U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

STANDARDIZATION

OF PACKAGES

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION M165

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

HARRY L. HOPKINS, Secretary NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

LYMAN J. BRIGGS. Director

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION M165

STANDARDIZATION

OF PACKAGES

[Reprinted from Miscellaneous Publication Ml64]

Issued April 2, 1940

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1940

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 10 cents
The material comprising this publication is a direct reprint from National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous

Publication M164, Eeport of the Twenty-Ninth National Conference on Weights and Measures, and presents the full text of the report for the fifth and sixth sessions of the Conference, which were devoted entirely to the subject of standardization of packages. This publication is being issued to meet a demand from individuals and groups particularly mterested m questions relating to package standardization.

Lyman J. Briggs, Director.

CONTENTS

Pagt Report of Committee on Standardization of Packaged Goods of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, presented by Alex Pis!

ciotta, chairman. _„„ _ _ J Paper presented by Hazel Kyrk, Home~ " Economics

- " "Department"

As^dltkfn

ChlCag0' rePresenting the American Home Economics

Discussion of above paper _

" Paper presented by Carlos Campbell, director of"the" bTvisTon of Statfstics", .National Canners Association ' QC- Discussion of above paper. _ _ ~ " ------ yo mg the National Wholesale Grocers' Association ... _ Discussion of above paper _ _

" Paper presented by F. F. Fitzgerald, director" of 7e"sear~ch"," American Ca"n Co., representing the Can Manufacturers Institute, Inc _ no

Discussion of above paper. _ __ ____ _ ~~~ ttf

General discussion of report of conference committee """"""

125

ii

104
FIFTH SESSION—MORNING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1939

(The Conference reassembled at 9:50 a. m., at the Washington Hotel; W. S. Bussey, Vice President of the Conference, in the chair.) STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGES

The Acting Chairman. During the past year there was appointed

by the president of the Conference a special committee to study the

question of standardization of packages. Mr. Pisciotta will now

present the report of his Committee.

REPORT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, PRESENTED BY

ALEX PISCIOTTA, CHAIRMAN

At the Twenty-eighth National Conference on Weights and Measures last year following the delivery and discussion of a paper by

Director Alex Pisciotta, of the Bureau of Weights and Measures, New

York City, a motion was adopted that a committee be appointed to look into the matter of remedying the situation as to the standardization of packages and to determine which way may be best adopted to accomplish that purpose. Subsequent to this the Committee on

Resolutions introduced a resolution which was adopted endorsing the

principle of general standardization of packaged goods as follows:

Whereas we have knowledge of the benefit which would accrue from a standardization of all packaged goods; Therefore be it Resolved, That this, the Twenty-eighth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, does hereby record its sincere belief that a general standardization of packaged goods is greatly to be desired, and does direct its Executive Committee

to consider ways and means of accomplishing this. An almost identical resolution was also adopted at the Twentyseventh Conference in 1937.

Dr. Briggs, president of the National Conference, appointed seven members of the Conference to serve as the National Conference

Committee on Standardization of Packaged Goods.

The need for prompt, effective action is imperative and is increasing

rapidly. George Warner's paper on the standardization of packages

of canned goods delivered at the Twenty-seventh Conference in 1937

and Mr. Pisciotta's paper on the standardization of packages in

general at the Twenty-eighth Conference in 1938, and the general

discussion which followed these papers brought out the facts regarding

this fast-growing new method of cheating the consumer—because

that's what it really is. For generations commodities have been dealt in by standard units

of weight and measure, particularly the pound, quart, gallon, etc. Business methods have changed and with the growth of chain stores,

self-service stores, and the packaging of commodities in general, the

sale of commodities which are weighed by the retailer is fast disappearing. Sale by package is now the usual thing. Competition is very keen in this class of business and has resulted in unfair practices

and in all sorts of odd-sized, misleading, and deceptive packages.

The consumer is being misled and deceived and often cheated outright.

79
80 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Honest, ethical dealers, packers, and distributors are forced, in orde

to meet competition, to follow the lead of their competitors an* adopt practices which they know to be irregular and which, in man^

cases, lead to conditions which are not to the best interests of th* majority of the producers themselves.

For example, coffee. This has always been bought by the pound

everybody asks for a pound of coffee, or perhaps a half pound!

Through competition, in trying to meet or to beat the price of th< other fellow, we find 7-ounce packages, 8-, 13-, 14-, and 15-ounc<

cans, and the standard 16-ounce, or 1-pound, cans. There is n

justification for the packing of coffee in these odd sizes, nor is there any justification in the packing of tea in 3-, 3K-, or 7-ounce packages,

which is also being done.

Large distributors and chain stores have identical-sized packages

for all staple commodities put out by them, such as rice, barley,

dried beans of all kinds, peas, etc. In a list of 10 such distributors

we find that for 8 such commodities, 6 of the 10 distributors put up

these commodities in full-pound weights. One distributor put up

only one commodity in a full pound, and put up five in the odd weight

of 14:% ounces. Some distributors have identical packages containing

two different weights of the same commodity, for instance, pea beans;

in 14- and 16-ounce packages and barley in 13- and 16-ounce packages

There is no excuse or justified explanation for this. These distributors

argue that they purchase millions of containers of a standard size and use the same package for different commodities. They claim

that their standard box, for example, will hold only 15 ounces of green

split peas, 14^ ounces of pea beans, a full pound of lentils, and

so on. They argue that by using only the standard-sized box and

purchasing them in very large quantities, there is a great saving

which is passed on to the consumer.

This argument is absolutely false, as is proved by the fact that

other distributors can and do pack all their commodities in full-pound

boxes of identical size. Furthermore, some of them do pack 14 and

16 ounces of the same commodity in the same standard-sized boxes. L. J. Salter, of the Salter Canning Co., in a communication to the

Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the House of

^Representatives in support of bill H. tt. 6964, the Sauthoff bill, lists 15 different cans of tomato juice between 7 ounces and 1 pound 15 ounces and 14 different cans for tomato soup between 7% ounces and

2 pounds 2 ounces. Taking them both together, there are 29 different

quantities listed in a range of 27 ounces. In this same range there are only 15 cans listed. Some of them contain two different quantities,

probably because tomato soup is heavier. It is interesting to note

that in the entire list of 29 different quantities there are only two cans which contain an even pound and only one which contains threequarters of a pound. These are all that might be termed standard.

Beer is being sold in New York City, and probably elsewhere, in

containers of the following sizes: 6K-, 7-, 10-, 11K-, 12-, 26-, 29-, 30-,

and 32-ounce, or 1 quart. Through pressure on the part of the New

York City Bureau of Weights and Measures, the 29-ounce bottle has

been voluntarily discontinued by the brewer, who is now using the

full-quart size. The brewery now putting up beer in the 10- and

30-ounce bottles formerly used the usual 12-ounce and 1-quart sizes but changed to the smaller quantities to meet competition.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 81

! In Wisconsin they have a law which requires that the actual weight

Dr volume of the contents of food in package form be conspicuously

set forth in not less than 10-point type in any advertisement when

the retail price is mentioned.

Lately the matter of fiber or paper milk bottles has become prominent. In New York and several other States the weights and measures

authorities have classed these as milk bottles and limited them therefore to the standard sizes allowed for milk bottles. Other States

handle this in other ways, but all seem to be agreed that odd-sized

fresh milk containers be not allowed to come into use. A representative of the largest manufacturer of these paper containers informed

a New York weights and measures official that his firm had already

been approached to manufacture a 6-ounce size of these containers,

but had refused. Evidently, therefore, unless definitely checked, this

evil of odd-sized packages will spread into the fresh milk industry.

Many retailers do not know the quantity in many of the packages

which they sell every day. In the city of New York within 1 week

during the Jewish Passover, inspectors of the Bureau of Weights and

Measures obtained 1,100 violations against storekeepers, by asking

for a 5-pound package of matzohs and being handed a package

which was marked 4 pound, 9 ounces. In almost every case the

storekeeper was asked if it was a 5-pound package, then the price

per pound; the price quoted was made on the basis of 5 pounds at so much per pound. The matzohs were called 1 fives'' and were so

billed to the retailer. A reporter on a newspaper with one of the

largest sales in New York and throughout the East was preparing an

illustrated article on the different sizes of beer bottles sold in New

York. The weights and measures authorities asked him to go to the first store he met with on his way downtown and ask for a quart

bottle of a certain kind of beer and to make it clear to the storekeeper

that he wanted a quart bottle. He did so and was handed a 29-ounce

bottle which the storekeeper insisted was a quart. To make it more

complicated, it was labeled 1 pint 13 ounces. One of the members of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and

Measures during the discussion of the Sauthoff bill stated, "Then

there is no deception so far as the label is concerned?" Later in the

hearing he admitted that he never reads the contents on the label. To suggest that the millions of consumers should memorize the

weights of different-sized packages to escape being fooled, places the

burden of proof on the consumer and is thereby an imposition.

It is apparent that canners, packers, distributors, and others rely on the old policy of "caveat emptor," or "Let the buyer beware."

In other words, the consumer purchases at his own risk and is bound

to protect himself as best he can against fraud and deception. That

this is no longer the case—if it ever were true—is shown by the

following extract from an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United

States in a decision on November 8, 1937:

The fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does not change its character nor take away the power to deceive

others less experienced. There is no duty resting upon a citizen to suspect the honesty of those with whom he transacts business. Laws are made to protect the trusting as well as the suspicious. The best element of business has long since decided that honesty should govern competitive enterprises and that the rules of "caveat emptor" should not be relied upon to reward fraud and deception.
82 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Along these lines, and in conformity with this changing policy, the ft

Supreme Court in a decision stated that few purchasers read long ! labels; many cannot read them at all. A Federal judge recently

charged a jury as follows:

The law requires a manufacturer to be honest in his statement of the contents: of a package containing a food product and it requires him to be honest in stating! the truth of the labels put on it. It is the purchasing public, the ultimate con- sumer, whom the provisions of the law are primarily intended to protect. The;! ^L law is not made for the protection of experts, but for the people, that vast multi- > tude which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous who, in; making purchases, do not stop to analyze but are governed by appearances and

general impression. It makes no difference that dealers in the article are not! deceived. It is the probable inexperience of the customer that you should I i *

consider. It can be seen from the above rulings that there is an obligation ! * resting upon the merchant to so represent the commodities he sells that the average person can safely rely on the representation as it is |

understood by the customer.

The complaint is frequently heard that there is too much Govern- KI ment control in business. Whether this is true or not in general, :il the fact remains that it is frequently, perhaps too often, necessary for 5

! some governmental agency to step in and remedy conditions when i

1 business has failed to do this for themselves. A means of correcting

conditions for themselves is provided through the agency of the

Division of Simplified Practice of the National Bureau of Standards.

However, this is based entirely on voluntary cooperation and the

United States Department of Commerce has no regulatory powers with

respect to simplified practice. As a matter of fact, the failure of voluntary agreements was pointed out at the hearing on the Sauthoff

bill. The can makers could settle the problem by coming to an agree- ment, but they will not and they comprise only five or six corporations.

It is too much to expect that 3,000 canners will agree. A number of

the very largest canners did not sign the voluntary agreement and

were therefore not bound by it. This Conference for the past 2 years endorsed for passage the

Sauthoff bill in Congress, which was aimed at the standardization of

canned fruits, vegetables, and milk. This bill provided for the

standardization on the basis of the standard liquid measures, that is, gill, pint, quart, and gallon. However, the Somers bill, although it reduces the large number of different sizes and shapes of cans, gets

away from the standardization on the basis of standard weight or measure. In the Somers bill there are nine cylindrical cans included for

fruits and vegetables and three for evaporated milk. There are two

rectilinear containers included for fruits and vegetables. This Committee is not aware of the reason dictating the inclusion of the particular sizes. There must be good reason for this selection. However,

a computation of the capacity in cubic inches indicates that none of

them has an exact capacity in terms of liquid measure, the nearest being the largest-sized container specified for evaporated milk, which

will contain 231.16 cubic inches, or a trifle more than a gallon. That

the capacity by avoirdupois weight will vary with the commodity is obvious. The capacity by avoirdupois weight of distilled water at 68° Fahrenheit is given in the law to two decimal places.

The Committee, after a careful study, is definitely opposed to the

standardization of containers except in terms of standard contents.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 83

III rhis is true of everything standardized or proposed to be standardized

J lf,

; py Federal law so far—till baskets or boxes, climax baskets, hampers,

cent 'ound-stave baskets, market baskets, standard barrels, etc. Any size

|>r shape container is permitted for dry fruits and vegetables provided

m

„ the net weight or numerical count is marked thereon. Weights and

i measures officials should not be interested in the standardization or

6f simplification of container sizes when it conflicts with their duty.

There is much room for standardization and simplification in conf tamers which can be done without creating the multiplicity of varied

>,! contents. For example, everything that is sold by liquid measure

tii can be easily and readily standardized both by size and by shape. If

to there is any sincerity in this standardization and simplification, let them adopt the standard units and submultiples of the gallon as we

i{it: recommend in this report.

st ; It is obvious that standardization of the size of containers of cornit modifies sold by net weight can only be had by sacrificing the standardization of the net weight. If they desire to standardize, let them

3U agree to pack in standard quantities and then all agree to pack the

m same commodity in standard-sized containers. Then all catsup

ft would be standard and all the bottles would be identical—all tomato

I | juice, which should be sold by liquid measure, would be in standard

it? cans or bottles all identical in shape or size. Why should the coni ,sumer have to worry about a "No. 2" can, or a "No. 3," or any

] other stock designation. All she knows or should know is what she

jj was taught in school as standards of weight or measure. If this is

| true of fresh milk, packaged butter, paint, and a number of other

J. commodities, why shouldn't it be true of all? It may be true that standardization and simplification of metal

i, containers might result in reduced costs which would be passed along

it to the consumer. In the hearings on the Sauthoff bill the canners argued otherwise. We have been informed by a representative of

the canning industry that there are now 27 different-sized containers

for tomato juice and soup. If they are now using 27 different sizes for these commodities in a range of 27 ounces, think of the saving if only a few sizes were allowed.

