twice to assure himself that a "jumbo" quart is no bigger than some other quart. Phrases of this kind supply no real information to the consumer. They can and do mislead.

The bill rounds out its labeling requirements by forbidding pictures on a package which misrepresent its contents and by authorizing the issuance of regulations which will require information as to ingredients and composition to be placed in a prominent position upon packages. We can imagine no quarrel with a prohibition against deceptive pictures of what a buyer can expect to find inside of a package and consider it a matter of the most elementary honesty. Ingredients lists are a much more difficult matter. On products for which food standards have been established by the Food and Drug Administration, ingredients statements are not required. In other cases, very lengthy and incomprehensible lists of chemicals are placed on packages. We would hope something could be done to make ingredient lists more understandable and also that where a food standard has been established this information be made available to the consumer.

2. EXCESSIVE VARIATION OF PACKAGED UNITS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Assuming that a buyer can locate the weight or contents statement on a package and under this bill he should no longer have trouble dong so he may be little better off than he was before if he wants to compare the price of the contents of one package with the price of the contents of another. This is because of the extraordinary and unusual variety of weight units in which packages appear, extending even to fractions of ounces. The fractional ounce situation is not confined to the really small packages, such as spices, but extends to even the jumbo and king sizes of detergent packages. It becomes almost impossible to make any ready comparison of the price of one brand against another or of one size package with another even for the same brand. Innumerable examples have been offered to this subcommittee, and we will not repeat them here.

This particular feature of the packaging scene is probably the single most irritating one to buyers. Witness after witness for consumers has complained about this situation. Not only do price comparisons between different products become a hopeless task but it becomes easy for a manufacturer to conceal a price increase in his product by shaving the quantity of contents in his package. In fact this dropping off of quantity in minute amounts undoubtedly accounts for a good portion of the current chaos of weight statements. We are aware that there are quite legitimate reasons for fractional ounces in particular instances, but the total picture nonetheless is one of hopeless confusion for the consumer.

The present bill undertakes to cure this problem by authorizing the establishment of "reasonable weights or quantities, or fractions or multiples thereof," in which particular commodities may be offered for sale. This could be done where the regulatory agency decided there was a need for it, and under the procedures set up under the bill, full opportunity for the expression of views by affected parties is afforded. We believe the industry full merits the opportunity to safeguard its interests.

The proposed solution is obviously a reasonable one and there is much precedent for it under other laws. Units of sale for such prod

ucts as milk, butter, cheese, frankfurters, and lard, for example, are widely standardized and, of course, the units of sale for alcoholic beverages are strictly controlled under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.

We believe industry has protested too much against any type of standardization procedure on the grounds that it would result in overly rigid procedures and retard the introduction of new and more convenient size units for consumer use. If indeed, industry activity had been restricted to considerations of consumer convenience, we could perhaps have some sympathy for this view. But as has been noted, it has resulted in a jungle of competing size units that defy rational comparison and are anything but convenient. Packaging to price, or reducing the quantity in order to conceal a price rise or to steal a march on a competitor may take account of consumer psychology, but it does not take account either of consumer wishes or consumer convenience.

We do think, on the other hand, that industry witnesses have made a valuable point in demonstrating that plain weight comparisons can sometimes be misleading, as in the example of instant potatoes where it was shown that a small amount of one brand would yield as much final product as a large amount of another brand in which the powder was of lighter consistency.

Other examples were offered in the soap and detergent field, where the number of "washes" per ounce or per pound might vary considerably, depending on the formula for the product. The bill takes account of this situation by providing for new standards of quantity designation where the ordinary weight, measure, or count statement is not meaningful. We think this will be a very useful provision for the buyer.

There is already one informal quantity designation widely in use which is of a nonstandard character-that is the term "serving." What constitutes a "serving" varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and has no fixed meaning even for similar products. We certainly support the provision of the bill that will authorize the setting of standards as to what constitutes a serving. For many products it simply seems to mean half a cup, and maybe there would be some merit in introducing "cups" more widely into the quantity designation system.

