RALSTON PURINA CO., Re S. 985. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, I want to take this opportunity to advise you of the opposition of Ralston Purina Co. to S. 985, better known as Senator Hart's truth in packaging bill. I will leave it to the lawyers to express the legal objections to this bill which carries statutory prohibitions which should be contained in regulations promulgated under a statute. Existing legislation adequately protects the consumer. The Federal Trade Commission Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, as amended, with regulations promulgated thereunder, provide adequate protection both for the consumer and for business. The excellent records of the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration under statutes which they enforce speak for themselves. The acceptance of packaged foods by the American housewife is ample evidence that today's products are packaged in containers which both preserve cleanliness and inform the housewife of their contents. The growth in packaged foods is dramatic. For instance, the modern supermarket displays approximately 8,000 items and sizes. The Grocery Business Annual Report for 1964 indicates that in 1964, food stores will sell approximately 180 billion units, or nearly 1,000 units for each man, woman, and child in the United States. This volume of merchandise would not move through modern stores to discriminating purchasers if packages were misleading or improperly marked. There is much talk about the inability of the consumer to select competing products because of confusing promotional claims and alleged defects in packaging. The Colonial study which was published by Progressive Grocer, a trade publication of the grocery industry, clearly indicates that the American housewife is an extremely discriminating buyer. This report contains overwhelming proof that housewives carefully examine competitive products before making purchases. Of more direct concern to the food processing and packaging industry is the requirement of S. 985 that packages be uniform as to size and as to weight. At present, package sizes are determined by packaging machinery. It would be extremely expensive for industry to convert packaging machinery so that competing products made by different manufacturers would be contained in the same size packages. These costs would, of necessity, be passed on to the consumer, which would result in higher prices for the same product. Standardization of package sizes and weight fails to recognize the basic demand of the consumer for different size packages of the same products. For instance, our three principal dry cereals are contained in the same size package, but because of density, the contents of the packages have different net weights. Different package sizes are available for the convenience of the different sizes of family units. To prevent any dissatisfaction on the part of the housewife, our filling equipment is adjusted and regularly checked to be sure that packages are properly filled. The experience of industry and the growth in the sale of packaged foods indicates that the housewife is satisfied, and that she is getting fair value for her money. It is our suggestion that S. 985 would contribute nothing to the consumer; rather, that it would cause additional inconvenience and cost to industry which would be passed on to the consumer. For these reasons, we encourage you and your committee to recommend that S. 985 not pass. Very truly yours, WARREN M. SHAPLEIGH. LA CHOY FOOD PRODUCTS, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As a private citizen and taxpayer, I am against the truth in packaging bill (S. 985). I feel the packaging bill is bad for the consumer because: 1. A Good Housekeeping magazine survey says 95 percent of the women read labels and are informed. 2. It prohibits price reductions by manufacturers through "cents off" promotions. Women like "cents off." 3. The standardization and regimentation will cause a great increase in cost of production. 4. Consumers will be deprived of new and better products. 5. Because the consumer will be denied new and a greater variety of products it will hurt the economy, the businessmen, and the workers. Existing Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration laws are sufficient. Sincerely, GORDON SWANEY, General Manager. UNIVERSAL FOODS CORP., April 8, 1965. Hon. W. G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We would like to submit this letter to your file of testimony on bill S. 985, known as the packaging and labeling bill or truth in packaging bill. We believe that there is little need for this bill, or any similar bill, since the Federal Trade Commission already has the authority to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices. False advertisements of foods, drugs, and other consumer items can be met under existing laws by the Federal Trade Commission, as has recently been evidenced by the Colgate-Palmolive decision. Opinion research, in a survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corp., indicated that consumers, in general, are satisfied with present food packaging practices and do not think a change is needed. Similar surveys in the last few years have indicated that an overwhelming majority of consumers get the information they need on labels and packages. We think the most important thing to consider is the amazing record of the food industry in America in providing an ever-increasing number of foods, in ever-increasingly