It seems certain that the passage of the Somers bill in its present

form will operate to the disadvantage of standardization of packages

by contents for other commodities than those included in the bill (fruit and vegetables and evaporated milk). How can you expect to

legislate the standardization of vegetable soup or canned spaghetti

' by standard weight or measure if tomato juice or canned peas can be

legally put up in odd measure or weight, as would be permitted by

I the present Somers bill? On pages 125, 126, and 127 of the report of the hearing on the

, Sauthoff bill, the evaporated milk industry states the reasons for the

| change from a 16-ounce can to a tall can of 14.5 ounces. Among

numerous reasons, most of which do not sound conclusive, you will

find the desire to make it a 5- and 10-cent seller. Once having

decided on that, the industry "developed" other factors. It is neces- sary in order to compare values to determine the weight or measure

contained in the can. For example, a customer found she could get

two No. 5 cans of corn for 23 cents or two No. 6 cans for 25 cents. It would take a long time for the average consumer to figure that
84 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

out, and she wouldn't know any more about it if she saw the can; 1 they would look much alike although containing different quantities.

The Committee held an all-night session last Monday, June 5, and 1 had the pleasure of the presence of Carlos Campbell, Director, Division of Statistics of the National Canners Association. The subject was fully discussed and we received some very helpful suggestions!

from Mr. Campbell.

From all the data that the Committee has been able to investigate!

it is obvious

(1) That containers can be made of practically any sizes and shapes.

(2) That the size of the container is not regulated by canning

problems or simplified practice, but by competition and the "whims"

of the packer.

(3) Container sizes are frequently made to sell at an arbitrary

price, such as a nickel or a dime; however, a standard price has been

hard to fix. Every store will sell at its own price depending on location, type of customers, and other factors.

(4) Too frequently it is considered more advisable to decrease the

size of the package in order to maintain the old price as the cost of the commodity fluctuates.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) There is absolute necessity for the standardization of the quantities of all commodities now sold in packages or containers, whether

of food or otherwise.

(2) Present practice leads to fraud, deception, and unfair competition.

(3) Due to the interstate nature of this problem it must be remedied

by Federal law.

(4) Simplified practice is a voluntary activity; there is no means of

enforcing it and it is only effective to the extent that it is accepted

voluntarily by a sufficiently large number of those affected.

(5) The Somers bill should be amended to provide for standardization by liquid measure for commodities sold by liquid measure, all containers of the same quantity to be of identical dimensions.

(6) For commodities in metal containers included in the Somers

bill which are sold in terms of weight, the base dimensions of the

container should be standardized leaving the height to be regulated

for each commodity, these commodities to be put up in standardized

quantities of avoirdupois weight.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that Federal legislation be initiated

standardizing the quantities of all commodities sold in packages or containers of any kind and that the Somers bill be amended so as not to conflict with such recommended legislation ; that the standard

be restricted to avoirdupois weight in the following capacities:

(1) 1, 2, 3, and 4 ounces, both fluid and avoirdupois weight.

(2) 6 fluid ounces for fruit juices only, where contents of container

is sold to be consumed on the premises. (The reason for this is the

requirement of the industry for hotel and restaurant use; a 6-ounce

glass of fruit juice is usually served.)
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 85

(3) 8, 12, 16, 24, and 32 ounces avoirdupois weight, and multiples

of the pound thereafter.

(4) 8, 12, 16, 24, and 32 fluid ounces and multiples of the pint to

>the % gallon; % gallon and gallon; and multiples of 1 gallon thereafter.

(5) < Containers of different standards to be so constructed that

the different sizes are easily discernible, this to be accomplished by

fixing the diameter or the base measurements of the container and

| letting the industry change the height of the respective containers to

fit the particular commodity.

(6) The height of the container to be no more than is required for

! the particular commodity at the time of packing, bottling, or canning,

so as to allow for cooling or natural shrinkage.

(7) The net weight or net measure to be in the above units not

at the time of packing, bottling, or canning, but at the time of sale

1 to the consumer.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed) Alex Pisctotta, chairman,

James O'Keefe,

C. D. Baucom,

C. E. Tucker,

C. L. Klocker,

R. L. FlJLLEN,

George Warner,

Committee on Standardization of Packaged Goods,

Mr. Pisciotta. May I suggest that we dispense with any discussion

of this report until we hear what the members of the industry have

to say about their side of the story? After we have had an opportunity to hear them, we will all have an opportunity to discuss this measure and take any position we desire to take on the report. Discussion now, without hearing any comments pro or con would be

practically a waste of time.

(A motion was made and seconded that this suggestion be followed, the question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.) PAPER PRESENTED BY DR. HAZEL KYRK, HOME ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, REPRESENTING THE

AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION

I do not need to give this group evidence of the great increase in

the sale of packaged goods, and the increasing frequency of their sale in a multiplicity of odd-sized and odd-shaped packages. I do, however, want to assure you that the facts about this situation and the

dangers inherent in it are increasingly being noted by consumers and

being brought to their attention by an increasing number of agencies.

I would like to summarize briefly what, it seems to me, are the

objections to this aspect of the market situation from the consumerbuyer's standpoint. In the first place, there is a very real danger of

deception, or, if you prefer to call it so, of mistake as to quantity.

This danger takes two or three different forms. There is in the first place the baldest kind of what most certainly should be called deception, equivalent to short-weighting, when the customer asks for a pound or half pound of a commodity and is handed a package containing less than this amount. But there is also the deception or mistake

that occurs when the buyer assumes from shape and appearance

that a package contains more than it does, or as much as another,

when in fact it does not. Allied to this is the error that is occasionally

218292—40 2
86 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

made of assuming from the unchanged size and appearance of a packagf

that it contains as much as it formerly did. I have in my possession a clipping from a trade paper in which i firm selling vanilla announces, "The B— vanilla bottle is now ar honest bottle." Up to that time it presumably had been a dishonest

bottle, with paneled sides and with length excessive for its width—

a bottle intended to deceive. I hope this confession was good foi their sales as well as for their souls. Now it is an honest bottle (I have seen it), and one that will stand without tipping.

But deception is not the only ground for objection to the present

miscellany of containers in which goods are packed. Another is the

obstruction it offers to the making of those price comparisons that are

essential, not only for individual economy in the narrow sense, but for the proper functioning of our individualistic economy in the broader

sense. If the buyer is to get the most for her money, she must make

price comparisons and select the article of given quality at the lowest

price at which it is offered. I will say nothing of her ability to determine quality ; that is another problem. Quantity, however, she must

know in order that she may make price comparisons in a standard

unit of measurement, per ounce, pound, pint; whatever is appropriate.

But to what extent will this happen, can this happen, in the case of those articles offered in a multiplicity of odd-sized containers? She

would be obliged to come to the market with pencil and paper and

spend some time in calculation after getting the price quotations.

Mental arithmetic would not suffice. Note even the difficulty that

often confronts her in comparing the actual price per standard unit

of the "small," "medium" and "large" packages of one concern; the

"small" may contain 3% ounces, the "medium" 8, the "large" 14,

On what basis, one wonders, are these sizes arrived at. There are instances when they result in marked inconvenience and waste in

use, as in the case of evaporated-milk cans. The small size does not

hold quite a cup and the large not quite two cups, so that in any use

as an ingredient with the measurement other than in cans, there is always not quite enough or too much.

Note also that no market is a truly competitive market where

buyers cannot or do not make price comparisons—between dealers,

between various brands, and between the branded and the un- branded, if such there be. Among the specifications for a "free- enterprise" society that really has the economic advantages it is supposed to have, is informed buyers, zealously seeking the lowest price

for a given quality and best quality at a given price. The market

that withholds information, gives misinformation, attempts to deceive,

makes price comparisons difficult, is not a market according to the

ideal plan.

It has therefore long been my opinion that one of the next steps in

the regulation of weights and measures is legislation designed to eliminate the slack-filled and the deceptively shaped and constructed

package, to reduce the present multiplicity of sizes to the minimum

made necessary by the different uses and different users of the product

and, finally, to substitute for the odd sizes, insofar as the nature of

the product permits, those sizes that are easily calculable multiples or fractional parts of the unit of measurement appropriate for each

commodity.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 87

There is one issue that it seems to me should be brought up in this

connection and carefully thought through. That is, is plain and

conspicuous marking of the net weight or measure of the contents

adequate remedy for the dangers and difficulties complained of? If the packages are so marked, has the buyer just cause for complaint?

May the canner and packer properly say that the root of the evil is consumer ignorance and carelessness, that if she will not take heed,

!(that is, compute and compare) let her suffer the consequences?

Plain and conspicuous marking, although essential, would not of course reduce the effort or the time-cost of making price comparisons.

In any discussion involving the buyer in the retail market, it is also

Well to be realistic. This buyer is far different from the buyer for

resale or manufacture. Buying by the consumer is but one of many

activities and responsibilities. The consumer buys not one commodity or related group of commodities but a wide variety of diverse

character, some only infrequently. The buying is in small quantities.

The question is not only what could consumer-buyers do, but what

'are they likely to do, and what are the economic consequences of

what they will do.

Moreover, if it is granted that the multiplicity of sizes and the odd

sizes are an inconvenience, time consuming, mistake promoting, why

may we not rid the market of them? We do not set traps for ourselves, or try to make life more difficult than it need be. One question that should be asked about every market practice is, does it make

buying an easier process? Does it reduce or increase mistakes?

What are we to say of a market situation in which the buyer must

use time and energy in avoiding deception, in discovering the concealed price change? Kather, I would say, let us make the market

as mistake-proof, deception-proof, even fool-proof, as possible.

Some changes proposed to bring this about involve expense, expense

that will and should be reflected in the price of the goods. But this

proposed change presumably would not increase, and might even

decrease, the money costs of putting the goods on the market.

We need the plain and conspicuous marking of the net weight,

measure, or numerical count of the contents of all containers in the

standard unit of measurement that is appropriate. In addition, we

need standardized containers, the number, size or capacity, and

character of which have been determined by three things:

1. The nature of the commodity and the process of packing, shipping, or storing it. 2. Market demand for packages of various sizes.

3. Ease in making price comparisons and the reduction of mistake

or deception as to quantity.

The Acting Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Kyrk. The Conference

is certainly obliged for your discussion.

_ Before we recess, I want to ask our Vice President from the Hoosier

State to assume charge of the meeting this afternoon. Let us all make an effort to be back here in time to resume the sessions at 1:30.

(At this point, at 10:51 a. m., the Conference took a recess until 1:30 p. m.)
1

f

11

I

I

ti

Cl

SIu

ii

ti

01h

61

C(
SIXTH SESSION—AFTERNOON OF THURSDAY,

JUNE 8, 1939

(The Conference reassembled at 1:50 p. m., at the Washington Hotel; Rollin

E. Meek, vice president of the Conference, in the Chair.)

STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGES—Continued

PAPER PRESENTED BY HECTOR LAZO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, COOPERATIVE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen: I approach this with some

hesitancy, because I have never found it worth while to pretend to be an expert in things I know very little about, and I know very little about the technicalities of this subject.

I have a very definite picture in mind of the type of distributor

that we represent, the type of distributor that is concerned with this

problem, and the type of distributor who welcomes the activities of the National Conference in recent years and recent months towards

reducing the multiplicity of containers of all kinds, and making, shall we say, a common-sense approach towards a reduction of all these

things that are quite as confusing to my dealers as they are to the consumers. We are aware of the fact that, traditionally, distributors are supposed to be some sort of poorly disguised enemies of the consumer,

and hence if the consumer sponsors a program of more informative

labeling, of greater standardization of containers, a reduction in the

multiplicity of can sizes in canned goods, we, as distributors, should

be against it. Of course, that is all poppycock.

Actually, distributors are, or should be, very definitely for any pro- gram which (1) reduces the number of cans and other containers to a minimum consistent with good business and common sense, (2) establishes practical informative labeling with a common-sense approach to the very real problem of standards of both weight and quality, and

(3) affords the consumer full and accurate information as to the quality and quantity of the contents. And why shouldn't we be for such a program? Would not such a program mean greater sales and more repeat sales for us?

Frankly, there is quite a group—and I hope it is growing—among

distributors who think that, selfishly if for no other reason, the dis- tributor's interests must be tied up directly with the wishes of the consumer. And by that we do not mean inventing phantom con- sumer desires but actually trying to take the consumer point of view

and, wherever possible, complying with such desires.

Now, obviously, consumers may be acting under either fair and full information, in which case intelligent consumers can be generally

trusted to act pretty sanely, or else they may be acting under partial or even false information, in which case their actions might be open

to question, perhaps even opposition on our part. But if the con- sumer is not fully informed, whose fault is it? Is there anything now preventing us, as distributors, from telling the consumer in simple terms, what, let us say, and how much, this can

89
90 NATIONAL BUEEAXJ OF STANDARDS

of vegetables contains? A myriad of practical considerations immediately rise; to the extent that they are practical obstacles, and not

merely selfish inventions of our own, the consumer ought to be willing to listen to reason. But we must be prepared to supply those reasons. The consumer may know definitely what he or she wants, and in the

absence of better information to the contrary, may even believe that

Government grade labeling for quality and a similar Government

standard for quantity will supply the answer to her prayer. If, as most distributors believe, Government grade labeling is not the best

solution, what is? And what are we doing to persuade Mrs. Con- sumer that it isn't?

Many good people shudder at the thought of Government grade

labeling, and the trade as a whole is opposed to this. There are many

and weighty arguments why the trade takes this point of view. Most

of you gentlemen know these much better than I do. But what does

Mrs. Consumer think about this? Does she understand our reason- ing in the matter, as against the reasoning of those who advocate Government grade labeling and Government standardization by decree?

Let us be realistic in this for a moment and ask ourselves whether,

under the new Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Government has

power to set standards which can then, by various means, be forced

upon the trade. I happen to be of that school of thought which

believes the new law gives the Government just such powers. The

Government can go ahead and, after investigation, propose certain

standards. The Government proposes such standards and submits

them to the trade; the trade thinks they are pretty good; finally, after

consultation, accepts them. From then on, with the force of law, a

standard can of tomatoes will be a can which contains merchandise

which, on a minimum, is thus and so. We choose to call that grade

"Standard", the Government says that it is "Grade C". This particular standard that has been set for the quality of the merchandise

meeting such and such specifications has got to be called something;

the Government says that is "Grade C."

What will Mrs. Consumer call it? This depends, it seems to me,

upon the degree of educational pressure to which the consumer is exposed. And if that holds good for quality, it likewise holds good

for quantity, for size of containers, for variety of containers.

