We do not feel that this legislation is needed, and this view is supported by a recent survey taken by the Opinion Research Corp., which information has already been placed on record. Please bear in mind that we are not at all opposed to the idea of protecting the consumer from misleading or deceitful practices such practices damage any reputable company just as they damage the consumer. We agree completely with this objective; however, we don't feel that a price comparison is the only valid distinction between similar products. Factors such as quality, convenience, package design, the integrity of the manufacturer, and many others are equally important to the consumer. The proposed legislation will not afford any significant advantages to the consumer and will, instead, involve both industry and the consumer in irrelevant, costly, and pointless changes. For these reasons we strongly urge that you oppose this bill and do everything in your power to prevent its passage. Yours truly, JOHN N. CURLETT, President. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE COUNCILS OF Re S. 985, "truth in packaging." Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This letter is being written in behalf of 35,000 New York City hotel workers and their families. We ask your support and approval of S. 985, "truth in packaging." The passage of this bill will be of utmost importance to the economy not only of the consumers we represent, but all consumers throughout the Nation, in obtaining proper value for their hard earned dollars. We have a consumer counseling program in our union to advise, educate, and overcome, if possible, the evils of deceptive packaging, among other consumer problems. As part of our program, we distribute a "Budget Gadget," a sample of which is enclosed, to help our members determine the best buys in weight and size. Still, it has been our experience that working housewives and mothers are harassed, and have little time to shop expertly so that even a slide rule such as the "Budget Gadget" does not alter the fact that they are forced to buy on a deceptive packaging basis instead of a cents-per-ounce basis. We would like this letter to be made a part of the record of hearings on the above bill. We would also appreciate your comments. Very truly yours, JOSEPH SILVER, Director, Consumers Counseling Service. AUXILIARY BARBERS' LOCAL NO. 50, AFL-CIO, Hon. Senator PHILLIP A. HART, AFL-CIO NATIONAL AUXILIARIES, Milwaukee, Wis., April 26, 1965. DEAR SENATOR HART: We, the members of Auxiliary to Barbers' Local No. 50, AFL-CIO, of Milwaukee, Wis., earnestly urge you to continue to sponsor bill S. 985, the "fair packaging and labeling" bill, when it comes up for hearings in front of the Senate Commerce Committee in late April or May. As homemakers, we are behind you 100 percent, and wish you success in your fight to attain the passage of this most important bill. Sincerely, LILLIAN MATTHEWS CARR, Secretary. WASHINGTON, D.C., May 7, 1965. Senator PHILLIP HART, DEAR SENATOR: Since your hearings on labeling as to price and resulting confusion in the mind of the shopper, Safeway has been putting signs like this under the instant coffee containers. 48-222-65--54 As Senator O'Mahoney used to tell us when we were working on hearings for him, "a hearing has tremendous results even without legislation." DEAR SENATOR PEARSON: As president of the Ellsworth Chamber of Commerce, I have been amply supplied with literature and well-coached by the U.S. Chamber on action that should be taken with regard to the "truth-in-packaging" bill. Our chamber has not formed an official opinion regarding this legislation; but I, as an individual citizen and consumer, have. As a constituent, I would like to pass along my views. In most any form of business enterprise, restrictive legislation or other controls would be totally unnecessary if it were not for abuses. But along with free enterprise, comes responsibility. It is ridiculous, and even bordering on criminal, the deceptions some manufacturers and distributors will use to peddle their products. It is indeed unfortunate that honesty and integrity must be sheived for the sake of the almighty dollar. One need only shop the supermarket and scan the various advertising media to reach the obvious conclusion that the consumer and distributor are engaged in a daily game of outwit the deceiver. The stakes are measured in millions of dollars. Lobbyists and pressure groups to the contrary, business will not police itself or take any lasting steps to correct shabby practices. Business wields such an economical influence on the press, radio, and television that few spokesmen dare print any arguments in favor of legislation to protect the consumer. Consequently there is not sufficient understanding on the part of the general public. Few people even realize that your committee is studying the problem. As a small voice in the wilderness, I sincerely urge a full and complete investigation and ask that the consumer be given the protection that would be afforded under S. 985. Sincerely, . A. D. PAULL. YALE UNIVERSITY, New Haven, Conn., May 3, 1965. Hon. PHILIP A. HART, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR HART: I have been aroused to deliver an opinion to you relating to the truth in packaging bill of which you have charge-aroused by the statement credited to Mr. Manischewitz in the New York Times report dated April 28, 1965. "The Congress," Mr. Manischewitz said, "should permit American industry the freedom of action and American consumers the freedom of choice which makes our system work so well." My word is on this-that there was never a more fraudulent remark made by any industrialist of our country. The freedom of action claimed by industry eliminates the freedom of choice of American consumers. My vehement remark springs from 2 months of hard work tackling the meaning of a regulation of the Florida Citrus Commission. I studied their whole lot of regulations and the letters from their publicity men to explain these regulations and pointed out that their effect is to deprive the consumers of their choice of the fruit. I am