After some 20-odd years of corresponding with my esteemed Senators (who have been many) and Congressman Spence, I am well aware of the stock reply to communications from constituents who take the time to express their viewpoints "I will give the bill my consideration when and if it reaches the Senate floor." In this instance, I would like for you to go a little farther, show your confidence in the inherent perspicacity of the American public, and reply that when and if the bill reaches the Senate floor you will do your best to defeat it. Competition will properly take care of all wrongdoers. Let's direct the efforts of the Senate and House of Representatives to problems of far greater significance. The housewife is fully able to look after her own best interests. Thanks for the time taken to read this lengthy epistle, keep up the good work. Sincerely, P. H. RACHFORD, Florence, Ky. DETROIT, MICH. Senator PHILIP A. HART, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HART: At the regular meeting of the Rumanian American Civic Club we discussed the problem of packaging goods, based on the hearings brought out by your committee. On the basis of the information received from your reports, the members unanimously approved a motion to support your truth-in-packaging bill, and to commend you for this work on behalf of the people. The officers were instructed to inform the language press of this action, and ask them to publicize the suggestions made in your letter regarding ways to avoid being fleeced through deceptive packaging. Very truly yours, JOHN DOMNARIU, President, Rumanian American Civic Club. SERVIT FOODS CORP., New York, N.Y., April 22, 1963. Senator PHILIP A. HART, DEAR SENATOR: Although the Tea Association, which represents the tea industry as a whole, has put itself on record as being opposed to the proposed legislation to be known as the truth-in-packaging bill, we who are also a member of the Tea Association, would like to go on record as being in favor of this new legislation. To illustrate one of the reasons why, the writer would like to point out that he has seen personally, packages of tea bags being sold in retail stores which contained 60 percent tea in weight as compared to comparable tea bag packages on the market. In other words, using a formula of packaging 5 pounds of tea to make 1,000 tea bags, there are packers who are using as little as 3 and 4 pounds, to make the same 1,000 tea bags. The consuming public does not realize this since the consuming public buys tea bags by the count rather than by the weight. We think that this type of abuse would be corrected under your new bill. We hope it would, as this is most unfair competition. This is only one area of objectionable practice prevalent in the tea industry; there are others. These others take the form of 1-cent-sale packages, which is a package containing 16 extra tea bags that is supposed to be sold for 1 cent more than the regular pack of 48 tea bags; and also cents-off sales on all sizes of packs. As an independent smaller packer, we would vigorously support your efforts to bring order out of the chaos that now exists in the food industry, not only for tea bags but for so many other products. We remain, Very truly yours, BERT HAUSER. STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE WAXED PAPER INSTITUTE, INC., CHICAGO, ILL. The Waxed Paper Institute files this statement of opposition to S. 387, 88th Congress, on behalf of its members. The institute is a trade association whose 17 members are corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of waxed paper and kindred products. The term "waxed paper" is defined by the institute as "any paper, whether single web or laminated, which has an exterior surface coating or impregnation of any combination of materials comprising at least 50 percent wax and which is used as a flexible packaging material." Waxed paper, as thus defined, is used as a wrapping for bread and other bakery products, and for crackers, cereals, confections, cough drops, chewing gum, dairy products, dehydrated foods, fresh vegetables and fruits, frozen foods, gelatin products, macaroni, meat and poultry, metal products, pharmaceuticals, soap, sugar and salt, tobaccos, and yeast. Waxed paper differs from other flexible wrapping materials in that the label and pictorial presentation may be printed directly on the paper. This printing is done, to the customer's order, by the waxed paper manufacturer in its own plant. The base paper is first run through presses similar to those used for printing newspapers. It is then run through the wax bath for coating. Finally, rolls of the printed, coated paper are sent to the food processor or other customer for use in wrapping its products. While waxed paper manufacturers do not determine the content of the labels or the nature of the pictorial and other sales representation on its final product, these manufacturers are a vital part of and are dependent on the packaging industry. In opposing S. 387, the Waxed Paper Institute does not endorse false or deceptive labeling or packaging. It believes in truth-in-packaging as strongly as do supporters of the present bill. Present laws are thought to be adequate to deal with deception that exists. One law particularly, mentioned by one witness, the law of survival, is the most powerful corrective in this field. A consumer may be misled once in making a purchase, but he or she will not be misled twice. Any company that attempts to rely on deception in selling its products will not long survive. The institute wholeheartedly endorses the