Section 1.-This appears to be reasonable providing there is just cause for it to be put into use either by Government or the industry. Section 2.-The restrictions on this part of the bill bother me in that I would not like to see the creative packaging arts stymied in any way. On the other hand, one does not want to condone deception either.

There are many functionally shaped glass containers on the market which I do not feel are deceptive and therefore this proposed legislation should not be drawn up to penalize this area. There is no question in my mind that in other areas this provision is needed.

Here, again, however, the keystone of this proposed legislation is conspicuous legible net contents labeling. Therefore, regardless of the shape of the container, the consumer should be fully aware of the net contents.

I think this provision of the bill must be handled in such a way that the marketer is not so restricted he would not introduce new shapes and designs.

Section 3.-This refers to standards for size terminology, such as small, medium, or large. There is no question that this would be helpful, but, here, again, I refer to the keystone regulation. To it may I add this suggestion. Should there be three sizes; namely, 32ounce, 16-ounce, and 8-ounce sizes, if the 32 ounces net contents is displayed as per the keystone regulation and in small print indicate that there are other issues or sizes of this product, such as 16 ounces and 8 ounces, this should be ample for the consumer. My logic in suggesting this is who knows when it may be necessary to set up other terminology for a larger large or a smaller small. Knowing big business as it is and big government as it is, I feel it would take just too much time to get all the interested parties together and once again come upon some specific agreement what the new terminology will be.

Section 4.-Serving standards are an excellent guide for the housewife, but I don't think it should be made compulsory. However, if they are to be used by a packager, and the Government feels that it should be, they should be either Government or industry serving standards.

Sections 5 and 6, these parts should be agreeable.

With the knowledge that I possess of the problem, I feel this bill— with the exceptions mentioned-is a livable piece of legislation for the majority of the household consumer commodity producers.

I am not in favor of Government regulations where industry can regulate itself but in this case it appears they have not been moved by the many Paul Reveres that have been shouting "The regulations are coming."

Let us try not to make a simple industry into a difficult one in terms of difficult regulations and restrictions. There are other industries that are more complicated and difficult and for those there are good reasons for very tight and restrictive regulations.

We must not neglect to think of the European Common Market's progress. It is conceivable that the products we are talking about today may be competing abroad or even in the United States. I do not feel we should put ourselves in a position where our American packages would be restricted when there would be no regulations imposed

upon imports. As I read tthe bill, a retailer could sell imported packages which would not comply with the proposed legislation and would not be in violation but would be in direct competition. Perhaps the problem should be resolved by including protection to the American packagers in this proposed legislation.

I sincerely hope if this bill is passed, that the equally untiring effort that has been displayed by this subcommittee will also be used by the agencies who bear the responsibility of writing the regulations. The intent of this committee is admirable but the writing of the regulation-if done properly-will take much more deliberation with industry leaders.

I thank you.

Senator HART. Mr. Zahn, thank you very much.

First, on a technical point I think that it would be helpful, if you have no objection, that in your statement at those points where your make reference to "part" 4 that should be changed to "section" 4, "section" 3 and so on.

This is a common practice here in the Congress. It is the way we read these subsections and paragraphs in bills. It might serve some useful purpose.

And if there is no objection, I think that the bill (S. 387) be printed in full as introduced at an appropriate point in the very opening of

this record.

Mr. Zahn, your statement leaves this impression: It is your feeling that the industry generally has not been able to take any effective action on a voluntary basis to eliminate abuses which this committee expressed concern about in the last couple of years.

Is that a fair statement?

Mr. ZAHN. As a total industry, I agree. There has been evidence only recently, this same big company I noticed had changed their labeling.

In fact, the number of sheets are so large now it is almost as large as the trade name, which was rather amusing to me. In these different areas people have done something, but not as a unified industry. We know by previous testimony-I do not like to mention any specific industries, but I think I do have to in this case that the canners, I think, have done a wonderful job. They have done it before the hearings. But, in total, I agree with that statement.

Senator HART. I think I should make the comment, too, that I have noticed in the past year in many packages and labels-I have in mind more particularly packages, and particularly the cereal packagesthere is a much clearer printing, a much more conspicuous label display of the volume and the weight of the cereal, than was true a couple of years ago. This is all to the good, as some of the subcommittee members indicated in the earlier hearings.

One useful result from the hearings would be the possibility that it would encourage packagers and labelers to review the present position to see where they stand, and perhaps improve. This improvement has been demonstrated in many areas. My concern, though, is that competition is a very tough thing in all business, but it is especially so in most areas of business that embody the kitchen and bathrooms items of this country. It would be, I think, much more desirable if by legislation we could indicate clearly some minimum standards

rather than rely upon the appearance periodically of some Senate committee making inquiry as to where we stand, every 5-year period. Might I ask if that is a fair reflection of your own thinking?

Mr. ZAHN. Yes.

I think basically, Senator Hart, our problem here is per usual. These figures, of course, are not accurate, but 95 percent comply, and the other 5 percent you have to write the legislation for. This is most unfortunate, but these are human beings.

I think that industry has looked for guidelines. They have not been able, perhaps, to get specific guidelines. It would appear to me that the basic part of this bill would give them these guidelines. Now, as to who does it, the important thing is that they should be given these guidelines, worked out with industry itself.

Senator HART. I think the biography, which will be printed just before your statement in the record, will make this point, but in 1961 and 1962 you served as president of the packaging institute. Now, it is my understanding, and I would like you to correct me if I am wrong, that this includes both the manufacturers of the packages and the manufacturers of the contents which go into those packages. It is on both sides of the streets; is that true?

Mr. ZAHN. That is right.

Senator HART. You said that you do not agree in whole with the testimony that the Connecticut College economist, Dr. Morris, presented?

Mr. ZAHN. Yes.

Senator HART. Testimony which all of us will long remember. It was a vivid presentation, magnificent, really.

But you do share her very deep concern about the cost to the consumer of packaging material when it is in excess of what is neeed for safe transport and protection of the commodity; is that right? Mr. ZAHN. That is right.

Senator HART. As I recall it, she made the point that there is the extra cost in the package itself when that package is larger than the contents require. Then there is the box and the accompanying boxes to make the gross or the dozen.

Mr. ZAHN. The shipping container.

Senator HART. Then there is the freight or carrying cost to take care of the air that is inside the shipping container, and this is the kind of economic waste that she was describing, and your testimony is that the person in the business, himself, feels this same concern.

Mr. ZAHN. I think we should appreciate, though, the manufacturer's problem. In his efforts to get a package out on the market, his package development department gets this package designed. He designs it so the product gets into it. Now, he has got to make it a little bit larger because he is not going to have those packages on the line and the product will not go in, the 8-ounce, or 12-ounce, or what have you. So he has the leeway.

Then the man who manufactures the granulation or whatever it is has the leeway because, if you are familiar with or have looked under the microscope of some of these granulations, you would see and wonder how they ever did nestle together. It is just amazing. So there is a little bit of safety there.

The batch run of these commodities differs a great deal.

Now, I am not defending slack fill. I am saying that in an effort to get something out on the market, perhaps, this is not studied properly. I do feel that the industry probably could develop newer machines that will sift this thing down and do a quicker and faster job, and, therefore, in turn, it will make a better package, and, in turn, it will save them the primary container cost and finally the shipping container cost. But it requires study by them.

Senator HART. Senator Long?

Senator LONG of Missouri. No questions.

Senator HART. As you are a cosponsor of the bill, I appreciate doubly your presence today.

Does minority counsel have any questions?

Mr. CHUMBRIS. Mr. Chairman?

Senator HART. Mr. Chumbris?

Mr. CHUMBRIS. I do not have any questions to ask of the witness. I just wanted to say, perhaps, his statement, which is already a part of the previous records, parts of it or all of it should be made a part of this record on the legislation. There are some things he has pointed out, especially on page 930, to show where the industry, itself, has heeded to the matter that came out during the previous hearing. For instance, he says:

The Cereal Institute, Toilet Goods Association, the Packaging Institute, the canners and many packagers of modern packing say they have instituted more stringent control procedures as a direct result of the Senate investigation—

and I think at least that part of page 930 should be placed into the record, because there might be a slight inference from what you said today which would indicate that it was hopeless for the industry to regulate itself on this.

Mr. ZAHN. If I may comment, I do not want the impression to go down that I think it is hopeless. I think it is just taking too darn much time. Eventually, things regulate themselves, perhaps, but one cannot wait for those things.

Mr. CHUMBRIS. Sometimes we take 4 or 5 years to get a bill through. It has to be introduced two or three times.

Senator HART. Hopefully, not with this one. But, in any event, I think those of us who make the record and those of us who read the record have to make our own judgment with respect to the likelihood, with all circumstances considered, of the problems that concern us being resolved on a voluntary basis. This is a judgment that each of us must make.

I take it in your mind, at least, that present legislation is not adequate?

Mr. ZAHN. Well, I do not know to much about this. I do not think I am qualified to answer that question. I leave this to you gentlemen who are the experts in that field.

Senator HART. I guess the less sweeping question would elicit an answer, whether the legislation is adequate or not; it is your judgment that it is not doing the job in certain areas?

Mr. ZAHN. That is right.

Senator HART. Mrs. Goodwin?

Mrs. GOODWIN. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Zahn. I have heard some people state that it would not do any good to give the American housewife adequate information which is easily readable

because she would not read it anyway; that she just does not care that much? Do you think that is true?

Mr. ZAHN. No; I do not. I think this is ridiculous. I do think that there is a certain percentage that do not, but I think, basically, women do pay attention to labeling, at least they have certainly become conscious of it, and they will in the future.

Mrs. GOODWIN. Thank you.

Senator HART. Mr. Clifford?

Mr. CLIFFORD. No questions.

Mr. BAILEY. As a matter of practice, Mr. Zahn, how do you deal with members in your industry who may package an item deceptively or violate the rules of good labeling, as announced by Pure Food and Drug regulations?

Mr. ZAHN. Well, I hoped I would not have to answer any questions as far as the drug industry. Are you referring to the drug industry? Mr. BAILEY. Any industry that you have knowledge of, any processing violation.

Mr. ZAHN. I would prefer to answer only on the basis of what I am here as a public-interest witness on, household items and the Packaging Institute.

Here, again, I am not testifying for the institute. I think it should be explained that the Packaging Institute is an extremely broad organization. It would be difficult for them to call in all the parts of this broad organization; namely, the manufacturers of the packaging materal, the printers, and so forth.

They have nothing to do with what goes on there. It is the producers. We represent some of those producers. Yet, those producers or packagers belong to the Cereal Institute, to proprietary associations, or they belong to other associations.

The only thing that the Packaging Institute could possibly do, and which I hoped that they would have had done, would be to rally people down here and sponsor a hearing to bring these people down to explain their problems.

As an institute, it would be difficult for us, as the Packaging Institute, to patrol this.

The individual trade associations and manufacturing associations could, the Cereal Institute, the proprietary association.

Mr. BAILEY. Let us assume that you are a manufacturer of a cereal. Your competitor falsely and deceitfully mislabels the product that he puts out. Where would you complain?

Mr. ZAHN. I would complain to my association.

Mr. BAILEY. Why could you not complain to the Federal Trade Commission, where, under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, such practices would be considered to be a violation of the Act?

Mr. ZAHN. I think in all common courtesy to the industry we should go to our association, and it, in turn, should take it up with the regulatory powers.

Mr. BAILEY. As a consumer, where would you go?

Mr. ZAHN. I would go to the FTC.

Mr. BAILEY. As a matter of course, I think that many manufacturers are also complainants with the Federal Trade Commission, at least that has been my experience with the agency.