inflicting on you the formal letter which I sent to Mr. James T. Hopkins, director, advertising and publicity, Florida Citrus Commission, on January 29, 1965, of which Mrs. Esther Peterson received a copy with my compliments. Mr. Hopkins, in acknowledging the letter, called it a "brief." I am no lawyer but practice the profession of philosophy and cannot let falsity which stares one in the face pass without examining it. It took many long hours away from my own urgent obligation to publish the Gifford lectures at Glasgow for 1962 and 1963 to do this job and I have not finished yet. I would simply like my document put into the records as one of the thousands of refutations that can be discovered, upon inquiry, of claims made by the National Association of Manufacturers at your committee meeting. With all good wishes, and more power to you, I am, Yours very sincerely, CHARLES W. HENDEL, Clark Professor Emeritus of Moral Philosophy and Metaphysics. P.S.--I write on Yale stationery, not for purposes of publicity in order to incriminate the university, but solely so that you may know I am a responsible citizen, even if abnormally indignant at the effrontery of some people in our society who talk about freedom. Mr. JAMES T. HOPKINS, Director, Advertising and Publicity, Lakeland, Fla. NEW HAVEN, CONN., January 29, 1965. DEAR MR. HOPKINS: Let me thank you again for your airmail letter of December 7, 1964, as well as for the instructive "brief résumé" concerning the establishment of the commission. Unhappily, I am still not satisfied with the answers to my original questions and must crave your indulgence for a third letter addressed, through you, to the commission. When I first heard about regulation 105-1.35, on November 12, 1964, I had really distrusted the report. "I cannot believe that you mean to prevent the consumers of Florida products from buying the particular kind that they want," and further. "I cannot believe *** that it is your intention thus to damage the prospects of fruitgrowers in Florida who satisfy customers in other States. I am sure the report does not contain enough information." Writing so to the commission, I asked if I might receive a copy of the "laws relating to the growing and shipping of citrus fruit." And Mr. M. A. McNair, the administrative director, replied immediately with an airmail letter on November 16, and was good enough also to dispatch promptly the whole book for regulations, which was a most courteous attention to my request. Nevertheless, his letter was very general, seeming to be drawn up to answer a variety of queries or protests received by him which, he said, contained "some gross misunderstanding" about the action of the commission. Intending to study that book of regulations carefully before doing anything more. I acknowledged his letter on November 23, but still I pressed my original question, though now in another form, asking why it was "deemed either necessary or desirable to impose a new restraint upon trade which may have the consequence of depriving already satisfied customers of Florida oranges of the chance of having the choice of fruit they want. It still seems to me a strange way to promote Florida interests thus to interfere with a customer-seller relationship which has been profitable to both parties neither of which wants to discontinue trade" (November 23). Then, as director of advertising and research, you entered into the correspondence, with your letter of December 7, and that single page of résumé which tells how the Florida Citrus Commission came to be authorized by the State of Florida in 1935; viz, in order to remedy chaotic conditions in the industry after the various efforts toward obtaining voluntary cooperation for everyone's benefit had seemingly failed of result. The résumé disclosed that the Commission had been vested with power to make regulations that would henceforth be "mandatory" and have the force of law for "the entire industry." That power and authority remains with the commission today. Its decisions are final and binding for all persons resident in Florida who are engaged in growing and shipping citrus fruit. That should settle the matter for all persons, that is, who are subject to Florida jurisdiction. But when people out of State are affected by actions of the commission, affected as customers and consumers, their queries or their protests must be countered with something more than a show of public authority. They have to be argued with and persuaded. As director of publicity you undertook to deal with the essential points implicit at least in my two previous letters to Mr. McNair. These questions were: First, what is the intention of regulation 105-1.35, or, put another way, what is the aim of the commission in promulgating it? Second, why is this regulation "necessary or desirable," or what are the reasons for it? You have answered both questions with one brief word: quality. The regulation is necessary "to maintain high standards of quality”— and if the Polonius of "Hamlet" were reading your reply he would say, "That's good, quality, that is a good word." In another place you explain that the regulation serves to "require them (shippers of fruit) to conform to certain quality standards," and that's reasonable, too. And five times in your letter "quality" is repeated-the whole point of regulation is to make sure of the shipment of fruit of good quality. And you go on to say that for "consumer satisfaction" there must be "practical quality standards." One perks up at that word "practical" for it suggests that consumers will have to compromise somewhat and accept what it is convenient for the producer to supply. Or "practical" may mean what goes or works with the great mass of consumers so that whatever they buy will be deemed to have quality. What quality does mean remains to be seen after further examination. However, you did give a very direct and unequivocal answer to the question of the aim of regulation 105–1.35: "the new regulation * * * is aimed specifically at gift fruit shippers." Now the fruit to whose good quality I had wholeheartedly testified in my first