the quantity of contents. Complications and possibilities for deception arise when a package uses even simple comparative terms such as small, regular, and large.

Consumers' Research is a nonprofit institution. It is organized and operates as a scientific, technical, and educational service for consumers. The organization has no support from business or industry. Its funds come solely from the ultimate consumers who read Consumer Bulletin. Consumers' Research provides a wide variety of special services to teachers and students of consumer problems and of high school and college courses in the sciences and technical arts.)

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO SUBCOMMITTEE

STATEMENT BY SENATOR THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Last week the lobby of the statehouse in Concord, N.H., was given over to a display of misleading weights and measures in consumer products. Maurice Mullen, a resident of East Concord, N.H., and 29-year veteran of the State department of weights and measures, organized the display as New Hampshire chairman of National Weights and Measures Week.

In the course of his statewide travel on behalf of the State department of weights and measures, Mr. Mullen singled out one problem that needs attention. He said, "They've got big, roomy boxes with little but space in them. It's all perfectly legal-the weight is printed on the box but it's in tiny, agate print." Such practices would not be legal in the advertising field, and it is high time they were outlawed in consumer packaging.

In stocking her kitchen shelves and medicine chests the modern housewife almost has to be a Sherlock Holmes, with X-rays and scales, in order to penetrate sham packages. Many manufacturers would welcome a measure which would free them from the downward spiral of deception in which they can only keep business by following the lead of unscrupulous merchandisers. The New Hampshire department of weights and measures have shown how the consumers of New Hampshire would benefit from the truth-in-packaging bill. I would very much like to join Senator Hart as a cosponsor of S. 387 and would like to congratulate him for his timely campaign to end deceptive packaging in consumer products.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, OF MAINE

Mr. Chairman, during the past decade there has been a revolution in the retail field. We have moved from the era of the neighborhood store to the age of the supermarket. Ten years ago the average store stocked 1,500 items. Today's average supermarket has an inventory of approximately 7,500 items. The housewife has a wider choice, but she must depend on her own wits and judgment in making an appropriate selection. Previously she could rely on the advice and assistance of her neighborhood grocer. Today, as she pushes her shopping cart down the aisles of the supermarket, dazzled by the fancy colors and shapes of the packages, she must depend on the accuracy of the label and the package in making sure she is getting her money's worth.

It is ironic that, at a time when we need more accuracy, packaging has become more deceptive. A recent cartoon highlights our dilemma: A store manager tells his customer, "There is no regular size-only giant, super, jumbo, and gigantic." Adjectives have lost their meaning. We are sold packages, not contents. Instead of the pint, we are urged to purchase the giant half-quart.

It is well for us to remember that we are purchasing what is inside the package. The function of the package label should be to state accurately the content of that package-not to confuse the consumer, but to help him.

Consider, if you will, the diversity of weights and measures listed on the packages of competing products. If you go to the store to buy a product, sold by weight, you may wish to purchase the brand which costs you less per ounce. This should be a relatively simple matter; but frequently it is not. Have you ever stood in the crowded aisle of the supermarket trying to figure out whether 124 ounces for 37 cents is a better buy than 13% ounces for 43 cents? This is unnecessary. Price and quality are legitimate areas of competition. Deceptive labeling is not.

Buyers for the wholesale suppliers and for the supermarkets themselves buy on the basis of comparable weights and measures. Soap manufacturers purchase their raw materials in standard lots and weight. I have yet to see a shipper's invoice listing commodities in "super hundredweights" or "colossal tons." The retail customer is entitled to the same treatment. There is no constructive value in deceptive packaging.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the truth-in-packaging bill, S. 387. It makes sense for the consumers, and if offers to the manufacturer and the retailer the opportunity to compete where it counts-on quality and price. I urge committee approval of S. 387 as a sensible step in encouraging fair treatment of the

consumer.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PAPER & PULP ASSOCIATION

This statement is submitted by the American Paper & Pulp Association to the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Judiciary Committee. concerning S. 387 which would amend the Clayton Act by adding thereto a new section dealing with methods of packaging or labeling certain consumer commodities distributed in commerce.

