monostearate pure) Diglycol stearate S.E. Lanogene, liquid lanoline fraction Hexachlorophene Propyl parahydroxy bensoate 2-Ethylhexylsalicylate1 Propylene glycol U.S.P. Urea crystals U.S.P. Distilled water Methyl parahydroxy bensoate 1 Active ingredient, currently stated on package. Most important of all, it is even more ridiculous to assume that reading these product components will make Mrs. Average Customer more knowledgeable than she has been before. The ingredients just referred to are all part of a suntan lotion formula, but do the majority of women know what polyakylene glycol, propylene glycol, and propyl parahydroxy bensoate are? They do not. Do they know that it is not the presence or absence of one ingredient that is important but the relationship, the cynergistic action between ingredients that is so critical and so responsible for product performance? Not necessarily. On the other hand, women know what they do want in cosmetics. They are looking for loveliness and beauty and they come to us, and to other cosmetic manufacturers, because beauty is our business. In addition to fulfilling the requirements of a housewife, career girl, mother, hostess, and friend, must every woman also be expected to be a scientist who understands, not only the ingredients in our products, but how the final results can differ, depending on the combination of these ingredients. Also, in connection with this provision, where do ingredients end and trade secrets begin? Couldn't everything that makes one product different, distinct, from everyone else's product-in a similar category-be considered a "trade secret"? Complete ingredient information virtually guarantees eventual discovery of the techniques and components that now make so many trade secrets, trade secrets. Will all this technical information really educate the consumer as to what she is buying? She may read the names of the ingredients, but what will she actually know? How much more will she know if she reads the standard cosmetic label copy as it exists today-copy that tells what the product is and what it can be expected to do as well as the method of use or application that insures best, maximum, and fastest results. The promulgation of S. 985 means that in a short period of time all our products would look alike, weigh alike and, formulawise, they would all be alike. When we, in the cosmetic industry are capable of so much more, compliance with these provisions would be the most deceiving thing we could ever do to American women because it violates the principles on which our industry was founded and the reasons why it has enjoyed such unprecedented growth over the years. Thank you. I hope it is 10 minutes. Senator NEUBERGER. You did very well. Thank you. You make a great point of the fact that this would almost standardize women's appearances. They want the right to be different. A good many men criticize women's appearances today because they are so standardized. They all have bleached hair, and eye makeup, and they follow fashion slavishly. It gets so you can't tell a teenager from a matron. I don't think that the argument is very good that this bill would prevent them from having the right to be different, because they are not very different looking now. However, obviously if you read the bill you will find that there are many safeguards to answer some of the criticisms you make, especially, for instance, proprietary trade secrets. The bill says: Require, consistent with requirements imposed by or pursuant to Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended, that sufficient information with respect to the ingredients and compositions of any consumer commodity other than information concerning proprietary trade secrets, be placed in a prominent position upon packages. It is very obvious that the example you give is extreme. But there is no desire or plan to do away with so-called trade secrets. Also the idea of a blanket prohibition which you used on page 3, is not borne out in the bill which Whenever the Secretary et cetera says: determines that additional regulations are necessary to establish or preserve fair competition by enabling consumers to make rational comparisons, then he shall promulgate under this subsection. But there is certainly no desire to bring about this horrendous result that we couldn't have competitive packages at all. There is no place in the bill that indicates that this could be true. I think that you have exaggerated the results of the bill. Our experience in the past wouldn't give any indication that this was going to happen. In your example about the night cream that retails at 4 ounces for $2, and another 4 ounces for $12.50, we find that those night creams are 4 ounces for $2, or 4 ounces for $12.50. This is one of the things that the bill would like to try to standardize as much as possible. If the American consumer is smart as we have been told for 2 or 3 weeks she is, she could soon discover whether a $12.50 night cream did much more for her than a $2 night cream. She would have to experiment of course to make that decision. But if she is foolish enough to pay $12.50 for 4 ounces of night cream, then she can just keep right on doing it. We are not going to stop her. There is nothing about this bill that would stop her from wasting her money to that extent. In fact, you say the bill would require every woman to play Sherlock Holmes in ferreting out the best buys. That is what they love to do I agree. They wouldn't consider that difficult. We are just trying to make it so they can do it, so that there is nothing about the product that would prevent them from finding the best buy. Would you like to comment? Miss MYERS. Yes, I can't quite take notes on everything you say. Senator NEUBERGER. $12.50 for the night cream. She must find out for herself whether that is better than $2 worth. There is nothing in the bill that would prevent her from paying $12.50. Miss MYERS. We aren't attempting to talk about standardization or lack of standardization as far as appearance goes in cosmetics. What we are saying is that at this point a woman has the complete freedom of choice to select from all types of cosmetics, all types of cosmetic packages. The choice is completely up to her. I am sorry you have this feeling about cosmetics because today we are talking in terms in the industry of the natural look where evidently the use of more cosmetics looks less made up than it ever has before. As far as our trade secrets go, I believe that the intention here, and maybe I wasn't quite clear, was that a trade secret per se is one thing. By listing our ingredient or label information on our products to the extent that this legislation would require, any other competitive company by this knowledge would be in an excellent position to duplicate our products in a small period of time. I am not discussing the trade secrets that are currently considered trade secrets in the industry. This is the only thing we have that we feel gives our products an edge, makes it better or distinct from someone else's product. Senator NEUBERGER. You said on page 4 that this achievement was made possible only by the ingenuous and imaginative development of our products. What does ingenuous mean? Miss MYERS. Excuse me, where are you? Senator NEUBERGER. Page 4, the last paragraph. You are giving the wrong impression if you mean ingenuous. I think women are ingenuous when they pay $12.50 for some night cream. Anyhow, you say that this development is what has brought $212 billion to the gross national product. A lot of us feel, and I think the advertising business feels, that it is advertising that has done this, even more than the ingredient in the product. It is very exciting advertising. You just can't resist it because you think you are going to look like that beauty in the ad. Miss MYERS. But you will never build a repeat business on a product the second time if it doesn't work. A woman will try a product once because she feels maybe, maybe this is the shade, maybe this is the product. But the industry is built on repeat business. The products we have had in our line for 5 years, 10 years, have to be built on women who come back because they feel that they are satisfied with the effect of the preparation. Senator NEUBERGER. So about that time they come out with a new product which may be a new bottle or a new price, but we find the ingredient about the same. And, of course, if she invests $12.50 in night cream she is going to have to go ahead and use it for quite a while. She is not going to throw it out. But the point is, I think that you have greatly overstated the effects of this legislation, because every kind of safeguard has been put in the bill that is possible to keep the trade secrets, and most of the suggestions were made by the industry itself after the hearings last year on the bill. 48-222-65- -45 Miss MYERS. Thank you. Senator NEUBERGER. Our next witness is Gertrude Brows, director of packaging for the John Robert Powers Co. STATEMENT OF MISS GERTRUDE BROWS, DIRECTOR OF PACKAGING, JOHN ROBERT POWERS CO., REPRESENTING COSMETIC CAREER WOMEN, INC., NEW YORK, N.Y. Miss BROWS. My name is Gertrude Brows. I appear here today as a representative of Cosmetic Career Women, Inc., an organization of more than 200 women employed in the cosmetic and toilet goods industry in various executive capacities. A requirement for membership in the organization is that a woman must have been employed as an executive in the industry for at least 5 years. I have been an executive in the cosmetic industry for a considerably longer period than that-25 years to be exact. In the 1940's I was sales promotion and advertising manager of Jacqueline Cochran Cosmetics. After that I was director of cosmetic merchandising for various advertising agencies handling such accounts as Chen Yu, Revlon, and Charles of the Ritz. For the last 10 years, I have been creative director of John Robert Powers Cosmetics, a part of the Borden Co. since November of 1964. It has therefore been my responsibility to learn to know what the American woman wants in terms of cosmetics-in order to properly fill her needs, to create cosmetic items which satisfy those needs. Cosmetic Career Women, Inc., has attempted not only to advance the interests of women in the industry but to cooperate with Government and to advise the Congress in matters pertaining to the industry, based on the knowledge of what women want. As women consumers, we feel that we are perhaps closer to the needs of the industry and the Government than are the men with whom we are associated in our various companies. Were I not a career woman, I would gladly answer to the term "housewife," since I do run and manage my home and serve my family in that capacity. As such, I too, am constantly on the alert for better, more attractive goods at reasonable prices that give consumer satisfaction. No one can reasonably object to giving the consumer products that satisfy her. Nor should they. However, it has been my experience, both as a merchandising specialist and a housewife, that only a handful of professional, career consumers who have made a business and a living from their efforts to protect Mrs. America, have the temerity to believe that American women. regardless of income bracket or social position, are so ignorant of the facts that they are constantly being duped when they purchase foods, drugs, cosmetics, and other commodities so much a part of our great American standard of living. I can assure you, they are not being taken; they are shrewd and careful buyers, and the surest way to lose their affection and their custom, would be an attempt to deceive them in any way. Scores of consumer letters cross my desk every week. They do not contain com |