letter to the commission had regularly come from one of those "gift fruit shippers" (an abbreviation you use for shippers who send by express any consignments of fruit to consumers destined for their own consumption and not for resale). I had emphasized that our fruit was always ripe, sweet, and juicy, and that a shipment "would last a month or 6 weeks without rotting." I could not see therefore what defects of quality such fruit suffered from that could warrant the action of the commission in enacting a regulation specifically aimed at the shippers of the fruit. What else was needed to have fruit of good quality? So it became clearer to me as I studied and reflected on the case that you and I would have to discuss this question of quality together so that I may know what the commission means by it and you in turn can understand what it means to such consumers. This letter will be a detailed examination of the question of quality as well as other questions or topics that naturally arise in connection with regulation 1051.35. I am therefore presenting it articulated in two parts with designated sections and subsections. Part I contains my discussion of the answers given to the questions which I originally asked, and my present conclusions as to the practical purport of the enactment of regulation 105-1.35. Part II treats of other important considerations which the commission is asked to take seriously into account, considerations centered around the opinions and attitudes of consumers. The whole is intended to be helpful to the commission as well as being in the interest of myself and other consumers. There will be moments of asperity, however, in the examination of quality that follows immediately, of which I should warn you here at the outset. Consumers who have taken pains to secure fruit that they can enjoy and who have tested it over many years, in comparison with what they have purchased in the market, are disposed to think that their own preference and their taste are properly the measure of the goodness of the fruit. Thus, when we see the implication in Mr. McNair's letter that the standard of quality for such fruit as we have thus enjoyed is not even up to "the minimum grade requirement of U.S. No. 1" and then recall our own past experience with other fruit that has presumably qualified for such a minimum grade "or higher," we do feel the "spirit of 1776" rising in us-as if the government of a State or even that of the United States were presuming to dictate our own personal judgment and taste. Aware of this resentment which I share with many others, I have nonetheless tried to make as dispassionate a study as possible of the entire set of regulations, and have sought to appreciate the nature of the problems the commission has to deal with and the kind of "practical" solutions which can be attempted. PART I. THE CASE OF REGULATION 105–1.35.-THE REASONS OFFERED CONSUMERS AND THEIR VIEWS I. AN EXAMINATION OF THE STANDARD OF QUALITY A. Prime quality: Maturity and the internal goodness of fruit The first requirement is what is called "maturity" and "fitness for human consumption" (105-1.11, sec. (3)). The tests made measure "juice content" and "the ratio of total soluble solids to anhydrous citric acid," as specified in regulations for each particular variety of fruit (105-1.01, secs. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12). The maturity requirement so determined is treated as basic, and it is a universal requirement for all fruits shipped. It is the prime requisite which all growers have always had to meet-even before there was this new regulation 105-1.35. The universality of application is indicated in this passage which also maintains a drastic penalty: "All citrus fruit which fails to pass the maturity tests as prescribed by law, and is subject to destruction, shall be destroyed immediately under the personal supervision of an inspector, and at the expense of the owner * * *" (105-1.01, sec. (13)). "Express or gift fruit shippers," it is made plain, were expressly included with all the others. "All such shipments shall comply with requirements *** in respect to maturity and fitness for human consumption ***" (105-1.11, sec. (3)). To make doubly certain the point is restated in the particular regulation concerning permits to ship fruit. Referring to the "gift package" shippers the regulation says: "It is understood that the citrus fruit shipped, transported, or delivered hereunder is subject to the provisions of the Florida Citrus Code of 1949, as amended with respect to maturity and fitness for human consumption *** (ibid., p. 14). Let it be clearly understood by us, too, in this discussion that this basic quality of "maturity and fitness for human consumption" has all along been required for the gift fruit shipment as for others. By the same token it seems unnecessary to introduce a new regulation 105–1.35 to secure this kind of quality which I shall here call the inner goodness of the fruit. The grounds for such a new regulation therefore must be sought elsewhere. There certainly has been no defaulting by growers and shippers in respect to the prime quality, "sound and wholesome citrus fruit" (105-1.02, sec. (1) (d)). B. Previous exception allowed and study of the particular requirements from which they were exempted There had been previously four classes of shipment regularly excepted from meeting certain of the requirements pertaining to quality or grade. The classes were: (a) Intrastate shipments of fresh citrus fruit for consumption or use within the State of Florida; (b) Shipments to be used for charitable or unemployment relief purposes; (c) Shipments to the U.S. Government or any of the agencies and interstate shipments to any packing house, canning plant or concentrate plant for commercial processing, as may be defined by the commission; or to fresh fruit juice distributors outside the State of Florida; (d) Shipments by any method of transportation by "express or gift fruit shippers," as defined by the commission, but such shipments shall not be for the purpose of resale by the consignee thereof (105-1.11, sec. (1)). |