The American Paper & Pulp Association is a federated association of 12 divisional associations to which the preponderance of manufacturing companies in our industry belong. The American Paper & Pulp Association is broadly representative of the entire domestic industry. By way of very brief background regarding our industry, sales of paper and allied products for 1962 approximated $14 billion. This represented the products of some 400 companies, with 369 pulp mills, 813 paper mills, and more than 4,000 converting plants located in nearly every State in the Union. Our industry employment totals some 600,000, with a wage bill in excess of $3 billion. Our taxes approximated $600 million. The packaging industry, of which the pulp and paper industry is a vital and integral part, is proud of the role which it has played in bringing to the consumer a variety of products unequaled from the standpoint of customer health, safety, and convenience. It is paradoxical that the packaging industry is now faced with legislation which is aimed at hampering the American consumer's freedom of choice and advantage of being able to take into account brand names, trademarks, and product differentiation.

S. 387 is a new version of a bill (S. 3743), which was introduced late in the 87th Congress, and upon which action was not taken. The new bill, S. 387 differs in some respects: namely, it would give exclusive control over packaging and labeling of foods, drugs, and cosmetics to the Food and Drug Adminstration, with control over all other kitchen and bathroom household items vested in the Federal Trade Commission. Qualified exemptions would be provided wholesalers and retailers. There is also a revision in the enforcement procedure, and a State rights provision has been added in an attempt to prevent Federal interference with the enforcement of State weights and measures laws.

We submit that under existing laws, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, as well as State weights and measures laws, adequate protection is given to the public.

In January 1963, at the annual meeting of the New York State Bar Association, Federal Trade Commissioner Everette MacIntyre delivered a forthright and penetrating address on "Fair Advertising Landmarks," in which he said among other things, "I believe the greatest development of the law in deceptive praetices before the Commission in the immediate future will entail questions of affirmative disclosure. I think you will see more and more of our cases involving the question of what omissions in advertising and labeling are material enough and deceptive enough to require an affirmative disclosure of facts. Full implementation of this authority by the Commission to prevent deception by requiring affirmative disclosure 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.” This statement is particularly significant in that Commissioner MacIntyre is a member of one of the two administrative agencies charged with the implementation of S. 387. We concur in his view that there is no necessity for such legislation, since if the practice is deceptive then the FDA or the Commission may, and will, correct it under present law.

S. 387 is a departure from objective regulation to a system of rigid controls, the imposition of which lies within the discretion of the enforcing agency. S. 387 would require a "license" from either the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Trade Commission, before any improvement in packaging could be made. The authority which would be granted for agency control of packaging and labeling involves standardization of weights and containers, prior clearance of packages by the license approach, administrative imposition of arbitrary rules, and drastic legal penalties for violations, irrespective of intent or effect.

It has been pointed out that the provisions of the bill relating to the content of the package, its quantity or weight, and the information appearing on the label are already adequately covered by existing law. Those sections which deal with clearance of packaging design are not only unwarranted but unnecessary.

We submit that it is improper for Government to arrogate unto itself the role of industry in the field of creative packaging. Package and label design is of the utmost importance to the American housewife. It has been shown that she selects household commodities not only on the basis of content and cost but also on the basis of the size of the package, its design, ease of handling, safety, convenience, and attractiveness of appearance. It is our belief that the housewife is not deceived by packaging design so long as the net weight, quantity, quality, and price are adequately presented to her.