We definitely favor a general cutting down in the multiplicity of

cans, of can sizes, and of containers as a whole. The tall and the

short, the half number and the full number, the odd-shaped bottle

and the false-bottom bottle—devices which savor more or less of

confusion, to say the least, in the minds of the packers and distributors, and may quite easily be used for something more sinister than mere confusion in the minds of consumers. The result is total inability of smaller merchants to stock varieties available, for obviously

the small man with small capital cannot possibly have a so-called

"full line" when the line consists of 40 different sizes of containers for one item; but he can have a full line if we come down to 4 or 6. Those of us whose chief concern is the small individual store, must

always bear in mind that the greater the obstacles to competitive

equality between that individual merchant and his multiple-store

competitor, the smaller the chances are for that small man to survive.

A common-sense cutting down, therefore, of the myriad varieties,

shapes, and sizes of containers, must of necessity reduce the ad-
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 91

vantage of the man with adequate capital, as against the little busi- ness man who has a hard time to scrape up enough money to meet his

weekly bill. He simply does not have the money. It may be his fault,

and then again it may not be. This is not the place for a discussion of

that phase of it; but the stark fact remains that he hasn't the money.

If he has to attempt to stock a full line of any one commodity, which

in turn means 40 or more sizes and containers, that little man is licked

before he starts. The consumer may know very little about the

difference between a No. 2 or 2% can, and thousands of consumers

perhaps don't care, but the small merchant must care, for it means he

either has to double his stock of merchandise "to be competitive," or

else be at the mercy of the man who can offer the No. 2 can at a consistently lower price. Actually, if we should continue the present

number of containers, which total over 150 different sizes, it is conceivable that through the careful manipulation of this one thing alone, more and more trade can be directed into certain channels, to the

grave danger of the small man on the corner. To us, therefore, the simplification of the variety of sizes, containers, and packages becomes a serious consideration. We believe

that the whole question is tied up with the problem of proper con- sumer education, which involves descriptive labeling as well as intelli- gent packing, packaging, and standardization of size and type.

It involves, from our point of view, perhaps a National educational

campaign the like of which the industry has never undertaken, the

like of which the American consumer might now not even want, but

certainly needs. It means the putting aside of brands for the greater

aim of fixing in the consumer's mind the convenience of, advantages

of, and protection to her of certain standard sizes ; the next step then

will be certain quality standards; and the third will be the classi- fication of brand within those standards, both of size and quality.

It would be a rash person indeed who would attempt to suggest even the outlines of such a program in a brief talk of this kind. Our

only contribution, if it is such, today, must be limited to bringing out

into the open and onto the top of the table the possibility of a joint

trade and Government program for the education of the consumer; The interests of both not only need not, but should not, be different.

Both the Government and the trade should be interested in having

the consumer fully and accurately informed—not in the way of propaganda, but in the way of education and information. We shall both

benefit when the consumer knows intelligently how to buy her canned

goods; knows and understands the problems faced by industry as producers, by business as distributors, and by the Government as an

umpire, interested in seeing to it that a minimum set of protective

rules are adhered to. We see no reason why common sense and a genuine cooperative

spirit should not be able to produce this; we are fearful lest the trade

and by this we mean the producing, processing, and distributing trade

as a whole—should allow itself to be blinded by individual self- interest, and thus lay itself open to frontal attacks from both the

Government and the consuming public. We shall definitely deserve

such attacks, and the inevitable Government regulation which will follow, if we fail as intelligent businessmen to come together for a common purpose, and evolve a common aim toward which we can march together.
92 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

We accordingly endorse, as a splendid step forward, the efforts of the National Canners Association in cutting down the va ieties of types and sizes in the various products. We want to pledge to them

our support in this effort and our cooperation toward a further

standardization, if and when this is possible. In any joint effort undertaken for the purpose of adequately and accurately educating

Mrs. American Consumer, you may count on us for our full share.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. Pisciotta. Mr. Chairman, may we be permitted to ask a few

questions as we go along?

The Acting Chairman. It was my understanding there would be no discussion until after the speakers had completed.

Mr. Pisciotta. That was on the report of the Committee.

The Acting Chairman. I think that would be a good idea, in view

of the fact that some of the people may leave.

Mr. Lazo. I shall be glad to answer questions, but not technical

questions, because I am not a technical man. Mr. Pisciotta. I would like to know where in the Food and Drugs

Act is there a provision giving power to regulate and standardize by

weight the contents in any containers.

Mr. Lazo. The consensus of opinion among the lawyers I talked

to—not Government lawyers but outside lay lawyers—was that the

power depended upon the degree of rigidity of interpretation of that

clause which permits the Government to set standards. My conception of it is that the Food and Drugs Act gives the Government

considerable latitude of power.

Mr. Pisciotta. Is there any possibility of getting the one who gave

that information to enlighten us, because we have investigated and

studied the Food and Drugs Act and think there is no possibility in

there of regulation. I understand that before the Committee on

Coinage, Weights, and Measures that very question was raised, and

at that time no one was able to point to any provision to standardize

containers.

Mr. Lazo. I shall be very happy to draw up and transmit to this

Conference the opinions that have been given to me. I will send a

consensus of them to the chairman, so that you may all have them.

Mr. Pisciotta. We would appreciate it. May I ask another

question? Does your Association, representing the distributors,

really^ know what the consumers want as to the particular sizes of

containers?

Mr. Lazo. Nobody knows that.

Mr. Pisciotta. Have you made any attempt to find out?

Mr. Lazo. Yes; as much of an attempt as is possible to make under

the circumstances. Quite frankly, you know and I know that there

is not one out of a hundred consumers who knows what he wants,

and I doubt if there is one out of fifty consumers who would be able

to make distinctions between the present cans on our shelves.

Mr. Pisciotta. And it is necessary for someone to eliminate many

of them?

Mr. Lazo. Yes; I agree with you, it is necessary to eliminate some

of them, and it is necessary to educate the consumers as to what we

have left, and why.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 93

Mr. Pisciotta. I believe the simplified-practice project was inaugurated in 1931. What progress has been made to simplify the

containers from that time until now?

Mr. Lazo. That I would not be able to tell you. I don't think the

distributors have accomplished very much, and that is the theme of

my song here—that we should do more and that we are willing to do

more. We have perhaps been standing on two sides of a fence,

whereas we should have taken the fence down and shaken hands.

Mr. Pisciotta. Do you think one distributor out of a hundred

could upset the others? If he were a big distributor of large ways

and means, a powerful distributor, then he might dictate to the other

ninety-nine.

Mr. Lazo. No; I don't think there is any one distributor today

who can dictate to the rest of the industry.

Mr. Pisciotta. He may refuse to go along with any of them

still go along with his own activities, regardless of what the others do,

and there would be no force under the law to compel him to do

otherwise.

Mr. Lazo. Is it your understanding, sir, that the only force in the

world is the force of the law?

Mr. Pisciotta. Is there any other force?

Mr. Lazo. Yes; I think so. We have demonstrated in the food

industry there is a tremendous cooperative moral force between us, the manufacturers and distributors alike. Mr. Pisciotta. Has it accomplished anything in trying to satisfy

this particular problem?

Mr. Lazo. Well, that has to be demonstrated. This is one problem. We are thmking of our own side of it. We are thinking primarily of the distributor or manufacturer, and this is one of many

problems. This has not been tackled jointly, and it is my belief that

we should tackie st. I am not in favor of doing it by Government

decree. I think it can be done differently. It can be done by a co- operative approach to this thing, and I am not in favor of more law.

Every law is simply a restriction upon the freedom of action or liberty

of someone. That is a law. And to the extent it restricts that

freedom, that law is effective. Now, I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of common-sense voluntary action wherever possible. We

haven't tried cooperative action yet. This is a very healthy thing.

We may not agree as to the method, but I think we can agree as to the ultimate end. But this is a very healthy thing, to discuss our problems together and take some action together. And if the trade

fails to come to you and fails to act cooperatively and do at least its full share—although I think you will find the trade perfectly willing

to do so—then it is time for Government regulation. I do not think

this is the time for it. I have been here observing these things in. Washington for years, and I still don't believe the law is the way

to do it. Mr. Pisciotta. I understand the simplified practice agreement, was entered into about 5 or 6 years ago and hasn't been applied yet,

because the largest distributors and manufacturers won't sign.

Mr. Lazo. Is that all the fault of the trade?

Mr. Pisciotta. Yes; they could get together and do it without someone forcing them to do it. They have had since 1931 to do it
94 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

and haven't accomplished it yet. Sooner or later somebody will have

to force them to do it. Mr. Lazo. And you think the only way is by further legislation?

Mr. Pisciotta. There is no other way.

Mr. Lazo. That is where we part. Here is Constitution Avenue,

and here is Pennsylvania Avenue, and you come up one and I come

up the other. I think we can do it voluntarily. However, I don't

say we should have no regulation at all. I would be the last one to say that.

Mr. Pisciotta. The law is a regulative power.

Mr. Lazo. Yes; but there are laws and laws, and there is a certain

amount of policy with the power, and to the degree we extend it, to that degree we reduce the voluntary action of the people as a whole.

My plea is that we attack this as a common-sense problem first to have as much as we can of voluntary action. I don't think that you

gentlemen, for example, have given us the benefit of all of your technical knowledge and experience as to how we might go about a voluntary action of that kind. If you have, then we have fallen down,

and perhaps you should let us see if there isn't another chance. If there isn't another chance, I am here to tell you we are going to have

Government regulation, and I know it and you know it, and I want to avoid it. And if we fall down and don't do it, we are going to get

Government regulation and have asked for it. Mr. Pisciotta. What cooperation have you seen from the industry?

Mr. Lazo. Well, I am not entirely in agreement that it is always

industry that is at fault. And I am not one of those that says everything the Government does is wrong. Far from it. I think we must

approach this thing from both points of view. You come part way

and we come part way. Perhaps we haven't come far enough. We

are hanging back on the side line, perhaps we are hanging back too

far. All right, let us make a common-sense approach toward meeting

half way. Let us do that, and then if we fail, all right, and we have

then simply to ask the Government to come in and force us to do it. Mr. Pisciotta. Have you read the recommendations of the committee?

Mr. Lazo. Yes, sir; I have read the recommendations of the

Committee, and I am a bit fearful that the main thing there, so far as I have been able to interpret it in the few minutes, is more Government regulation. And I am just simply pleading with you to see if we cannot do it through cooperation first. Mr. Pisciotta. In other words, you want one more chance?

Mr. Lazo. Well, let us say, let us give each other one more chance?

Mr. Pisciotta. All right."

Mr. Kanzer. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one question, please,

of the speaker? Let us assume all manufacturers and distributors of

tea, except one, want to have a 1-pound package of tea; that one wants a 15-ounce package of tea. What method could we pursue to pull him in line?

In the State of New York, the sale of ice cream was being made in

the odd-sized containers. We passed legislation in cooperation with

industrjr, because the different dealers would not all pull together.

Would not you say that the only answer in such case is Government

regulation?
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 95

Mr. Lazo. I am afraid I agree with you. If we cannot bring ourselves into line, then we are going to have Government regulation.

I was rather hopeful there would be more people of the industry here

today because it is to them I am talking. I have been preaching this for several years. I don't think we are going to solve it simply by

slapping in an over-all law, Federal or State. I think there is much

that can be done.

I had considerable to do with regulations under N.RA in the food

industry, and I am perfectly willing to be quoted for the record as saying to you that 99% percent of the cooperation and of compliance

there was voluntary. We do have those who don't do what they

should do, including judges, and that is why we have laws and jails. I cannot say it should not be done by legislation if it cannot be done

otherwise.

The Acting Chairman. I think Mr. Lazo has given us a very

good expression of the viewpoint of the retail food distributors on this

question. We certainly wish to thank you, Mr. Lazo, for coming

here and giving us this expression of your viewpoint.

PAPER PRESENTED BY CARLOS CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF THE

DIVISION OF STATISTICS, NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen: The need for standardizing

containers for canned foods is well-recognized by the canning industry.

It is, however, a relatively easy matter to recognize the need for a change, but quite another problem to prescribe a satisfactory method

for making it. No reputable physician would attempt to prescribe a remedy without a diagnosis. We have recognized certain symptoms

in this case, but as yet a thorough diagnosis involving the various

ramifications of the problem has not been presented. (When I say it has not been presented, I am not referring to any discussions that

have taken place here at this Conference. This paper was written

before.) The first step in making a diagnosis is, of course, to obtain

the facts regarding the history of the case. The canning industry in the United States is approximately 100

years old. It has grown up in many parts of the United States, each

section being developed more or less independently of all others.

Foods are canned in all but two of the States. It is only natural that

various types and sizes of containers would be developed in these

various sections, partly because of the different types of products

being canned and partly because there was no coordination in the

development of the industry. In this respect, however, the history

of the industry's container problem does not differ from the history of

the development of baskets, boxes, hampers, barrels, etc. that were

used to pack fresh fruits and vegetables.

There is, however, one fundamental difference between the tin can

as a container for canned foods and the dry measure container for

fruits and vegetables. This difference lies in the fact that a canned

food when processed must be placed in a container that carries the

food all the way from the canning factory to the consumer's kitchen.

Baskets, barrels, boxes, crates, etc. are containers used primarily for the convenience of the distributing trade. The size of these dry measure containers is not determined by the individual consumer's

demand. Baskets of apples, sacks of potatoes, crates and hampers of
96 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

fresh vegetables, are delivered to the retailer, who sells their contents

to the consumer in broken lots of many sizes. It isn't possible for the retailer to sell canned foods by cutting a No. 10 can and parceling out to his consumers so many ounces or pounds. Because of this characteristic it has been necessary for the canner to study the nature of the ultimate consumer demand and to try to predict the amount of food which the ultimate consumer would

care to purchase under all the various conditions that affect the demand for food. The variation in the size of families, consumer

purchasing power, prices, geographic differences in native food habits,

differences in classes of consumers, and many other factors could be

mentioned that tend to cause consumers to purchase foods in varying

amounts.

Anyone who has had experience selling to the retail trade knows

that consumers' tastes and the amoimts of individual purchases vary

widely. He also knows that these variations are frequently not

predictable. Knowing these facts, the canner has attempted to

satisfy the consumer by making available to her a wide \ariety of can

sizes from which she can choose.

It isn't possible for any one canner, or hardly feasible for any group

of canners, to obtain from all the consumers the size of containers in which they would like to purchase their canned foods. In actual

practice this information has been obtained by what might be termed

the trial and error method; that is, a canner starting out to pack a new product packs it in as wide a range of sizes as is economically

practicable, but he continues to pack in only those sizes which the consumer purchases. Therefore, at any particular time the vast majority of the can sizes that are used in the industry are being used

because those are the sizes which the canner has found the consumer

buys.

