It is claimed that this new control would help protect the consumer from deceptive and misleading representations as to the price, quality, conditions of the sale of any product. However, it adds nothing to the regulations that we already have in sections 403 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Why add more regulations and more Government expense to carry out and enforce the act? It will not help the consumer by eliminating some competition. We ask that you use your good office and position to oppose this act. FLOYD B. REED. PLOUGH, INC., Memphis, Tenn., May 11, 1965. Re the Hart bill. Hon. ALBERT GORE, Senate Office Building, DEAR ALBERT: I am not writing to categorically oppose subject bill as in many respects we do not feel it will make too much difference to us as present regulations, etc., of FDA and FTC pretty well control our packaging generally, and I do not feel that this bill is going to seriously affect the medicine end of our business. There is, however, one phase of the bill that we feel does not make too much sense and that we should call it to your attention. I think the supporters of the bill are thinking primarily in terms of packages displayed in a supermarket such as cereals, detergents, etc. The wording of the bill, however, is such that it would appear that the standardization of packages that can and would probably result from the passing of the bill would have an undesired effect on the cosmetic industry. We say this because the lady folks seem to enjoy distinctive packaging with a certain degree of elegance and beauty for their dressing tables, etc., and it would appear from the bill that cosmetics are being put in the same class as cereals and detergents. This will not only create a problem for the cosmetic industry but is not something that we can feel to be desired by the general public. We do not mean to say that we object to cosmetic packages being properly labeled from the standpoint of contents and the like, but what we do object to is the possibility of standardization of packaging in the cosmetic industry. We do not feel that the reasons for the bill lie in this area and, hence, it would appear that some modification would be in order. Thanking you for your considerations and with very best regards, we are, Cordially, Mr. GUY RICHARD, HARRY B. SOLMSON, NUT HOUSE PRODUCTS Co., DEAR MR. RICHARD: We are in receipt of your letter of May 1 regarding a can of our Nut House mixed nuts which you state you were dissatisfied with because it contained too many peanuts. Because of the price that consumers are willing to pay for mixed nuts with peanuts, we, as well as our competitors, do put a large percentage of peanuts in this mixture. As far as the Hart Commission and their efforts to improve labeling, we are endeavoring to work with them on this. However, because we are a relatively small manufacturer, we are forced to go along with our competitors in their packaging. We would like very much to put out a good mixture, but because of the price at which this would have to retail, we would not be able to compete. We trust you will understand our position and thank you for your interest. Under separate cover we are sending you a can of our deluxe mixed nuts-no peanuts. This is the package we recommend to our customers who prefer the fancy nuts to peanuts, and we are sure you will enjoy these. Very truly yours, HOWARD BETTMAN, President. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., New York, N.Y., May 28, 1965. Re hearings on S. 985 before the Committee on Commerce. Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: On May 7, during the hearings on the above bill, Mrs. Mildred E. Brady, testifying for the Consumers' Union of Mount Vernon, N.Y., introduced two samples of bags sent in by a consumer containing our chocolate almond cookies, and the record will show that the members of the committee present had difficulty locating and reading the statement of net weight. We are enclosing herewith a sample of the bag in question marked "Exhibit A." This is one of a group of similarly packaged products introduced recently by our company. The chocolate almond cookies were first sold only 2 months ago in March of 1965. Enclosed are samples of the packages of the other six products in this line. Please note that the net weight statement appears clearly and prominently on the front panel of each package and that the location of net weight has varied depending upon the design of the particular bag. The samples will indicate also that the net weight legend has been clearly stated on all but the chocolate almond bag. The chocolate almond bag represents one of those production difficulties which occasionally develop when a new product is introduced. As a matter of fact we have rejected in the last 2 months more than 1 million bags printed for this cookie, because the printer encountered technical difficulties which prevented his meeting the standards set by our sales and production departments. The shortcomings of this design were recognized before May 7. The bags presently being printed are changed to meet the technical problems, including a change in position and color of the net weight statement so that it will be more prominent, as shown in exhibit B. This is an example of the type of problem packaged goods manufacturers frequently encounter when introducing a new product. We find that it happens to us occasionally when we add to our line of more than 300 varieties. When such a difficulty occurs, it is either quickly discovered by our own company personnel, as is the case in this instance, or it is called to our attention by a consumer or occasionally by a Government inspector. In any of these instances immediate steps are taken to correct the difficulty. This particular package represents the type of problem that is not foreseen in the planning stage but sometimes develops in the production process. Inspection of the prototype design did not reveal any problem. It only arose during the actual mass production and printing of the package. Additional law would not eliminate this type of difficulty. We respectfully request that this letter and attached exhibit B be made a part of the printed record of the hearings. Sincerely yours, HARRY F. SCHROETER, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, Senator WARREN MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Commission, Harrisburg, Pa., May 26, 1965. DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of some 6,000 female International Ladies' Garment Workers in the central Pennsylvania district, I urge you to support the "truth in packaging" bill as a guide to better and more honest advertising and as an aid to the average housewife in their everyday shoping. I would also request that this statement be recorded in the hearing records if at all possible. Thanking you for your interest and hopeful support, I remain, Sincerely, EDWARD MILANO, District Manager. NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The courtesy of the committee in hearing me on Wednesday, May 17, in behalf of the National Confectioners Association in opposition to S. 985, known as the Hart packaging bill, is very much appreciated. In connection with my testimony, several questions were raised and comments made to which I would like to make reference in this communication, which I shall appreciate your receiving as a supplementary statement and having printed in the record of the hearings. I. Inquiry was made by Senator Pearson as to the share of the market of the various types of confectionery items. He inquired specifically what percentage of industry sales consisted of bar goods and packaged goods. Attached here to is an exhibit which contains this information. II. Senator Bass requested an elaboration of my statement that in the candy business the industry had found it much more satisfactory in many cases to adjust the package size rather than to change the price, and I pointed out that this would not be feasible in the event there should be standardization of package sizes. Except for penny goods, commodities sold for 25 cents a unit or less most frequently are sold at retail for prices which are multiples of 5 cents; that is, 5 cents, 10 cents, 15 cents, and 25 cents. This is vital in the case of vending machines. Candy is an impulse item and the consumer has made it clear that there is a distinct preference to buy confectionery at these price levels. Although from time to time one may observe candy being sold at 6 cents, 12 cents, and some other odd amounts, such is not the practice generally, and the consumer has a strong tendency to resist buying at these odd prices. In the case of packaged goods sold in the food store, there is also a definite consumer price preference. In the food store the odd cents price has proven to be popular instead of unpopular. Therefore, packages selling at 29 cents, 39 cents, 49 cents, and 59 cents gain much better public acceptance than packages selling at other prices. Therefore, manufacturers have a strong tendency to package candies in sizes which will result in such retail prices. In the case of package goods costing more than $1, the experience of manufacturers varies. Some manufacturers seem to like to price this type of packaged goods at multiples of 5 cents, whereas others seem to prefer the odd prices. In any event, with the weight and contents properly designated on the label, we contend that this is a decision which properly should be made by each individual manufacturer. III. In reference to my statement that it would be possible to rule off the market the popular confectionery item Life Savers since it has a hole in the middle, in the event a regulation should be adopted regarding dimensional proportions which would require all confectionery items to be solid, the statement was advanced in behalf of Senator Hart that the 2-ounce exemption had been inserted so that this result in the case of Life Savers would be avoided. To this statement submitted in behalf of Senator Hart I would |