(105-1.19 (1) (e) (1)). Let us have it, I beg, in "fresh mature, sweet oranges” from the tree, from grower to consumer. The second part of this letter will follow after a certain interval. In it I will try to explain why I wrote that the action of the commission was "a strange way to promote Florida interests." I shall also present some considerations that bear on the assurances consumers must have before they can be satisfied with the measures taken by both industry and Government to insure protection of the "health and welfare" of the public. It will not be necessary because of your special role as director to impress upon you personally what will be my chief point of the second part, viz, the consumer opinion and judgment matters these days and very much deserves to be heeded. Copies of this letter are being sent to Mr. McNair, to the Honorable Doyle Conner, and as a matter of courtesy to the Honorable Haydon Burns, Governor of your State. I shall send copies to other persons in government who are concerned with consumer affairs as well as to certain individuals among the consumers themselves. Thank you for giving your attention to these analyses and reflections. I should be glad if you would correct me as to any facts or interpretations. Yours very sincerely, CHARLES W. HENDEL. MANHATTAN, KANS., April 21, 1965. Hon. PHILIP A. HART, DEAR SENATOR HART: On the 28th of April the truth-in-packaging bill (S. 985) will be considered by the Commerce Committee of the Senate. Since September 1964 I have been purchasing and saving 10-ounce jars of Maxwell House instant coffee to note the labeling policy of this corporation. This is a product of the Maxwell House Division of the General Foods Corp., one of the larger and more influential members of the food manufacturing industry. In the summer of 1964 a 10-ounce jar of instant Maxwell House coffee was priced at $1.69. In October, the same 10-ounce jar of coffee appeared bearing a "30 cents off" label, and sold for $1.39. Subsequent purchases were made in December 1964, January, February, March, and April 1965, all bearing a “30 cents off" label, even though the price fluctuated up and down from $1.29 to $1.59 since then. This "30 cents off" label seems to have become a permanent part of the label. Usually, a "cents off" label is assumed to mean cents off the regular price. It is used in the sense of a "sale" or "special," in accordance with section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, in which it is assumed to mean "that a retail price advantage is accorded to purchasers," by reason of the "30 cents off." Not only does this appear to be a form of deceptive labeling, since it results in consumer deception and seems to violate section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, but casts doubt as to whether any "cents off" promotion has any meaning, whether any such "cents off" "specials" can be trusted. I cite this occurrence as one example of many indicating the need for truthin-packaging legislation, and hope that it may aid the committee in arriving at a decision which will eliminate the deception and confusion resulting from present packaging practices. Sincerely yours, FRED E. WADDELL. Mrs. ESTHER PETERSON, WEST PALM BEACH, FLA., April 21, 1965. Assistant Secretary for Labor Standards, DEAR MRS. PETERSON: I heard you speak to the American Nurses Association at their legislative conference in Washington a few years ago-was mighty impressed, and delighted when the President appointed you Assistant for Consumer Affairs. In this capacity, perhaps you will be involved in the hearings which start May 5 before the National Commission on Food Marketing, dealing with retail sales of food in stores. Before people like you became concerned, the buyer-consumer was pretty much at the mercy of the producer-retailer. The American housewife is lucky that somebody cares. As a former advertising and public relations woman, turned housewife, I have learned one thing-caveat emptor-let the buyer beware. Unfortunately, the buyer who needs most to conserve his food dollars and the buyer who doesn't know how to "be wary," are often one and the same. If you recognize a "sliding scale of moral standards," as most people do today, you will agree that fraud in the sale of furs, jewels, and luxury items is one thing. Fraud in the grocery store is quite another. In the advertising world I frequently shook fraud's hand. The "technical truth" was what we called it. But fraud is fraud-even by the sliding scale of semantics. Example.