One might expect that over a period of time canners would have

determined the can sizes which consumers want, and that the industry

would settle down to these sizes. This result could be expected only

if conditions were static. Everyone knows conditions are changing

from day to day. The sizes which a canner found were acceptable to

his trade last year may not exactly suit the situation this year. For

that matter, we have observed radical shifts in consumer purchases of

various can sizes within a given marketing year. That occurred this

year very definitely. Furthermore, new products are being developed

and with each new product there is a separate problem of determining

the can sizes that consumers desire. Canned foods are not a homogeneous product. The industry cans

over 200 products, each product having its own consumer appeal and

each product having certain physical characteristics which affect the

size and shape of container required for processing. This necessitates

considering each product separately. Certainly no one would expect consumers to purchase tomato paste in only the size of cans used for

tomato juice or canned tomatoes. The aggregate number of can

sizes used by the canning industry should, therefore, not be considered

without due regard to the number of products for which each of these can sizes is used.

The National Bureau of Standards, in cooperation with the National

Canners Association, made a survey of the canning industry last year

to determine the size of the pack of each product in each of the various
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 97

can sizes used. The cooperation which canners gave this study is worthy of comment. About 96 percent of the total pack of fruits and

vegetables was reported in this survey.

The number of products covered depends entirely upon the defini- tion of a product. The classification made in tabulating the data

combined a number of products under one heading, when the physical

characteristics of the products would permit their being packed in the same can sizes. In spite of this method of classification, the tabulation included 101 separate and distinct products. These products were canned in can sizes which in the aggregate totaled 155. Products such as corn, peas, tomatoes, green and wax beans,

which taken together represent close to half of the total pack of

vegetables, were canned in a relatively small number of can sizes. These products, however, have been canned for many years, and

canners have had an opportunity to determine fairly well the sizes that consumers want. On the other hand, tomato juice, a relatively

new product, was reported in 44 different can sizes, which quite

obviously represents a far greater number than is necessary. But

this illustrates the extent to which canners cover the entire range of can sizes in their attempt to determine which sizes the consumer will buy. Even though tomato juice has been packed for a relatively

short period of time, the industry has already discarded a number of

sizes that were tried out in the beginning. In 1937, of the 44 sizes reported, each of 16 were being used by one canner only. Many of

these cans did not appear in the 1938 pack.

If given time, can sizes for each of the products would tend to become

standardized through the operation of the economic laws which govern

the sale of a canned food to consumers. The objection, however, to

this process of standardization appears to be that it takes too long.

The remedy is to accelerate the standardization process, that is, speed up the natural processes that lead to standardization. It would be a grave mistake not to recognize the dynamic nature of consumer demand for canned foods and to freeze the size of containers on the basis of conditions at any one date.

The canning industry, appreciating the problems involved, has

developed a program to bring about a more speedy standardization

of containers. This program has two main objectives: (1) The elimination of sizes which because of closeness to other sizes might be

confusing to consumers, and (2) sufficient elasticity to take care of

changing consumer demand and improvements in canning operations.

The data on the 1937 pack have been studied very carefully for the

last nine months by the Association's Committee on Simplification of

Containers. The Committee, consisting of canners of long experience

who realized the magnitude of the problem, analyzed it first from the

standpoint of what had been done in other industries. Before any

attempt was made toward selecting a list of can sizes, the Committee

drafted a set of principles which would govern the selection of sizes. The first principle adopted was that, because of the differing

physical characteristics of the products, and because of the differing consumer demands for the various products, it was necessary to select a list of can sizes for each product. Any one who is familiar with the

problems of canning and selling canned foods would, I am sure, agree

that this principle is fundamental.
98 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

As a matter of fact, this principle is not new. Standardization of

dry measure containers for fruits and vegetables was approached on a commodity basis, with successive laws enacted for different products.

It is now proposed to consolidate the existing laws, but in this consolidation the principle is retained, and it is not proposed to set up a

single list of dry containers of one specified type that must be used

for products of different types.

The Association's Committee fully appreciated the fact that, if a

list of sizes were selected for each of the principal products and these

lists were then combined and canners permitted to use any of these

sizes for any or all of their products, there would very probably be

as much confusion as before standardization was attempted. For

example, a 307X508 can was selected as one needed for packing

corn on the cob, but its use for other products could very easily cause

confusion among bikers. Accordingly, the Association's Committee

recommended a separate list of can sizes for each of 58 different

products. These recommended lists have been approved by the

Board of Directors of the National Canners Association, and the

Board at its meeting May 18 made formal request of the National

Bureau of Standards to revise its simplified practice recommendation

for the canning industry by adopting these lists of cans. The 58 fruits and vegetables included in this program were so

classified as to cover the principal fruits and vegetables packed in the

industry. The total pack of these 58 products amounted to about 97

percent of the total pack of all fruits and vegetables in 1937. The

remaining 3 percent of the pack was not included in this standardization program because of inadequate data. The inclusion of these

other products is contemplated as soon as possible.

The 58 lists of can sizes recommended include 45 sizes in the aggregate. This represents a substantial reduction from the 155 sizes used

in 1937. Each of 27 sizes was recommended for one product only,

thus emphasizing the peculiar requirements of individual products.

Eighteen sizes were recommended for more than one product. The

output of products in 1937 for which these 18 sizes were recommended

totaled about 90 percent of the total pack of fruits and vegetables.

Thus, only 7 percent of the total pack will be permitted to use sizes not included in the list of 18 sizes. For a number of products only three or four can sizes have been

recommended. Canned tomatoes have only four sizes, peas and corn

(not including corn on the cob) are allowed six sizes each. These

three vegetables represent about 40 percent of the total pack of canned

vegetables. For other products, however, a larger number of sizes was selected. Asparagus and tomato juice each have 10 sizes, this

bein^r the largest number recommended for any one product. Of the

10 sizes recommended for asparagus, 3 are permitted for no other

product.

In the case of tomato juice, although 10 sizes have been recom- mended, it should be recalled that 44 sizes were included in the list from which these 10 were chosen. In the case of a juice product,

there is apparently a greater demand for cans of varying sizes. But,

as previously stated, tomato juice is a relatively new product, and it is practically impossible at this time to fix a list of sizes that will be

satisfactory for all time to both canner and consumer. In other words,

the program contemplates some modification in the list of sizes selected
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 99

for tomato juice and certain other products, keeping in mind, of course, the two principal objectives previously stated.

In the case of beans with pork or sauce, 25 sizes were reported as used in 1937. The recommended list includes 8 sizes only. These

sizes range from the 8 Z Tall, 211 X 304, having a minimum volume

fill of 7.47 fluid ounces (8 ounces avoirdupois) to the No. 10 can, 603 X

700, having a minimum fluid ounce fill of 94.59 ounces (6 pounds 12 ounces avoirdupois). The first seven of the eight cans listed for beans with pork or sauce are primarily for the retail trade, the No. 10 can being principally for wholesale or institution buying. Of the seven retail or shelf sizes, the minimum spread in net capacity is 3 ounces whereas the maximum is 4 ounces. The criterion of what constitutes confusion in buying is not in all instances the spread between the capacities of any two cans. The

shape of the can needs to be taken into account also. A fixed differ- ence in capacities could not be used as a criterion, because a small

difference in small cans might not be as confusing as a larger difference

in large cans. Furthermore, any criterion that is adopted must be

applied on a practical basis, that is, if the bulk of the sales of any

given product has been in medium-sized cans, the Committee felt that it was desirable to make available to the consumer a relatively

larger choice of cans in that group than in the smaller or larger cans. This practice tended to make the spread in capacity smaller for the more popular cans and wider for the less popular ones. This principle

is considered sound, especially in view of the fact that canned foods

are sold on a net content basis, it being required by law that the net

content be prominently stated on the label. To summarize the Committee's point of view and the actions it has taken, it may be said:

The can is a container, not a measure, the size of which is determined primarily by the consumer. It performs a dual function as an

original container and a consumer package.

As an original container, the can must be adapted in size and

shape to the product for which it is used.

As a consumer package the can size is subject to changes that constantly take place in consumer requirements and buying habits.

For this reason it is impracticable to select for permanent use a list of sizes based on consumer preference as of any given time. The

Committee, nevertheless, recognized that there should be a simplification of can sizes which would prevent confusion in buying, and at the same time permit modifications that would meet the changing

requirements of consumers. The lists recommended by the Committee are based upon consumer

preference as measured by sales of the respective commodities; they

eliminate sizes that might be confusing to buyers.

The Committee, on behalf of the industry, has labored in good faith to work out a program that is both practical for the canner and

helpful to the consumer, by giving her a visual measure of the relative

amounts of food in the cans, in addition to the statement of net contents

which the food law requires to appear on the label. (At the conclusion of his paper, Mr. Campbell exhibited a chart showing can

sizes in common use and the can sizes remaining in the recommended list, and

commented briefly on the reduction in the number of sizes.)
100 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. Pisciotta. I believe you said at the beginning that as far as boxes were concerned, they were primarily for distribution by the

wholesalers to the retailers. That is not true of grapes and strawberries, for instance, sold in boxes.

Mr. Campbell. The statement would not hold true for everything,

but in general it is true. Also it is possible to break these boxes

without destroying the value of the product. Sometimes the contents of grape boxes are broken up and sold by the pound.

Mr. Pisciotta. Does not the size of can available dictate the

particular size the consumer orders? Has the consumer any choice

in the matter?

Mr. Campbell. I would say if there were very many sizes being

sold, the consumer would have a large choice.

Mr. Pisciotta. But if a retailer carries a limited number of sizes,

then what?

Mr. Campbell. One of the complaints is that the grocer has to carry too many sizes—that the choice is already too wide. So I would say that the consumer has had an opportunity to choose from

quite a wide list of cans and that the number of cans of a certain

size sold is a pretty fair indication of what the consumer wants.

Mr. Pisciotta. If a consumer wanted a pound of canned peaches,

which she cannot get, and the next nearest size is 14 ounces, she

would have no choice there. Mr. Campbell. No, because there do not happen to be enough

can sizes to permit that choice.

Mr. Pisciotta. What has the industry done to consult any con- sumer group to find out what is really wanted?

Mr. Campbell. There has been a very extensive survey made of consumers all over the United States by one of our large canning

organizations to determine what the consumer wants, and the list of cans selected for the product involved is based upon that survey.

It was made by the pineapple people.

Mr. Pisciotta. Isn't it true that the can manufacturer will manufacture any size and shape can that the packer really requires?

Mr. Campbell. Well, I presume that is true; yes. That is usually

true of any manufacturer. If it is feasible, he will manufacture the

product the consumer wants. Our recommendations can place no

restrictions on the can manufacturer.

Mr. Pisciotta. Do you know any reason for making this package

of spaghetti 15% ounces rather than 16?

Mr. Campbell. I should say that there was no attempt to make

it of a certain weight; the package was first selected and the quantity

in it was the result. Mr. Stewart. May I answer that? The chances are that the

contents of that can weigh 16 ounces. We purposely dropped the

marked weight to 15% ounces to avoid any possibility of having a lot of cans that did not weigh the full 16 ounces, thus violating the old

Federal Food and Drugs Act. We could not be sure that every can would weigh 16 ounces. Mr. Pisciotta. That argument holds true. In order to play safe,

you mark it less? But how about the markings on bottles of milk

or loaves of bread?
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 101

Mr. Stewart. I can't answer the argument about those com

modities. I am not familiar with them. But I am able to explain

about that can. Mr. Kanzer. If that were true, why is it that the marked weight on a half-pound can of salmon has fallen from 8 ounces to 7% ounces, and again, to 7% ounces?

Mr. Stewart. There are two sizes of can. Columbia Kiver

salmon is the kind you will find more frequently labeled 7% or 7%. ounces, while the Puget Sound salmon can will hold a half pound of salmon and is always labeled 7% ounces. Mr. Kanzer. If you try to cover yourself with a quarter of an

ounce, why take another quarter of an ounce and get down to the 7%?

Mr. Stewart. That Columbia River salmon is packed in a smaller can than the Puget Sound salmon.

Mr. Baucom. May I say this, that your statement indicates that

you are knowingly and willfully misbranding your product.

Mr. Stewart. In order to be safe the trade labels a fraction under

the content of the can. The Acting Chairman. I would like to suggest that, so far as it is possible, this general discussion of the subject be withheld until the

speakers have all had an opportunity to express their views.

Mr. O'Keefe. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is right. I think that since some of these gentlemen may have to go away, the

general discussion should be held right here and now. The Acting Chairman. I am certainly agreeable to a thorough

discussion as we go along, if that is agreeable to the membership.

Mr. Kanzer. Mr. Campbell suggests that the number of cans was initiated and determined by the consumers. If that were true,

then his argument would be more or less sound, but I wonder if that

is completely true. It seems peculiar that every time the consumer wanted less in his package than the standard size, irrespective of the

size of the family. It would occur to me that the canning industry

found themselves up against the difficulty presented by the man who

found he could put out a can that would simulate the standard size. When he took the quarter of an ounce off and got away with it, the

next man took off the next quarter ounce. With this there came to be a series of packages and cans that confused the situation. The

industry has raised its own Frankenstein; now they are seeking relief as much as we are trying to help them get that relief. Mr. Campbell. Well, in the first place, if you will read my remarks

you will find I didn't say the consumer initiated the size of the package.

The canner, in order to find out by the trial and error method what

the consumer wants, starts out packing a wide range of sizes, which

in the case of tomato juice in 1937, was 44. But he continues only

those sizes he can sell. Why can he sell them? Because the consumer

buys them. Thus the consumer tends to determine the size of the

package. It has been suggested that possibly the consumer doesn't

have a wide choice. There may be some argument to the effect that

the fact that even though the consumer buys a certain size this does

not represent the consumer's choice. Well, I think that the consumer

has had a wide enough choice of cans from which to purchase to enable

the canners to determine which ones the consumer prefers.

Now your point, as I understand it, is that the consumer might

prefer a size of can which is not being packed.

