stronger bottles. There is a most palpable difference between the weight of a gallon bottle today and that of only a decade ago. In addition, it is possible to pass on to the consumer the saving in packaging costs which result from increase in the quantity contained by a single package rather than multiple packages. A most notable example relates to milk bottle designs of today.

Glass packaging designs of today are as revolutionary and as worthy as the outstanding example in glassmaking history-the oil lamp chimney. It was discovered that crimping the top of the chimney increased the total strength of the chimney and allowed lighter glass weights to be utilized, with an ultimate saving to the consumer.

It is an easily discernible fact that the uses of glass as containers are currently in a ferment of discovery and, for that reason among others, grave consideration should be given any legislation which would tend to standardize and thus stifle the ingenuity and skill of an entire industry.

I join enthusiastically with the sponsors of S. 387 in demanding that packaging of any commodity contain assurances as to weight, measure or count of the contents but respectifully submit that section 3(e) (1) and (2) of the proposed legislation are extraneous to its purpose and constitute an economic threat to thousands engaged in the glass container industry.

Perhaps it is a misnomer to call S. 387 a “truth in packaging" proposal. Rightfully, its purpose is "truth in labeling" and pertains to packaging only insofar as the design of the materials for packaging are intended to deceive the consumer. Obviously, this is difficult to accomplish in clear glass packaging or in any but totally opaque glass containers. But it can be done through varied shapings of the container, if the intent to deceive is present.

Is this problem not one of enforcement of existing legislation and regulation very similar to the manufacture and distribution of clothing following the discovery and utilization of synthetic fibers. It was sufficient to label the wool, cotton, or synthetic content of the clothing rather than standardize the designs of men's suits or women's dresses.

An equally abhorrent result would follow from regulation of "packages of sizes, shapes or dimension proportions which may deceive retail purchasers as to the net quantity of the contents thereof ***." Lost would be the creative genius now being displayed in glass packaging without intent to deceive but willful intent to beautify and to utilize a versatile material to its best advantage. Many homes in this country are lit by table lamps whose base has been adapted from a beautifully designed glass container. Shelves of objects d'art contain empty vials and decanters having the appearance of fine cutglass. More important, the varied composition of foods now being concentrated in powders, liquids, shreds and cubes dictate the shapes and sizes of their glass containers in order to achieve free flow, prevent wastage and provide easy aecess to the commodity. Safe and utilitarian packaging of these nutritional developments are the concern of glass container designer and their economy in filling of concern to the packer and the consumer.

Surely a stultification of industrial ingenuity and marketing diversification is not a purpose of S. 387. Yet the above-mentioned sections of the legislation would hamper if not eliminate the efforts now in progress toward full utilization of the desirable characteristics of glass as a packaging material. Standardization would reduce employment among members of our union employed as glass mold makers and their craft, often passed from generation to generation, could be lost.

It is also my belief that the American glass industry would suffer greater unemployment as a result of encouragement of enterprise and technological advances abroad in the art of glassmaking and increase even further the imports which have been harmful to employment in the American glass industry. The handmade art and tableware industry has lost 50 percent of its employ ment opportunities since the end of World War II.

To summarize, the fundamental error in these sections of S. 387 cited above is that they would establish unnecessary controls and regulations without implementing the necessary consumer protection contained in other sections of the bill. Establishment of reasonable weights or quantities and restriction of sizes. shapes, or dimensional proportions of containers would neither reduce nor eliminate the policing problem caused by dishonest packaging. The fault lies, not in the packaging, but rather in the claims made on the label regarding the contents.

There presently exists sufficient regulatory authority to enforce observance of honesty in claims for contents of commodities packaged in glass. The technological nature of the moldmaking, molten-glass pouring and automatic finishing render it economically useless to attempt to gain an illicit profit from glass containers designed to deceive the consumer. The expense of such designs, their manufacture, packing, and special closures would prohibit any additional profit in lessening the contents below the amounts claimed on the labels.

For these reasons I respectfully submit that section 3 (e) (1) and (2) are superfluous to the objective of the bill in relations to glass containers and that the conditions imposed by these sections would hamper the remarkable advances of the glass container industry and result in increased unemployment in the American portion of that worldwide industry.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CEREAL
INSTITUTE, INC., APRIL 1, 1963

The Cereal Institute, Inc., opposes the enactment of the Hart-Celler bills (S. 387 and H.R. 2382) as they relate to cereals and other packaged foods. These bills would require the Food and Drug Administration to issue regulations which would unnecessarily duplicate provisions of existing law under which the Food and Drug Administration has adequate authority to protect the consumer from deceptive and misleading packaging and labeling. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires prominent and conspicuous declarations of net contents and ingredients, prohibits the use of labeling that is false or misleading in any particular, and prohibits the use of containers that are so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.

These bills would also authorize the Food and Drug Administration to standardize the quantities in which foods could be sold and the sizes and shapes of food packages, without requiring that hearings be held or that such regulations be based upon findings of fact or substantial evidence. In effect, they would give the Food and Drug Administration unlimited authority to regulate and control food packaging, authority for which no legitimate need has been shown.