-"Blank diet bread (nationally advertised) has 25 percent fewer calories per slice." True. Because each slice of our blank diet bread was 35 percent thinner than your run-of-the-mill bread. Example. When polyethelene wrap first came out, we (the ad agency) were the first to guarantee fresh bread from the first slice to the last. And for the housewife who wanted proof, not just words, there was always "proof" such as a "see for yourself" display at the grocery store: our brand, in polyethelene wrap-fresh as a teenage punk. And the competitor's bread, known only as brand X, of course-stale, dry crumbs. We made sure of that-by unwrapping the loaf of brand X and exposing it to air at least 2 days in advance. Come to think of it, we sometimes used the very same loaf for our fresh-versus-stale point of purchase "proof." Bread, of course, is just one of many food and drug staples that "must defraud” the consumer to stay alive. (The agency involved in this case, was not the agency listed on this letterhead.) And the blame cannot be pushed off on the ad agencies alone or on their accounts, who push the great half-truth. Too many of today's grocers are merchandising deceit. Our friendly neighborhood grocer is not too sophisicated to stick his thumb on the scales. He lets the poor buyer make a sucker out of himself. Example.-Item: A national product at 39 cents for a box of 12. But waithere's the big economy size at 88 cents for a box of 24. Good little housewife takes advantage of the so-called economy box. Harassed little housewife doesn't always have the time (or the modern math) to figure it all out. She'd rather trust her store, her manufacturer. Poor little housewife. She's out a dime. Not much. But they all add up. Example (this at a nationally known, old line grocery chain).—Item: Lucious strawberries at 35 cent a box. Big juicy ripe red ones. Good little housewife plans strawberry shortcake for dessert tonight. Plans change at last minute because six beautiful berries do not a shortcake make. What's underneath that top cellophane covered layer of berries is a bunch of white virginal little berries plucked far too soon, a few bruised and rotten, still bleeding corpses and quite a few very dead leaves. Example (same store, same day).—Item: Prepackaged chuck roast at 59 cents a pound. Good little housewife opens same at home to find nothing but bone, gristle, and bloody fat on the unexposed side. There goes the rest of tonight's dinner. Angered, because in addition to the roast with the skin deep beauty and the phony berries, she also wound up with a moldy loaf of bread, she takes the time to return the $2 roast. (To heck with the bread and the berries-they are already in the garbage.) The store manager is very nice about it-sends her back to the butcher for an exchange or refund, so she takes a slightly more expensive roast for tonight's dinner. The advertised chuck roast specials, of course, are all gone by now. She carts her roast home, cooks it according to her never fail method-and it's not only unedible-it stinks. The dog wins this round. Example.-Loyalties shaken, but willing to give nationally known old line grocery chain one more chance, she returns a few days later. Item: Fresh mushrooms at 79 cents a pound. Produce man nowhere around, so she weighs up a quarter of a pound on the scales and waits. Man comes along, sacks mushrooms, and charges her 36 cents for 20 cents worth of mushrooms. She starts to object in a most ladylike manner and he seems surprised that she knows how to read the scales, then tries to bluster it out. She leaves, sans mushrooms, never to return again to nationally known old line grocery chain because that old line is getting to be just that. Example. She goes to another big chain grocery for her mushrooms. This one, a real razzle-dazzle land, has mushrooms already prepackaged: 85 cents a pound 48-222-65-55 in 1-pound packs. Seems like an awfully light pound, so she checks it out on the scales when no one is looking. Well, it's just a couple ounces under. Maybe something is wrong with the scales. She doublechecks the scales with her pound of name-brand butter. Amazing! That pound of butter weighs 18 ounces without its carton. She knows name brand butter producers are too smart to give away 21⁄2 ounces for nothing, so she points out this discrepancy to store manager. "Can't be," he says in a condescending tone. "We're checked all the time by the Bureau of Weights and Measures." "Come see for yourself,” she says, but he is suddenly tied up. Example. Still on the hunt for an honest mushroom, she tries a third chain grocery. At first everything seems OK, and what's more they have a premium coupon deal going. This is to bring her back each week to pick up another piece of crockery for "20 cents less than 'retail' price-plus a free custard cup with a $5 minimum purchase." She starts her set of crockery and comes back for the next 4 weeks trying to complete it. Funny thing-they're always "just out" of the giveaways they're offering for that $5 minimum purchases plus coupon. After a month of this baloney, good little housewife walks off in a huff, leaving her $26 grocery order rolling merrily down the automated checkout counter all by itself. But These are just a few examples among many. And this isn't