218292—40 4
102 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. Kanzeb. That was exactly rny point. It seems strange that \ all of these sizes developed are short of the standard size and not

above the standard size. Mr. Campbell. There were no standard sizes. Mr. Kanzeb. I refer to sizes holding 1 pound, 8 ounces, and so

forth. Mr. Campbell. Well, we are packing in the industry some 250

different products. It is not feasible to have a can size which will

produce 16 ounces avoirdupois of each one of these products without

having thousands of sizes. If you will take a size holding 16 ounces

of one product and use it for another product you are not going to get 16 ounces. Mr. Kanzeb. It seems strange that one of those sizes should not

be above as well as below what we consider the standard size. Mr. Campbell. We have cans that go over the 16 ounces, as well

as those that go under.

Mr. Kanzeb. What proportion would you say would be over 16

ounces?

Mr. Campbell. There is a greater percentage over. Today the

No. 2 can is most widely used. This usually contains 2 ounces, approximately, over 16 ounces, and in some products 3 ounces; it depends upon the product.

Mr. Kanzeb. I think you will agree with me that the No. 2 can

started out as a 2-pound proposition; for instance, rolled oats and

lard in 1912 in this size always weighed 2 pounds net. It later be- came 2 pounds, including the can, and now it is anywhere from 1 to

2 pounds.

Mr. Campbell. I don't know the history of the No. 2 can far

enough back to say whether or not it ever held 2 pounds. The No.

2 can has been erroneously referred to as a 2-pound can. To what

products do you refer?

Mr. Kanzeb. 1 will put it generally. Specifically a No. 2 can of

lard, contained 2 pounds. The No. 5 can was always 5 pounds of

lard net ; then the 5 pounds included the weight of the can ; now it has

dwindled, as has the No. 2 can. Mr. Campbell. You understand, of course, the can used for can- ning fruits and vegetables is not the can used for lard. Mr. Kanzeb. The weight of the contents of the No. 2 can of canned

goods has dwindled considerably and now No. 2 is a designation and

has no reference whatever to any weight. But the point is this, you

maintain you want a number of sizes. In this committee report

there are 14 sizes provided, from to 1 quart. You spoke of having

10 sizes in the case of canned tomatoes. Those 10 sizes are spread

oyer a short limit. We provide for 14 sizes, and they are all standard

sizes; certainly we have enough between and 1 quart to satisfy the

average requirements of the consumers, be they individuals or families.

Mr. Campbell. The 14 sizes you refer to range from to 1 quart;

the 10 sizes I referred to were for tomato juice, and they are spread

from 6 ounces to 100 ounces. Mr. Kanzeb.^ Well, I don't know just exactly what you have there.

But the Committee report provides enough sizes for the canning industry, and certainly they will be guided a little bit by the con- sumer's choice.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 103

Mr. Campbell. Those 14 sizes you refer to, I think you will find

in this recommended list. In our program there are only 18 sizes recommended for more than one product. Consequently, the number

of can sizes you refer to and the number we have recommended are not very different. Mr. Kanzer. Well, they are different, in the sense that those you

recommend are not of the standard capacities. No customer goes in to buy an odd number of ounces of anything; yet when you ask for a quart or pound, you get an odd size. Mr. Campbell. The question was asked of me what we have done

to find out what the consumer wants to buy. There has been one

very extensive survey. Let me ask the same question. What have

you done to find out what the consumer wants to buy of canned foods?

Mr. Kanzer. I don't think we should put it that way. We have

made no survey. We do know that the customer does not go into

the store and ask for an odd capacity or odd size. We don't need an

investigation on that. Mr. Pisciotta. May I answer that question? We have had

numerous complaints from people who ask for a pound of something,

and who discover a label of 15 or 14 ounces, on the article furnished.

In order to check, we have sent inspectors out to retail stores asking

for a quart of a particular commodity; 90 percent of the time he was

given 29 ounces instead of 32 ounces. The retailer, in practically

every instance, insisted he has handled that particular object for years

and years and always was under the impression that the bottle held a

quart. _ We have followed very many commodities, and gradually

from time to time have found packages reduced to 15 ounces, to 14%

ounces, to 14 ounces. That is how we found out what the consumer

asks for and expects when he goes in to buy, and what he is getting.

The retailer himself, objects, so much so that the Retail Customers

Board of the City of New York, Brooklyn, and Jersey City, has gone on record in favor of even standard weights, doing away with the 14-,

15-, and 15K-ounce sizes, and keeping the 16- and 12-ounce sizes. Mr. Campbell. Don't you see, Mr. Pisciotta, that it is impossible

to standardize on 16 ounces and at the same time standardize can

sizes? If you are going to give 16 ounces always, of 250 different

products, you are going to need different size cans to give 16 ounces

of the different products.

Mr. Pisciotta. Suppose you do: What of it? Mr. Campbell. Weil, it would lead up into thousands of can sizes. Mr. Pisciotta. Let us see this example here.

m I have three cans

of three different commodities—one is soup, one is sweet peach, and

one is asparagus. One size of can would hold 12 ounces of each.

Isn't that true? Mr. Campbell. No; different cans would be needed; one size would

not have the same net weights.

Mr. Pisciotta. These cans are of one size; each is labeled 10}£ ounces. We have opened them and found the contents to be correct. Mr. Campbell. In that case, they are peculiarly accurate. Mr. Pisciotta. Here are two cans of the same dimensions [indicating] of different commodities each containing 1 pound, 14 ounces.

If the standardization was made to 16 ounces, at least these two

would use one can. So that you wouldn't have 250 cans for the same

weight.
104 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. Campbell. You would have thousands of sizes for the various

weights of the various commodities. Take peaches alone; you have a

great many packs of peaches, and no two have the same specific

gravity, so that for the given weight you would have different sized cans for those different grades of peaches.

Mr. Pisciotta. As far as liquid measure is concerned, the size is regardless of the commodity.

Mr. Campbell. Yes. But in order to standardize on a given

weight, you would generally have to have a separate can for each

separate product or grade of products, although some different commodities could probably be packed in the same size. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Kanzer, what canned fruits or vegetables put

in a No. 1 can weighed 1 pound, or in a No. 2 can weighed 2 pounds?

Mr. Kanzer. Generally all No. 2 cans weighed 2 pounds.

Mr. Stewart. What were the products?

Mr. Kanzer. I cannot tell you now. I will have to check on it. Mr. Stewart. I have been in this business for 30 years and never

in my life have I seen any No. 2 can of fruits or vegetables which

weighed 2 pounds. I wanted to have this on the record, because if you will look over this list of weights as published by the Canners

Association you will find that the No. 2 can ranges for various commodities anywhere from 1 pound and 2 ounces up to 1 pound and 6

ounces. Back in the year 1900, there were three cans for fruits and

vegetables—the No. 1, what we called 1 pound at that time, the No. 2,

and the No. 3. Now, when the Federal net-weight law went into

effect we weighed those cans and we never found one that weighed

2 pounds.

Mr. Kanzer. Did it weigh 1 pound and 2 ounces at that time?

Mr. Stewart. They weighed about that weight; yes, sir. When

the sanitary cans came into existence, they were made to approximate,

as closely as possible, the capacity of the old cans. Mr. Kanzer. I can say very definitely—and you have just agreed

to it—that the No. 2 can back in 1912, meant 2 pounds, as far as the

people were concerned.

Mr. Stewart. We called it that, but you show us some that

weighed it. Mr. Kanzer. I would say the No. 2 pan generally contained 2

pounds. I will check back and send the information to you. I am

very much pleased at Mr. Campbell's answer to Mr. Pisciotta, that

there was no difficulty with respect to capacities. If there is any

question in reference to weight, there apparently is no question in

reference to capacity.

The Acting Chairman. There is a motion to proceed with the

program . I want to express to Mr. Campbell our appreciation of the

discussion he has given us on this subject from the viewpoint of the

canners. PAPER OF ARTHUR P. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, R. C. WILLIAMS

AND CO., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL-AMERICAN WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION 1 This memorandum is submitted in behalf of the members of

National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association, who distribute a

large percentage of the wholesale grocery volume of the United States.

i In the absence of Mr. Williams, this paper was presented to the Conference by M. L. Toulme, secretary*. National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 105

The members of the Association, located in every State of the Union

distribute thousands of different kinds and types of food and grocery

products.

Wholesale grocers distribute a wide variety of food products in

package form purchased from many manufacturers and packers

scattered throughout the United States and in foreign countries.

Many of the products distributed by wholesalers are purchased in

bulk and then processed, conditioned, packed, and distributed under

the labels, trade-marks, and brands of such wholesale grocers. Millions of dollars have been spent in the development of goodwill in

these labels, trade-marks, and brands that now are well known to consumers of this country.

The National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association was organized in August 1933, as the result of the union of National Wholesale

Grocers' Association and American Wholesale Grocers' Association,

the organization having been accomplished in order to facilitate operations under the National Industrial Recovery Act and the NUA Codes.

Distributors of food products have much in common with Government and consumers in the weights and sizes and shapes of food containers of all types. Unnecessary multiplicity of sizes, weights, and

shapes of containers forces distributors, vitally interested in the costs

of doing business, turn-over of stock, and the competitive situation,

to invest undue amounts in stocks.

Throughout the years, trade associations of distributors in the food

field have wrestled with this problem. At the start, it was thought

by many food distributors that the problem could be solved without

imdue economic dislocations and unfairnesses, by simple statues, compelling regularity, uniformity, and simplicity. However, the more the

facts are studied and weighed, the more complicated reform becomes.

The lists of food products, canned and packaged, are already long and

are constantly being lengthened. Nature is whimsical and even

stubborn about producing differing sizes and shapes of food products.

Legislators as well as distributors may propose uniformity and

standardization of containers, but nature seems to be uninterested in

duplicating the reforming of sizes and shapes of her products. A

willful Nature also complicates the food situation further by producing

feasts one year and famines the next, thus dictating wide fluctuations

in prices, and prices control consumer buying habits mightily, as all producers and distributors will testify. Millions of consumers,

scattered over the face of the earth, also have their own ideas, prejudices, needs, and preferences, depending upon where they live, how

they live, and the sizes, tastes, and incomes of their families.

Once there was an old giant who had his own ideas and convictions

about the desirability of regularity, uniformity, and simplicity.

However, his hobby concerned weights, sizes, and shapes of men.

Naturally, he was convinced that men should be large, tall, and handsome, like giants. This giant freely invited stranded wayfarers to enjoy his hospitality overnight and automatically assigned them to a room in which there was a large bed.

If it happened that a particular guest was short and stout, the giant

had machinery which during the night stretched the guest to a size to fit the giant's bed. If it happened that the visitor was too lean

and lank, the old giant took care of that situation by cutting enough
106 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

off of that guest, so that he fitted the bed perfectly. The giant's

methods were effective, but few of his guests survived the ordeal.

Despite our natural impatience with the multitude of sizes, shapes,

and types of food containers, we sincerely urge that whether we be consumers or officials or distributors, we keep before us the actual

complications ahead and make progress, slow but sure, by exercising

tolerance, common sense, and good judgment.

One of the objects of the Association, functioning through its Economy Conference Committee, is to participate in trade confer- ences under the auspices of the United States Department of Commerce with producers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and

others, in order to bring about simplification and standardization of

manufacturing machinery and methods in the food trade, to the end

that food products may be distributed with the greatest economy to

merchants and consumers. The activities of the Association and its- functions in this field are described briefly in "Trade Association

Activities" issued in 1927 by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic

Commerce, at page 250, as follows:

The National Wholesale Grocers' Association represents approximately 50

percent of the total number of concerns engaged and transacting probably 75

percent of the total wholesale grocery sales of the country.

In cooperation with the Bureau of Business Research of Harvard University it has made annual studies of costs of doing business. Its canners' conference committee confers with canners and brokers on questions having to do with the

promotion of sales of canned goods and the purity and wholesomeness of such

merchandise. It endeavors to suggest uniform, clear, and equitable forms of contracts for the purchase of commodities, with the aim of preventing sales

litigation. Its economy conference committee conducts trade conferences under the auspices of the Department of Commerce of the United States with producers,

manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and other merchants for the purpose of standardizing and simplifying the sizes, manufacture, operation, and distribution machinery and methods.

Its general education committee disseminates information concerning the service

of the wholesale grocer. It cooperates with Federal and State departments in the enforcement of pure food laws, with the Department of Commerce in simplifica- tion and standardization work, and since 1906 has studied State and Federal

legislation and has supported measures to prohibit all adulteration and mis- branding of food, designed upon the basis of uniformity with the Federal Food

and Drug Act of June 30, 1906, in the statutes of the respective States. Its studies include railroad service and rates, uniformity of laws on commercial

subjects (particularly pure foods), and arbitration of commercial disputes. It is recognized generally in the wholesale grocery field that there is genuine economy in the simplification of food containers, principally

through reduction in the number of unnecessary sizes of containers.

While recognizing that there are material savings through simplification, and that simplification promotes not only economy but also

efficiency in distribution, it should be borne in mind that there is a

considerable difference between simplification and rigid standardization of packages which would permit the use of only certain sizes and

types of packages.

The establishment of a limited number of so-called "standard"

packages not only would result in unnecessary hardship on the

packers and distributors of food products, but it also would deprive consumers of various types of packages for which there is a real

demand.

This Association takes the position that simplification of package

sizes, rather than rigid standardization, should be brought about by
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 107

voluntary agreements made in cooperation with the United States

Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, under the

auspices of its Division of Simplified Practice.

The records of the Department of Commerce disclose that this

Association and its members participated in simplified practice conferences for a number of years, and that thev have aided materia ly in the reduction of can and glass container sizes in the interest of the public

and of the trade.

This Association's representatives at the general conference with

respect to cans for fruits and vegetables included:

Haas-Lieber Grocery Co., St. Louis, Mo.,

Daugherty & Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., Francis H. Leggett & Co., New York, N. Y., Seeman Brothers, New York, N. Y., Griggs, Cooper & Co., St. Paul, Minn.,

Morey Mercantile Co., Denver, Colo., Oakford-Fahnestock Co., Peoria, 111., Wm. Edwards Co., Cleveland, Ohio.,

Steele, Wedeles Co., Chicago, 111., Sprague, Warner Co., Chicago, 111., R. C. Williams & Co., New York, N. Y. Deceptive and Slack-Filled Packages.—The National-American

Wholesale Grocers' Association consistently and constantly has con- demned slack-filled and other types of deceptive packages in the food

industry. The Association has advocated the enactment of legislation to eliminate such practices from the field, and it favored enactment of

the measures introduced in Congress by Representative Haugen in

1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931.

e In addition, the National-American Association endorsed and fa- vored enactment of Senator Copeland's bill which became the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938. That statute specifically provides that food shall be deemed misbranded if its container

is so "made" as to be misleading. Food also would be deemed

misbranded if the container is so "formed" or so ' Tilled" as to be misleading. These provisions are contained in section 403 of the act,

reading:

Section 403. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded * * * (d) If its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.