S. 387 would unnecessarily restrict customary and legitimate marketing and merchandising techniques. Modern marketing no longer involves the personal salesmanship of the corner grocer. In this day and age of the supermarket, each product is vying for shelf space and must sell itself. Regarding the area of practical marketing, FTC Chairman Paul Rand Dixon appropriately said in April 1962, "No one I know wants to kill the ingenuity of salesmanship. We want as much of that left as possible, because from that flows competition." S. 387 is inconsistent with the avowed purpose of our antitrust laws which is to promote freedom of competition in the marketplace. If S. 387 should be enacted, the sole area of competition which would remain is price competition. In conclusion, we are in accord with the statement by Senator Hart that packages should accurately and clearly give essential product information and fairly represent the contents. However, we do not believe that S. 387 would accomplish these desirable ends which are already subject to attainment under existing law. We accordingly recommend against reporting this bill.

STATEMENT OF FLORIDA CITRUS COMMISSION

The Florida Citrus Commission, a duly constituted agency of the State of Florida, does hereby register its formal opposition to S. 387 (Hart "Truth in Packaging" bill). It is joined in this position by other important segments of the Florida citrus industry, as indicated at the close of this statement.

The Florida Citrus Commission, whose members are appointed by the Governor, exercises broad supervisory power over the Florida citrus industry, including, but not limited to, advertising and promotional programs, research, both of technical and economic nature, and in the regulation of packaging and in some cases, the labeling of citrus fruits and products.

In the 1961-62 season Florida produced 83 percent of the total U.S. citrus crop. Its citrus processors annually produce about 95 percent of all processed citrus fruits and juices, including approximately 98 percent of the pack of frozen concentrated orange juice.

The Florida Citrus Commission, having been duly designated under the laws of the State of Florida as the regulatory authority for the citrus industry within the State of Florida, feels that it is cognizant of the present status of he packaging and labeling of all citrus products that are produced within this State, both in their fresh and processed forms. The commission knows of no abuses now extant within this industry and feels that the existing regulations promulgated by the commission in regard to packaging are presently being complied with by the industry, and further feels that if a need arises for further regulation, the commission has ample authority to promulgate such regulation.

The commission, having the responsibility for the promotion and advertisement of citrus products, has occasion to be familiar with the marketing procedures used by the producers of such products. It is the belief of the Florida Citrus Commission that processed citrus products from Florida comply with those , provisions as are required as to label information concerning the description of

the product, and that there is no need for any additional legislation in this particular. It is felt that the commission's authority is full and sufficient as regards any regulation concerning labeling requirements.

Any arbitrary standardization of containers as to sizes could create a serious problem in the canning of frozen concentrated orange juice, for instance, because the degree of concentration, which is subject to change, largely determines the size of the container, and could create genuine problems in the compliance with such a provision. There is a certain latitude allowable as to the degree of concentration for the various types of frozen concentrated orange juice products. This segment of the processing industry is and has been undergoing considerable change.

A regulation having to do with the shape of containers could seriously penalize the processing industry and make difficult the efficient processing of citrus products.

The commission feels that the existing laws governing false and misleading advertising are sufficient, both on a State and national level, to prohibit any abuses. The commission further feels that there is presently required a conspicuous and clear disclosure for all pertinent information concerning the weight, bulk, and content of food items and that there is no present need for an expansion of such authority.

One of the purposes for which the Florida Citrus Commission was established as specified on section 601.02, Florida Statutes, was for the protection of the consumer against fraud, deception, and financial loss through any unscrupulous practices and haphazard methods in connection with the processing and marketing of citrus fruit and the canned or concentrated products thereof. The Florida Citrus Commission diligently seeks to carry out this statutory responsibility. Consequently, the Florida Citrus Commission would look with some trepidation on any Federal legislation that might dilute its authority in connection with the regulation of the Florida citrus industry.

The Florida Canners' Association, which represents all of the processors of Florida citrus products; Florida Citrus Mutual, which represents more than 12,000 grower members; and the Florida Fresh Citrus Shippers Association, representing the preponderance of the fresh citrus shipping industry, all have joined with the commission in filing this statement of opposition to this proposed legislation.

STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

The General Federation of Women's Clubs is an organization with 9 million members in 15,350 clubs in communities throughout the United States. Members of the General Federation are homemakers with the health and welfare of their families as their major interest and concern.