to say that all grocers and allied personnel are playing the game of petty flimflammery. somebody's getting bamboozled at the grocery store, and it sure isn't the shoplifters. The average "good little housewife" doesn't go looking for trouble, but if she's got an ounce of brains, she resents paying for ounces that are rotten and worthless--and for ounces that aren't even there. Because all those little ounces add up to pounds and dollars. To say nothing of a deep distrust now present whenever Alice goes shopping in Blunderland. Maybe it's often an honest mistake. Certainly the store managers are most gracious about "making things right" for the good little housewife who calls them on it. But they're not so quick, it seems, to "make things right" in general. The (shall we say) careless grocer is a white-frocked reflection of his more subtle suppliers-the ones who eliminate or hide the net weight in the fine print the ones who deliberately confuse the consumer with fractional, hard to figure weights and varying sizes, the packaging experts in deceit, the ad agencies with their great halftruths. A word in defense of our food values, prices, and selling: The values are often good, though too often not as proclaimed or intimated. The prices, in comparison with "what the Russians pay"; "the percentages of the food dollar spent today as compared with 20 years ago"; "the small profit to the grocer," etc., etc., etc., all look just great on the surface. Again, the consumer must look below the surface, just as in the case of the bright red strawberries on the top layer only, and the bright red meat on the exposed side only. Because these "facts" are the little brainchildren of shrewd public relations people and agencies— trained and ingrained in presenting the positive side of the picture. How do I know? 1 owned and operated a P.R. agency for a number of years-and we were far more ethical than many. As for the selling-packaging, new products, ad claims, display, etc.-it's all superb. And few shelves are collecting dust, though many housewives are collecting gray hairs trying to figure the true value, much less do any comparison shopping. Some possible remedies to all this hanky-panky: standardized sizes in cans, boxes, etc., prominently displayed net weight in standardized locations, prepackaging to show the bad as well as the good. And perhaps a shoppers' panel (volunteer housewives, maybe) to report violators to an enforcing agency. And if strong Federal, or self-imposed controls are impossible or will take a long time to establish, how about a booklet for the housewife shopper to use in the interim? Wallet-sized, simple to read, with A B C basic charts to help her compute net weights, cents per ounce, cents per pound, etc. A booklet such as this must be easy to understand, because the uneducated housewife on a low budget who needs it most, must be able to use it. The average "good little housewife" will use it too-you bet. If it's written in her language the language of housewifery, and not the mumbo jumbo of typical Government tracts. If any one is interested in such a booklet, and if I can help, I will volunteer my services. In closing I will say that never before have so many eaten so much that is so downright good. But caveat emptor, as the search goes on for an honest manan honest mushroom. Sincerely, and the very best of luck in what you're doing. Mrs. KAY FULLER. A. & P. FOOD STORES, ROCKVILLE, MD., May 10, 1965. DEAR SIRS: My family does the largest share of its food shopping at your stores and generally I've thought your policies toward the consumers quite progressive. However, recently I came across an example of deceptive packaging and/or pricing to which I object. For years I've purchased Wheat Chex cereal in the 18-ounce package. Your price has been 34 cents. Recently Wheat Chex has come out with a new, "improved" package of 141⁄2 ounces (question-the fraction couldn't be there to make it difficult for the consumer to figure cost per ounce, could it?). The price remains the same-34 cents. I don't object to legitimate price increases if they reflect added costs or other valid reasons. I do object to a price increase of almost 25 percent, hidden by deceptive packaging. According to the local store manager the price is set by A. & P., not the manufacturer. Therefore, I am protesting to you. If he is in error, please forward this complaint to the Ralston-Purina people. It is practices like this which demonstrate time and time again the need for Senator Hart's truth-in-packaging bill. Sincerely yours, SAFEWAY STORES, INC., EDWIN H. MONTGOMERY. ROCKVILLE, MD., May 10, 1965. DEAR SIRS: For years, the only hand soap my family has used has been your Brocade hand soap; priced at 10 bars for 49 cents. Recently, in one of your stores there were 3 different preticketed prices for separate packages of 10 bars of Brocade hand soap-49, 55, and 59 cents-all