L

the section are enacted, the deception or difficulties might not arise, but other difficulties might arise in the area of cost-price and other values.

The problem of net contents of two containers of equal size is a knotty one. In consideration of the problem, we looked to what we called horizontal and vertical contents standardization. A horizontal contents standardization problem may arise where the manufacturer produces a multiple comparable use product line, for example, baby foods or spices.

If one should ask whether if a manufacturer produces 50 different spices or baby foods, why does it not package a given size (e.g., smallest) in varying sized containers each containing a ounces. It would appear reasonable to assume that for reasons of cost in packaging and shipping, the manufacturer has to pick a given sized container, pack that container with as much of the particular spice or baby food as it will contain, and note the differing weights on the labels of the containers. We should imagine that if there were 50 different spices produced, 50 different-sized containers would be required to market a ounces each of a given spice because of the variations in the density of spices. A similar result would probably obtain as to baby foods. It would also appear reasonable to assume that it is easier for the retailer to display and stack such products of a particular standard size container; and most consumers seem to like a uniform container size for a product line. I know, for example, that my wife enjoys having the same-sized spice containers on her spice shelf. While the assumption on packaging and shipping costs, as well as consumer preferences, appear reasonable, the next question to ask is, are they? While some information has been set forth in testimony before this committee on the cost of contents standization and the consumer's interest therein, and I have some personal knowledge on the subject, I don't know the answer as to the larger parts of the spectrum of major products subject to the bill.

If one says that horizontal contents standardization appears to cause problems, what can one say about vertical contents standardization; that is, if the smaller size container of pepper is marketed at net contents of 2 ounces, would there be any problem in a regulation requiring that the next larger net contents amount at which pepper is marketed be an even multiple of such 2 ounces? Here, too, it appears that the manufacturer may well be trapped by horizontal contents standardization problems. For example, the container for an even multiple of 2 ounces of pepper may well not be suitable for a container for an even multiple of ounces of bay leaves. This nonsuitability may be for all the reasons suggested above. Again it seems more definite information on the cost and other problems is called for.

As to the problem of the consumer having difficulty computing the per unit price as between, for example, 34- and 4-ounce net contents containers, wouldn't a simple remedy be to require the retailer to post in a prominent position sheets setting forth in the vertical column, for example, ounces and fractions of ounces and in the horizontal column 1 cent through 99 cents so that the consumer could readily determine the per ounce cost of a 34-ounce net contents container by looking at the intersection of the 34-ounce line with the 99 cent line. This is similar to what we all do in looking at a road map and determining how far one city is from another. The information suggested above might well be in pamphlet form, which a statute might require to be affixed to all shopping carts in a retail establishment.

The permissive regulation contemplated by section 3 (c) (2) seems to be grounded in part on a concern that the consumer is misled as to the net contents of the container by the existence of so-called slack fill, even though again the net contents of the container are printed on the label. There are other apparent concerns reflected in section 3(c) (2) but these have all been amply discussed in the hearings.

You have heard testimony on the need for slack fill in packages containing such commodities as paper towels, biscuits, and other products. Let us add one other to the list. The manufacture of prepared soup mixes basically involves the production of dehydrated soups. The soup, in order to avoid spoilage through hydration after the process of manufacture, must be packed in airtight aluminum foil. The soups in foil are then generally placed in cardboard boxeswith airspaces: i.e., slack fill. Why? If the foil package is shipped, there would be breakage of the contents of the package in the shipment, whereas the box itself is easier to pack in shipping cartons, affords protection against breakage of the soup ingredients, and is more convenient to stack on retailer's shelves.

The examples you have heard of slack fill, including the above, may be the only situations where slack fill is inevitable. Here, too, much more information is needed. However, if there is felt to be a pressing need immediately to protect the consumer against being misled by slack fill, why not a simple label requirement, that where slack fill in fact exists in the container or wherever slack fill may possibly exist, there be stated on the label: "This package has slack fill because * *

The complete answers to some of the basic questions which we asked are not presently available to anyone. To this end we suggest the following: (1) A survey be undertaken wherein all manufacturers or processors producing more than 100,000 units of a particular product annually would state whether the containers of such products have slack fill, how much, and why.