The intention of Congress in enacting these provisions is expressed

clearly by the following language in the reports 2 of the Committee on Commerce:

This is intended to reach abuses which have arisen in the packaging of food through the use of deceptively shaped, formed, or colored containers. It is likewise intended to reach deceptive methods of filling—particularly those known

as "slack filling"—where the package is only partly filled and, despite the declaration of quantity of contents on the labe*, creates the impression that it contains more food that it actually does. The new statute, shortly to become effective, prohibits, among other

things, the introduction or delivery into interstate commerce of any

food that is adulterated or misbranded (section 301); a.nd, as has been

indicated, the act provides that a food shall be deemed to be misbranded "if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading" (section 403). These sections are directed at the very

practices that this Conference seeks to eliminate.

» (Reports of Senate Committee on Commerce to accompany S. 2800, March 15, 1934; S. 5, May 13, 1935 and S. 5—74th Congress.)
108 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Under the provisions of the act of June 25, 1938, therefore, the

Secretary of Agriculture has authority to proceed against the use of

containers that are so made, or so formed, or so filled, as to be

misleading.

The Federal Trade Commission.—On March 21, 1938, President

Roosevelt approved S. 1077, generally known as the Wheeler-Lea Act. That statute considerably broadens the provisions of section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission Act. The section originally condemned

unfair methods of competition in commerce ; but, as amended, the act now declares unlawful not only unfair methods of competition in commerce but also unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.

Section 5 of the act, as amended by the act of March 21, 1938,

provides:

Sec. 5. (a) Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive

acts or practices in commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. The Federal Trade Commission long has condemned the use of

deceptive containers. Its policy in this connection is stated in the

annual report of the Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30,

1938, at page 72, as follows:

Imitating or using standard containers customarily associated in the mind of the general purchasing public with standard weights or quantities of the product

therein contained, to sell the public such commodity in weights or quantities less than the aforementioned standards, with capacity and tendency to deceive the purchasing public into believing that they are purchasing the quantities generally associated with the standard containers involved, and/or with the effect of so

doing, and with tendency to divert trade from and otherwise injure the business

of competitors who do not indulge in such practices and/or with the effect of so doing to the injury of such competitors and to the prejudice of the public.

The Federal Trade Commission has ample authority under the new

statute to prohibit the use of deceptive containers in the food industry.

Canners7 Viewpoint Endorsed.—At this Conference the National

Canners Association has presented its views with respect to standardization of canned-food containers. A substantial percentage of the

packaged food products distributed by wholesale grocers is packed in cans. The growth of the canning industry in recent years has been

exceptionally rapid and new products constantly are being added to the

list of canned foods. It has been estimated that canning "is a billion- dollar industry." Many wholesale grocers distribute a wide variety

of canned food under their own trade-marks, brands, and labels. If arbitrary, rigid standards for containers were to be adopted for canned

goods, tremendous losses would be sustained in the wholesale grocery

industry through the destruction of plates, labels, machinery, and containers.

The National-American Wholesale Grocers* Association endorses

the views of the National Canners Association as presented at this

Conference.

Conclusions,—It is respectfully urged:

First: That the Committee of this Conference make further study of,

and give further consideration to, the questions involved here in view

of the enactment of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of

June 25, 1938, and particularly the provisions of sections 301 (a) and

403 (d) of that act. Second: That this Conference and its Committee cooperate with the

United States Department of Agriculture in bringing about the en- forcement of the new Federal statute.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 109

Third: That the work of the Department of Commerce in the

simplification field be continued through voluntary cooperation of the

various trades involved with the Department, in order that efficiency

and economy may be promoted in the industries and that buying may

be facilitated for the consuming public.

Fourth: That the Committee of this Conference renew on a vigorous

and widespread scale the educational campaign among consumers

urging them to make it an invariable practice to "Read the Label."

The Acting Chairman. Mr. Toulme, I thank you for coming here

today.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. Pisciotta. Mr. Toulme, we are back to boxes, now, and away

from cans. Is that right?

Mr. Toulme. We handle both, the canned foods and the packages.

Mr. Pisciotta. We have here (indicating) two boxes of pea beans,

the same product, the same-sized box, the same commodity packaged

by the same people. They have a 1-pound content in one box, 14 ounces in the other. Do you know any reason for it? Mr. Toulme. In order to get it to the consumer at a price

approximately what she has been used to buying it for. I don't know

whether that is justified by current market conditions, but I do know,

particularly in a rising market, that you do get those gradual fluctuations in the size of the containers.

Mr. Pisciotta. In other words, if the market so fluctuates that the

peas and beans become cheaper, it is probable you will go back to 15

or 16 ounces?

Mr. Toulme. It is a competition matter. Mr. Pisciotta. Is there a standard price all over the community?

Mr. Toulme. It depends where you buy it. Mr. Pisciotta. So then the price question does not control the

contents of the box, does it? Mr. Toulme. As far as the manufacturers' original sale is concerned, it did control.

Mr. Pisciotta. Is it possible that at some time the 1 pound sold at a price and when it was reduced to 14 ounces it sold at the same

price?

Mr. Toulme. If the commodity has gone up sufficiently. If the consumer is used to a price, they may try to keep it at that price.

Mr. Pisciotta. Your sugar is still packed in standard 1-, 2-, or 5-pound packages. Has the price of sugar changed?

Mr. Toulme. Yes. Mr. Pisciotta. And the customers that buy sugar have to pay a penny or two cents more, according to the current price?

Mr. Toulme. I doubt that, in packaged sugar; the fluctuation is wider in bulk, I would say, than in packages.

Mr. Pisciotta. There is no regular American coffee that has been

reduced a quarter or a half ounce below 16 ounces. Has there been

a change in price of coffee, too?

Mr. Toulme. There has not been a rise upward. I don't believe

the fluctuation has been enough to bring about that situation. The

manufacturer will absorb a considerable amount of that and doesn't

make a change until he has to. Mr. Pisciotta. Does the manufacturer absorb it in pea beans?

Mr. Toulme. Apparently that manufacturer felt he couldn't.
110 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. Levitt. Isn't it a fact, that a 14-ounce package is put up for a certain class of trade?

Mr. Pisciotta. That isn't true of this particular one, because it was

cut from 16 to 14 ounces and every one of these boxes is now sold at 14 ounces. Mr. R. A. Snyder. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for several hours

and listened to this, and I might say I know something about the

wholesale grocery trade because I was in it. I don't know why we

cannot get through with this. It is a known fact that a manufacturer

packs a 14- or 16-ounce package for certain classes of his trade; there

is no question about that. The reason for the difference in the size of the package is in order to meet competition with this chain-store

trade. For instance, for years a brand of raisins was packed in 11- and 15-ounce sizes. Why cannot the manufacturers and the sellers get together on a standardization of packages which would save the manufacturer the

additional cost of cartons and cans; the manufacturer would make

money, the retailer would make money, and every sealer throughout

the country would be satisfied. The Acting Chairman. I think it is the purpose of the discussion

to make feasible that accomplishment.

Mr. Pisciotta. The reason I have asked these questions is to bring the arguments out. I know the answers. I believe you want

to know how to act on the recommendation of the Committee. I know how I am going to vote, but I believe you want to find out from

these gentlemen.

Mr. Toulme, is there any reason why peas should not be packed in

2-, 4-, 8-, and 16-ounce packages? Is there a justification for a 7-ounce package of peas?

Mr. Toulme. Well, suppose a man went into business several

years ago and decided he was going to popularize a 7-ounce package

of peas, and he did it. After that man has spent several millions of dollars for good will, why say it is a crime to sell a 7-ounce package?

It is sold at 7 ounces, and paid for at 7 ounces. How is the consumer

hurt?

Mr. Pisciotta. Did you ever hear of a customer coming in and

asking for 7 ounces of peas?

Mr. Toulme. No.

Mr. Pisciotta. How about a half pound?

Mr. Toulme. Yes. Mr. Pisciotta. When he asked for a half pound, this package was

given to him?

Mr. Toulme. The conversation is this, "I haven't got a half pound

of peas, but I have 7 ounces and I am going to charge you for 7

ounces."

Mr. Pisciotta. Are you sure that is what happens?

Mr. Toulme. Yes, I am sure. Mr. R. A. Snyder. Isn't it a fact that the charge is the same?

Mr. Toulme. No.

Mr. R. A. Snyder. I happened to be a sales representative of a tea company and for a number of years we packed tea, in quarter- and

half-pound sizes, and then in the 7-ounce size. We did that for one

reason—in. order that our price would be cheaper and meet competition. I want to go on record here that I am for a uniform package.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 111

There is no reason why in the State of Pennsylvania we should have

one package size and other sizes in New Jersey, in New York, and in

Massachusetts. I think the manufacturers could save a lot of money

if they got right down to brass tacks and made the same package.

Mr. Toulme. Well, I think everybody in this room and in the food

business wants to achieve your objective. We are willing to help.

Let me ask you a question: There was a wide-open question, and no

answer, in relation to the voluntary program, to the effect that some- body could stay out and wreck us. I am wondering if this Association

of yours cannot come into the picture when a producer or processor of

that type stays out, and ask him why he is staying out. Mr. Pisciotta. The Conference and some individual weights and

measures sealers throughout the country perhaps, by prosecution or

otherwise, may be in a position to compel certain outlaws to go along on a voluntary basis. But isn't it true that all sealers throughout the

country may not be in a position to do that?

Mr. Toulme. Well, I don't know about that. I merely propose

the question to you. With a firm such as this, what persuasion other

than this can you use?

Mr. Pisciotta. A law to compel them to do it. Mr. Toulme. I should think if you can get the trade to agree, you

would not have any trouble.

Mr. Pisciotta. We have tried for 2 years and succeeded with many

people but we have not been entirely successful. Mr. Toulme. Then there must be some very good reason I am

not familiar with.

Mr. Pisciotta. This was one of the reasons we discovered. These

two packages (indicating- a half-pound and a 7-ounce package of tea) are on the shelf alongside each other. There is a tag above this shelf,

40 cents; there is a tag above this shelf, 35 cents. The housewife

walks in and the 3 5-cent price appeals to her; she thinks she is getting

it 5 cents cheaper. She doesn't realize she would have paid the same

price if she had bought the other; both were 5 cents an ounce. She

never figures that out. Mr. Toulme. I don't know whether she does or not. I find these

women are pretty cagey. She may know she gets 7 ounces in one and

8 ounces in the other.

Mr. Pisciotta. Without reference to these women here, I have

found women to be the most duped buyers. I have asked hundreds

of women who have bought this for years and years, and 75 percent of

them were under the impression that they were buying a half pound.

Will you agree with me, that is the reason for the difference in weight?

Mr. Toulme. I am not going to do that. But we do believe in keeping up that campaign of getting consumers to read the labels. The truth is there, and there is no fraud. It is a lot easier for the consumers of this country to take the time to read and understand

the labels, than to go down this other route, which involves a lot of

legislation and the freezing of conditions, when we don't know what we might want 6 months later. The Acting Chairman. Mr. Toulme, the Conference thanks you

for this discussion.

At tins time I will invite Vice President Tucker, of the Sunshine

State, to preside.

(At this point C. E. Tucker, Vice President of the Conference, assumed the

chair.)
112 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

PAPER PRESENTED BY F. F. FITZGERALD, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,

AMERICAN CAN CO., REPRESENTING THE CAN MANUFACTURERS

INSTITUTE, INC.

No one will question the desirability of the standardization of

canned-food containers.

From the weights and measures standpoint, the object of standardization is the protection of the consuming public from deception that

may arise from the use for the same product of cans varying only

slightly in capacity.

From the canners', brokers', and retailers' standpoint, the object

of standardization is to limit the sizes of cans used for each product

to those sizes which have been found to satisfy the trade demands,

and thus prevent unfair use by competitors of deceptive-appearing

containers.

The can manufacturer is wholly in sympathy with this program,

provided the standardization is economically sound.

The can manufacturer, canner, merchandiser, and the consuming

public agree as to the desirability of standardization, but the can manufacturer insists that such steps as are taken in this respect should

not so hamstring the industry as to prevent continuance of the scientific development that has characterized the industry during the past

20 years. It is from this scientific point of view that I wish to approach the question of standardization.

The tin can was never designed as a measure and never can be one, A short history of the development of the can, or canister, will make

this clear. After the invention of the tin can by Durand, canners—

who then had a small output—made their own containers by hand,

usually in the winter months. The sheets of imported tin plate were

cut laboriously with tin scissors into body lengths and rolled around an iron body form and soldered. Circles were cut from sheets for

ends—the top end with a large hole in it. The three pieces were

then soldered together by hand. After the can was filled with the

fruit, fish, or vegetables and heated to expel air, the caphole was

closed and the venthole soldered.

Gradually these primitive methods were improved. Dies were

used to punch out ends—thus the first attempt at standardization.

During this period the canner provided the tin plate, cut out the can

parts, furnished the coal and the cappers, and piled the finished cans. The laborer making the cans was paid a fixed sum per thousand cans, but his contract provided that he pay not only for the value or cost

of any defective container, but also for the value or loss of the can

contents of any defective container.

This type of container remained in use for years. The capping

and tipping of these containers in the canning factories gradually

became a highly specialized operation, and quite generally was let by contract to boss cappers, who hired their own crews and worked

for a fixed sum per thousand cans, with the definite agreement that

they would pay, not only for all cans showing defective cap and vent

closure but also for the contents of such cans. This is one of the

first instances of consequential damage contracts. The automatic body maker was then developed, and as cans could

be fabricated by these machines at much less cost than by hand, the canner naturally bought his cans from a can maker who could afford to install such equipment. As the canner formerly held his em-
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 113

>g ployees responsible for defective containers he now asked and re- ceived a guarantee from the container manufacturer against delivery

of defective containers. This guarantee was initially against spoilage

above five cans per thousand, later three cans per thousand, and now

two cans per thousand. Under the terms of these contracts, food

• containers are guaranteed against spoilage or other loss due to defects

f. of the container chargeable to the can manufacturer, above two cans

' per thousand. This covers not only the cost of the defective container

but also consequential losses due to spoilage of contents. These contracts were the stimuli for the scientific development of

the canning industry. Fundamental investigations were necessary

to establish the individual responsibility of the can manufacturer, the

canner, and the distributor.