Such unlimited regulatory authority would be contrary to the best interests of consumers since it would deprive them of some of the benefits of mass-production economies they now enjoy, result in monotonous standardization of food packages and labels, reduce the variety of sizes available from which consumers are now free to choose, and suppress and inhibit packaging and also product improvements and innovations. Further, it would permit unwarranted interference in the business of food manufacturers and processors and constitute an undesirable delegation of legislative power without adequate guidelines for its exercise.

These bills substitute Government regulation for the natural law of the marketplace, the keystone of our free enterprise system, under which consumers determine by their selective purchases which competitive products succeed and fail as well as the sizes in which they want them available, and the cost of compliance with the burdensome regulations they would require or authorize would ultimately be borne by the consuming public.

The institute recommends continued and increasing cooperation between the appropriate Government agencies and industry groups, such as the Cereal Institute, Inc., within the framework of existing laws.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF FORT WAYNE,

Fort Wayne, Ind., April 16, 1963.

To Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: It is very disturbing to those of us who believe in the private enterprise system to see in certain governmental thinking a desire to discredit that system, and to estabilsh a complex system of restrictive Federal regulations and controls against particular segments of our economy. Generally, such proposals are advanced to "Protect the public" against alleged abuses by a very small number of individuals, and the future freedom of an entire industry is endangered. The immediate case at point is S. 387.

It seems almost incredible that the National Congress should propose to control and standardize all packaging and labeling and extend the hand of the Federal Government into every grocery and drugstore shelf in the country. Particularly when existing laws already give both the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission adequate powers to protect consumers from any deceptive practices.

Section 403 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 declares a food "shall be deemed to be misbranded if the label is false or misleading in any particular; or if the container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading." The FDA Administrator testified they had in the past not been able to enforce this authority adequately because of lack of personnel, but that this situation was being remedied. In 15,000 test samples examined in the first 3 months of last year, only 23 cases of inconspicuous labeling were found: Hardly enough to demand rigid controls over an entire industry.

Section 5(a) (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act is very broad: “Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." FTC Chairman Rand Dixon testified "There can be no doubt that the Commission's general powers under existing law would authorize it to issue cease-and-desist orders when false or misleading packaging or labeling result in consumer deception."

From this it seems evident that proper enforcement of the existing law, rather than the enactment of new laws, is the proper answer to any deceptive practices which may exist in the packaging or labeling of consumer products.

In your consideration of this proposal, we feel there are three basic points which must not be overlooked:

(1) Human nature is imperfect. You will find in all areas of both economic and political activity those few individuals who may misrepresent things, who are willing to profit at others' expense, and whose only motivating force is a selfish one. Laws should be designed to protect the public from such individuals, not to restrict and coerce all innocent ones. S. 387 would apply rigid restrictions to all, in order to correct real or alleged infractions of a few, and therefore is contrary to an important concept of our way of life.

(2) In our American economy, the consumer is "king." Freedom of choice also carries with it the freedom to make a mistake in choice. But, consumer pleasure or displeasure with any product is quickly reflected in the marketplace, by acceptance of or refusal to purchase the product. Fortunately, there are literally hundreds of alternate choices. This consumer-choice power is best illustrated by the fact that of 7,000 new products introduced in 1960 in the food and drug field, only 1,000 survived the acid test of consumer acceptance.

(3) Major producers of all goods (and this includes packaged goods) are in business for the long range. They realize they can stay in business only if the consumer is satisfied with his purchase and repurchases. Many millions of dollars are spent on product research and market surveys in an effort to please the consumer, not to deceive him. It would be the height of folly for these companies to try to play any tricks on the consumer-and the people who run these companies are not foolish.

Certainly a consumer has the right to know what is in a package, the contents of it, and the weight. The Government does and should require manufacturers and food processors to indicate this information on the package or label. But, do you really believe the Federal Government should:

Mandate where the weight is printed on every package.

Set standards for the size and kind of type to be used in showing contents. Prohibit any "qualifying words" considered a part of special advertising and promotion campaigns.

Dictate how sales promotions should be worded on packages.

Control approval of any illustrations used in label design.

Standardize the size and shape of all containers.

Regulate what is considered "small," "medium," "large," and "giant."
Rule on how many servings are in each package.

Require a special ruling for any product to qualify as an exception to Government-imposed specifications.

Additional long-range problems are created by this bill:

(1) By introducing this new set of requirements under the Clayton Act, the entire scope of antitrust regulations will be affected, and enforcement further clouded and complicated both in this and other areas.

(2) Should these restrictive conditions ever be imposed on the packaging and labeling industry, the next logical step would be to extend comparable regulations to cover all advertising and selling practices for unpackaged consumer items.

Let's strengthen the enforcement of our existing laws. Let's require the industry to submit an acceptable code of ethics, if that is felt necessary. But for goodness' sake, let's not in any overzealous desire to correct a minor situation set up a book of rules to harass and confuse an entire industry, hamper legitimate competitive innovation, and stifle the initiative and research that has produced the amazing revolution in packaging and made our supermarkets a showcase for the ingenuity of our economic system. We plead with you not to put a hangman's noose around the neck of our marketing system.

