Mr. PISCIOTTA. Another question. Both the Federal law and our State law say that the terms used on a label must be such that they can be understood by the ordinary person, and that ingredients must be designated by their common or usual names. We recently picked up a bottle of prune juice, and the label stated that this was an "aqueous infusion"; I do not believe that an ordinary shopper under ordinary conditions would understand the meaning of "aqueous infusion." Unfortunately, when we brought the packer in, we were confronted with correspondence from the Food and Drug Administration to the effect that the labeling in question was permitted. How is that possible?

Mr. FRISBIE. Well, ordinary prune juice is an aqueous infusion of dried prunes; it sounds plausible that we may have said that that was all right. I admit that "water" instead of "aqueous" would be better. Perhaps that was an old letter; surely we are insisting in all of our correspondence on use of the common or usual name. For example, "sodium bicarbonate" is pretty well understood, but we say it is "baking soda," and we do not recognize "sodium chloride," which is understood by many people-we call it "salt."

Mr. PISCIOTTA. The question is, can we rely on common sense as to what is plain or ordinary language? I think the language should be so plain that it cannot be misconstrued. I doubt that an ordinary person understands "aqueous infusion" to mean "dried prunes soaked in water."

The letter I referred to was received by the manufacturer in June 1939. I do not think we can honestly and sincerely enforce the provisions of the law when we have rulings of that kind, unless we take an attitude which we do not want to take and which we should not take, and say that we shall make our own interpretation and let the Federal authorities do likewise. We should prefer to act in harmony with the Federal interpretations.

Mr. FRISBIE. I do not know how I can clarify it any more. This was evidently an attempt on the part of the manufacturer to embellish his label with some high-sounding words instead of using ordinary words. Unless we can show that there is absolute deception, I am not sure that we would have a case. I think that you are right and that labels will be understood by more people the more ordinary the language used; but we must consider carefully before we say that a manufacturer has stepped over the threshold and is actually violating the act.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. In other words, you feel that perhaps a definite ruling could not be made even though the former ruling was in error? Mr. FRISBIE. If we could get any evidence that "aqueous infusion” is misleading, the ruling might be changed.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. I cannot conscientiously permit this labeling; in fact, we are going to correct the situation in spite of the ruling, because the manufacturer acknowledges that no ordinary person is going to understand what "aqueous infusion" means.

Mr. FRISBIE. I do not claim that the Federal Government is always right, and least of all do we want to be arbitrary. We are called upon for thousands of opinions, and they change from day to day. I am not dismissing the possibility that the one we are discussing may be changed. The most and best you can do is to bring

280936 41- -11

your views to us very forcibly in writing, and, best of all, show instances where people have been misled.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. Is it necessary to prove that "aqueous infusion" is not understood by the ordinary person?

Mr. FRISBIE. We should like to hear what the ordinary person has to say.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. I shall agree to do that, and I shall send these letters to you personally.

Mr. FRISBIE. I shall be glad to have the correspondence and shall try to help you.

Mr. ROGERS. We find it very difficult to determine whether certain commodities should be marked on the basis of weight or on the basis of volume. For example, we found one manufacturer marking pickled pigs' feet by weight and another marking this commodity by volume; we feel that any commodity of this nature should be sold on the basis of the net weight of the drained material, but we can not seem to get the matter straightened out. Of course, there are other commodities, such as pepper sauce and chopped vegetables, which we are willing to accept marked either way, but what is proper for large units such as large, whole pickles? Should they be sold by count, by volume, or by weight?

I think it would be very valuable if the Food and Drug Administration would issue a list of various commodities, indicating which should be sold by weight, which by volume, and which by count, because manufacturers do not know, and we find it difficult to advise them.

Mr. H. N. DAVIS. Maple sirup is packed at 180° to 190° F, and the producer must have an oversized can in order that there be full measure at ordinary temperatures. We have a regulation to the effect that a 1-gallon can may be 8 cubic inches oversize, or 239 cubic inches, and still be approved. When that can is shipped into Massachusetts or elsewhere out of our State, I am wondering if it would be called a slack-filled package.

Mr. FRISBIE. The Food and Drug Administration is not going to ask the impossible of any manufacturing industry. Certainly the maplesirup industry will be permitted to fill their cans with hot sirup, but at least the can should be full when the hot sirup is packed, after which the shrinkage can take care of itself. We have not studied the shrinkage on maple sirup, and I do not know whether or not 8 cubic inches is an excessive allowance; if it should be found that the shrinkage is nothing like 8 cubic inches, then the package would be considered slack-filled.

