I point my objection solely to the label which I feel is not informative and which in proportion to the burden which it imposes gives the consumer little if any knowledge of value.

I have pointed out the fact that knowledge of the origin of the fur conveys very little information of value and that the true English name of the fur likewise carries very little weight.

I would like to continue if I may. I have one or two points under those contentions.

Mrs. Consumer has decided that she wants one of those muskrat coats which have been dyed and striped to resemble mink. The tag discloses that the coat is made of muskrat skins, but that has very little interest for her. She knows that she is buying a muskrat coat. What she wants to know is whether the coat will wear well, whether it will fade or rip or prove otherwise disappointing. As to these important factors she is compelled to rely upon the reputation and integrity of the seller; the label does not and cannot offer her any assurance of grade, quality, or wear.

We do not want to multiply examples. However, we do believe that we should point out that the names of many furs, although not the true English names of the animals which produced them, are so well known and accepted that the substitution of the English names of the animals will only tend to confuse rather than to enlighen the consumer. We submit such well-known furs as coney, mouton, lapin, marmot, and many more.

It is rather coincidental that I should have picked the very four that you named in the advertising matter a little while ago.

As respects geographic origin, the situation from the consumer's point of view, is even more confusing. It is commonly accepted that certain types of fur taken from animals in certain areas or locations are superior to others of the same type taken elsewhere. Thus northern muskrat is understood to be better than southern; Canadian beaver better than western and Persian lamb from Russia superior to that from southwest Africa.

However, there is a broad and obvious fallacy in this premise. Fur skins are good, bad, or indifferent, as are indeed all products of nature, man included, regardless of where they come from. Certainly a good southern muskrat is better than one of inferior quality, trapped out of prime in one of the Northern States. By the same token, a beaver of poor pelt, by swimming across the St. Lawrence River, and beavers are good swimmers, becomes Canadian, but his fur is no better than it was while he was in New York State and Persian lamb skins from Russia run the whole gamut of quality from the best to the poorest and a good southwest African Persian lamb is certainly much superior to a poor Russian. But the label discloses only the geographic origin.

It must be perfectly obvious that the label is of no value whatever to the consumer insofar as it discloses the name of the animal which produced the fur, even though that name has never been associated with the fur, or the place where the animal was born. Essential distinctions of quality are not reval.

However, not only is the label of no value to the consumer, but it may readily be used to his disadvantage by unscrupulous dealers. Mrs. Consumer, having learned that good Persian lamb comes from Russia, is impressed when the dealer displays the label with its convincing affirmation of the fact that the skins are indeed from Russia.

But he refrains from adding that the skins are of inferior quality; that he has inflated the price because the label says the skins originated in Russia and that actually the less costly coat, which she has cast aside because the label discloses the African origin of the skins, is of superior quality and wear even though it is priced lower.

It seems unnecessary to point out that the dealer who would not hesitate to misrepresent the name of a fur or its origin would hardly be expected to have any compunction about changing a label. We are persuaded that such unscrupulous dealers are few and far between and that the existing law is adequate to teach them the error of their ways.

It is respectfully submitted that the bill does not protect any of the persons named in the headnote and that the only persons who would profit by its enactment into law would be those individuals engaged in trapping, farming and collecting American fur skins who are relieved of complying with its requirements.

The conclusion is inescapable that those who sponsor this legislation are interested only in those provisions of the proposed law which practically eliminate competition by importation of foreign fur skins and who seek to screen their discriminatory purpose behind those provisions of the proposed measure which pretend to benefit the consumer, without actually doing so. Obviously, individuals so motivated would not be deterred by the extent of the injury they would inflict on others engaged in the several branches of the industry. That is the conclusion of my prepared statement.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Benedek, in connection with your Associated Fur Coat and Trimming Manufacturers, is not Mr. J. George Greenberg the executive manager of that association?

Mr. BENEDEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. With reference to his testimony before the House Agricultural Committee on the hearings of May 19, 20, and 21, 1947, my attention has been called to the following testimony which Mr. Greenberg gave:

Mr. Cotton, who is a member of the committee, asked this question, and I am reading it from the bottom of page 152:

Do you think the public would have more confidence if the rules on this point were more stringent and if the name of the animal from which the fur is produced was plainly conspicuously, and constantly indicated?

Mr. GREENBERG. Mr. Cotton, I would say that the best example of that is the mouton field. One of the largest producers of dyed skins calls it dyed lambskin. There is nothing conspicuous about it.

Mr. HIRSH. Anything that would avoid deception would be all right, would it not?

Mr. GREENBERG. Definitely. We are in favor of it.

Mr. MURRAY. Along that line, so far as your group is concerned, you are not averse to any legislation that is comparable to the truth-in-fabrics legislation so far as wool is concerned?

Mr. GREENBERG. Definitely not.

At that time Mr. Greenberg testified that he felt that comparable legislation to the truth-in-fabrics would be good legislation.

Mr. BENEDEK. I submit if you please, Mr. Chairman, that I have stated that I am wholeheartedly in favor of any means of bringing to the attention of the consumer, by voluntary disclosure, the precise nature of his purchase. I don't know whether Mr. Greenberg had in mind when he made that statement, a labeling act, as distinguished

from a voluntary disclosure on the invoice, but I can only say for myself that I see infinite possibilities for harm in the label, and on the other hand, a great possibility for benefit to the consumer in requiring a complete disclosure of the name and origin of the fur in the invoice, and if necessary, expanding the provisions of the code of the Fair Trade Commission to make the failure to render such an invoice a punishable offense.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Hale, do you have any further questions?
Mr. HALE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been considerable testimony on the part of importers as to the difficulty under which they would operate under this law. There has been some testimony as to the difficulties that processors would experience, and manufacturers. Do you think this law to put a label on an article would do any harm to you as a manufacturer, or any other manufacturer or processor?

Mr. BENEDEK. I do not believe that anything you do to a fur coat could do any harm to a manufacturer or a processor or a dealer insofar as the identification of the fur is concerned. There is not anything that you can say on a label that is not just as palpable, obvious to any manufacturer without that label.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. BENEDEK. You do not need to tell him it is muskrat for he knows it is muskrat. And you can not tell him it is Russian Persian if it is south-west African Persian because in the raw state it is obvious to him.

The CHAIRMAN. He does not need a label.

Mr. BENEDEK. He does not need a label.

The CHAIRMAN. But you would not say the same thing of a consumer purchaser.

Mr. BENEDEK. I would say that the label would be of such little benefit to the consumer, and would be a possibility for detriment to the consumer, that I would much sooner that you provide that we must render him an invoice truthfully describing his purchase.

The CHAIRMAN. How could it be harmful to a purchaser to be told that a coat is made out of rabbit instead of out of a seal?

Mr. BENEDEK. I can not conceive of any harm to a consumer to be told that a coat is made out of rabbit and not out of seal. But as I have just pointed out I can see tremendous harm to a consumer by being told, as the young lady in my illustration was, that it is Persian lamb, without knowing whether it is good, bad, or indifferent Persian lamb, or whether it is superior or inferior to another Persian lamb.

The mere name is so uninformative as to carry little if any value, and there is the possibility for invasion of the consumer's rights by a retailer, or if you will, by any other vendor in the chain, to take advantage of the information disclosed upon the label to pretend that the garment possesses qualities attributable to the origin disclosed, when in fact it is of an inferior grade and does not contain those qualities.

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming that the provisions of this bill would not give the purchaser the information that you feel is necessary for him to have, what would you suggest in addition be put on the tag to that which is provided for in the bill?

Mr. BENEDEK. I have no suggested addition to the tag because I cannot conceive of any basis on which you could put on the tag those

74903-48- -11

things that I think would be of value and importance to the consumer. And those things which would obviate the possibility of his being taken advantage of.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the addition of the words "high grade" or "low grade" be helpful?

Mr. BENEDEK. On the contrary, those words would be an avenue for an expression of opinion with the maximum variance that is conceivable between experts in the characterization of grades or qualities

of fur.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we are no further than we were yesterday, insofar as suggestions from the fur industry are concerned, as to what could properly be put upon a tag that would be informative to a purchaser.

Mr. BENEDEK. I say in answer to that, Mr. Chairman, that we are further in finding suggestions in the industry to overcome the evils or alleged evils which have been depicted here, not necessarily by finding means of putting something on the label.

The CHAIRMAN. This is not an industry here. This is a congressional committee.

Mr. BENEDEK. I appreciate that, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We are charged with the responsibility in this matter. We are asking the proponents and we are asking the opponents to give their thought as to what should be done for the basic thing that we have in mind, protection of the purchaser.

So far as I have been able to observe, except for the suggestions that have come from the proponents of the legislation, there has not been one single concrete suggestion yet made by the fur industry as to how this committee could, in the interests of the consumer, provide for protection.

Mr. BENEDEK. Mr. Congressman, I believe that you had not yet returned to the committee room when I started my testimony. The CHAIRMAN. Do not let us start it over again.

Mr. BENEDEK. I appreciate the opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just asking questions.

Mr. BENEDEK. I am not aiming to be facetious at all. I appreciate your granting me the opportunity of starting it over again.

The CHAIRMAN. My suggestion was to the contrary; do not start it over again. Do not misunderstand me. It is too late in the afternoon. Mr. BENEDEK. I am going to take the liberty, if I may, with your indulgence, not of starting it again, but of repeating a preliminary statement that I made before I read my prepared statement, and I said at that time that if Congressman O'Hara were to ask me, as he had asked several of the other industry witnesses, whether I would participate in a movement to require voluntary disclosure by invoice to the consumer, of the name of the fur and its origin, I would be very happy to do so, and that if he were to ask me whether I would join with the Fair Trade Commission and the representatives of the other branches of the industry in so expanding the rules and regulations of the code adopted by the Commission as to include an obligation to make voluntary disclosure at the several stages of purchase and sale in the chain of transfer, which would require each man to render an invoice describing the true name and the origin so far as ascertainable of the commodity which he sold, I would be happy to participate there.

And I added that precisely that is what my branch of the industry has been doing and continues to do.

Mr. HESELTON. Would the chairman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HESELTON. Would you also include the suggestion which you made to others this morning, of a label indicating whether it is rabbit or sable or leopard or whatever the skin might be?

Mr. O'HARA. The name of the animal; yes.

Mr. HESELTON. Did you agree with that?

Mr. BENEDEK. I did not hear you.

Mr. HESELTON. The others agreed to go further and try to work out a system where, at the retail level at least, the garment would be correctly and accurately described in terms of what it was, whether it was rabbit, leopard, mink, sable, whatever it was.

Mr. BENEDEK. I heard the representative of the retail interests here volunteer to so label or tag the garment at the retail level. Certainly it would not behoove me to say no, I do not approve of the retailer making such a designation.

Mr. HESELTON. You say you did not hear?

Mr. BENEDEK. I did hear a representative of the retailers make that statement.

Mr. HESELTON. And you are willing to cooperate?

Mr. BENEDEK. I have no objection.

That is nothing I can object to, since I am not selling at his level. Mr. HESELTON. You do not oppose it?

Mr. BENEDEK. I see no objection to it.

Mr. HESELTON. Thank you.

Mr. O'HARA. Of course, the imposition of the rule of the Federal Trade Commission would have the same effect as a law passed by Congress so far as its enforcement is concerned.

Mr. BENEDEK. I am fully aware of that, sir. I have nothing to fear or to conceal in that respect. I want the purchaser to know what he gets.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Hale?

Mr. HALE. Mr. Benedek, have you H. R. 3734 in front of you?
Mr. BENEDEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALE. Section 1 of the bill gives the title to which I do not think anybody could object.

Section 2 contains definitions which I think are reasonable.

Section 3 relates to misbranding and false or deceptive advertising. Is there anything in section 3 that you see anything wrong with? Mr. BENEDEK. May I read it, if you please? I have studied this bill very carefully, but I do not have all the sections in mind. It will take me a moment.

I have no fault to find with that, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. HALE. Have you any fault to find with section 4?

Mr. BENEDEK. Yes. That is the section to which I directed my comments when I said that I felt that the burden and the costs which were imposed upon the industry in affixing a label were out of all proportion to any value that might accrue to the consumer from the label which could convey that very limited information.

Mr. HALE. Section 5.

Mr. BENEDEK. The objection is the same as that to section 4.