Sincerely yours,

DALE HOUTS,

Chairman, Intervention in Local Affairs, Subcommittee, National Policies Committee.

Assistant Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monoply, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. COHEN: I shall endeavor to give you some examples of what we interpret as deceptive marketing practices. You are no doubt familiar with many of them, but repeating some, I am sure, will only reflect a consensus of opinion as to their purpose.

PACKAGE SIZES

Two cans, with the same capacity of chow mein noodles were marked 3 ounces and 4 ounces respectively. There was 33% percent more noodles in the 4-ounce can than the 3-ounce can. Two packages of powdered potatoes had the same declared weight. One container, however, was twice the size of the other, giving an impression of greater quantity. Two cans, of the same capacity, of coffee were marked 14 ounces and 1 pound respectively. The 14-ounce-can size was used apparently to confuse the customer into believing that it contained 1 pound of coffee.

LABELS

Many weight markings on pliofilm bags are hard to see because they lack contrast background. In many cases all of the data on the bag has contrast background except the weight marking. Many weight markings are run in with other data, placed in the crease of the bags and on the bottom of the container. Some weight markings are so small, such as those on the container of a popular seasoning salt, that it required a magnifying glass to determine the exact amount. This practice could be stopped by requiring that the weight marking be placed immediately above or below the brand name of the product and in large type which could be easily read.

Many processors have their general offices in one location, such as Chicago, Ill., but their plants are scattered all over the country. The only address information on the container is the location of the general offices. This presents a great problem for the local sealer, who will assume that the product was processed in the jurisdiction where the general offices are located. He will direct an injuiry there to the proper authorities, but the sealer in whose jurisdiction the item was actually processed may never know there was a controversy concerning a plant in his jurisdiction. Consequently, an immediate and proper investiga

tion cannot be made. In order to trace the package back to the proper processing plant, it is necessary to contact the company involved who have a code mark on the container and are the only ones who know from whence it came. This naturally gives the company involved plenty of time to make any adjustment which might be deemed necessary long before any inspector arrives.

DECEPTIVE FILL, ETC.

A canned chicken which was marked "contents 3 pounds, 4 ounces," contained only 1 pound, 7 ounces, of chicken. The size of the raw chickens used in this operation range from 28 to 35 ounces. The difference between the actual weight

and declared weight was made up by adding water. The fluid naturally became broth when the chicken was cooked.

A 1-pound can of green beans had a net weight of 94 ounces, the balance of weight was fluid.

A 152-ounce can of green beans had a net weight of 74 ounces, the balance of weight was fluid.

A 1-pound can of peas had a net weight of 94 ounces, the balance of weight was fluid.

A 1-pound can of peas had a net weight of 104 ounces, the balance was fluid.

"ODD BALL WEIGHTS”—“GIANT," ETC., "ECONOMICAL SIZES"

The greatest confusion encountered perhaps is when the customers try to do comparative shopping and attempts to make a weight and price comparison between different brands of a product. This is practically an impossibility for the average retail shopper because of the apparently confusing weight units used by the packers.

This idea has been exploited to such an extent that the average shopper is convinced, without resorting to figures, that the larger size is more economical than the regular size. While the superlative terms "large," etc., are still retained, the qualifying term “economical" seems to have disappeared from the face of the package. The reason being it would seem, is the fact that frequently the price per pound on the regular size is less than that of the giant and king sizes.

Consequently, the use of "economical" would constitute a fraudulent statement. However, the sad fact still remains that the "economical" thought still pervades the mind of the average shopper, who associates king and giant sizes with "economical" and is, therefore, misled into believing that the larger size is more economical than the regular size. Most of the "Odd Ball" weight units are in 3 figures, such as 4 pounds 34 ounces, etc. Incidentally, one manufacturer markets a 16 pound 1 ounce package of detergent.

The following are a few examples in which the regular size is less per pound than the large size.

One regular size package of detergent weighing 1 pound 4 ounces, was marked 31 cents. This computed 2480100 cents per pound.

The giant size package of the same detergent, weighing 3 pounds 14 ounces, was marked 79 cents. This computed 2560/100 cents per pound.

Here the shopper paid 3 cents more for the privilege of lugging home the larger size package.

A regular size can of scouring powder with a declared weight of 14 ounces, was marked 2/29 cents, or a price of 165/100 cents per pound.

The giant size of the same item had a declared weight of 1 pound 5 ounces, and was marked 2/49 cents, or a price of 1856100 cents per pound.

We then have the example of packaged tooth paste, and the following illustration will point out how sensitive the manufacturer is to weight markings and the extent he will go to confuse the weight issue. A certain company markets two brands of tooth paste in the same weight units, and presumably the same machinery is used for packaging both. One brand has the weight in fractions as follows: 14 ounces, 34 ounces, 5 ounces, and 6 ounces. The other brand has the weight marked in decimals as follows: 1.75, 3.25, 5, 6.75. It is difficult to believe that this company could have some other reason for marking these items in this manner, except to eliminate a weight comparison of their own products.