(2) The same survey should determine from the same manufacturers or processors as to the same products, how many containers are used for the products in question and what additional packaging, shipping, and other costs there would be, in any, to tailor the containers to standardized net contents, both on a horizontal and on a vertical basis.

(3) All manufacturers or processors producing or processing more than 100,000 units of a particular product annually and who in the previous fiscal year other than the current fiscal year embarked on cents-off or cents-size campaigns or container usage which involved savings to consumers of more than $100,000 per annum should conduct surveys amongst retailers to see what the going retail price was of the products in question prior to a particular cents-off campaign or the introduction of a cents-size container or campaign and whether or not the cents-off reduction was honored if containers so labeled were sold and whether or not the cents-size discount was given.

In conclusion, we would say, of course, we believe that deception in merchandising is an evil and should not be a practice. However, we feel that the relative social utility of preventing varying degrees of misunderstanding by, and in some cases deception practiced upon one or more consumers, must be weighed against the economic costs of revising existing practices and techniques on certain levels in order to prevent such deception and misunderstanding. Further, however, we must confess that at least as to the three areas we touched upon, we feel strongly that too little is known on the precise magnitude of the deception or misunderstanding and the precise costs of preventing such misunderstanding or deception. As such, we feel it imperative that before legislation is passed to regulate any part of the problems to which S. 985 is addressed, we have before us precise information on the dimensions of the problem. This is so that you can draft legislation tailored to a clearly defined problem and so that groups affected by the legislation, whether manufacturers, retailers, or consumers, can more effec tively comment on the proposed legislation.

Mr. EDWARD JARRETT,

MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Chief Clerk, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

New York, N.Y., May 10, 1965.

DEAR MR. JARRETT: Enclosed are 10 copies of the statement of the Magazine Publishers Association. Inc., on S. 985 the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1965. I would appreciate your incorporating these statements into the record of the hearings.

Sincerely,

CHARLES D. ABLARD.

STATEMENT OF THE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC., BY JOHN K. HERBERT,

PRESIDENT

The Magazine Publishers Association is an association of 113 member publishing companies which publish over 300 magazines of national circulation. The magazines published by MPA member publishers comprise in excess of 70 percent of the total magazine circulation of the United States.

We have several interests in the proposed legislation which this committee is considering. The magazine industry is an integral part of the communications network of the United States and has provided a key link in the unification of our country by providing information of a public character to our people.

Through the advertising pages of our member magazines, we provide the stimulus and the impetus for much of the consumer purchasing by the people of the United States. Our magazines have played a significant role both in consumer education and information and market stimulus for the products which are proposed to be regulated by the pending legislation-foods, drugs, and household commodities.

The consumer in the United States is more informed and is offered a wider range and choice of products in the markets of this Nation than anywhere in the world. We believe that those products are sold to the consumer by a most responsible group of marketers and advertisers. To assume, as many seem to, that the consumer is gullible and that the marketer is culpable is to make assumptions which are both unwarranted and unfair.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration have authority at the present time for proceeding against any manufacturer who uses false and misleading packages and labels. All that is needed is adequate enforcement of these laws. Only last year the Federal Trade Commission successfully completed a case against a manufacturer who had deceptively packaged an item in a carton which was much larger than the product it contained. Specific abuses such as this, to the extent that they are found to exist, can be handled under existing laws without the creation of a new structure of regulations with which the manufacturer must comply.

If this committee has found from the hearings which it has conducted on this bill or from the findings of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on S. 387 in the 88th Congress that there are specific abuses in the field of packaging and labeling which can be corrected by specific legislation, then such legislation should be enacted. But, the regulations authorized by the bill under consideration could well go much further than correction of any specific abuse.

