Government should act only in those limited or special areas where the States might not have adequate controls. This the Congress has already done in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. When Congress was considering the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1261-73 (Supp. V, 1959-63)) it made absolutely no reference to net contents or net weights of the packages recognizing that this was adequately controlled at the State and local level. When this principle is applied to S. 985, it becomes dramatically clear that the Congress should not enact this bill into law. There has been no showing of a need for the sweeping controls established in this bill. It is fundamental that the police power be exercised in a reasonable manner and then only when and to the extent necessary to satisfy the aims of that power. Some abuses have been brought to the committee's attention. James Madison once said, "Some abuse is inescapable in the proper use of anything." This logic is equally forceful and valid today. The State programs are more than adequate to deal with the problems presented to this committee. To ignore this and approve bureaucratic authority to an extent unprecedented in the history of this Government is totally unwarranted. AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Toledo, Ohio, May 18, 1965. DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed find a copy of the statement made by International President George M. Parker, American Flint Glass Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, on bill S. 387 and appendix thereto which are self-explanatory. We respectfully request that the original statement and the attached appendix be read into the record of the committee report on bill S. 985. You will please note that while we are in complete sympathy with the intent of bill S. 985. we do strenuously object to section 3(c) (1 and 2) because of the detrimental effect it will have on employment opportunities of our members. Thank you for any consideration given our request, I am, Respectfully yours, ALBERT VOTTERO, STATEMENT TO U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, RE S. 387 ("TRUTH IN PACKAGING"), FROM GEORGE M. PARKER, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION, TOLEDO, OHIO It is without question that S. 387, known as the "Truth in Packaging" bill. has a worthy and necessary purpose. As spokesman for the 30,000 members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, who are both consumers and employees in the glass packaging industry, I can heartily endorse the intent of such legislation. I believe it pertinent, in the light of the purpose of this legislation, to call to the committee's attention certain historical facts which have a bearing on the accomplishment of that purpose. Members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union are, in the main, highly skilled participants in America's first industry-the glassmaking industry, founded in Jamestown in 1608. They possess a pride in both their skills and the multitude of end uses to which their products are put. They also possess pride in the integrity of their industry, and have joined with others in efforts to accomplish exactly the purpose of S. 387-protection of the consumer from false representations as to quantity contained in glass packaging. May I cite one example? In 1954 the American Flint Glass Workers' Union published a brochure prepared by its revered former President Harry H. Cook, titled "A Story of Glass," and dedicated as follows: "This brochure is dedicated to the American glassware industry, to bring about increased interest in forming glass and a deeper understanding of the rare dexterity and skill required in forming articles of glass. "It is also intended to encourage business leaders, together with representatives of labor and government, to preserve and expand this industry, which has contributed so much to civilization." Mr. Cook records the history of glassmaking and its modern forms but also records an example of self-policing unique in industry and of significance to the committee's considerations. The American Flint Glass Workers' Union, with the National Better Business Bureau and the American Glassware Association, evolved and subscribed to certain "glassware definitions." "Intended as a guide to accurate and informative advertising of glassware, they were developed to promote better mutual understanding of glassware terms by advertisers and consumers." The various definitions spell out the descriptive terms which are considered truthful, complete and understandable to the consumer. Not only was this positive step taken but, in addition, a warning was sounded, a warning against the very practices which S. 387 is planned to eliminate. May I quote this section in full? "STATE ACTUAL CAPACITY OF TUMBLERS "Beer, highball, old-fashion, ice tea, and other similar beverage tumblers with thick bottoms are sometimes produced in the same mold that is used for thinbottomed or shell tumblers. The actual capacities of these thick-bottomed tumblers are, however, less than that of the corresponding shell tumblers. Care should be taken never to advertise the capacity of the heavier bottom of the sham glasses as the actual capacity of the shell glasses. It misleads the purchaser and local bureaus of weights and measures frown on such practices. Some have already taken legal action in the matter. Reasonable plus or minus manufacturing tolerances in