Mr. KANZER. In trying to solve some problems relative to candy I contacted the confectionery industry and was told that the Federal authorities had ruled that if the top cover of a box is extended % inch beyond the body of the box, that is considered satisfactory, and that if 72 pieces of candy were packed where 80 pieces could be packed, representing a 10-percent tolerance, that would not be considered a violation of the Federal requirements. Is that correct?

Mr. RowE. The National Confectioners' Association has presented some exhibits and data to the Department, proposing standardized packing practices. Certain material on this subject has been distributed to all their members. No official regulation on this subject has yet been made.

Mr. KAN? ER. How about the North Dakota formula?

Mr. RowE. The North Dakota ratio has been used simply as a guide in our work, and has not been adopted officially; however, we think that this might well be adopted as a guide by members of the industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion? If not, may I say it seems to be quite clear that a bulletin which would help State officials in making decisions in accordance with the wishes of the Food and Drug Administration would be very helpful. As soon as that can be formulated, I am sure that the members of this organization will appreciate it.

Mr. FRISBIE. In that connection, may I repeat what I said a short time ago, that we are rendering from day-to-day opinions on the application of the act in all of its phases, including net weight, shape of containers, etc. We have not yet contemplated extending our general regulations, which are printed with the text of the act. However, we do give this information to State officials in the form of copies of some of these opinions. I doubt that weights and measures officials. are receiving them. If those of you who are interested in our opinions on net weight, labeling requirements, and deceptive containers will write my office, I shall put you on the mailing list.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand, Mr. Frisbie, that you have a list of interpretations which have already been made, and which are available to all of these weights and measures officials?

Mr. FRISBIE. Yes, sir. We shall be glad to give them to all cooperating State and local officials who request them.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be very helpful, and the way is clear for you gentlemen to write to Mr. Frisbie for that information.

Am I to understand also, Mr. Frisbie, that you will be happy to consider any particular case when a weights and measures official seeks your advice?

Mr. FRISBIE. Absolutely, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I should now like to call Vice-President Read to the chair.

(At this point Charles C. Read, Vice President of the Conference, assumed the chair.)

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGED GOODS, PRESENTED BY ALEX PISCIOTTA, CHAIRMAN

As a result of the report submitted by the National Conference Committee on Standardization of Packaged Goods at the Twentyninth National Conference on Weights and Measures last year, this Committee was continued and instructed to make further investigations on the question of the standardization of packaged goods. During the past year, a great deal of progress has been made by your Committee. As had been requested by the Conference last year, conferences were held with members of the interested industries. The following report is made for your consideration, and together with, and as part of, this report, we are submitting three bills prepared after a great deal of research work and conferences with weights and measures officials other than the members of the Committee and with other persons interested in this problem.

We are very happy to report as a result of our sitting down and discussing this problem with members of the industries that a certain

amount of standardization by voluntary agreement has been accomplished by a number of packers, manufacturers, and distributors without the necessity of enactment of any laws.

During the sessions of the New York State Weights and Measures Conference in New York City, in July 1939, a meeting was held with a committee of the Association of Food Distributors, consisting of Percy R. Iseman, F. C. Wheeler, and Henry Miller. The only members of the National Conference Committee available at that time were Carl Klocker, of Connecticut; C. D. Baucom, of North Carolina; and your Chairman. At this conference also were present John McBride, of Massachusetts; Robert A. Snyder, at that time Acting Superintendent of Weights and Measures of the State of Pennsylvania; and Barnett Kanzer, of the State of New York. As a result of this conference this committee, representing approximately 21 packers of staple commodities within the metropolitan area of New York, who distribute their products throughout the entire country, agreed to pack dry commodities put up by them in standard capacity weights as recommended by our Committee and to discontinue the use of odd-sized containers. This conference was arranged after laboratory tests covering a period of over 2 months were made by your Chairman and by the packers themselves. The purpose of these laboratory tests was to ascertain the possible shrinkage in each respective commodity. The results of these tests and this. agreement were mailed to all the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures on August 17, 1939.

