enough to require an affirmative disclosure of facts. Full implementation of this authority of the Commission to prevent deception by requiring affirmative disclosures may obviate the need for a multiplicity of labeling or packaging laws or laws seeking to provide further protection to the public in the sale of particular commodities. The argument might be made that if the practice is deceptive, let the Commission correct it under present law. If no deception is involved, then it may be the practice is not of sufficient importance from the public interest standpoint to warrant its being given further attention." We strongly urge that you convey our position to members of the Senate Commerce Committee and that the proponents of the bill demonstrate wherein the present law is inadequate to cope with deceptive problems. The National Canners Association will present testimony before the Commerce Committee and we fully support the position taken by our association. You will recall at the time of my writing you in 1963 that I took the liberty of sending a copy of that letter to Hiram Fong and this is to let you know again that I will be contacting him in this same vein at this time. Very sincerely, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. JOHN A. DRIVER, Manager, Hawaiian Division. CALIFORNIA PACKING CORP., Honolulu, Hawaii, May 3, 1965. Our DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We have reviewed the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, S. 985, now pending before your Commerce Committee. The legislation does not, in our judgment, vary significantly in substance or approach from the bill rejected by the Judiciary Committee during the previous Congress. basic contention remains that ample provisions and safeguards already surround the production and marketing of processed foods; further, that S. 985 is fundamentally wrong in assuming that the consumer is confused and deceived. Since you have always served as an effective spokesman for northwest food processors, I would like to illustrate why S. 985 is not applicable to the canning industry and specifically those canned fruits and vegetables on which our region is so dependent. In the marketing of canned products, style changes and packing practices sometimes involve changes in the specific gravity of the product, but departure does not intimate deliberate intent to confuse or deceive the consumer. For example: Bartlett pears and freestone peaches Washington State Bartlett pears are generally packed in heavy sirup and in the No. 303 can. This item carries a net contents label declaration of 16 ounces. Freestone peaches, however, also in a No. 303 can, are packed in extra heavy sirup which necessitates a net contents declaration of 17 ounces, the weight of the sirup accounting for the difference. When these two fruit items are packed as halves and slices in a No. 21⁄2 can, the label weight of pears will be 1 pound 13 ounces and that of the freestone peach, 1 pound 14 ounces. Peas ounces. For all grades of peas, the label weight on a Del Monte No. 303 can will be 17 However, for the No. 1 sieve or petit pois, which has not been packed in the Northwest since 1962, it will be 16 ounces. In this latter instance the density of the smaller size pea is less than the density of the brine, thus with more peas in the can in relation to the total volume of the can, the resulting net weight is less. We have a new product, seasoned peas, that contains dehydrated vegetables and seasonings. This item is again packed in a No. 303 can, but the net weight declaration is 16 ounces. The reason for this is that we anticipate that the dehydrated products will absorb brine and expand; in order to maintain a legal weight declaration, a 16 ounce net contents statement is used. Corn Regardless of style of pack-i.e., whole kernel, "corn 'n peppers," cream style when this item is packed in a No. 303 can, our net weight declaration is 17 ounces. However, when the Midwest variety, white corn, or Country Gentleman pack of Del Monte corn is packed in a No. 303 can, the label weight declaration is 16 ounces, again the result of density variance. Asparagus The three major style packs (ungraded, cuts and tips, center cuts) using the No. 303 can will all indicate a label declaration of 14.5 ounces; however, when packed in a buffet size, the small spears will weigh 8.25 ounces and cut tips, 8 ounces. Green beans, Blue Lake variety Regardless of style of pack-i.e., whole, sliced, seasoned sliced, mixed cutsthis product when packed in a No. 303 can will carry a net weight declaration of 16 ounces. The above detail on major Northwest fruit and vegetable canned products imparts two important concepts with regard to industry practice. First, whereas the weights of products may vary because of density variances, the identical can size is maintained rather than multiplying the number of can sizes on the shelf to accommodate fractional weight differences in the products, and, second, even where distinctive styles of pack have been introduced to stimulate the imagination and increase consumer acceptance, the canning industry has managed in almost every instance to maintain an identical net weight for the product. Is this consumer deception or a voluntary and conscientious ethical consideration? To grant any governmental agency the ultimate authority to establish weights or quantities in which a commodity must be packed is to impose upon processors restrictions as to size, shape, and dimension of container which they must use in the packing of their commodities. The marketplace should make the determination, therein reflecting the consumer's demand, rather than having a bureaucracy decide what the consumer should have. S. 985 would even establish individual serving sizes. Food industry experience has shown it to be as difficult to standardize servings or portions as it would be to regulate taste and appetites. The canning industry has long operated under a joint Commerce Departmentindustry agreement which details all the objectively determinable characteristics important to consumers. This agreement, coupled with Senator Hart's comments regarding the consumer interest of our industry, have led some to believe that the industry should not be concerned with this legislation; and that a so-called canner's exemption, subsection 3(c) (1), meets the industry requirements. This is incorrect, for not only is the language vague and imprecise, but under its most favorable interpretation it would mean only the can sizes presently recommended by the canning industry-Commerce Department voluntary agreement could be used. Thus new products, innovations in packaging, etc., would be subject to all of the provisions of the bill. Is legislation the remedy for packaging and labeling practices that might possibly mislead someone, somehow, somewhere? We do not think so. California Packing Corp. continually and voluntarily reviews its labels to determine conformance with legal requirements of the Federal Food and Drug Act, and the industry's voluntary labeling program already recommends that the net contents statement appear on the front display panel. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, you may also be interested in the attached detailed analysis of S. 985 that has been prepared by the National Canners Association. The California Packing Corp. supports their testimony before your committee. As northwest division manager for Calpak-i.e., Washington and Oregon-I hope you will give serious consideration to the encumbrances that S. 985 will place on those canned products so important to our economy. I am taking the liberty of forwarding this letter to your northwest colleagues, Senators Morse, Jackson, and Neuberger. Most sincerely, J. HELSTROM. CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE OF BERKELEY, INC., Senator PHILIP S. HART, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HART: We are happy to hear that the packaging hearings have been resumed. We hope this year S. 985 will be favorably reported out of the Commerce Committee. When we wrote to you in connection with the 1961 hearings, we described a brief survey we had done relating to all of the cereals on the shelf of one of our member-owned supermarkets. In 1961 we found 93 different kinds and sizes of cereals; of these, only 16 were sold in standard sizes of one-half pound, 1 pound, or 2 pounds. We found 23 different weights for cereals under 1 pound. About 6 months ago we repeated our survey. In 1964 we found 148 different kinds and sizes of cereal packages; of these, 30 were in standard sizes of one-half pound, 1 pound, etc. There were 26 weights under 1 pound. This demonstrates that during the past few years the situation has gotten worse. It is now even harder to shop rationally for an everyday staple food like cereal. We recognize that many decisions and purchases in our economy are and need not be made rationally (women's hats, for example), but this is no justification for preventing consumers from being able to make informed rational choices in shopping for everyday staple foods and food products. Also, despite the publicity afforded certain attempts at industry self-regulation, it is apparent that there has been none. Occasionally, a change which benefits the consumer is accompanied by a hidden increase in the price. For example, one popular cereal changed from a 12-biscuit 9-ounce package costing 25 cents (or 45 cents a pound) to a 12-biscuit, 8-ounce package with a better label and a more readable net weight and contents but selling for 27 cents (or 54 cents a pound). The price difference of 9 cents a pound is arrived at only after a lengthy and complex calculation. Any shopper looking at the 2 packages, each containing 12 biscuits, one priced at 25 cents and the other at 27 cents, would assume the difference to be only 2 cents a pound. Making a mistake of a few cents a pound on cereal each week can have a substantial effect on the family budget. When multiplied by the many packages of cereal purchased by the Nation's consumers every week, it is a billion-dollar invasion of the consumer's pocketbook that also affects the economy as a whole. We are also in favor of the provisions of S. 985 that abolish such misleading designations as "full" or "jumbo" pounds. A similar statute in California since 1963 has not had any harmful effect on our business. Very