Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

ments and standards for all types of containers, including the new containers now on the market?

Mr. ROUSH. To whom is the question directed?

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. I will direct it to the witness, and he can yield if he so desires.

Mr. JENSEN. I believe, sir, there would be little advantage in specifying dimensions for the many dry containers which have been used in the past, some of which are still used. I used the word "confusion" in my statement, and I would like, if I might, to expand it a little.

Let me use, for example, the bushel. It is possible to buy many different "bushels" in the market. First there is the "standard" bushel made according to fixed dimensions. This is a dry volume measurement, a certain number of cubic inches. Many States have laws that fix the weight per bushel of various commodities, some of which may be sold in "standard containers." This is the second bushel. The third bushel is just a cardboard container that is put out and labeled x number of pounds.

I do not think the average consumer-I know my wife, for example-has any feeling that there are differences among these that apples, for example, can be marketed in different ways. My own belief is, and I think this is borne out by fact, the most precise way to sell anything is by weight, in properly designed packages, properly labeled and properly filled. I think this serves the manufacturer better, and I think it serves the distributors better, and the consumers better.

The State of Indiana, for example, prohibits by statute sale by dry volume, except in standard containers. What happens of course, as mentioned by Mr. Browne, is that standard containers are bought and are used. A producer or a farmer pulls his apples off the tree and puts them in a "standard" container, He may heap it full, or level full, or partially full, and call it a bushel.

Actually this is in violation of Indiana law presently, but with the few enforcement officials they have, it is impossible to police all of these things, so I think the one thing that would be served would be a clarity in the marketplace by doing away with these acts which, in my view, tend to confuse the situation.

I think very little would be served by defining specifically all of the containers used in the marketplace.

Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Then your argument would be if there were an amendment placed in this act to prescribe the standard of weight and measurements, it should be designated in pounds rather than in cubic inch volume?

Mr. JENSEN. There appears to be no question this is the future of marketing, except for things that are liquid. Yes, sir. Mr. ROUDEBUSH. That is all I have.

Mr. ROUSH. Other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Jensen.

Our next witness is Mr. Wayne Cleveland, vice president of sales, Keyes Fibre Co., and he is accompanied by Mr. E. W. Atwood, secretary to the board.

Will you gentlemen please come forward?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like Mr. Atwood to make the leadoff statement.

Mr. ROUSH. That is quite all right. You may handle your testimony as you see fit.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. I wish to submit our prepared statement for the record.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEYES FIBRE COMPANY

Respectfully represents Keyes Fibre Company that:

(1) It is a Maine corporation engaged primarily in the production and sale of a wide variety of molded pulp products including plates, dishes, food prepackaging trays, egg cartons, egg flats, egg trays, fruit packs and interior packaging materials for fragile articles. It has manufacturing plants in Waterville, Maine, Hammond, Indiana, Sacramento, California and Wenatchee, Washington. Keyes Norway A/S (100% owned) has a plant in Viul, Norway. Canadian Keyes Fibre Company Ltd. (50% owned) has a plant in Hantsport, N.S., Canada. An affiliate, Société des Emballages Keyes, has a plant in Ile d'Elle, France. An affiliate, Keyes Italiana S.p.A., has a plant in Catania, Sicily.

(2) It is anticipated that this Brief Statement will be supplemented orally at the hearing before your Subcommittee on September 27, 1966 by Wayne P. Cleveland, Vice President-Sales of Keyes Fibre Company, and Edward W. Atwood, a Director and Secretary of Keyes Fibre Company and a partner in the law firm which is its general counsel.

(3) S. 17 would repeal two Acts, one enacted in 1916 fixing standards for (a) Climax baskets for grapes and other fruits and vegetables and (b) for baskets and other containers for small fruits, berries and vegetables, and one enacted in 1928 fixing standards for hampers, round stave baskets, and splint baskets for fruits and vegetables. The products of Keyes Fibre Company and the requirements and needs of the users thereof and of the consumers of the products packaged therein are materially and adversely affected by the provisions of the 1916 Act relating to containers for small fruits, berries and vegetables.

A

(4) Under the provisions of the 1916 Act, as interpreted by the Department of Agriculture, containers for small fruits, berries and vegetables may only be of the following sizes: dry 1⁄2 pint, dry pint, dry quart and multiples of dry quart. container for produce which would contain the equivalent of 12 quart is very very popular with retailers for in-store packaging because it is versatile enough to be used for a number of different items and is popular with consumers as it packages a convenient quantity for the average retail purchaser. Also when the container is so used, the contents are, almost without exception, sold by weight or count rather than by volume measure. Yet if any of the items so packaged are "small fruits, berries or vegetables" the law has been violated. No sound reason exists today for such a limitation. It is incompatible with modern marketing methods and practices. This is recognized by the Department of Agriculture. We respectfully refer to the letter of Mr. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture, to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, dated March 30, 1966, a copy of which is annexed hereto, recommending that these Acts be repealed. No more compelling argument for the repeal of such Acts could possibly be made than that set forth in such letter and we therefore heartily endorse it and incorporate it in this Brief by this reference. To the same effect, and equally forceful, was an earlier letter of Secretary Freeman, that of May 20, 1964, to the Honorable John W. McCormack, Speaker of the House, a copy of the pertinent parts of which is also hereto annexed.