The organization of the General Federation is set up in committees which are duplicated in every State federation and then in every club. One of the committees is consumer interests. It is through this committee that we deal with problems affecting the consumer.

The purpose of this statement is to affirm our continuing interest in fair and nondeceptive methods of packaging and labeling foodstuffs, cosmetics, drugs, laundry products, and other household items.

S. 387, the truth-in-packaging bill, embodies the principles for protection of the consumer which the General Federation has consistently promoted.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
PULP, SULPHITE, & PAPER MILL WORKERS,

Everett, Wash., March 17, 1963.

DEAR SENATOR HART: The members of my local wish to express our strong sentiments in favor of your truth-in-packaging bill. Just yesterday one of the large stores here advertised "extra-large-size toothpaste, two for $1." The extra large size contained about 5 ounces; next to it on the shelf was the family size containing 6 ounces. I asked the clerk if the larger size should not be called the extra-extra large size. Such examples confuse the average shopper, and our sincere hope is that your much needed bill becomes law.

If there is anything we can do here to help you, please let me know.

Sincerely,

JOHN M. COLE.

LADIES' AUXILIARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Muskegon, Mich., March 12, 1963.

U.S. Senate,

Hon. PHILIP HART,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HART: Whereas the misrepresentation of packaging does exist in Michigan; and

Whereas it is apparent to the women, the consumer buyers, that there is a need for control in the packaging of food and household products; and

Whereas it appears Senate bill 387 will correct this situation: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Michigan State Council of Ladies' Auxiliaries of the International Association of Machinists go on record as supporting Senate bill 387. Yours truly,

EVELYN DAVID, Chairman, Resolutions Committee.

STATEMENT OF SIERT F. RIEPMA, PRESIDENT AND TREASURER OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARGARINE MANUFACTURERS

The National Association of Margarine Manufacturers opposes S. 387, 88th Congress, 1st session, a bill seeking to add to the antitrust laws a legislative delegation of administrative authority to the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and to the Federal Trade Commission to deal with specified allegedly unfair and deceptive methods of packaging and labeling of certain commodities in interstate commerce. The proposed delegation of authority is not coupled with adequate standards or guides for administration and is unnecessary because adequate statutory authority already is lodged in the administrative agencies concerned.

The National Association of Margarine Manufacturers is a nonprofit trade association organized under the Illinois Not for Profit Corporation Act and composed of most of the margarine manufacturers in the United States. Margarine manufactured by the members of the association is produced and distributed in accordance with the provisions of Federal and State laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, as amended (21 U.S.C. 201, et seq.). Under this act, the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, has issued a Federal definition and standard of identity for margarine (17 F.R. 4613 and 21 F.R. 6566). Margarine is also subject, of course, to the general laws regulating trade and advertising practices embodied in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. sec. 41, et seq.). Also, margarine is subject to special laws dealing with this product administered both by the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. In addition, in those instances in which animal fat is used in the production of margarine, the product is produced and distributed in accordance with the meat inspection regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture issued pursuant to the Meat Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. secs. 71-91), and section 306 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1306). The Secretary of Agriculture also has issued a Federal definition and standard of identity for margarine similar to that issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

The proposed legislation has been characterized as a truth-in-packaging bill, and, at the outset, the association would like to assure the committee that it is fully in support of truthful packaging, labeling, and vending. The association questions, however, whether the means employed by the proposed legislation are necessary, adequate, or desirable to achieve these ends.

The proposed legislation would create, as a part of the antitrust laws, a comprehensive new administrative program calling for the issuance of regulations controlling the packaging and labeling of all "consumer commodities," as that term is defined by the bill.

Under the proposed legislation, the Food and Drug Administrator would be required or authorized to promulgate new regulations dealing with labeling and packaging in certain areas.

Specific required labeling information would have to be revealed on the "front panel" (a term not defined in the bill) of the package in type sizes and faces specified by mandatory regulations. In addition, the regulations, but not the statute, would prohibit qualifying adjectives, "cents-off" promotional practices,