sincerely, EVA S. GOODWIN, Legislative Chairman, Consumer Information and Protection Committee. LABEL MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc., is opposed to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, S. 985. Its membership believes existing laws and regulations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, if fully enforced, are adequate to meet the current charges of alleged deception and falsity in the labeling and packaging of consumer goods. The proposed legislative measures over the past several years have not been without their good effects. The label manufacturers industry has noted a considerable upsurge in voluntary compliance with existing laws. During the past year the volume of label clearances with Federal and State agencies on new or revised products has increased 100 percent. The association considers this a valuable service to its members' customers, processors of wholesome products who have provided the American consumer with the greatest protection in the world. Weekly, the association issues numerous "labelgrams" containing Federal and State regulations, proposed and adopted by the respective governing bodies. These in turn are used by label manufacturers in dealing with their customers, the processors of food, beverage, and other items for the American consumer. Their influence is widespread as the label association represents firms who process 20 percent of the $500 million annual volume of label printing in the United States. The growth of the Food and Drug Administration over the past 3 years would seem adequate to obtain maximum compliance under current laws. Comparing its 1964 obligations with that proposed for 1966 shows an increase of $15 million and over 600 additional employees. Significantly, the House Appropriations Committee, in allowing an increase of approximately $7 million in salaries and expenses for 1964, stated: “Ever since the Food and Drug Act was passed, the law has provided for a level of protection of the American people that the Food and Drug Administration has not had the facilities to achieve. This budget provides for a big forward step in this direction." [Emphasis supplied.] Again in the 1966 budget, for the Food and Drug Administration, there is a statement that the agency concerns itself with: "The laws enforced hereunder are designed to protect consumers against adulterated and misbranded foods, drugs, cosmetics, therapeutic devices, and household products containing haz ardous substances." We believe with this financial encouragement, the proposed bill, S. 985, which would leave our industry to the mercy of administrative fiat, should not be enacted. The increases provided in the Food and Drug Administration appropriations in recent years should be ample to permit this agency to do a far more effective job under existing laws. This we endorse. For years the label manufacturers have worked with the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to insure that label proposals conform to existing laws and regulations. Our association has worked closely with other industry groups on this problem. We know that our customers are interested in complying with existing law and should not be included with those charged with intentional deception and falsity in the marketing and sale of consumer goods. We believe that the voluntary programs on the part of many of our customers have been exemplary and gratifying. Label users generally have consulted the Food and Drug Administration of HEW on frequent occasions prior to the development of a label and have found the Advisory Opinion Division of that agency to be very helpful. Greater emphasis on this kind of voluntary cooperation, reflecting a sincere effort on the part of manufacturers to comply with existing law, will provide greater benefits for the consumer. We join with the many witnesses who have appeared before your committee in opposition to S. 985, and endorse the various cogent reasons set forth in opposition to its enactment. Our approach is a simple one: With the expansions granted by the Congress in recent years, we believe that existing law and regulations should be given a fair trial. The uncertainty of present proposals differing as they do between the House of Representatives and the Senate has left industry in great confusion. We urge that the simple solution can be found under existing laws. We submit the foregoing for the record and ask that it be included at the proper place. Respectfully, FRANCIS R. CAWLEY, Mr. EDWARD P. MORGAN, ELSINORE, CALIF., May 25, 1965. DEAR MR. MORGAN: The City Council of Elsinore, Calif., passed resolution No. 1168 May 24, 1965, unanimously, This is in relationship to the Honorable Philip A. Hart's bill pending before Congress called Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The mayor and city council as a whole looked at this bill with a most favorable condition, Mr. Morgan, and I am sending you this little message that it was brought about through your voice coming to me over the radio. Copy of this approval will be mailed to Senators Hart, Kuchel, and Murphy, and Congressman Tunney. Should you have a few moments, please write to Mayor Bartlett