These letters of Secretary Freeman highlight the following points, which we submit fully justify and call for repeal of these Acts, namely:

(a) Since the enactment of these Acts in 1916 and 1928, great changes have taken place in the containers used for shipping fresh fruits and vegetables; (b) Most fruits and vegetables are now sold by weight or count and consequently slight variations in volume capacity of containers are no longer an important marketing factor; and

(c) The cost of administering these Acts is no longer justified.

(5) Of interest is the view of the fruit growing industry in the State of Washington that such laws as the Acts sought to be repealed stifle improved methods of fruit packaging. See letter of Mr. Foster, Secretary-Manager of the Wenatchee Valley Traffic Association to Senator Magnuson dated March 22, 1966 (see p. 16). (6) We include a copy of letter of Maynard C. Dolloff, Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Maine to Senator Edmund S. Muskie dated August 31, 1966 favoring repeal of these Acts.

(7) In conclusion, we submit that for a number of sound reasons the Acts in question should be repealed by the enactment of S. 17, namely:

Obsolescence. This is the major reason and is fully discussed in the letters of Secretary Freeman above referred to.

[ocr errors]

Ambiguity. The 1916 Act fails to define “small fruits, berries and vegetables' and it is not clear whether the word "small" as used applies only to "fruits" or also to "berries" and "vegetables."

Expense. The expense of administering these Acts is not warranted.
We therefore urge that your Subcommittee act favorably on S. 17.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., March 30, 1966.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of January 13, 1965, for a report on S. 17, a bill to repeal the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928 which prescribe standard sizes and capacities for certain types of baskets and hampers used in the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables.

This Department recommends that these Acts be repealed.

The Act of August 31, 1916 (15 U.S.C. §§ 251-256), known as the Standard Container Act of 1916, establishes standard sizes for Climax baskets for grapes and other fruits and vegetables and fixes standards for baskets and other containers for small fruits, berries, and vegetables. The Act provides for the examination of containers subject to regulation to determine their compliance with the law.

The Act of May 21, 1928 (15 U.S.C. § 257-257i), known as the Standard Container Act of 1928, establishes standard sizes for hampers, round stave baskets, and splint baskets used for fresh fruits and vegetables. Specifications of containers covered by the Act are submitted to and approved by the Department if such containers are of the prescribed capacity and not deceptive in appearance.

When these laws were enacted, baskets and hampers were the principal types of containers used for the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables. At that time, because of the large number of sizes of containers being manufactured, a strong movement developed in the industry, particularly among container manufacturers, to bring about some degree of standardization in order to reduce the resultant unnecessary costs, confusion, and deception.

In the years since the enactment of the Standard Container Acts, great changes have taken place in the containers used for shipping fresh fruits and vegetables. Baskets and hampers, formerly the principal types used, have been displaced in large part by newer types. During the past 10 years, for example, the number of factories producing containers subject to the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928 has declined from 183 to 129, or a reduction of 31 percent, while the number of different containers manufactured by these plants has dropped by 20 percent, from 726 to 584.

Of the large and increasing number of containers now widely used, such as fiberboard cartons, wirebound and nailed crates, wooden boxes and lugs, mesh, paper, and plastic bags, some were not in use at all for fruits and vegetables at the time these Acts were passed. None of these newer containers are regulated by Federal law as to shape, size, or capacity.

Con

Moreover, most fruits and vegetables are now sold by weight or count. sequently, slight variations in the volume capacity of containers are no longer an important marketing factor. Largely because of the growth in the use of containers not covered by the Standard Container Acts, it is estimated that less than 10 percent of the fresh fruits and vegetables shipped in interstate commerce now are packed in containers regulated under these Acts.

In view of the limited volume of fresh fruits and vegetables currently being shipped in containers subject to regulation under the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928, the continuing trend toward wider use of types of containers not subject to Federal regulation, and the fact that most fruits and vegetables are now sold by weight or count, the Department is convinced that continued administration of these laws is no longer justified and that a saving can be achieved through repeal of these laws without detriment to the fruit and vegetable industry or the public.

