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. 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. Mr. ZAHN. I am sorry, I perhaps do not have that experience to be able to express it other than the way I have. Mr. BAILEY. I have nothing further. Senator HART. Mr. Cohen? Mr. COHEN. Just to clear up one point, Mr. Zahn. You express just a little concern that any regulations promulgated under the deceptive pictorial matter section should be broad. I think Senator Hart has expressed his opinion on many, many occasions regarding what he is talking about in this section on pictorial deception. He is not referring to the cake on the frosting box or the frosting on the cake box. What he did refer to, for instance, is the cherry pie on the front of the package showing the luscious cherries while inside you only have paste; or the chocolate chip cookies that have chocolate chips only on the box and not the cookies. So I think that certainly Senator Hart's previous pronouncements are in line with your recommendations on this section. Mr. ZAHN. Incidentally, Mr. Cohen, that brings up a point. Please understand, I understand this, but when you talk to industry, they will say: "Well, now, how far are they going to go on regulations of this pictorial thing? If we put this cherry pie on a plate, are we going to be criticized that there is no plate in the box?" Mr. COHEN. Precisely why I have made the statement I just made— to put some of this apprehension to rest. I am sure that the legislative history of this bill will show clearly what the intent of the bill is. Senator HART. Again, thank you, sir. Before we close the record, let me indicate the witnesses who will be heard tomorrow, and, without objection, insert in the record a statement which has been filed with us. It was understood that the full Committee of the Judiciary would meet tomorrow morning. A very few minutes ago I learned that this is not correct. We had announced that the hearings would be at 1:30 p.m., tomorrow, and at this late hour I doubt very much if we should risk badly inconveniencing the witnesses by moving the hour up, so, when we adjourn, we will adjourn until 1:30 p.m., tomorrow, to meet in this room, at which time we are scheduled to hear the executive vice president of the National Canners Association, Mr. Milan Smith; the assistant director of Consumers Union, and the editorial director of the publication, Consumers Report, Mildred Brady; and the vice president of the National Confectioners Association, who is also the vice president of Stephen Whitman & Son of Chicago, L. R. Hopkins. The statement which we will place in the record at this point has been filed with the subcommittee reflecting the position of the General Federation of Women's Clubs that S. 387, the truth-in-packaging bill, embodies the principles for the protection of the consumer which the federation has consistently promoted. (The statement referred to may be found on p. 536.) Senator HART. Again, we thank all of those who this morning gave the committee the benefit of their experience and will adjourn until 1:30 tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 7, 1963.) 97158-63-pt. 1- 4 PACKAGING AND LABELING LEGISLATION THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1963 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 1:35 p.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Philip A. Hart presiding. Present: Senator Hart. Also present: Stanley Mosk, attorney general, State of California; S. Jerry Cohen, assistant counsel; Dorothy D. Goodwin, assistant counsel; George E. Clifford, assistant counsel; Peter N. Chumbris, counsel for the minority; James E. Bailey, counsel for the minority; Ronald D. Raitt, counsel for the minority; Paul S. Green, editorial director; and Gladys E. Montier, clerk. When we concluded yesterday, I indicated that the first witness today would be Mr. Smith for the National Canners Association. I am advised now-and I would inquire of Mr. Smith whether this would inconvenience him-that the second scheduled witness, Mildred Brady, is under a time limitation in her effort to return to New York and would appreciate our hearing her first. If Mr. Smith says he has problems, too, I don't know how we will resolve it, but let me ask Mr. Smith if this would inconvenience him. Mr. SMITH. That is all right, Senator. Our testimony, then, this afternoon will begin by hearing from the editorial director of Consumer Reports, a distinguished, as always happens in this field, and not uncontroversial figure in the protection of consumers, Mildred Brady. Mrs. Brady, the committee welcomes you. STATEMENT OF MILDRED E. BRADY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CONSUMERS UNION OF THE U.S., INC., AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, CONSUMER REPORTS, MOUNT VERNON, N.Y. Mrs. BRADY. Thank you, Senator Hart. Senator HART. I know you are under pressure of time. I wish you would act like a politician and feel uninhibited in describing all of your background for the record so that we can have that in the record, and then continue with your prepared statement. Mrs. BRADY. Thank you. My name is Mildred Edie Brady. I am assistant director of Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., located at 256 Washington Street, Mount Vernon, N.Y. Consumers Union is a nonprofit membership |