Complete knowledge of the procedures and methods used by all concerned is necessary. The character of the canner's raw product,

the methods of planting fertilizing, spraying, harvesting, washing,

grading, blanching, filling, closing, exhausting, cooling, and warehousing had to be studied. This also entailed a study of the design of

equipment, materials used in equipment, and methods of shipment

and storage of finished product.

Only two decades ago a can was a can. Only two kinds of tin plate were known—open hearth and bessemer. These could be purchased

with so-called coke, canner's special, or charcoal weights of coating.

Today, with the development of new processes of manufacture such

as the cold methods of reduction, the canner is furnished with containers especially designed for the particular product he is canning.

The chemical specifications of the base plate, the methods of manu

facturing the plate, i. e., hot mill or cold reduction, the temper of the

plate, the weight or gage of the plate used in the bodies or ends, the

profile of the ends, the design of the body, the weight of tin coating,

and the character of enamel—if enamel cans are used—are specified.

These specifications are fixed and are absolutely necessary if the can

is to serve its proper function, which is far beyond that of an ordinary measure. Let me repeat, the canner is furnished with containers

made according to specifications and designs adapted to each particular

product he is canning.

The container is a miniature steel retort or boiler which acts effici- ently in the sterilization of the canned food, and which later can be

used as a container for the storage, distribution, and sale of the steri- lized product if properly made of suitable material. Canners would not

accept today the containers which their fathers used. Development

of new types of plate has doubled the shelf life of many canned foods,

but at the same time has forced can manufacturers to change their

methods of manufacture and the design of can bodies and ends so as

to counterbalance the physical weakness of these new types of plate.

Beads on the bodies of cans and the apparently ornamental ends are not accidental but are the results of fundamental engineering study.

This short historical survey is given to show that for a century and a quarter the tin canister has been regarded as a container and that the

primary object of the scientific staffs of the can manufacturers and

canners has been directed to the development of new plate, new

processes, etc., which will enable the industry to make a product of

increasing merit and one that will retain its high quality during the

period of storage and distribution.
114 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The contents of the container are not necessarily measured by the

external dimensions of the cans. Differences in types of cans, side seam bow, profile of ends, methods of fill, temperatures of fill, methods

of exhaust, and methods of closure prevent the can from ever being

other than a container.

Numerous examples may be cited. With adoption of cold-rolled,

low-metalloid plate, paneled bodies were encountered with the larger

size of cans for pumpkin. Pumpkin cans must be filled at high temperature on account of their slow heat penetration. This difficulty was partially solved by the use of " domed" or convex ends, which

permit the use of a normal fill but produce a lessened head space in

the can, thus reducing the final vacuum and lessening the paneling.

With citrus products, the use of nonspilling closing machines and gas- flow closure demands a can shorter than the former can, although both

contain the same volume of contents. With vacuum filling machines

for pork and beans the can may be shortened in height with the

finished can containing the same cut-out weight.

Products are packed in cans which are scored on the body near the

ends and opened with a key. If these products are liquid or semiliquid, the cover is depressed so that the food will not leak out when the can is opened. The heights of some sizes of salmon cans differ according

to whether the cans are hand-filled or machine-filled. The machinefilled cans are two-sixteenths of an inch higher than the hand-filled in

order to guarantee the same cut-out weight. Tomato juice packers

must vary the heights of containers to compensate for temperatures of

filling. Packers who fill at 160° F can use a shorter can than those who

fill at 190° to 200° F, because of less contraction on cooling. The

trade demands a uniform quantity of product in this case and is not

interested whether the can is one-sixteenth of an inch taller or not. The Federal Government contracted for roast beef in cans containing 24 ounces. Those packers who used thermal exhaust could use a can three-sixteenths of an inch shorter than those who used mechanical vacuum. The Government was not interested in the dimensions of the

container but in the quantity of food in the container. Numerous other

examples could be given.

As stated before, efforts to increase the service life of containers

demand changes in chemical composition of the tin plate. These

changes in chemical composition cause differences in physical characteristics of the tin plate, and these changes in physical characteristics cause subsequent changes in body design and profile, and in methods of

canning and merchandising.

The can manufacturers, as well as all other factors in the food industry, are vitally interested in can standardization, with the immediate

purpose of preventing consumer deception, but they ask that such

standardization be made without freezing the scientific development

of the can manufacturer and canning industry.

I believe the standardization committee has presented an excellent

program. As a matter of fact, there could be, in my opinion, only one

criticism offered, and I believe this criticism is secondary. Canada

also considered, for instance, the idea of stepping up the sizes of cans by 4-ounce intervals but soon saw the impracticability of such an
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 115

idea and now recognizes 66 sizes of containers. These 66 sizes are used

for many less products than are now canned in the United States. Arbitrary minimum nondeceptive volumes of fill corresponding to the figures established by the BAE and enforced under the Federal

food law, or average declared fills, must be established for each product

and it is immaterial in what units such volumes are expressed. This

is necessitated by differences in specific gravity of products, methods

and temperatures of filling, methods of closure, necessary differences in

end profile design, etc. It would be extremely desirable to have at least a uniform method

with Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc., but the British nation uses a different gallon and fluid ounce than ourselves. We are in the same position with France and continental

Europe, who use the metric system. It is extremely unfortunate that our weights and measures are not on a decimal basis like our monetary

system, but it would be foolish for us to try either to adopt a new sys- tem of weights and measures or to change the quantities which have

been found desirable in the trade. We probably must base our vol- umes on a cubic inch or the fluid ounce, but, as previously stated, the

choice of units is a secondary matter, as the prevention of consumer

deception is all that is necessary from the weights and measures

standpoint.

In conclusion, let me say, first, the can manufacturer will make all sizes of cans demanded by his customers; second, the can manufacturer will be forced to limit his responsibility for the service life of

containers to the extent that the can specifications do not accord with

sound engineering and technological processes; third, the can manufacturer maintains that the tin can is an inherent tool in the production

of canned foods and that its subsequent use as a container is a fortunate coincidence that has made the industry possible—however, this use as a container is so involved with physical and chemical considerations that the external dimensions of the can should not, and cannot,

be taken as a precise measure of the contents of the can; fourth,

canned-food containers may readily be standardized by the simple

method proposed by the industry committee, which establishes volume

fill as a basis. This proposal suggests, first, that standardization be established by

products; second, that there be established for each individual product

certain volumes which may be packed, making these so different in

quantity that the containers will not be confusing to the purchasing

public; third, that in following the above program no mistake be made

such as trying to change our whole system of weights and measures, but that we select those commercial containers which comply with the

different requirements and whose use can be established with the least cost to all parties concerned. International standards may later be

developed, but let us not now overemphasize the gill, pint, quart,

gallon, and pound, as even these units are at times grossly misunderstood. We have the dry quart and the liquid quart; the Imperial

gallon, the United States gallon ; the troy ounce, the Imperial ounce, the avordupois ounce; and other units. It is not our^ business to fix the definite units of measure but only to see that there is no deception

to the consumer.
116 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. Pisciotta. Dr. Fitzgerald, our recommendation No. 5 provides:

Containers of different standards to be so constructed that the different sizes are easily discernible, this to be accomplished by fixing the diameter or the base measurements of the container and letting the industry change the height of the

respective containers to fit the particular commodity.

Now, you could put out a 16-ounce container for different commodities, according to the nature of the commodities, and the temperature at which it has to be sealed, by varying the height of that

container.

Dr. Fitzgerald. Theoretically, it is possible. The objection to it

is that you would run the number of the containers into the thousands, so that, instead of having 55, we would have 2,500.

May I give you another example? A question was asked about

marking of 16 and 15% ounces. I think Mr. Campbell well explains

that where the indicated weight on the can varies. You start the sea- son early, and the first corn coming in is not mature. We like to fill corn at 190° F, to get air out of the corn. But if you heat this green

corn to 190°, it would be absolutely impossible to get your weight.

You have to drop it to 170°, and then you are in danger of getting

under the minimum weight. Maybe a week later, a new field will come in and you will have no trouble getting the weight in. Mr. Pisciotta. Then if you purchase that same size can in another

part of the season, you wouldn't get the same weight?

Dr. Fitzgerald. The chances are that you always get the declared?

weight. I would say the weight would tend towards the minimum at

times, and at times towards the maximum. They always mark the

weight at the minimum.

Mr. Pisciotta. We would get the same markings on the label. Whether it was 14% or 16 ounces, it wouldn't make any difference?

Dr. Fitzgerald. Yes, you would always get the marked weight.

Mr. Pisciotta. Then it wouldn't make any difference about this

difference in the corn, you would still have the same container?

Dr. Fitzgerald. Not in all cases. If you are canning tomato juice

in the 12-ounce size at 160° F and at 190° F there would have to be

different sizes for the different temperatures.

Mr. Pisciotta. Do you recall these two 15-ounce cans [indicating cans of coffee] and the reason given to us for not being able to bring

this up to 16 ounces?

Dr. Fitzgerald. I image the reason for not bringing it up to 16 ounces is that the packer doesn't want 16 ounces in there.

Mr. Pisciotta. Do you remember, Dr. Fitzgerald, that you said

that if this was raised a fraction of an inch , there might be a danger

of collapsing the can?

Dr. Fitzgerald. I remember we didn't say a fraction of an inch.

You can perhaps get more coffee in that can. The lighter the roast the heavier the coffee, and the more you get in. Mr. Pisciotta. You remember you told about the impossibility of

changing this to 16 ounces?

Dr. Fitzgerald. As I remember, you were talking about changing

it to the diameter of 404. We can increase the height of that can within certain limitations, but the amount within which you can increase

the height depends upon the diameter of that can.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 117

Mr. Pisciotta. The weight now has been increased to 16 ounces and the can is a little higher. This is an example of one commodity,

different brands, with four different sized cans. I am trying to illus- trate it was possible, although we were told it was impossible, to change the can to 16 ounces. Mr. Ackerman. Dr. Fitzgerald, you have been very kind in answer- ing all of our questions, and I would just like to ask if I were a manufacturer of a food product and ordered some gallon cans from your

company, would you at my request make a deeply recessed lid to fit those cans so that they would be short approximately 8% cubic inches?

Dr. Fitzgerald. No, I do not think we would. We have had that

put up to us and we declined.

Mr. Waldman. Mr. Chairman, it isn't my purpose to curtail or

limit discussion on this thing, but I would like to suggest that it seems to me perfectly obvious that all of the answers given to Mr.

Pisciotta^ inquiries have been identical. I am thoroughly convinced,

and I believe most of the members of this Conference are convinced,

that there can be a method of standardizing packages. I see no need

for asking each successive speaker the same questions and getting

the same answers.

I believe that this Conference is deeply indebted to Mr. Pisciotta

and his Committee for their study and effort and the time that they

have put forth on this all-important subject. But I would like to see some of the discussion limited; this subject could be discussed from

now to the end of the Conference, and we wouldn't know any more

then than now. Mr. J. G. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I feel the same way as Mr.

Waldman. When we have developed all of the technical features, I would like to be heard. I have been trying to hold myself back until

that time.

The Acting Chairman. If the Conference wants to vote on this

question now we might bring this particular phase to a close. Mr. A. Edward Snyder. Mr. Chairman, these men are, as I see

it, representative of the various industries, and when we hear the final two speakers we should have more or less of a complete survey.

Mr. Pisciotta. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I think we are

finished and can go along without further questions.

PAPER PRESENTED BY J. S. ALGEO, HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO., REPRESENTING THE GLASS CONTAINER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

I speak as a representative of the glass-container industry, manufacturers of bottles and jars for foods. The glass-container industry

is engaged in a broad program of redesigning and simplifying its packages, and this program ties in with the general idea of this Conference and also with the deceptive-package feature pf the Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The primary purpose of this program of ours is to reduce our costs of production so that we can sell our containers at lower prices and thus obtain greater distribution. It is obvious that with fewer styles and sizes to make, we can produce them

at a lower cost; so if by simplifying and standardizing our packages

which is the objective you have in view—we also benefit ourselves,

then we are killing two birds with one stone. We are helping ourselves and also working toward your objectives.
118 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Glass-container designs up until a few years ago and still, to a very great extent, were relies of the old days when bottles and jars were made by the so-called hand-blown method, before the days of mass production by automatic machines. Because costs were lower

and because there was not as much difference as now between the cost

of producing items of various styles, but of the same sizes, there was

a pronounced tendency to make containers so that they would look

as large as possible with relation to the actual capacity. This ten- dency largely accounts for the extra-tall bottles which you see today

and for tali bottles with depressed panels in their sides and of other

shapes which look large in comparison with a simple round shape

which holds the same. Likewise, because mold costs with relation

to the total costs were much lower then than is true now, there was a tendency to build molds for smaller quantities than would now be

considered economical and for freakish shapes which would now be

considered impractical. This fact accounts in a large measure for

the multitude of bottle and jar designs that are now in use. There

is no question but that the glass-container industry is making more

shapes and sizes than are needed, and it is this condition which we are endeavoring to correct. It is a fact that a plain round, relatively

squat, glass container is the easiest and cheapest to produce and that

the farther away we get from such a shape, the greater the cost of

producing. Thus it happens that the least deceptive glass container

is also the lowest in cost, and thus it happens that it is to our interest

to simplify and standardize our containers.