at the same time. It is obvious that Safeway is trying to gradually increase from 49 to 59 cents (the price on all packages now) with the thought apparently that the consumer is too stupid to notice a 20-percent price increase. I consider this but another example of deceptive packaging and/or pricing. It is practices like this which demonstrate the need for Senator Hart's truth-inpackaging bill. Sincerely yours, EDWIN H. MONTGOMERY. UNDERGARMENT & NEGLIGEE WORKERS UNION, LOCal 62, Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In the name of our 15,000 women members, most of them housewives and mothers, in addition to being wage earners, I want to make a strong plea for the passage of S. 985, the truth in packaging bill. The packaged food industry insists that the consumers' rights are protected by competition. Correct, but competition implies truth in the labeling of a package's contents. A pound should be 16 ounces, a quart exactly a quart, and packages which have the same weight should not vary dizzily in size. Quality of the contents should be the criterion for the purchaser, not false and misleading packaging. Distrust of business is a serious thing in any community and this result is to be feared if housewives are further imposed upon by misleading labeling. We know how large food costs loom in working people's budgets, and how important knowledge of exact content amount, fairly and legibly stated on the package, is to our members. I hope this request for the passage of S. 985, for the benefit of consumers (and to industry too), will be included in the official records of the Commerce Committee. Very respectfully yours, MATTHEW SCHOENWALD, WAKEFIELD FISHERIES, E. L. BARTLETT, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR BOB: I have before me a bulletin of the National Fisheries Institute urging that I write you and other members of the Senate Commerce Committee in opposition to S. 985, Senator Hart's truth in packaging legislation. The NFI does not speak for our company on this matter. In fact, it embarrasses me to be a member of a trade association taking such a backward position. We pack more consumer-sized packages of crabmeat than any firm in the United States (or anywhere else, for that matter). We try our very best to make every package an attractively, but at the same time honestly, presented value to the consumer. We have a strong quality-control department, and we employ the continuous inspection services of the U.S. Department of Interior. There is no food more nourishing, healthful, and tasty than fish and other seafoods. Yet it is not popular with the American consumer, and the average person buys a fish product less than once a month, let alone once a week. It seems to us that any firm interested in correcting this sad state of affairs has everything to gain and nothing to lose from the sort of legislation now before you. Sincerely, LOWELL WAKEFIELD, President. NALLEY'S FINE FOODS, April 9, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR: As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, you will certainly play a big part in determining whether Senator Hart's bill (S. 985) is passed by the Senate or dies in committee as it did last year. We urge your careful consideration of these facts: 1. Virtually every "evil" with which Senator Hart is concerned is covered by antitrust laws or by pure food and drug laws. 2. Enforcement of existing laws will mean more to the consumer than enactment of new legislation based on a somewhat idyllic interpretation of what is. thought to be needed. How can anyone say we need additional legislation of this type when we aren't enforcing laws already in the books? 3. Business needs no additional Government agency restrictions on its packaging and marketing methods. There are plenty now. 4. Business would welcome with open arms legislation which made it easier to do the job of production and marketing rather than more difficult-legislation designed to help lower the cost to the consumer rather than raise it. 5. Without exception the consumer soon eliminates from the scene any item which is deceptively packaged. For that matter, the consumer soon eliminates any company which uses a fraudulent approach of any kind. Your usual careful consideration of the facts will convince you, I am sure, that this bill (S. 985) is not needed. Sincerely, GEORGE H. HUTCHINGS. DIAMOND FRUIT GROWERS, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We represent 300 fruitgrowers in the Hood River Valley. We pack, process and market members' fruit production both in the fresh and processed form. We are seriously disturbed by the provisions of the Hart bill as we understand them. All our fruit and fruit products are packed in standard containers and labeled according to Government rules and regulations. We have had no complaints from our customers regarding our packaging and labeling practices. |