The proposed bill is an open-ended grant of regulatory power, for it would give blanket authority to the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration to promulgate regulations. These could prescribe uniform weights, sizes, shapes, dimensions, type size, and volume. We submit that there has been no showing that such regulations are needed to protect the public. In addition to the problems created by a maze of such regulations for manufacturers, the housewife would be penalized because the cost of compliance with the rules which could be promulgated under this bill would increase the cost of commodities for the consumer. These results would certainly conflict with the consumer's own best interests. There may be some confusion in the marketplace as the result of the wide range of competing products which are offered for sale. However, we submit that this confusion is in reality, for the most part, only the variety and profusion of products which benefit the American people, and not deception as charged by some critics of the marketing community.

Recently, the Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs to the President issued a report on four regional consumer conferences which were held last year. The principal conclusion of the report seems to be the need for information for the consumer. In that report is the following statement:

"It is recommended, therefore, that the President's Committee on Consumer Interests encourage interested organizations to conduct new or expanded consumer information and education programs at the community, State, and regional levels."

Magazine publishers, both in the women's service and general information fields, have been a primary source of information for consumers for many years. We believe that we have contributed significantly to the amount of knowledge available to the public. We hope in the years to come that we will be able to contribute more significantly in this service. We believe that the providing of information is a better and more effective approach than that of creating new and unnecessary Federal requirements which would raise market basket prices and inhibit the creation of new products.

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting our views on this important legislation to this committee.

STATEMENT BY JOHN W. EDELMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, the organization which I represent is made up of more than 2.000 older people's clubs in all States, with a combined membership of more than 2 million. Nearly all of them are retired senior citizens, living on reduced in

comes and many of them must try and make ends meet solely on what they receive from social security. For our membership-as for the majority of the nearly 19 million Americans who are over 65 and retired-every penny is important. Every time our older people go to the marketplace and lose pennies because of the unfair packaging and labeling of products, their hardships are increased—because their losses at the marketplace can never be recovered. These losses normally mean that our old people will be deprived of something they desperately need but cannot afford.

The National Council of Senior Citizens supported the enactment of S. 387— which was known as the truth in packaging bill-and urges congressional enactment of this new and improved bill. For, in truth, America's older people are the most disadvantaged and the most deceived because of the shameless sharp practices which have developed in competitive packaging.

So long as Congress fails to eliminate the marketplace abuses which prevent customers from making rational comparisons between competing products, Congress is turning its back on our elderly.

Since Senator Hart first drew congressional attention to the fact that consumers had become the first casualties of the competitive packaging war in the marketplace, the Nation has been shocked by repeated disclosures. But nothing is being done to make shopping easier and the promotional gimmicks less deceitful.

Even our college-educated younger married people are utterly confused by the varying weights and prices on packages which defy the comparisons which are essential for those who exist on a tight budget. It has been said that the only really successful shoppers may be those who have access to a computer.

But consider, Mr. Chairman, the plight of our elderly people-many of whom have not had the educational advantages of the young. Everything that might deceive them is printed in large type so they will be attracted to it. Most things which might be helpful to them are usually printed on the reverse side of the package, in type so small that they cannot read it.

The package has become such an important advertising device in the supermarkets and the contents so submerged and hidden the customer often does not know whether he is buying a soap or a detergent. The large-type figures on the box rarely have anything to do with its price. And the technicolor photographs on some of the labels often have little in common with the merchandise inside.

Members of our affiliated senior citizens clubs all over the country continually write to ask us how they can take steps to see that older people can get a fair deal. They appreciate good packaging and they are fully aware of the benefits which America's fabulous food-packaging industry has brought to them in the way of easy-to-prepare foods.

But they are becoming more and more confused and they know that this confusion has been specially organized to benefit manufacturers at the expense of the consumer. They ask why?