A related provision of the bill seeks to standardize the meaning of names for sizes, such as small, medium, large, et cetera. Certainly this will be most helpful in resolving the confusion caused by the fact that regular sizes of some brands, for example, are equivalent to the large sizes in others. A manufacturer may think of small, medium, and large simply in terms of his own line of sizes, but the combination of these private languages as to the meaning of large and small, let alone jumbo, kingsize, and giant, results in a true Tower of Babel for the consumer. Surely a commonly understood basic language on these adjectives is very much in order.

3. DECEPTIVE SHAPES AND SIZES

Section 3A (e) (2), page 5, of the bill, authorizes the regulatory agencies to issue regulations, if they are deemed necessary, to prevent the sale of commodities in packages of "sizes, shapes, or dimensional

proportions" which may deceive retail purchasers as to the quantity of contents in the package.

Part of the problem seems to arise out of competition of package sizes, where manufacturers strive to make their particular boxes look bigger than those of others, even though the contents may be the same or less. Deceptiveness results mainly from the variety of sizes in relation to quantity, quite apart from reference to some fixed standard of size in relation to contents.

There are other cases, however, in which a consumer may be quite conscious of a discrepancy between outer package size and inner contents. Who has not had at least a fleeting sense of disappointment upon opening a box of crackers, cookies or cereal and finding the package only half or two-thirds full?

The packagers have carefully explained why these boxes are so poorly filled, in terms of the technological requirements of modern high-speed filling lines. Other boxes-certain candy boxes have been much under fire in these hearings-have a much less convincing explanation. The buyer has no way of knowing whether inadequately filled containers have genuine justification or not, and is apt to feel cheated no matter what the reason. It would help if regulations could establish some standards of legitimate air space.

We appreciate the fact that the problem presents technical difficulties. To the extent that reasonable weights and quantities are established for package units under section (e) (1) the troubles caused to consumers by deceptive shapes and sizes should be reduced to some extent. If consumers can rely upon some consistent quantity units of sale, the need or tendency to rely on package size itself as a rough guideline to amount of contents would probably become less.

While we firmly believe that the consumer should be given an opportunity to protect himself from being misled as to the quantity of the contents in packages because of their size, shape, or dimensional proportions, we urge the retention of those provisions in the bill which provide thatt his regulatory authority extends in section A (e) (1), page 5, only to deception of the retail purchaser.

We approve the steps necessary to promulgate proposed regulations, namely; (1) consultation with other Federal agencies having special competence with respect to the subject; (2) publication of an advance notice of intention to promulgate in the Federal Register; and (3) the obligation to extend the opportunity of consultation to persons who would be affected.

Mr. Chairman, we believe "affected persons" should include employees of affected industries.

We also note and support the requirements that the promulgation of regulations shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

4. PRICE GIMMICKS

The bill forbids the manufacturer to state on a package that it is offered at so many cents off or to imply that a discount will be offered if the buyer purchase a large size rather than a small size of a product. This provision arises out of the fact that it is the retailer who sets the price and not the manufacturer, so that there is no assurance that the consumer will actually receive any discount.

The "cents off" is further complicated by the question as to what price the cents is off from. The bill appears to leave the retailer free to offer special reductions and quantity discounts. We certainly would not like to pass up any genuine price reductions, and we feel strongly that consumers should get discounts on larger quantity purchases. They are clearly a less costly unit of sale.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony on the truth-in-packaging bill. The bill has great potential for benefiting consumers and restoring their traditional rights to know what they are buying before they buy and to make rational price comparisons between competing products. We think that industry will aso find its provisions ultimately beneficial, and we are glad to support the bill as a genuine public interest measure.