views of industry spokesmen who testified in opposition to S. 387 before the subcommittee at the hearings held March 6 through 22, particularly the testimony that made the following points: The packaging industry of the United States brings the American consumer products in packages that are unexcelled for attractiveness, convenience, and sanitation. This the industry has done through research on its own and in response to the needs and desires of the consumer. To interpose Government regulation, to the extent contemplated by S. 387, between the industry and the consumer would destroy the responsiveness of the industry to consumer needs. Government regulation cannot be substituted for the knowledge and experience of men and women who know the problems of the industry as a whole or of a particular company. Elimination of the so-called appetite appeal pictures on food packages would eliminate the only real salesman a food manufacturer often has. It is very doubtful that consumers are misled by such pictures, except in rare instances. The latter are adequately covered by existing law. The American consumer, particularly the American housewife, is the best regulator of packaging. The consumers' votes are registered daily at the cash register. The packaging industry and its customers-the processors of all packaged articles-are far more responsive to the consumers' vote than any governmental agency can be. S. 387, if enacted, would bring an unwarranted intrusion of Federal regulatory power into the private enterprise system. One further point may be made on behalf of the institute and its members. Printing on the paper that is to be covered with wax is done from expensive plates. These plates are kept by the waxed paper manufacturer, but are purchased by the customer and remain the customer's property. Plates must be replaced when they are too worn for clear printing, when labels are changed for esthetic or sales reasons, or when they are changed in response to Government regulation. The more often plates have to be replaced, the more expensive the process is; and the burden of cost is borne by the consumer. The cost of frequent replacement in response to Government regulation is higher for small processors of foods and other products than it is for large. Large processors wear out their plates faster than do small processors; and can change the con tent of the plates more frequently. If S. 387 is to be enacted into law, some provision should be made for orderly replacement of plates, without economic waste, or the regulatory agencies should be advised through the statute or, at a minimum, in the legislative history that this problem be recognized. DEAR CONGRESSMEN: I have studied the revised "truth-in-packaging" bill (S. 387) as it appeared in the Congressional Record of January 21, 1963. I urge your support of Senator Hart's bill and/or the companion bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Celler. In my opinion, the measure will materially contribute to uniform labeling of packaged commodities and improved consumer information and protection. Enactment of such a statute is an essential first step, by applying these standards to commodities shipped in interstate commerce, toward uniform programs in these areas throughout the Nation. Many State weights and measures units, including those in the State of Washington, have been actively supporting these efforts for many years. Such a Federal statute would immeasurably assist these efforts in the States and municipalities. Sincerely, JOE DWYER, Director. [Western Weights & Measures Association Newsletter] TRUTH-IN-PACKAGING BILL A number of top Government officials have declared themselves to be wholeheartedly in favor of the truth-in-packaging bill. Among them we cite George P. Larrick, Federal Food and Drug Commissioner and Wilbur J. Cohen, Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Secretary of Commerce Luther H. Hodges spoke in favor of this legislation when he addressed the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly on March 6, 1963. To quote some of his words, “I come to express administration support of Senate bill 387, a bill designed to prevent deceptive methods of packaging or labeling consumer commodities. This bill, in my opinion, would not only serve to protect the interests of consumers throughout our country but would also serve to protect and advance the interest of manufacturers, packagers, and all other business elements participating in the distribution of consumer products." Last year, the President took express notice of the problems involved in packaging and labeling practices. In his Consumer Message to the Congress, the President referred to the hearings which Senator Hart and members of his subcommittee have conducted and he had this to say: "Misleading, fraudulent, or unhelpful practices *** are clearly incompatible with the efficient and equitable functioning of our free economy. Under our system, consumers have a right to expect that packages will carry reliable and readily usable information about their contents. And those manufacturers whose products are sold in such packages have a right to expect that their competitors will be required to adhere to the same standards." Senate committee investigation of the many package labeling abuses has been going on for about 11⁄2 to 2 years. We know that they have done a very thorough and searching job. At hearings, recently concluded, some industry witnesses brought forth statements such as. "Such legislation is unnecessary and undesirable" and "we are entirely capable of policing our own business by establishing a basic code of conduct for the industry that would cure the abuses without legislation." If they, the industry, had any honest desire to do this-and had done so would there be any need for this new legislation? We who are in the weights and measures inspection field have worked for the principles of equity for many long, hard years. We have constantly seen the abuses in the packaging and labeling of commodities. It is not without good cause that this legislation is being sought. We must seek the cure. We urge you to read, understand and back Senator Hart's bill S. 387. A letter to your Congressman to indicate that you favor this much needed packaging legislation would help. Do it today! Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly Legislation, May 7, 1963. DEAR ESTES: Enclosed is a copy of one of the most intellngent, thoughtful, and well-documented letters I have received on S. 387, the so-called truth-in-packaging bill, introduced by Senator Hart. I would very much appreciate it if you would have the enclosed letter from Mrs. Lee James York of Salt Lake City included in the record of the hearings on this bill. Sincerely, FRANK E. Moss. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, April 18, 1963. Hon. FRANK E. MOSS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR Moss: In your consideration of Senate bill 387, the truth-inpackaging bill, please take time to read "The Package Shall Not Bear False Witness," pages 246–249 in the May 1963 Consumer Reports. We have subscribed to this publication for several years and would consider our money well spent if only on its fight against deceptive packaging. We have three small children and a job that is fast "on the way," but not "arrived" financially. We have the ironic, but not unusual, situation of having more take-home pay, but less left over, than ever before. We're both University of Utah business school graduates and vitally interested in national economics and our own economy. We read, vote, budget, pay our bills-like so many, many others. With an afternoon's effort, I manage to compute our income tax forms. We have compiled market research reports on several occasions. I graduated at the top of my senior class, but I could easily make use of a calculator at the grocery store. I read and compare food ads before embarking on this mathematical venture. We eat 21 meals a week and I plan accordingly. I am aware that luxury foods and precooked items seldom can be included on my list. I know the reasons, but also the cost, of advertising, and try manufacturers' off-brands and specials. I am very concerned that every purchase is the best value at the price, and I do not have much brand or store loyalty. Our budget and my interest in marketing demand these actions. And every time I discover a deceptive package, I boil. Many consumers do just as I do; they have to buy food and they do the best they can. However, many others cannot afford time or effort to turn shopping into a math bee, except when buying a large item such as a house or car. They're tired, hungry, in a hurry, or don't have to budget that closely. But I get mad in behalf of these people, too. I'll go along with the producer who wants to produce, package, and advertise his wares so attractively that I'll consider them necessities instead of luxuries. But why does he spend so much effort making it hard for me to find out if his product really is a good value? I wish he'd use the same talent and money to send me a good product at a lower cost, or at least one I can calculate. To spare you, I'll mention but a few examples: 1. At a Safeway store, I had my choice of their White Magic Bleach in 1-gallon bottles (128 fluid ozs.) or a new “Jumbo” bottle of Clorox which contained 1 gal lon, 1 quart, and 1 pint of bleach (no ounces notation). Unable to compare these in the alloted time, I brought home the White Magic. It had a small deception of its own: a "Special Offer!" label on the front for buttons. A small box on the back explained that they were obtainable with 50¢ and a label from Empress Preserves. (Not White Magic.) 2. Whisk detergent recently changed from can to a handy plastic container. The price per 1⁄2 gallon accompanying this change was increased from $1.17 to $1.49. Gerber's Baby Food, now in bottles, has also increased. 3. I searched a package of Kitchen Charm paper napkins for the contents. Finally on the bottom back corner I found "60 napkins" in type half the size of this. Incidentally, the package size is very nearly the same as several competitors' which contain 80 napkins. 4. Canned goods come in No. 300, 303, 21⁄2, ad infinitum. Why not in pounds, grams, fluid ounces or some meaningful and computable amount? Why not in about six standard can sizes? 5. Why do I have to buy shredded wheat to get rose bushes, pancake mix to get dishtowels? Why not just cut out the offers and lower the price? 6. The cereal boxes in my cupboard today have the contents clearly printed. The amounts run as follows: % oz., 13716 oz., and 8.5 oz. Why not 1 oz., 15 oz., and 10 oz? In general, I am against rigid legislation, preferring to let those who invest their capital and run the risks accept the responsibility. But in the light of many competitive gimmicks like those above, I feel that Senate bill 387 is very reasonable. Producers who haven't used these selling techniques won't be affected; but I hope the consumers will. In their behalf, I urge you to read the May Reports and support Senator Philip A. Hart and the truth-in-packaging bill. Sincerely, Mrs. LEE J. YORK. |