be, however, that uniformity is the most important single factor to be kept in the forefront of any discussion of the Model Law and Regulation. But uniformity is not necessarily promoted by rigid adherence to the status quo. For any law or regulation governing industries as dynamic as are those which sell consumer commodities must itself be dynamic and not static if it is properly to serve the public. And if the Model Law and Regulation are not dynamic, they will soon become models in name only. Therefore, it behooves the National Conference, as you have always done, to review the Models frequently and systematically to make certain that they are accomplishing the purpose set forth on the cover of both documents: "Uniformity in weights and measures laws and methods of inspection.' So let me make a few suggestions for your consideration, suggestions which are intended to promote future uniformity by keeping the Model Law and Regulation vital and viable. Remedies. First let me say a few words about two sections of the Model Law which set forth the remedies available to the enforcement official. Section 14 authorizes the director to issue ... stop-use orders, stop-removal orders, and re moval orders . . . whenever. he deems it neces ... sary or expedient to issue such orders. ... Let me say that I am not personally aware of any instance in which a weights and measures official has based a stop-use or similar order merely on "expediency" as is authorized by the Model Law. Nevertheless, expediency is one of the tests provided by Section 14. It seems to me that both industry and enforcement officials would be better served by a statute which at least required the enforcement official to make a finding that public interest necessitated the issuance of the order. Indeed an order not based on the public interest but merely on expediency might well be unconstitutional and at the very least give a possible defense to such an order in cases which should not be defensible on procedural grounds irrelevant to the substantive issues involved. Section 16 of the Model Law authorizes the director, again omitting words which are irrelevant for our purpose: ... to arrest, without formal warrant, any violator This same section authorizes seizure of packages without formal warrant which itself is a broad power but one which is probably justified since the action is against the goods rather than against a person. But the provision in the section which authorizes arrest without formal warrant is it seems to me too broad to justify leaving it in the Model. Again I am not aware of any instance in which this IT OF COMMERCE POSTAGE AN section has been used or abused, which perhaps illustrat ment officials, or perhaps attorneys general, also view being too extreme. I make these comments on Sections 14 and 16 onl consideration and reflection. As a member of the Illin I have tried to vote consistently against what I like coddling" bills, those which make it easier for the delinquent, draft card burner, the cheat, to get along our society. This type of legislation which has frie legislative bodies but also in our court system, I fee runs counter to our American tradition. But so also d authorize action based on expediency, or arrest and liberty without a formal warrant. So I commend for tion a review of Sections 14 and 16 since extremism, eve of honest weights and measures, is probably not justif Qualifying Terms. The next subject which I should like to discuss is th ing terms. Section 26 of the Model Law and Section Regulation prohibit the use of any term "such as " 'Full,' or the like that tends to exaggerate the amount Now I can understand how a word like "jumbo" or misleading, although I would like to see a thorough on this point before I am completely convinced. But does not seem to me to belong in this list of prohib me give you a specific example. Two or three years a companies began marketing a liquid food product i jars and bottles which contained slightly less than fluid ounces, some 14 fuild ounces, and some as low as The exotic shape of the bottles precluded consumers glance which of the jars were larger in volume. Ind ally impossible to differentiate the quantity in these j pint contained in competitors' jars. Accordingly, who wished to hold the line at one pint, which was t consumers had become accustomed, began marketing a flag which bore the words "Full Pint." The purpos declaration was to enable consumers to see at a glance ble firm's jars contained a full pint as distinguished or two or three less than a pint contained in the ex Use of the word "full" in this instance, it seems to me, and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and sho absolutely prohibited by the Model Law and Regulat every once in a while one of my children brings home of words, one of which does not match the other words The object of the test is to pick out the word which does not belong with the others on the list. It seems to me that such a test could be applied to Section 26 of the Model Law and Section 3.9 of the Model Regulation, and if it is applied, the word "full" would be deleted from these two sections. An alternative suggestion would be to permit the enforcement official to allow use of the word "full" when in his opinion public interest was served by use of the word "full.” Pricing. Next let me make a few comments concerning sections of the Model Law which relate to pricing. Mr. Hensel, this morning, listed the many laws with which a seller of consumer commodities must comply. These laws are, of course, enforced by numerous different agencies. Right now, in Illinois, we have an interim legislative commission entitled the Food, Drug, Cosmetic and Pesticide Laws Study Commission of which Mr. Hensel, incidentally, is one of the public members, which is reviewing all of our State's laws in this area. We have found laws enforced by the Department of Public Health, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education and Registration and of course by several divisions within. these departments. If we are to avoid overlapping jurisdiction, duplication of effort, unnecessary expense to the taxpayer, and unwarranted burdens on industry, it is