Since its inception, NAWGA has steadfastly adhered to support for the principles of honest, informative labeling as well as attractive, efficient, and nondeceptive packaging. It is our considered opinion that these standards have been adhered to by the greatest majority of the members of the food industry and further that the very few infractions can be adequately controlled and corrected by the existing authority granted to the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, respectively. Proper and efficient enforcement of these statutes can correct whatever abuses now exist. Any attempt, under the guise of promoting honest packaging and labeling, to restrict the right of persons engaged in packaging and labeling consumer goods to engage in lawful pursuit of business through ingenuity in packing and merchandising is an unwarranted and dangerous extension of Government control of private enterprise. The implication that the consumer does not benefit from particular pricing policies or from other merchandising and promotion plans is entirely unwarranted and contrary to fact. As wholesale distributors, the members of this association are intimately acquainted with the operations of the retail dealers and are in a position to certify that the benefits of special pricing plans and other promotional devices are passed along directly to the consumer. The weight of aggressive competition between food retailers precludes any other result if the retailer intends to remain in business. The philosophy behind this type of legislation strikes directly at the individuality, initiative, and inventiveness which has made our food industry the envy of the entire world. To saddle it with the yoke of mediocrity achieved through standardization requirements dictated by Government regulatory agencies will provide a totally unnecessary burden which can only hinder and impede developments and improvements which the consumer has become accustomed to receive from the food supplier and food merchandiser. This letter represents the considered opinion of the membership of the association. We would appreciate it, therefore, if you would use the occasion of your appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee to enter it in the committee's records. Most sincerely, Mr, PAUL S. WILLIS, RUDOLPH L. TREUENFELS, SUPER MARKET INSTITUTE, INC., President, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., DEAR PAUL: In answer to your letter concerning our members' policies about passing on manufacturer price reductions to consumers, I can assure you that as a general rule this is done in all parts of the country. The simple fact that our members average a net profit, before taxes, of 1.71 offers the best evidence I know of that they are not pocketing any great amount of money from any supplier or at the expense of any consumer. I should also point out that the extremely heavy competitive climate that exists in the supermarket business also prohibits the operator from following such practices on a general basis. I hope this serves to answer your questions. MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, Executive Director. [From Changing Times, March 1963] EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE? Big advertisers can-and do-influence editorial content of major magazines. A frank admission of this came recently in a speech by Paul S. Willis, head of the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America, whose members spend $1.2 billion a year on ads and account for over half the top 100 advertisers in the Nation. His theme: With ad costs rising, advertisers should get more editorial cooperation so that "as readers turn the pages and come across an interesting article, they will react more favorably to the advertisement and be more inclined to purchase the product." He revealed that his association had met with 16 top management people of national magazines to solicit cooperation. Then: "We can point with pride to some of the things which have happened since our visit: "Look magazine ran an article explaining the cost-of-living index published monthly by the Government. Reader's Digest, an article on 'Why Our Food Is a Bargain.' American Weekly, an article on 'Are Food Prices Too High? This Week magazine, 'The Greatest Food Show on Earth.' Saturday Evening Post, an article exposing the food faddists. Good Housekeeping magazine, on labeling. Ladies' Home Journal, a series of articles on food. Life magazine, several institutional ads, and [devoted] its total Thanksgiving issue to food." Willis was addressing an audience of TV executives. To them he said, "The networks receive about 65 percent of their advertising revenue from GMA members *** We are not aware of any great amount of cooperation which television has extended to us in passing along interesting favorable information to the public * * * information such as appeared in the magazine articles." [From the Congressional Record, Aug. 18, 1958] Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, this measure is a disclosure bill, designed to protect and inform the ultimate consumer in his purchases of textile fiber products used or intended to be used in household textile articles. Incidentally, the bill defines household textile articles as articles of wearing apparel, costumes and accessories, draperies, floor coverings, furnishings, beddings, and other textile goods of a type customarily used in a household regardless of where used in fact. This bill is in the tradition of the Wool Labeling Act of 1939 and the Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951, and is based on the same underlying principle that while the Government should not set quality standards, the purchaser should be protected by disclosure of basic information about the composition of items not ascertainable by sight or touch. Of course wool and fur products remain under their respective acts. The legislation would require the disclosure of the fiber content of articles in the form intended for use by the consumer, together with the name of the manufacturer or distributor. A fabric would be misbranded if disclosure was not made, or if the information was false. The report on the bill goes into great detail, and I believe the amendments improve the measure. It is my hope, and, I believe, that of the committee also, that the Federal Trade Commission, after consultation with industry representatives and other interested persons, will be able to establish generic names which will serve adequately to distinguish between the many fibers of different properties which are now available. If the Commission is successful in this task, and I believe it will be, effectiveness of this bill, as far as protection of the consumer is concerned, will be increased. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FROZEN FOOD PACKERS, RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS PACKAGING AND LABELING OF FOODS Proposed legislation providing stringent new controls of the packaging and labeling of foods is now before the Congress. It is supported by the Federal administration upon the premise that there are serious deficiencies and decep tions in the labeling and packaging of consumer commodities which are not subject to regulation under existing statutes. The pending legislation would delegate broad discretionary authority to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Food and Drug Administration to determine allowable sizes and shapes of food containers, the weights or quantities in which commodities may be distributed, the content, and design of labeling and the type size and placement of label statements. We are convinced that the rapid expansion of the frozen food industry since its comparatively recent inception and the demonstrated consumer acceptance of its products would have been impeded if the contemplated controls had been in effect during the past period of the industry's development. The alleged grossly deceptive practices which are cited in support of the proposed legislation are not chargeable to the frozen food industry. Present legislation is adequate to control misleading, unfair, and deceptive practices; and its duplication by additional controls is unnecessary, uneconomic, and unfairly burdensome to industry. It would not be in the interest of consumers, since the cost of compliance would ultimately fall upon purchasers of food products. The delegation to an administrative agency of vast discretionary authority to dictate packaging practices and to determine in advance of their use whether containers conform to an administrative concept of propriety, extends beyond the prevention of misbranding, deception, and unfair practices and vests in Government an unprecedented control of busiess policy. This association opposes such legislation as an unwarranted and undesirable fettering of American business and its legitimate development. [From Kansas Agricultural Student, February 1963] DECEPTIVE DEVICES FOOL UNWARY SHOPPERS "SILENT SALESMEN" COMPETE FOR STORE SHELF SPACE (By Andrea Torrence) Shoppers, beware! You are being deceived by "silent salesmen" who are hiding on store shelves. In the form of packages, these "silent salesmen" tell you only what manufacturers think you should know. This may be in an honest or satisfactory way, but far too many packages are deceptive and misleading. “Deceptive packaging is a problem all over the world," emphasized Dr. Richard L. D. Morse, professor and head of the department of family economics at Kansas State University and a member of President Kennedy's Consumer Advisory Council. "In these days of the self-service store and the supermarket, the package has largely taken the place of the shop assistant. Instead of the family grocer's advice, you now have to rely on these 'silent salesmen,' who usually have a well-thought-out line of sales talk planned to get you to buy the product." Watch for these devices Deceptive devices you need to watch out for include glass jars that are molded with raised tops, thick walls, excessive height, indented bottoms and irregular or magnifying shapes; wood, cardboard and metal boxes that may be excessively large and slack-filled, or may contain false or indented bottoms or raised covers. Even little children are in danger of being fooled by the manufacturers. Have you ever watched a small child open a candy bar, sadly discovering that it was mostly wrapper? Homemakers have been tricked into buying a large boxjust because it was a large box-and arriving at home find that the box is only half full. Manufacturers defend themselves Manufacturers defend the oversized containers in which they package many many of their products on several grounds. Some point out that settling does occur. Some say they use double cardboard boxes for protection of their product. Others admit that they are trying to get "billboard" space on store shelves by making the box big enough to be seen easily. Packages like these are sure to make the product cost more; it costs more money to make a box with a false lining. Grocery shelves must be large to accommodate these bigger products, or fewer products can be placed on the shelves. Therefore, the expense of running the store is higher and this expense is passed on to you, the consumer. Most of us shoppers are not efficient enough in mental arithmetic, especially in fractions, to figure out-while standing in an aisle of a busy food storewhich is the best buy. Here is a problem which will illustrate this, and point out a deceptive packaging device. Which would be the better buy in detergents-a "large size" in a rather smallappearing package, or the "economy size" in a large package of the same brand? The net weight of the "large size" is listed as 20 ounces and priced at 30 cents. The net weight of the "economy size" is listed as 3 pounds 134 ounces and priced at 79 cents. Confusing, isn't it? After figuring this out, you will find that the small-appearing “large size" is actually more economical than the so-called economy size. Bills are being presented Bills to promote truth in packaging are being presented in the Legislature, designed to protect consumers from misleading marketing practices. Here are a few examples of the protection U.S. Senator Philip Hart's bill (S. 387) would offer: (1) Packages should contain no illustrations that might deceive the consumer as to content. A can of succotash, for example, shouldn't carry a picture of savory beef stew, even if that stew would be a logical end product of the can's contents. (2) No more "cent off" deals or "economy sized" designations would be allowed. These "come-ons" imply a control over retail price that the manufacturer doesn't have. And, too often, the consumer realizes absolutely no saving. (3) The Federal Trade Commission would be authorized to set up weights and measures in which a certain product line may be sold. Instead of having competing brands of potato chips, for example, selling in 131⁄2-, 15-, and 171⁄2ounce packages, wouldn't it be easier for the homemaker to figure her best buy if they all came in 1-pound packages, or even breakdowns of 1-pound quantities such as half-pound packages? And in all cases, net weight should be prominently displayed. (4) Packages that might deceive a consumer as to content should be eliminated. This, for instance, would bar the 6-inch cardboard tray holding the 4inch candy bar. (5) "Serving standards" should be established. How much filet of sole, for example, will "serve four"? One pound or four forkfuls? In 10 years-20,000, salesmen Senator Hart, Democrat, of Michigan, pointed out that there are about 7,500 items in the average supermarket today. Ten years from now there will probably be 20,000. That means 20,000 "salesmen" for you to cope with! There are three ways to fight against deceptive packaging, Dr. Morse points out: (1) through cooperation of manufacturers, (2) by Government legislation, and (3) by educating the consumer. "The first two solutions are in the hands of Congressmen and manufacturers," said Morse, "and it's too bad we have to legislate something that should be common sense and decency." "The third is up to you," he concluded. "Watch for these deceptive packaging devices the next time you go to the store, and help eliminate these products from the market." |