indicates that we will resume hearings next week on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 12th and 13th of March. The witnesses on Tuesday will be the executive director of the Cooperative League of the USA, Jerry Voorhis; the Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mrs. Esther Peterson; and Mr. R. Allen Hickman, the vice chairman of the All-Industry Packaging Committee of Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich. The committee is adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning, Tuesday next. (Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 12, 1963.) PACKAGING AND LABELING LEGISLATION TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1963 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Philip A. Hart presiding. Present: Senator Hart. Also present: S. Jerry Cohen, assistant counsel; Dorothy D. Goodwin, assistant counsel; George E. Clifford, assistant counsel; Peter N. Chumbris, counsel for the minority; James E. Bailey, counsel for the minority; Ronald D. Raitt, counsel for the minority; Paul S. Green, editorial director, and Gladys E. Montier, clerk. Senator HART. The committee will be in order. As we announced last week, today the committee will hear from three witnesses, each of whose background insures that the record will be the better for it, and I am sure the committee will. The first witness is one whose background is a part of the documentation of a good many hearings as a Congressman and reflects the fact that he has been an effective and forceful Member of Congress in years past. We will ask the executive director of the Cooperative League of the USA, Jerry Voorhis, to comment on the bill. It is my understanding that Mr. Voorhis would like to introduce and have with him Mr. Lefever. Mr. VOORHIS. If I could, Senator Hart, I would like to have Donald Lefever, who is the grocery and distribution manager of Greenbelt Consumer Services, sit with me and introduce a little evidence after I finish my statement. Senator HART. Mr. Lefever, we will be glad to have you join us again. We do remember your help a year ago. STATEMENT OF JERRY VOORHIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE USA, CHICAGO, ILL.; ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD LEFEVER, GROCERY AND DISTRIBUTION MANAGER, GREENBELT CONSUMER SERVICES, GREENBELT, MD. Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to first of all thank the committee for letting me testify first, particularly in view of the distinguished nature of the other witnesses. We are having a conference right now and it will mean a lot to me to get back to it. My name is Jerry Voorhis and I am executive director of the Cooperative League of the USA, a national federation of various kinds of cooperative enterprises in our country. Our members are groups of people who have invested their money in enterprises through which they market their crops, obtain farm supplies and consumer goods, supply themselves with credit, insurance, electricity, health care, or housing. These people, instead of depending upon Government or any other outside agency to solve their problems, have created the economic institutions they need to solve their own problems. They are thus applying all the fundamental principles of democracy, freedom and self-dependence for which our country stands. The membership of the organizations affiliated with the Cooperative League is estimated at about 15 million different families. Our major interests and objectives are (1) the spreading of responsible ownership and participation in important economic decisionmaking among as many of our people as possible; (2) the preservation of the American pattern of agriculture by giving to farmers a means of exerting effective bargaining power through institutions which they own; (3) the revitalization of local communities; and (4) the defense and advancement of the universal common interest of all people as consumers. It is about this last objective which I wish to speak before this distinguished committee, whose chairman has had the statesmanship to introduce S. 387 popularly called the truth in packaging bill. I may introduce the theme of what I have to say with this cartoon, Mr. Chairman, which is captioned, "But, Senator, there is no regular size, only giant, super, jumbo, and gigantic," which appeared in the Washington Post not very long ago. Senator HART. In the efforts to reorganize Congress, we haven't made much progress. We certainly haven't gotten to the point where we have cartoons in the Record, but we would be glad to have that for the file. Mr. VOORHIS. I hope frankly that time is far away before you will. This piece of legislation is so logical, so simple and obvious in its worthy objectives that it is hard to understand why anyone should oppose it. As Senator Hart, author of the bill, stated on the floor of the Senate on the day when he introduced it, the bill will be a much needed protection to those companies and distributors who desire to build consumer acceptance of their products on the solid base of good quality, honest labeling, and full, understandable measure. Such companies should be in the majority. They are threatened today by those which are willing to use the hard-to-understand size or weight, the half-truth label, or the partially empty package. On that point I would like to just introduce one fact which I received in answer to an inquiry that I made of the manager of the Consumer Cooperative at Eau Claire, Wis., who points out that one brand of potato chips recently changed their 1-pound twin box to 13 ounces but left the box exactly the same size. The weight is listed on the bottom side in very small print. Honest merchandising would, under this bill, receive a long overdue reward. Time was when we regularly bought half pounds or pounds of this or that, and quart cans or gallon cans. But times have changed. Tuna fish for example generally is offered in 612-ounce, or 914-ounce, and 1212-ounce cans. Large cans frequently cost as much per unit of contents as small ones do. Why? It is hard to conclude otherwise than that the purpose of such practices is at best to confuse, at worst to deceive the purchaser. Many packages and containers are of much larger size than is necessary to package the contents so that buyers think they are getting much more than they are. Even where this is not the case the so-called giant and economy size packages frequently are more expensive per unit of content than smaller packages or cans, whereas almost all of us expect that the larger sizes will be less expensive. Some companies have apparently made it almost a practice to gradually reduce the actual weight or measure of their packaged products but in such small stages that few purchasers realize what is happening. Fractional weights, like 514 ounces, 93% ounces and the like make price comparisons almost impossible for the average person. And it is impossible to see any good reason for such ridiculous weights. The bill before the committee would not, of course, prevent the packaging of goods in various sized packages or containers. Rather it would seek to assure consumers of intelligent choice between package sizes. In the past 15 or 20 years the impact of fancy packaging and related advertising upon consumers has been tremendous. The tempo increases constantly. The numbers, shapes, sizes, and new contents of packages increases at an even more rapid rate. And despite the assurance of all our best manufacturers and distributors that they are opposed to practices which prevent consumers from making a meaningful choice, the net effect of the present hullaballoo is confusion and bewilderment in the consumer's mind. The remedy sought by S. 387 follows well-worn paths, is logical, fair, and I am certain workable. By amending the antitrust laws, the legislation will assure effective enforcement. It will also make possible the use of the consent decree, which, in the early stages especially will make the impact much less severe on all those who have a sincere desire to comply. The carefully conceived Administrative Procedures Act will govern the carrying out of the provisions of the bill and should assure fairness and just dealing all around. Perhaps the most important provisions of the bill are those which would assure informative and reasonably uniform labeling of products. The really important facts concerning many products are not clearly stated on their labels but effectively buried in print so fine it takes a magnifying glass to read it. And so customary has this practice been that when consumer cooperatives have pursued a policy of informative or grade labeling or both, they have sometimes been accused of doing something un-American. This is, I think, a sad commentary. As I am sure the committee knows, the only reason consumer cooperatives are organized in the first place or continue in business is to give the consumers their only really effective way of asserting their interest. That interest, incidentally, is the one completely universal economic interest in which we all share together. 97158-63-pt. 1 |