overflow capacities are recognized and are allow able." This warning was sounded many years ago and its philosophy has been perpetuated by the actions of the entire glassware industry ever since. Some 4,000 glass mold makers, who are members of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union and whose skills produce approximately 98 percent of the molds from which glass containers are made, can testify that they are called upon to make possible thinner, rather than thicker bottoms on glass containers of all descriptions. Their only limitations are the tensile strength of the design. Design research is another factor that distinguishes the glass container industry from other branches of the packaging industry. A veritable revolution is taking place in the applications of this well-known and commonly accepted material. The fruits of design and materials changes are already passed on to the consumer and to the American defense effort as well. Discoveries in ceramics and glass in combination have made both missile nose cones and lighter but stronger bottles. There is a most palpable difference between the weight of a gallon bottle today and that of only a decade ago. In addition, it is possible to pass on to the consumer the saving in packaging costs which result from increase in the quantity contained by a single package rather than multiple packages. A most notable example relates to milk bottle designs of today. Glass packaging designs of today are as revolutionary and as worthy as the outstanding example in glassmaking history-the oil lamp chimney. It was discovered that crimping the top of the chimney increased the total strength of the chimney and allowed lighter glass weights to be utilized, with an ultimate saving to the consumer. It is an easily discernible fact that the uses of glass as containers are currently in a ferment of discovery and, for that reason among others, grave consideration should be given any legislation which would tend to standardize and thus stifle the ingenuity and skill of an entire industry. I join enthusiastically with the sponsors of S. 387 in demanding that packaging of any commodity contain, assurances as to weight, measure, or count of the contents but respectfully submit that section 3 (e) (1) and (2) of the proposed legislation are extraneous to its purpose and constitute an economic threat to thousands engaged in the glass container industry. Perhaps it is a misnomer to call S. 387 a "truth in packaging" proposal. Rightfully, its purpose is "truth in labeling" and pertains to packaging only insofar as the design of and materials for packaging are intended to deceive the consumer. Obviously, this is difficult to accomplish in clear glass packaging or in any but totally opaque glass containers. But it can be done through varied shapings of the container, if the intent to deceive is present. 48-222-65---48 Is this problem not one of enforcement of existing legislation and regulation very similar to the manufacture and distribution of clothing following the discovery and utilization of synthetic fibers. It was sufficient to label the wool, cotton, or synthetic content of the clothing rather than standardize the designs of men's suits or women's dresses. An equally abhorrent result would follow from regulation of "packages of sizes, shapes, or dimension proportions which may deceive retail purchasers as to the net quantity of the contents thereof. ***" Lost would be the creative genius now being displayed in glass packaging without intent to deceive but with full intent to beautify and to utilize a versatile material to its best advantage. Many homes in this country are lit by table lamps whose bases have been adapted from a beautifully designed glass container. Shelves of objets d'art contain empty vials and decanters having the appearance of fine cutglass. More important, the varied composition of foods now being concentrated in powders, liquids, shreds, and cubes dictate the shapes and sizes of their glass containers in order to achieve free flow, prevent wastage, and provide easy access to the commodity. Safe and utilitarian packaging of these nutritional developments are the concern of glass container designer and their economy in filling of concern to the packer and the consumer. Surely a stultification of industrial ingenuity and marketing diversification is not a purpose of S. 387. Yet the above-mentioned sections of the legislation would hamper if not eliminate the efforts now in progress toward full utilization of the desirable characteristics of glass as a packaging material. Standardization would reduce employment among members of our union employed as glass mold makers and their craft, often passed from generation to generation, could be lost. It is also my belief that the American glass industry would suffer greater unemployment as a result of encouragement of enterprise and technological advances abroad in the art of glassmaking and increase even further the imports which have been harmful to employment in the American glass industry. The handmade art and tableware industry has lost 50 percent of its employment opportunities since the end of World War II. To summarize, the fundamental error in these sections of S. 387 cited above is that they would establish unnecessary controls and regulations without implementing the necessary consumer protection contained in other sections of the bill. Establishment of "reasonable weights or quantities" and restriction of "sizes, shapes, or dimensional proportions" of containers would neither reduce nor eliminate the policing problem caused by dishonest packaging. The fault lies, not in the packaging, but rather in the claims made on the label regarding the contents. There presently exists sufficient regulatory authority to enforce observance of honesty in claims for contents of commodities packaged in glass. The technological nature of the moldmaking, molten glass pouring, and automatic finishing render it economically useless to attempt to gain an illicit profit from glass containers designed to deceive the consumer. The expense of such designs, their manufacture, packaging, and special closures would prohibit and additional profit in lessening the contents below the amounts claimed on the labels. For these reasons I respectfully submit that section 3(e) (1) and (2) are superfluous to the objective of the bill in relation to glass containers and that the conditions imposed by these sections would hamper the remarkable advances of the glass container industry and result in increased unemployment in the American portion of that worldwide industry. APPENDIX TO STATEMENT MADE BY GEORGE M. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, 2 YEARS AGO AT THE HEARING ON S. 387 (Before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 88th Cong., 1st sess., as it appears in pt. 2 of the printed record, pp. 759 through 761) The position of the American Flint Glass Workers' Union on bill S. 985 is essentially the same as it was on bill S. 387 which was before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 88th Congress, 1st session. We respectfully note and appreciate the effort which was made by your committee to recognize the objections raised by Mr. Parker in his statement 2 years ago. However, we are of the opinion that the provisions in section 3(c) (1) and (2) of the present bill do not correct the conditions to which we objected in the original bill. While we are in wholehearted agreement with the intent of the basic provisions of bill S. 985 and concur with the position that consumer products should be labeled plainly with full information regarding the contents of the package, we do not believe that section 3(c) (1) and (2) contributes anything to proper labeling. The American Flint Glass Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, represents the men who make molds which are used in the manufacture of glass containers. These are highly skilled workmen and anything that adversely affects the glass container industry immediately effects the employment opportunities of our members. Government, business, and organized labor are very much concerned about the unemployment situation in the United States and we believe that every reasonable effort should be made to preserve the job opportunities rather than destroy them. Section 3(c) (1) and (2) of the bill, we repeat, does not contribute to the solution of the problem of proper labeling. It merely places restrictions in the designing of containers which are very detrimental to the glass industry, crippling the initiative to develop new glass containers, thereby seriously reducing job opportunities in the glass industry. We most respectfully suggest that section 3(c) (1) and (2) can be deleted from bill S. 985 without impairing its functions and sincerely urge that this section referred to be deleted. If this is done we can honestly and without reservation recommend passage of bill S. 985. Thanking you for any consideration given our position, I am, ALBERT VOTTERO, STATEMENT FOR THOMAS J. LIPTON, INC., BY FRANK S. KETCHAM, ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON, D.C. My name is Frank S. Ketcham and I am Washington counsel to Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., upon whose behalf I am appearing at this hearing. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., is not only the largest processor of tea in this country but also manufactures and distributes either directly or through subsidiary companies, numerous other food products such as soups, salad dressings, macaroni and noodles, ice creams, soft drinks, and dehydrated food dishes, all of which will be affected by S. 985. In order to limit the length of this statement, we shall briefly describe our approach in examining the bill, look at three sections of the bill, state the results of our thinking on these three sections, including a few positive suggestions with respect to some of the problems, the solutions to which the three sections of the bill are addressed, as well as make a statement of conclusions. We could discuss other sections of the bill, but we believe that our analysis of the three -sections, sections 3(a) (5), 3(c) (1), and 3(c) (2), will indicate the scope of our concern and what we feel might be a useful approach to more satisfactory solutions to the problems to which the bill as a whole is addressed. In looking at the bill, we asked five basic questions: (1) What, precisely, in each section is the practice about which concern is expressed, is the practice inherently an abuse or a deception, and in any event how extensive is it? (2) Does the proposed legislative prohibition effectively bring about the barring of such practice or provide for such barring? (3) Does the proposed legislative prohibition bring with it harmful side effects, either as to the persons sought to be protected or the persons regulated, or might it do so? (4) What is the relative social