In addition to this conference, other meetings were held with other representatives of the packing industry, and from time to time individual manufacturers and packers were in communication with your Chairman. I will briefly quote from some of the correspondence which we have received from manufacturers showing their willingness to cooperate in our attempt to standardize packages of these commodities. A letter from A. R. Simpson, manager of the tea department of Standard Brands, dated May 8, 1940, says:

* *

This is to confirm the information given you by our Mr. Fruchterman when he saw you last week, to the effect that it is our intention to adopt 8-oz and 4-oz packages for our Tender Leaf Tea we want you to know that we are definitely planning to do so as soon as our present stock of packing materials is used and the necessary changes in our machinery made.

A letter, dated August 15, 1939, from Percy R. Iseman, of Seeman Bros., advising us that the following firms, who are packers of staple commodities, namely, R. C. Williams & Co., Frances N. Leggett, Seeman Bros. Inc., Graham Co., Albert Ehlers Co., George Dudman Co., Southern Rice Sales Co., and Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., would cooperate, states:

All of these companies are packers of dried beans, peas and rice, and they are discontinuing the odd-size packages just as fast as their present stock of containers is used up. All new containers will be for 16 oz or even fractions of the pound.

As to other commodities, speaking for Seeman Bros., it is our intention as fast as new cartons are issued, to pack the cereal products in even-size packages.

A letter, dated September 26, 1939, from the attorney of Old Dutch Mills, Inc., states:

After said date, Old Dutch Mills, Inc., will market said coffee known as Cafe Reale (Italian roast coffee) in one-pound or sixteen (16)-ounce containers. Until

such time, it is understood that your department will issue no further violations or summonses involving Cafe Reale in the present fifteen (15)-ounce cans.

A letter from B. Filippone & Co., dated October 11, 1939, reads in part as follows:

As per conversation had this day with our Mr. Bartole Filippone with reference to the weight on La Perla Italian Roast Coffee, which at present is packed in tins of 12/14 oz to case, we hereby confirm said conversation in that we are making arrangements to pack the said item in tins of 12/16 oz to case beginning January 1, 1940.

J. Ossola Co. wrote in part, on October 5, 1939, the following:

Incidentally, as already advised you, we have placed an order for new lithographed tins which will be of 1 pound net, and we also agree to have whatever old 15-ounce labels still unused by December 31 corrected to read 1-pound net, either through a sticker or printed correction.

On October 5, 1939, Salvatore A. Laraja wrote in part as follows: Thus we have no more 15-ounce package coffee to offer, under any label, and have been attempting to supply all our customers with the new package as best we could.

The Long Island Macaroni Co., Inc. wrote on April 18, 1939, in part as follows:

As per our recent conversation which we had at your office, you will find enclosed new labels for our packages of macaroni, which you will note conforms with your requirements.

The attached label reads "Net Weight 1 lb".

Alba Macaroni Mfg. Co., Inc. wrote on April 13, 1939:

As per conversation with Inspector Kennedy in reference to packages marked 15 ounces. We wish to state that we will cooperate with your office, to rid these packages as soon as we can, as we have a small supply on hand.

Caruso Spaghetti & Egg Noodles on April 7, 1939, wrote in part: With reference to our Caruso Spaghetti package containing 14 oz. net, which has been the subject of our conversations, we beg to advise that we shall be glad to discontinue it and make it either a 12 oz. or I lb. package as soon as we have used up all labels that we have on contract. The same applies to two other small packages which we are distributing bearing the label "DIXIE" and "GOLD CROWN.' Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc. on April 7, 1939, wrote:

"

We had been packing for the past 10 years up to the summer of 1938, a carton containing 15 oz. macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles. A change was then made to the one-pound size which we are now packing.

Roman Macaroni Co. Inc. wrote on April 19, 1939, the following:

With reference to our macaroni packages, please be advised that we discontinued using the fifteen-ounce packages January 4, 1938, and thereafter we have used only cellophane wrappers and all small carton boxes marked sixteen ounces.

The B. Manischewitz Co. of New York, Inc., wrote on January 17, 1938, the following:

In order to cooperate with your department and preclude the possibility of our product being sold under misrepresented weights, the B. Manischewitz Co. will pack five pounds net weight in its regular matzoth package for the coming Passover season.

Several conferences were held with representatives of the canning industry and also with Carlos Campbell, Director of the Division of Statistics of the National Canners Association, and F. F. Fitzgerald, Director of Research of the American Can Co., representing the Can Manufacturers Institute. Both of these gentlemen appeared before