We hope, Mr. Chairman, that we have not left the impression that we are opposed to attractive and imaginative packaging. On the contrary, we welcome it. As consumers we want only to protect our pocketbook at the marketplace without a refresher course in mathematics, the burden of a portable calculator, or the nuisance of a magnifying glass.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I went to the refrigerator and pulled out a bottle of syrup. It was Vermont maple syrup. I know you do better in Michigan. The label said "6 cents off." The cents off is further complicated by the question as to what price the cents off is off of, and I wondered about that as I opened the bottle of maple syrup this morning.

Senator HART. Mr. Fair and Miss Draper, that statement reflects a careful study not alone of the bill but of this record. And I think that anyone reading the statement as you have given it for the AFL-CIO would readily acknowledge that it is a very balanced one. It recognizes, I think, the concerns of both the consumer and the industry. And the specific recommendations that you make with respect to possible modification of the bill will be given careful attention by the committee.

There is much in the statement that I would like to comment on. I rather think you guessed right, it seems to be from the consumer's point of view a most irritating experience that the buyer has when she goes into the supermarket, as you put it on page 4, as to the problem of arithmetic.

Is it fair to ask, in developing a position like this for the organization you represent, if there was any consultation with membership? What does the AFL-CIO do in terms of a position on legislation? How does it determine it?

Mr. FAIR. This is the result of a policy statement adopted in December 1961 by the 4th Constitutional Convention. And policy is made in the AFL-CIO. I would say, two ways. One, it may originate directly with the executive counsel-now, this is the staff working through each department in our building has a committee made up of appointees by the executive counsel over that committee. The staff may make policy recommendations to the committee, which then in turn makes them to the executive counsel, which then in turn brings them directly to the convention, which meets biennially. And on the

other hand and I think this is where you are concerned specificallyour local unions at the local level present resolutions to their international conventions which are then adopted and submitted to the AFLCIO for policy.

So we have two courses by which policy is made. Normally our legislative department takes no position on a piece of legislation, unless it has been taken up by a convention, a constitutional convention of the AFL-CIO. Now, sometimes we may take variations from positions, which is done by the executive counsel at their quarterly meeting. But that is chiefly implementation rather than policy making. Senator HART. Do I understand that the position you state here is

the result of a convention decision?

Mr. FAIR. Yes, it is. It reads as follows, Mr. Chairman. The position paper was entitled "Consumer Protection." And it reads in the following manner for this area:

In the field of consumer protection organized labor must take a leading role in behalf of its own members and in support of programs to benefit the consuming public at large. By supporting public programs and legislative proposals to protect the consumer against misleading advertising, deceptive merchandising practices, excessive prices, and against products unsafe or unfit for human use, organized labor makes common cause with the public interest of the community as a whole.

Miss Draper informs me that we also have a specific one, which I have not marked here on this subject.

Senator HART. May I suggest that if this is obtained, it be added to the record?

Mr. FAIR. Right.

This is part of the same consumer protection resolution adopted by the convention:

We commend the congressional investigation of deceptive packaging techniques, and urge the development of appropriate remedies to curb these practices.

Senator HART. I see. And then your statement reflects your analysis of this bill with the suggestions as to how to make it more effective? As I say, the suggestions will be given full thought. And certainly the reactions you have had and have expressed, I say again, are objective, and reflect, I think, a full appreciation of the factors that are involved in a difficult area like this.

Mr. FAIR. We have a double obligation, Senator Hart. We have members who are involved in the packaging industry, and we are desirous of supporting no bill which we think would put them out of their jobs. And we also have 13 million members who are consumers. So our responsibility is very sharply increased with this kind of bill.

Senator HART. The fact is that you have not only given great thought to the bill, but you have also made a careful study of the testimony.

Thank you.

Mr. COHEN. I was interested in that last statement that was made, that there have been some manufacturers who have expressed a fear that this bill could result in the loss of business and great unemployment to the employees they represent. I take it from your statement you do not share this fear.