Our older people do not seek monotonous conformity in their marketplace packages—but they would reluctantly suffer such conformity if that were the only way to get honest packaging.

The older American, living on reduced income in retirement, needs to find the best buy all the time. But surely it is to the benefit of all shoppers-old and young-if packages are created so that a prospective purchaser may tell at a glance what is in the package, how much of it there is and how much it costs. The truth of the matter is that since the growth of the use of self-service mar kets and the consequent development of point-of-purchase advertising on the sales shelf through use of the package itself, these vital statistics have been relegated to the smallest type on the reverse side of the package, box, or container.

The general idea seems to be to create a package which will make it difficult for a shopper to make a choice-usually by varying the package size from that of competing products, and often using fractions of ounces. Packages are frequently oversized even when considering the fact that contents may settle during transit. Net weight and contents are not only in small type but do not appear at the same place on all packages.

In the food field, our senior citizen members report that the claimed "servings per package" are usually even overly optimistic for the aged with limited appetites. How much more deceptive they are for the young workers. Why should we accept that "serves four" means the package will do only for two?

Presumably this committee has heard much evidence concerning the disturbing amount of misleading and deceptive practices which have crept into packaging and labeling.

It is about 4 years since Senator Hart began the exhaustive inquiry which led to his first bill.

President Kennedy established the Consumer Advisory Council in 1962 and President Johnson, in January 1964 appointed a new special assistant for consumer affairs and established the President's Committee on Consumer Interests, ready to fight side by side with enlightened business leadership and consumer organizations against the selfish minority who defraud and deceive the consumer. But as helpful as the executive branch of Government can be in this matter, it is to Congress that the people look for the enacement of the laws which can meet the need and solve the problem.

Industry itself is powerless to act-for nothing has been accomplished even though some elements of the food industry were reported to be not unhappy when Senator Hart began his inquiries.

Actually the rat race of competitive packaging changes has grown so wild, this bill S. 985 is needed to assist both consumers and business by helping maintain the ground rules which enable the best practices of a free competitive market to flourish.

Present legislation-all too obviously-fails to give the consumer the protection required. We have had members of clubs report how they have gone to the supermarkets armed with pencils, paper, and sharp wits but have still been unable to cut through the confusion. They did learn, however, that in most cases, the biggest package was the worst buy.

Who is to protect the consumer if Congress fails to act? Not the industry. Though only a minority of our manufacturers and processors indulge in dishonest and undesirable practices, the very nature of our business practices forces the honest competitors to adopt similar practices.

The Federal Trade Commission has the right to act against untrue advertising and certain unfair pricing policies. But so long as there is no actual untruth, there's little this agency can do. The law under which it operates wasn't drafted to meet the conditions presented by the modern supermarket. We believe that the provisions of the legislation included in S. 985 will not stifle normal growth in the packaging industry-and they should go a long way to help maintain honest competition.

Even more importantly, these provisions will enable the consumers of all ages to make a free choice—and this is a philosophy which is close to the heart of all Americans.

If Congress enacts this bill now-quickly-there is hope that the packaging industry will finally move to cooperate and we may yet maintain our faith in those responsible for manufacturing and merchandising America's products.

If Congress fails to move again on this vital matter, it will give carte blanche to the pirates of the marketplace to continue those shameful merchandising practices which will fritter away from the old people the increases in social security cash benefits which we are hopeful they will shortly win before Congress adjourns.

NATIONAL PLANT FOOD INSTITUTE,
Washington, D.C., May 3, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This letter is to transmit a statement representing the views of the National Plant Food Institute with reference to Senate bill No. S. 985.

We request that the statement, exclusive of bound attachments, be incorporated in the printed record of the hearings on S. 985.

We should like the opportunity to answer any questions or clarify any points which the committee may have with reference to S. 985 as it may apply to the fertilizer industry.

Sincerely yours,

PAUL T. TRUITT, President.