thanking him for his support-Mayor Thomas C. Bartlett, City Hall, Elsinore, Calif. Thanks, Mr. Morgan. Cordially and sincerely, EUGENE J. CARTER. ADVERTISING FEDERATION OF AMERICA, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With regard to the hearings currently being held by your committee on Senate bill 985, Senator Philip A. Hart's so-called Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Advertising Federation of America, on behalf of its membership, wishes to reaffirm the stand it has taken in previous years in opposition to this bill. The Advertising Federation of America is the oldest and largest advertising organization in the world. It is the only horizontal association in the advertising field and represents every facet and stratum of the advertising business. AFA has 25 other important advertising associations and related organizations directly affiliated with it and represented on its board of directors. Our federation also possesses a very unique and effective public opinion force at the grassroots level in its 130 affiliated advertising clubs throughout the country with a total membership of more than 25,000. Since its founding in 1905, the AFA has been dedicated to and has established an enviable record of accomplishment in the improvement of advertising and its practices, the preservation of its rights and freedoms and the protection of its vital role in stimulating our Nation's economy and in contributing substantially to our people's high standard of living. Many years ago, the association which is now known as the Advertising Federation of America was responsible both for establishing the better business bureaus throughout the country and the Federal Trade Commission as we know it. We have read the April 16 letter to you submitting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 985 which recommends minor amendments to the bill. We have heard the testimony of the Honorable Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, speaking for the President, that this letter expresses the administration viewpoint. We have heard the Honorable John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce, testify that S. 985, with these amendments, has full administration support. The Secretary of Commerce, in theory, represents the viewpoints of business and industry. Mr. Albert N. Halverstadt, vice president, advertising, of the Procter & Gamble Co., effectively pointed out in his testimony on April 30 that the proposals made by the Secretary of Commerce for amendment of S. 985 represent the administration position but in no way reflect the attitude of business and industry. We believe that the committee should take cognizance of the fact that the business and industry witnesses submitting testimony before your committee are unanimous in their opposition to S. 985 on the following grounds: 1. An overwhelming majority of consumers are well satisfied with today's packaging and labeling practices. Fewer than 1 in 19 interviewed are in favor of Government agencies determining what changes should be made in packaging practices. Consumer attitude studies reveal that the alleged widespread dissatisfaction has been grossly exaggerated and that the widely heralded "consumer revolt" simply does not exist. 2. The Federal Government already has ample power and full authority under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the FTC Act to proceed against fraud and deception in packaging and labeling. More rigid enforcement of existing statutes would appear to be the solution to many problems in this area rather than additional legislation. 3. If this bill is enacted, consumers would pay more for their groceries and receive less value than they do today. 4. If enacted, this bill would grant individual Federal officials unprecedented powers over the marketing of commodities and would, in fact, give them absolute control and not merely powers of regulation. AFA is concerned with the possible harmful effects and results seen if the proposed Hart bill, as it is now constituted, is enacted. Packaging, which represents an important segment of advertising, is a vitally essential stimulator in the marketplace, particularly with our present-day self-service method of grocery shopping. Elimination of "cents off" and special packaging offers or important discounts, as proposed in the Hart bill, would deprive both consumers and retailers of benefits now enjoyed and would deny manufacturers time-tested business builders which have proven extremely productive over many, many years, particularly in introducing new products. The Advertising Federation of America has always been and is now in basie agreement with those who would be sincerely concerned with the rights and protection of the consumer. The entire advertising and marketing process of our economy has always required that the consumer have full and adequate information regarding products and services offered and free choice in making decisions in the marketplace. Communications between supplier and consumer have never been better than they are today and they are being constantly improved through the dedicated and diligent efforts of American business and industry. |