improved packages, at values and prices which have led to the finding that only 19 cents of each of the Nation's disposable dollars is spent on food. This remarkable record, in contrast to the rest of the world, completely exonerates the food industry from any charge of misleading the consumer. A walk through the supermarkets of this country reveals the fantastic choice, under highly competitive conditions, given to the American consumer-and it certainly does not reveal shelves of misleading pricing and packaging. We strongly recommend that this bill not be sent to the floor in any form, as it is absolutely unnecessary. Its encroachment on the food industry might well decelerate the magnificent progress made by the food industry in the past many years and reduce the unique position in which the American consumer finds himself when buying food for the family. It is another attempt at control and restriction of business and private enterprise, which has been the source of all this country's power and standard of living-which many in Congress just don't understand. Please convey our position to the members of your committee. Sincerely, ROBERT T. FOOTE. G. H. PACKWOOD MANUFACTURING CO., The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. The Federal Trade Commission Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and weights and measures laws in every State provide an adequate basis of protection. No business can exist on "first orders" alone and any firm that would deliberately promote "slack filled" packages is throwing away any chance he has for the repeat business required for survival in our competitive economy. If any one of our competitors used the tactics Senator Hart believes to exist we would move in immediately to take advantage of such stupidity and take the business away from them. It is quite impossible to have "even pound" packages of standard dimensions because of the wide differentials in specific gravity for one product over another. Packaging and filling costs would be increased substantially and if packaging costs increase these increases must be passed along to the consumer. For example, if you fill a 1-quart dispenser with a typical borax hand scouring powdered soap compound the material itself will weigh approximately 24.7 ounces, because it is an abrasive mineral with a high apparent specific gravity. If you fill the same 1-quart dispenser with a vegetable scrubber granulated skin cleanser the material will weigh only 13.3 ounces as it has a low apparent specific gravity. The weight or volume of one brand is meaningless in comparing it to another. One product might be packaged as 1 pound in a big box with instructions to dilute 1 to 1 with water. Another product might be concentrated and have 1 pound packaged in a box only half the size, but still represent far greater economy for the housewife, because it can be diluted and satisfactorily used 20 to 1 with water. If each package weighs 1 pound, Senator Hart would probably buy the first product mentioned as he would buy the biggest box, while the second product mentioned, although packaged in a much smaller box, is by far the most economical purchase. We have more Government bureaus now than the taxpaying consumer can afford. Let's not create another one especially when it isn't needed. Very sincerely, ROBERT L. BALFOUR, Vice President, Marketing and Sales. DRAPER CANNING CO., Milton, Del., April 9, 1965. Hon. PHILIP A. HART, DEAR SENATOR HART: We believe you are sincere in your conviction that the provisions of your packaging bill, S. 985, would be beneficial to the American public, but it is evident a lot of other people do not believe as you do, because essentially the same bill was proposed a year ago and met a lot of opposition. This should be food for thought. There are more than enough laws on the books already to punish any manufacturer who follows deceptive practices in packaging; in fact, the American people are not so dumb that they would continue to be a customer for products packaged or labeled in such a manner as to deceive them. Such a manufacturer would commit economic suicide. I do not believe you will deny that the American people have the widest selection at the lowest price of packaged goods of all the people on earth. This has become possible because of our system of free enterprise. If initiative is taken away by increasingly restrictive Federal controls, you, and all the rest of the people who use the products of American manufacturers, will suffer in the long run. Do not lead us into regimentation and big brotherism. Let not the Government lead us into any "ism" and that includes socialism. Let us find ways to make the laws we have work, rather than continuously tacking on new laws as an easy way out. Our laws are now so complex that the courts creak with the very weight of them, and the small businessman, unable to afford an expensive law department, is even now fearful that each decision, each new idea, each new approach may find him violating one of them. Please try to find ways to help us, not saddle us with more. Respectfully, HARRY R. DRAPER. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, LIBBY, MCNEILL & LIBBY, Janesville, Wis., April 9, 1965. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I have studied Senate bill S. 985, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and feel that I am in almost complete disagreement with this proposed legislation. The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission now have sufficient authority to prevent any false or misleading packaging or labeling. I would, however, be in favor of requiring that the net weight be specified on the label where it could be easily seen by the customer. I certainly would violently object to having the Government specify the size, shape, or dimension of any food container. I believe it is up to the food packaging industry to meet the requirements and demands of the consumer in our competitive market, rather than "big brother," the Government, telling us what the food container size, shape, and dimension should be. Sincerely yours, O. C. ZOEBISCH, Assistant Director, Agriculture Research. OXFORD ROYAL MUSHROOM PRODUCTS, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on the Hart packaging bill, S. 985. This bill proposes: To empower the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration to adopt and enforce rigid regulations over the packaging and labeling of consumer nondurable goods. The effects of this bill will not improve the protection of the consumer beyond the scope of legislation already controlling the canning industry. A more rigid enforcement of existing laws is needed. Senate bill, S. 985, will increase the cost of production, it will increase the capital investment, in machinery and equipment. It will shorten or limit the consumers selection. In short the consumer gains nothing but higher prices and smaller selection. It seems ironical, our industry will be made to face higher costs through Senate bill, S. 985, at the same time the Federal Tariff Commission is not increasing needed protection from foreign competition. This is not a healthy condition and might well seriously affect the gross national product. Your assistance is respectfully requested in this matter. Very truly yours, FRED P. MCCARTHY, General Manager. GROCERY PRODUCTS DIVISION, BEATRICE FOODS CO., Detroit, Mich., April 8, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As a private citizen and taxpayer, I am against the mislabeled "truth in packaging" bill, S. 985. It is my belief that S. 985 is proposed legislation which will lead to less competition rather than greater competition. I also believe it will stifle innovation by large and small manufacturers, will lead to regimentation and standardization of weights and measures, will discourage business by its antibusiness attitudes and will hurt the consumer through higher prices resulting from higher costs and less choice of products. It is my belief that this bill will also hurt labor through less jobs and will result in less taxes to the Government through greater deductions caused by increased manufacturing costs. Existing Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration laws are sufficient and effective. Failure to enforce existing laws is not sufficient reason for enacting new ones. Thirty-three Federal agencies and 135 Federal programs at a cost of $953 million are now in effect to protect American consumers. The workers of our country will be hurt by the proposed new law because it will curtail employment needed in innovation and expanison of products. Statements of two AFL-CIO unions are against the major portion of S. 985. Sincerely, E. M. MULDOON, Vice President and General Manager. THE ILLINOIS CANNING CO., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I am writing to you, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, who will conduct hearings on the Hart packaging bill. It is reported the hearings on this bill (S. 985) will start on April 27, 1965. As a vegetable canner here in the Midwest, we object to the Hart bill and think this type of legislation is not necessary. We sincerely hope that after the hearings are completed you will agree with us. One objection to the Hart bill from our viewpoint is that this type of legislation would stifle food packers and processors from making new products available and new sizes of containers and packages. We would hope that the American consumer could continue to be the envy of the world in having at her disposal a wide selection of products, both new and established, as well as different sizes of containers and packages. Senator, we sincerely hope that you and your committee will find that Senate bill 985 is not necessary. Sincerely, W. J. REGAN, Vice President. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have received from Mr. Floyd B. Reed, senior vice president of the Dutton-Lainson Co., in Hastings, Nebr., in which Mr. Reed expresses opposition to S. 985, presently the subject of hearings before your committee. I am forwarding this letter in order that the committee may be apprised of Mr. Reed's view on this bill. With best regards, I am, Sincerely yours, Re bill S. 985, hard packing and labeling control. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. CARL T. CURTIS, U.S. Senator. DUTTON-LAINSON CO., Hastings, Nebr., April 28, 1965. DEAR SENATOR CURTIS: We understand this is soon to be brought up for a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. We have gone over it, as it affects our type of distribution. In our opinion, it reduces competition for it puts a control on our manufacturers, curtailing their initiative. It is competition that now keeps up the quality and variety that gives the consumer greater opportunity for selection. The manufacturer would have substantial costs added in conforming to the ever-changing regulations that would be opposed and, of course, this would be added to the costs of the consumer. |