Although practically all of the containers regulated under these Acts are used as shipping containers and not as consumer packages, there are some, such as

1

berry boxes, which are still used for marketing products to the consumer on a volume basis. While we recommend that these Acts be repealed, we believe that the interest of consumers should continue to be protected through the prohibition of unfair and deceptive packaging and labeling practices. Such prohibitions are contained in S. 985, the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act", which, with certain amendments has been endorsed by the Administration. So that there will be no gaps in consumer protection, we recommend that S. 985 be amended to provide that the containers now regulated under the Standard Container Acts would not be forced from regulations by the repeal of these Acts but would, in that event, become subject to the provisions of S. 985. Such an amendment is needed since Sec. 8 (3) of S. 985 now excludes from the definition of "package" containers subject to the provisions of the Standard Container Acts. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program and the Bureau favors the amendment of S. 985 as indicated above.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C., May 20, 1964.

Hon. JOHN W. McCORMACK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is enclosed a proposed bill to repeal the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928, Tobacco Plant and Seed Exportation Act of 1940, U.S. Grain Standards Act of 1916, Naval Stores Act of 1923, and Wool Standards Act of 1928.

Over the years, economic conditions and marketing practices have changed so that the need for these Acts is no longer as great as when the legislation was passed. Therefore, to promote greater efficiency and economy in Government, in accordance with the President's request, we are recommending the repeal of these Acts. The portion of these activities that needs to be continued will be performed under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. This would include financing the grain inspection service on a voluntary fee basis. Savings in appropriations realized by repeal of these Acts, involving limited or special interests, would be available for use in areas of more vital public importance.

The following paragraphs set forth in more detail the reasons for the Department's proposal:

Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928 prescribe standard sizes and capacity for certain types of baskets and hampers used in shipping fresh fruits and vegetables. When these laws were enacted, baskets and hampers were used for a large part of the fresh fruits and vegetables shipped in containers and standardization of the volume capacity was needed to prevent deception. Since that time, there have been many changes in shipping containers for fresh produce. Containers not in existence at that time have been developed and have become important. The containers now most commonly used are crates, lugs, boxes and bags. Also, the construction material has changed significantly with fiber board, paper, and film now being commonly used. These containers have not been standardized by Federal law as to capacity or shape. Most fresh fruits and vegetables are now sold by weight or count rather than by volume measure so that deception due to slight variations in container volume is no longer an important marketing factor. Less than 10 percent of the fresh fruits and vegetables are now marketed in the regulated types of baskets and hampers. This Act, therefore, is of very limited usefulness and the cost of administering it is no longer justified.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN,

Secretary.

WENATCHEE VALLEY TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION,
Wenatchee, Wash., March 22, 1966.

Senator WARREN G. MAGnuson,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: It appears S. 17 would repeal antiquated U.S. standards for fruit and vegetable containers of which many, if not all, are no longer in use. We urge that you seek enactment of this legislation.

Our industry has consistently opposed state and federal standards for fruit containers. New containers are continually being developed to deliver fruit to consumers with fewer bruises and in better condition. The trend is toward consumer packages such as three and four pound bags and small trays of six or eight apples over-wrapped with film. Master containers for these small packages will continue in an experimental stage for a considerable period of time and in the meanwhile it is quite likely new packaging will develop.

Packaging standards enacted into law are too inflexible and tend to stifle improved methods. We hope you will resist legislation that would require definite container specifications for fruits.

Sincerely yours,

MARTIN A. FOSTER,
Secretary-Manager.

AUGUST 31, 1966.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

U.S. Senator,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR ED: The Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928, which establish standard sizes and capacities for certain types of baskets and hampers used in the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables, have been carefully reviewed by this department.

It is our belief that these Acts are outdated and no longer serve a useful purpose There have been great changes in the type of shipping containers for fresh produce since these laws were enacted. Most fresh fruits and vegetables are now sold by weight or count rather than by volume measure, thus eliminating any deception due to variations in container volume. Recent statistics show that less than 10% of the fresh fruits and vegetables are now marketed in the regulated type of containers.

The Maine Department of Agriculture is in favor of repeal of these Acts.
Very truly yours,
MAYNARD C. DOLLOFF,
Commissioner.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE P. CLEVELAND, VICE PRESIDENT, SALES. KEYES FIBRE CO.; ACCOMPANIED BY E. W. ATWOOD, SECRETARY TO THE BOARD, KEYES FIBRE CO.

Mr. ATWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edward W. Atwood, of Portland, Maine, representing the Keyes Fibre Co., along with Mr. Cleveland.

Mr. Cleveland is vice president in charge of sales of the Keyes Fibre Co., and he will be the one that will probably field any questions that relate to the products of the company, because he is more familiar with them.

My function with the company, I am director and secretary, and I am a member of the law firm which is their general counsel.

We have filed with the committee a brief outlining our views and that brief is repetitious of what you have already heard, because it really repeats most everything that has been said by the other witnesses, and what has been contained in their briefs, so I am not going to read the brief but I would, if it is consistent with your practice,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »