that is, by the number of washes or servings as the case might be. Mr. King claimed that pricing is up to the retailer although the "two cents off" usually comes printed on the box.

If Mr. King is right and the actual weight of the product has little bearing on choice, why do the packagers go to such lengths to hide the notation from the consumer? Perhaps as this industry spokesman himself conceded, it is because the container's purpose is "to sell at the point of purchase." According to the trade spokesman, nobody, but nobody, has the right to "interfere with the sales message by dictating its package placement." Apparently, the packager view is that consumer interest must take second place to profit.

Packager philosophy on slack fill is equally enlightening. It holds that while there are some "black sheep" in the industry family, the majority "overpack" because of their sincerity. The claim also is made that terminology covering package sizes was developed only for the convenience of the consumer who can eliminate needless shopping trips by purchasing the extra-large jumbo container. This concern for consumer interest would be touching if only it led to support for legislation to render the lot of the industry's "black sheep" untenable. The honest packager should have nothing to fear.

The industry's answer is "selfregulation" because more laws will simply lead to more law-breaking. Adam Smith and his long dead and sadly misunderstood "laissez faire" are cited in justification.

The packaging industry has had long years in which to regulate itself, but abuse has piled upon abuse. If such practices as slack-fill are the exception, consumer research organizations must live in a dream world. If the retailer really sets the price in competition with others, why does the packager issue refund coupons which he alone will ultimately redeem? Why, indeed, in the allegedly "laissez faire" world that the packagers claim to see is there no "regular" price for a “regular” sized product?

Industry spokesmen have had the gall to contend that the consumer should come to the supermarket armed with pencil, paper and sharp-wits so that she may "take the time to divide fractionalized weights into fractionalized prices" to get the best buy. It appears that while the consumer is king in theory, packages are deliberately designed to fool the

monarch.

By Senator Hart's estimates, the cost of packaging to the consumer amounts to $190 annually or $16 monthly. That's a high price to pay for containers which can't be eaten and which serve no other purpose except to hold

a product. U. S. consumer packaging makes for the world's most expensive garbage. Ironically, it adds significantly to costs of garbage haulage. The least that can be expected is that this expensive commodity will not be used to deceive.

GOVERNMENT ROLE

SENATOR Maurine Neuberger (D., Oreg.), has defined the role of the federal government as that of "protector and defender" of the unorganized consumer. Present legislation, all too obviously, fails to give the protection required.

The Federal Trade Commission has the right to act against untrue advertising and certain unfair pricing policies. But so long as there is no actual untruth, there's little this agency can do. The law under which it operates wasn't drafted to meet the conditions presented by the modern super

Senator Hart has rightly contended that the antitrust laws "did not anticipate the revolutionary developments in marketing methods." He has expressed the view that price is no longer the determining factor in modern competition in many economic areas although the law was written on that assumption. The Senator has emphasized that in sig

nificant areas "many manufac

turers prefer not to compete on the basis of price."

"Packaging and labeling is a principal form of nonprice competition in the consumable commodity field. It can be an expensive form of competition favoring the larger corporation. It has tended to obscure price competition with practices that make it almost impossible for the consumer to make valid price comparisons," the Michigan solon has stated.

The Senator has called for a "good, hard look at those practices that divide marketplace morality from the morality we expect in the home and the community." He has pointed out that every housewife knows that the "serves eight" on a package means that the contents will probably do for four. Because of their impact upon our national life, the Senator has called for legislation to insure that commercial practices will conform more closely to "traditional virtues" of truthfulness and honesty.

HART BILL

SENATOR HART has called

for a bill to amend the antitrust laws which have remained unchanged for the past half-century. He has taken this approach to help to restore price competition as a meaningful factor in our national economic life.

The bill would amend the Clayton Antitrust Act by adding a new section prohibiting unfair and deceptive packaging and labeling on certain consumable commodities. The measure would:

• Require that net weight or net content statements or both be stated on the front panel of packages and labels.

Establish minimum standards regarding the location and prominence of net weight or

contents statements. Establish minimum standards regarding type size and face in which weight or content statements are printed. • Prohibit qualifying words or phrases regarding net weight

or content.

• Prohibit the printing upon packages by the packager or distributor of information implying that the product is offered for sale at a price below the customary retail price or that a price advantage is being accorded to the purchaser because of the size or quantity of the package. This section

would not apply to the ultimate retailer.

Make provisions for exceptions because of the nature, form, or quantity of the product. Prohibit the use of deceptive pictures or illustrations on packages or labels.

The bill would require the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish regulations to achieve the measure's stated objectives where food, drugs, and cosmetics are involved. The Federal Trade Commission would be responsible for other areas. But both HEW-through its Food and Drug Administration-and the FTC would be responsible for issuing regulations as nearly uniform as possible.

The proposed law would also provide the FTC with discretionary powers to establish added reg

consumer

basis. Where discretionary powers are invoked, FTC would have jurisdiction over all commodities encompassed by the bill. FTC would be expected to act to establish or preserve fair competition by enabling consumers to make rational comparisons and, when necessary, to prevent consumer deception. The agency could issue regulations establishing reasonable weights or quantities in which a product might be sold; prevent the sale of commodities in deceptively designed containers; establish standards for "small," "medium," and "large" sizes; establish "serving" standards; establish quantitative standards where net weight or count isn't meaningful; require the prominent display of adequate information regarding ingredients except where this would infringe upon proprietary trade formulas.

Health, Education, and Welfare the right to issue regulations regarding labeling. Representative Sullivan's bill would strengthen the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

While there are different approaches to solutions for the problem of consumer deception, the need for legislation has become apparent. Labor has a great stake because its members are a goodly part of the consuming public, and because wage increases won at the bargaining table can be so easily frittered away when deceptive packaging becomes the rule.

LAST YEAR'S VICTORY

CONSUMERS won a major victory last year when Congress finally enacted a law to safeguard them against unsafe and useless prescription drugs. But even that fight was only half won since the patent monopolies that make price gouging possible were left untouched.

Behind the victory in drugs lay the thalidomide tragedy and the work of Senator Estes Kefauver, an untiring battler for the people's interests. The thalidomide tragedy resulted in the birth of malformed babies to mothers who had taken the improperly tested wonder drug. Such a price is too high to pay for civilized consumer protection.

Long before the thalidomide tragedy, Senator Kefauver's investigation into the drug industry created national headlines. Yet, drug legislation was sidetracked until tragedy struck. If a law had been enacted earlier, thalidomide's toll might never have been taken.

The nation owes a debt of gratitude to Senator Kefauver and his committee. Their work is being continued with the truth-in-packaging bill and in the Senator's own fight to complete drug legislation by restricting present patent monopoly that results in unfair pricing practices.

TOUGH BATTLE

opposition. The Senator's bill would require only full disclosure to the consumer of true credit costs..

While the American consumer is unorganized and generally unheard, the enthusiastic response to the Hart hearings demonstrated that patience is growing thin. Congress and the packagers must be told that the nation doesn't enjoy having the word "consumer" spelled "s-u-c-k-e-r." Letters to Congressmen, packagers, and to the press can help mightily to convey the truth where it will count. We can also, of course, be more careful buyers until consumer protection is finally won.

The needs of the U. S. econ

tion is one of the toughest confronting the people. The truthin-lending bill introduced by Senator Paul Douglas never got out of Senate committee in the 87th Congress because of fierce merchandiser and installment finance

business community's own sake. Legislation is essential if the American people are to maintain faith in those responsible for manufacturing and ufacturing and merchandising America's products. Loss of faith would be the ultimate tragedy.