Hearings, Reports and Prints of the Senate Committee on Commerce

It is felt that legislation such as that proposed by S. 985 is unnecessarily and unduly restrictive of a free market economy. The Advertising Federation of America respectfully asks Congress to assure consumer protection by urging vigorous enforcement of all existing statutes and by avoiding the imposition of restraints harmful to consumers and business alike through introduction of new legislation.

Respectfully yours,

MARK F. COOPER, President and General Manager..

WRITING INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C., May 17, 1965.

MY DEAR SENATOR: This association desires to file the enclosed statement with the Senate Commerce Committee. The statement pertains to the Hart packaging and labeling bill, S. 985. It will be appreciated if you will call this to the attention of your fellow committee members and incorporate it in the official record of committee hearings on this bill.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,

FRANK L. KING, Executive Vice President.

STATEMENT BY WRITING INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

This association of 82 manufacturing companies, representing an industryhaving an annual retail sales volume of approximately $450 million and employing about 18,000 persons, wishes to go on record against the enactment of S. 985, the Hart packaging and labeling bill. The members of this association take this stand for the following reasons:

1. There are presently ample laws under which both the Federal Trade. Commission and the Food and Drug Administration are granted authority to protect the consumer and, from a legal point of view, we believe that S. 985 offers the consumer no broader protection from false and misleading advertising matter than he now has. Both of these Federal agencies, in addition to their voluntary compliance programs, are now fully empowered to outlaw any form of deceptive packaging, and the FDA may even seize such packages to prevent their sale.

2. According to the Columbia Law Review, there are at present 21 agencies in the Federal Government alone involved in policing advertising in a widevariety of ways. Nearly every municipality has its sealer of weights and measures and every State has controls in this area, 43 having adopted statutes prohibiting deceptive statements. In every State of the Union, too, there are common law remedies against deceit, fraud, and breach of contract or warranty.

3. This association opposes the proliferation of Federal laws in this field as tending to lessen competition, increase the cost of distribution and inhibit technological innovation and national growth. We particularly fear the proposal under this bill which would empower the Government to compel, under penalty, a manufacturer or seller to submit to it a sample of "each package and label used by that producer or distributor for or in connection with the distribution in commerce of any particularly described consumer commodity of that class or kind." Except in protection of public health and safety, we do not believe the Congress should permit its citizens to be prosecuted for failure to submit their packaging plans and promotional writings, and their manufactured products, to a Federal bureau for approval. 4. The bill's prohibition against any wording suggesting any retail sale. price advantage accuring to the customer "by reason of the size of that package or the quantity of its contents" seems particularly harsh and unrealistic and a denial of the compestitive instincts that have made American's marketplace the most volatile in the history of the world.

5. The requirement for mandatory labeling bearing the ingredients and composition of products, if applied to, let us say, inks in ballpoint pens, would violate the precept of secrecy so closely guarded by the members of this industry and one to which they would seem to have an inviolable right..

Senator Philip A. Hart, the bill's author, has assured this association that the measure in question is not intended to cover the products of our industry. However, realizing the propensity of the Federal Establishment for extending its powers, we fear that the passage of such a law would open the door for inclusion of our products at a later date.

This association urges your committee to vote to reject the proposed legislation and to permit the hard competition of the marketplace, backed fully by enforcement of existing law, to protect our consumers and our customers in their right to products of honest value and at honest price.

Kent, Wash., February 9, 1965.

Senator HENRY M. JACKSON,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I have just written a letter to Senator Dirksen applauding his stand on the issue of intervention by the Congress that would restrict labeling and packaging practices by business and industry. I would like to urge you also to oppose any legislation in this area.

I am a housewife so I feel I can speak with excellent authority on this subject. After all, I do my grocery shopping each and every week, week after week. I do not feel I am being “taken” by any unscrupluous or ambiguous labeling or packaging practices. My shopping decisions are not so terribly difficult that I need any help from the Government nor anyone else.

To go shopping and find all bottles and boxes the same size and shape would be extremely boring. I enjoy the variety in my shopping and I ask you, please, not to pass any legislation restricting this variety. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Sincerely yours,

Mrs. SUSAN LANDGRAF. WASHINGTON, D.C.,

May 26, 1965.

Hon. PHILIP A. HART,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HART: The National Grange supports the passage of Senate bill 985 which is aimed at providing the consumer with sufficient information to make buying decisions.

The sponsors of the bill, commonly called the truth-in-packaging bill, reflect a fine group of men and women, not protagonists of a particular group interest, but rather guardians of the national well-being.

At the outset, I would like to reassure you and the committee of the National Grange's long-term interest in the consumer. Not the least of these efforts were those directed toward the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. In addition, the Grange has joined other organizations and groups, including the Federal Government, to try to promote the interests of the consuming public through such means as the dissemination of literature and the sponsorship of seminars.

But, as you know, in this age of quantity and substitutes-in food, fuel, and fiber-the strides made by these groups have necessarily paled. Such piecemeal efforts to educate and protect the Nation's consumers are in need of such backbone and coordination as Senate bill 985 proposes to effect.

In the face of industry abuses in packaging and labeling, it is our feeling that legislation such as S. 985 is solely needed. Under its provisions, we feel the consumer could know what he is buying by studying the package and not be forced-as she is today-to open the box at home to see what she purchased. Neither the best interests of producers nor the consumers are served by fraudulent or inaccurate labeling, as to either contents, quantity, or quality of packaged food.

It is in the light of these thoughts that the National Grange endorses Senate bill 985, in the hope that with its enactment will serve the best interests of consumers and producers-190 million strong.

Respectfully yours,