utility of preventing the practices in question as compared to the side effects of the statutory preventionary scheme? (5) Are more satisfactory alternatives available to reach the legislative goal? Section 3(a) (5) of the bill is popularly known as the "cents off" prohibition. The section appears to be based on the desire to prevent those situations where in "cents off" campaigns, the "a cents off" is not passed on to the consumer in spite of a contrary implied representation, or in spite of what is at least a perfectly reasonable inference on the part of the consumer on viewing the label of the container in question. It also appears to be based on a desire to prevent those situations where the per unit (price, sheet, whatever) retail price of larger net contents containers are the same or higher than that afforded by smaller net contents containers of the same product (lack of "cents-size discount") in spite of a contrary implied label representation or in spite of what is at least a perfectly reasonable inference on the part of the consumer viewing the label of the container in question. You have heard ample and excellent testimony on the economic value and significance, to both manufacturer and consumer, of "cents off" campaigns. Aside from agreeing with the testimony, in looking at the section, we asked several questions, to wit: Is it not correct to assume that since the manufacturer embarks on a "cents off" campaign to get the consumer to try a new or modified product or retry an old product; i.e., price savings to increase demand; its commitment at the retail level would be to see that the price savings are passed on to the consumer? Can the same reasoning obtain, or should it, with slight modifications, as to cents-size campaigns and/or containers? If these assumptions are correct, we then asked how widespread was the abuse where these: savings are not passed on and, in the same vein, should the focus of concera more properly be on someone other than the manufacturer, in trying to prevent the deception to which the section is directed. Apart from the question of proper focus, it seems to us that the section does not prevent a manufacturer from affixing the following legend on a label: "The wholesale or manufacturer's list price has been reduced a cents" or a label stating the following: "The wholesale or manufacturer's list price per ounce is 2 cents an ounce lower than the wholesale or manufacturer's list price per ounce in the next smallest sized container." While this apparent omission in the section would permit the continuation of "cents off" campaigns, and cents-size campaigns and/or containers the retailer still would not be bound to pass on to the consumer the particular price reduction implied by the label and earnestly desired by the manufacturer. Further, of course, confusion might arise in the mind of the consumer as to whether or not the regular price of the product and size should be reduced by the "cents off" and cents-size referred to in the label plus y cents representing the retailer's proportionate profit on the "cents off" and cents-size reduction. Thus it would seem to us that if the section is enacted in the present form, "cents off" and cents-size merchandising would still be practiced but the same abuses, to the extent that they presently exist, would continue, albeit in somewhat different form, as well as causing the introduction of a new element of possible consumer confusion. We wonder if a simple solution which goes to the heart of what appears to us to be the problem, again to the extent to which it exists, might simply be a law which says that the purchase by a retailer of products labeled "r cents off” or where there is a cents-size price reduction stated or implied on the label and the display of such products for sale, carries with it the affirmative implied representation that the retailer is offering the product at a cents off his regular offering price or that the larger net contents container is being sold at a lower per unit price than the regular per unit offering price of the smaller net contents container of the same product, and, further, that any acts inconsistent with such a representation shall be unlawful. This, it would appear to me, would free the manufacturer to embark upon "cents off" and cents-size merchandising as effective sales tools, the consumer would have the advantage of the price savings afforded by such sales tools, and yet the retailer would be free to elect whether or not to sell such products at such reduced prices by purchasing or not purchasing products so labeled or packaged. Section 3(c) (1) of the bill (and in part, sec. 3(c)(2)) seems grounded in part on a belief that a consumer seeing two containers of equal size, assumes that their net contents are equal, and that if they are not, is deceived. The other premise seems to be that the consumer has difficulty making a per unit price computation as between, for example, 3- and 4-ounce net contents containers. As to deception with respect to the net contents of containers of equal size, this can only rest on an assumption that the consumer doesn't look at the label which sets forth the net contents. The problem of the per-unit price of different net contents containers is more difficult, but we will discuss what appears to us to be a simple solution to that later in this statement. Clearly, if there is such a deception or difficulty as set forth above, and if the regulations permitted by |