important that specific lines of authority be described in our statutes and regulations. In this regard, it seems to me that matters relating to pricing and price labeling, should be assigned to State and local law enforcement. officials, such as State's attorneys and attorneys general, and to State agencies analogous to the Federal Trade Commission rather than to weights and measures officials. By this, I do not in any way mean to de-emphasize the importance of pricing regulations; indeed I believe their importance would be emphasized by centralizing enforcement in one official and placing the burden squarely on that official to make certain that laws are compiled with by everyone. I am sure you know from your own experience that any time two different departments within a State or two different officials within a State are given jurisdiction over the same subject matter, enforcement tends to be more lax than it is when clearly defined jurisdiction is assigned to one depart ment or to one official. Section 27 of the Model Law requires random weight packages to bear on the outside of the package "a plain and conspicuous declaration of the price per single unit of weight, measure or count." Section 31 of the Model Act prohibits the misrepresentation of a price, prohibits representation of a price in any manner calculating or tending to mislead the purchaser, and requires fractions of a cent in price labeling to be prominently displayed. Now, no one can argue that misrepre of viscous or semisolid products have customarily been sold by liquid measure. These products may shrink through loss of air or for other reasons, but they do not lose weight. Therefore, it seems to be becom ing more and more prevalent to label such products by weight rather than by liquid measure. This change in the method of sale is probably authorized by Section 25 of the Model Law and Section 3.2 of the Model Regulation, particularly if State officials are sympathetic to the difficult problem which faces industry. Prescribed Units and Fractions. Section 3. 5 of the Model Regulation requires that a declaration of quantity be expressed in terms of the largest whole unit of weight or measure. An alternative to this requirement has been suggested, I believe by Mr. D. W. Leeper of H. J. Heinz Company. Mr. Leeper suggests that weight declarations of ten pounds or less, or one gallon or less, be in ounces and fractions or decimal parts of an ounce unless the quantity declaration is accompanied by a declaration of both the price per unit of quantity and the total price. This "All Ounce" system has the advantage of facilitating price comparisons, and is included in S. 985 which was recently passed by the United States Senate. One other suggestion concerning the declaration of quantity should be made in regard to the binary submultiple system-a term which Mr. C. D. Baucom introduced me to about ten years ago. Section 3.6 of the Model Regulation provides that Declarations of quantity may employ common frac tions or decimal fractions and requires that a common fraction be in terms of halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, or thirty-seconds and be reduced to its lowest terms. Frequently a manufacturer finds it necessary or desirable, for example because of the size of servings, or for recipes or for various dietary reasons, to package a food in fractions of an ounce which are not part of the binary submultiple system. In such instances, the manufacturer is forced to show on his label for example, "6.33 ounces" rather than "63 ounces," even though the latter may be more meaningful to most consumers. I realize that the binary submultiple system had valid and justifiable reasons for its original inclusion in the law, but those reasons are no longer valid as is evidenced by the provision authorizing use of the decimal equivalent of fractions which are not binary submultiples. So even though it was historically sound, and even though I love to say "binary submultiple," it seems to me that public interest in the simplification of quantity statements should lead you to consider amending Section 3.6 to relegate the binary submultiple requirement to the archives and to permit declarations at least in thirds of an ounce. The present wording is still perhaps not quite as clear as it could be For example, are "free samples" exempt, as they probably should be, and if so-what packages qualify as free samples? This section is something of a Pandora's Box, but perhaps the lid could be lifted just a little for more examination of the contents without allowing anything to escape. Shrinkage. No talk on the Model Law and Regulation would be complete without a few comments on the very important and very controversial subject of shrinkage. Section 8. 2 of the Model Regulation permits variations from the declared weight or measure when caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that normally occur in good distribution practice and that unavoidably result in change of weight or measure. ... but only after the commodity is introduced into which is defined as ... the time and the place at which the first sale and This section also requires that so long as a shipment, delivery or lot of packages of a particular commodity remains in the possession or under the control of the packager or the person who introduces the package into intrastate commerce exposure variations shall not be permitted. This position appears to be in conflict with the Federal rule which requires that the package bear the stated quantity at the time it is introduced into interstate commerce, but permits shrinkage which unavoidably results in change of weight or measure after the product. is introduced into interstate commerce. Manufacturers have an immense, and indeed impossible, burden in trying to overpack to meet all possible conditions of shrinkage. There is no panacea for this difficult problem. A uniform Federal and State rule would, however, be most desirable and I sincerely urge for your consideration incorporation of the Federal rule into the Model Regulation. One method fo alleviating this difficult problem at least for some parts of the food industry has recently been suggested. A number |