This program of redesigning and simplifying design has not taken

the line of bringing about complete standardization—by which I mean

we have not attempted to design a jar to hold, say, 1 pound of preserves

so that all 1-pound preserve jars made by all manufacturers would be

exactly the same. It has taken the line of developing general standards of design within which general standards any glass manufacturer

may vary his design to suit his own or his customer's preference or requirements. In actual practice the result is that jars or bottles

intended for the same product are pretty much alike, regardless of the

manufacturer, because if the general standard is complied with, there

can't be a great difference in the bottles or jars produced by different

manufacturers. At the same time, there is room left for a variety in

style, which we find is still demanded and which we believe will continue to be demanded, because one of the chief merits of a glass container as a package for food is its eye appeal. This eye appeal helps

to sell food in glass; and so in order to make best use of this eye

appeal we believe that variety in design will always be demanded, both

by the packer and by the consumer. In actual practice this program

also results in our being called upon to make fewer items than heretofore on account of the elimination of many odd and freakish designs

due to the fact that the packer has a wide choice of designs in stock

packages which suits the packer's requirements much better than his

odd or private mold designs. In turn this concentrates our production on fewer and more desirable items, all of which makes for lower costs. The technique of making glass containers has improved to a very

great extent during the past 15 or 20 years. We can make them

faster than we could then, and, equally important, we can make them

at lighter weights and stronger. Through this redesign and simplification program we are trying to take full advantage of this develop-
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 119

ment in technique, and in doing so we are not merely designing containers that are more practicable from our standpoint, but we are

also designing them to be more practicable from the standpoint of the

packer and of the distributor and of the consumer. We are designing

containers which are most practicable to manufacture with our

present-day equipment; and since they are most practicable, they

are also most economical; and, again, since they are most practicable,

it results in greater uniformity in design as between containers made

by different manufacturers; and, finally, since they are most practicable from a manufacturing standpoint and most economical and more uniform, this program of the glass industry ties right in with

your program and with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. What I have just said refers to simplification or standardization of

design rather than to standardization of sizes. As we see it, there is not much the glass-container industry can do toward standardizing

sizes. That will have to come from the packer who uses our containers. We would, however, welcome a greater standardization of

sizes than now exists, because such a standardization would round

out and complete our simplification program. As a matter of fact,

we are endeavoring to the extent of our ability to limit the number

of sizes. In this program of ours we are setting up specifications for

only the sizes that are most popular and doing our best to sell only

those sizes. In addition to that, we plan to cooperate with food

industries using our containers in an effort to further our program of

simplification and standardization. In my opinion, it would not be

practical to standardize to the point where we would have one line of jars for packing all sorts of semisolid products and a line of bottles

to pack all liquids. Each kind of product has its own characteristics

and oftentimes requires a special type of container. Jams, preserves, mayonnaise, and mustard require jars with fairly wide openings.

Pickles, if "placed" in the jars, as opposed to being "thrown" in,

require jars of certain heights and diameters and with a certain type

of shoulder in order to hold a certain number of pickles and to prevent

floating. Olives, when "placed," require a certain type of jar for the same reason. Even bottles to hold liquids could not be of the same sizes for all products, because some liquids require greater head

space to take care of the greater expansion of one liquid than another.

Products sold by weight sometimes vary in specific gravity, hence

they require jars of different capacities to hold the same weight of contents. The best that could be done would be to adopt standard sizes for each type of product going into a container, and while there are many

obstacles against bringing about a complete standardization in that

respect, and while I doubt whether it would be in the best interest

of the public to do so, nevertheless there is a very great amount of

standardization of sizes now, and the tendency seems to be increasing. Milk bottles, mostly through State laws, are standardized as

to size—quarts, pints, half pints, and quarter pints, and, in some

States, one-third quarts and 10 ounces—the last two sizes mostly for

the restaurant trade. Milk bottles, as to styles, have been standardized through the cooperation of glass manufacturers and milk companies. It is certainly fitting and proper that containers for such a

vital necessity as milk be standardized so that the consumer cannot

possibly be deceived and so that the containers can be produced and
120 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

sold at the lowest possible level. Household fruit jars, for many

years, have been standardized in half-pint, pint, quart, and half- gallon sizes—not through any particular cooperative effort but by

common consent. This is an advantage to all concerned. In recent years mayonnaise containers; honey containers; and preserve, jelly,

and apple-butter containers have been standardized as to sizes, but

not as to styles, through the cooperation of these various industries

with the National Bureau of Standards. These standards have been

observed fairly well but not absolutely—and I don't see the necessity, nor even the wisdom, of bringing about an absolute standardization

of containers for products which are not necessities, as in the case with milk.

From a selfish standpoint, the glass manufacturer would welcome

a greater degree of standardization of sizes, but we feel we are almost

powerless to bring it about, because, after all, we are obliged to furnish

what our customers want. If one manufacturer refuses to make a

certain size, his competitor will make it. My observation is that

there are many obstacles to a rigid standardization of sizes. One

of the most important is the fact that foods, to a great extent, are packed to retail at certain prices—for instance, 10 cents or 25 cents. When the price of raw materials goes up in cost—for example, peanuts

for peanut butter—then the amount to retail in a jar for 10 cents goes down and a smaller jar is needed. The reverse is true when the

price of peanuts goes down. The American housewife seems to want

to pay only certain popular prices. She wants to buy a quarter's

worth of peanut butter or jam. If a grocer asks 27 cents, she oftentimes does not buy. I am not qualified to speak on such a subject,

however, as it is the problem of the packer to whom we sell our glass. I am confident, however, that this popular-price complex is a serious

obstacle to enforcing a rigid standardization of sizes, and I don't

believe any enforcement should be attempted except such as can be

obtained by voluntary cooperation among members of the same in- dustry, and the amount of this cooperation and the success of the

venture will depend upon many factors, such as the state of business,

competition, cost of production, location of consuming area with

respect to the manufacturer, and so on. To attempt an enforcement

of an arbitrary standard of size when that size does not synchronize

with production costs and with the purchasing power or buying habits

of the housewife, is running a serious risk of curtailing business. The

housewife is the purchasing agent for the household, and the manufacturer must produce what she wants or he does no business. We

believe that a certain flexibility must exist in order to keep in tune with

changing conditions, for, after all, it is more important to get food

products to the consumer at the lowest cost and in greatest volume

than it is to maintain a rigid standard for sizes. The attitude, therefore, of the glass manufacturer is that we would welcome a further

standardization of size from our own selfish viewpoint but that we

cannot enforce such standards, and it is doubtful whether an arbitary

enforcement would be in the public interest.

The glass manufacturer's chief function at this time, in my opinion,

is primarily to improve the design of the container so that it will be more practicable to all concerned, and, secondarily, to reduce and

standardize the sizes—necessarily following the demands and requirements of his customers and the food manufacturers in that respect.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 121

We are endeavoring to perform these functions, and in so doing we are

furthering the objectives of this Conference by the following means: We are designing and producing containers which are more practicable from our standpoint. Being more practicable from a manufacturing standpoint, they are produced at a lower cost, and this saving

is passed along to our customers and to the public.

We are designing and producing complete families of containers of one general style so that a packer, if he has to change the size of his

container because of increasing or decreasing costs, or for other reasons,, can do so quickly and without having to have special molds built. This results in greater flexibility, both for the glass manufacturer and

the packer, and necessitates a fewer number of molds on the part of

the manufacturer in serving his customers.

We are producing containers which are more practicable from the

packer's standpoint—more uniform and less freakish in design

much lighter in weight, and yet stronger than old-type containers.

The packer thus obtains greater speeds on his filling lines and less breakage, and because of lighter weights he makes a very considerable

saving in transportation costs, which eventually benefits the consumer. We are producing containers which are more practicable from the

consumer's standpoint—containers which fit better on pantry shelves

and in refrigerators, and even more important, containers from which

the contents can be removed without spoiling his or her chances of

reaching heaven.

Finally, we are producing containers which, because they are simple

in design, cannot be considered as being deceptive.

It is not to be inferred from my remarks that this program of

simplification has been completed—it is well under way and great

progress has been made, but the greater part has to be done. When

completed it will result in our having containers which are more practicable from the point of view of all interested parties, fewer items

and lower-cost items. It has been my purpose to tell you of the program which the glass container industry has outlined, and to show you

that it synchronizes with the work in which you are engaged. We are

in favor of simplification and are working to that end and are willing

to cooperate toward further simplification and standardization within

the limits of the peculiarities of our own product and of the requirements of our customers.

The Acting Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Algeo.

PAPER PRESENTED BY CHARLES R. COSBY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LABEL MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Labeling is an intermediate step in the process by which goods in

containers are distributed to consumers whose interests deserve certain

safeguards as a matter of public policy. It is a reasonable expectation

that honesty and fair dealing shall prevail among those who offer a

public service while enjoying the privileges and profits of our system of

private property and free enterprise. Granted that consumers are entitled to buy what they want from sellers who are offering their goods in

the market places, the problem is to insure a meeting of the minds without coercion or deception. Naturally, this calls for a common understanding of terms and definitions and is, in effect, what is meant by

the expression "Standardization of Packages." The problem of creat- ing that common understanding of terms and definitions is uppermost
122 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

in the minds of officials charged with the interpretation and enforcement of sound public policy. Government has the right to declare

that certain terms or definitions shall be used only with a certain

defined meaning. Private industry has the capacity to familiarize consumers with the physical characteristics of the goods so described.

The inducements which normally influence private industry to assume

that task will be mentioned later in this study of the subject.

The fact that labeling is a middle step along the route from production to consumption makes it possible for label manufacturers to look in both directions, as it were, in considering the questions that

arise. In the same way that convenient packaging has proved itself an important element in the vending of commodities, informative

labeling has become an indispensable link in the point-of-sale identification of goods. The problems of standardization have a double

effect upon the business of preparing suitable labels. First, there are problems pertaining to packages and their contents ; and second, there

are problems pertaining to the preparation and use of labels. If the

label manufacturers shall be able to contribute some helpful thoughts

to this interesting subject, it will be due to their practical experience

with a wide variety of containers affording them an excellent opportunity to observe the causes and conditions that tend to create diverse

rather than common characteristics in containers and labels. These

tendencies to generate irregularities are the forces with which one

contends when searching for acceptable and practicable standards.

Looking backward toward the beginning of the producer-to-con- sumer route, the label manufacturer observes that in a system of free enterprise the vending of merchandise at retail is an activity offering a wide range of choice in respect to the manner of its accomplishment.

Good judgment in appraising and satisfying the wants of the buying

public is rewarded by volume sales, mass production, and low costs. The choice of an acceptable unit of quantity is made after a careful

study of the consumer's needs and preferences. The choice of a

suitable container depends not only on the quantity to be sold but

also the physical aspects of the product. Nothing is neglected which

may be used as a means to influence the consumer's preference among

the many uses for her money. The consumer's freedom of choice is therefore the proving ground on which are developed the effective

want-satisfactions, the efficient distributing system and the highest

rewards for the enterpriser. The success of this system has been too

well proven to need any special pleading at this time.

Looking forward to the consumer and her day of marketing, one is impressed with the tremendous responsibility borne by the label when

it comes to the counterside decisions made by her in choosing from the

vast assortments of packaged goods. Ample evidence of the strategic

position of the label at this point is the huge sum spent for naturalcolor reproductions and the artistic merit of labels intended to repre- sent the high quality of the food contents. Does the consumer know

how to evaluate the claims of rival products? Does the label tell facts which she wants to know? Can she rely on what she sees? It

is not the fault of the consumer when she is unable to find consistency

in the claims of quality and quantity. Lacking authentic information, she is often without the means of making comparisons and

evaluations. A packaged product does not always offer favorable

opportunities to examine and appraise the goods. Substitutes for
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 123

those opportunities to see and evaluate do not appeal to the same

faculties of mind. Here is a demonstration that the consumers'

choice is dependent upon a common understanding of the term or

definition of identity by which a product is called. The overzealous

seller is apt to indulge in exaggeration. The statement of weight may

be as unconvincing as a mathematical symbol. The quantity is sometimes "generously" represented by means of oversized containers.

In a practical sense, quantity and quality either balance or unbalance

each other. For example, 8 ounces of canned soup may be equal to

16 ounces of the same quality of soup diluted with water. The proportion of inert ingredients affects both quality and quantity. This

partly explains the need for a definite standard of quality. There

are many analogies between foods and drugs, but there should be

more. In the field of medicine, a drug is not standard unless it is defined in the official compendium.

One should not assume that the education of the consumer in

respect to standards is an unrequited labor on the part of the sellers of

packaged goods. On the contrary, it offers handsome rewards to those who are ambitious to serve the public for profit. The economies

of mass production are made possible by the fact that manufacturing

rocesses may be standardized to the point that automatic devices can

e set up for long runs of identical operations. The frequency of any

operation determines whether machines and tools shall be set for

automatic or hand control. The materials either cut economically or they cut wastefully. The materials from which containers are made,

such as wood veneers, tin plate, paper, paperboard, fiberboard, glass,

etc., are all subject to their own manufacturing conditions which

determine the most adaptable sizes and dimensions.

Under present conditions the label manufacturers can have no pre- conceived notions in regard to the shapes or sizes of containers in

which goods are packed. They are asked to make labels to fit certain

containers and they make them that way, as economically as conditions will permit. Label manufacturing is a made-to-measure proposition. There is practically no such thing as a stock label. No two

product labels are alike in all respects. Too many of them are unlike

m every respect. There are said to be as many as 150 different sizes of labels for cans for fruits and vegetables. Obviously, labels for all these sizes cannot be cut economically from any one size of paper

sheet, which means that label manufacturers must be prepared with

many sizes of paper, and the paper mill must produce such sizes from

the paper machine, whatever may be its width. And it means that

printing presses of various sizes must be available if the work is to be

done economically.

' If a canner wishes to change the capacity of a can, he may change

either the height or the diameter, or both. If all cans were made the same height or the same diameter, labels could be made uniform in at

least one dimension and it would be possible to set the paper-cutting

machines so that their operations could be repeated with sufficient

frequency to effect economies in production. All that has been said

about cutting label paper applies in principle to the manufacture of cans from tin plate. Both are cut from stock of certain limited sizes. Prospects of economies in label production are dependent upon

long runs of uniform sizes of labels, and of course that depends upon

greater uniformity in the sizes of containers which the labels must fit.
124 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

If the sheet cannot be completely filled with labels of the same size,, economies cannot be effected. If the sheet is only partially filled with

a variety of labels of different sizes, a waste of paper is inevitable—not raw paper but paper bearing a labor cost of many handlings. The

greatest economic loss, however, is due to the substitution of timeconsuming hand adjustments in platemaking, and in cutting finished

labels from the sheet, a process that has some of the elements of a

jigsaw puzzle.

Labels for boxes, bottles, crates, cartons and in fact all classes of

labels suffer from such variations in the sizes of containers.

The machines that affix the labels to the containers are also adversely

affected by a variety of sizes. Each change requires a stoppage of the

machine and the adjustment of the mechanism that holds the labels

in position. Of course this retards the production and increases the

cost. Packing cases cost less when made in standard sizes. Special can

sizes make it necessary to use oversized or odd-sized cases which are not efficient in proportion to their shipping weight.

It would be difficult and perhaps tedious to enumerate all the collateral effects set in motion by even slight departures from customary

or natural forms. There is ample evidence that too many variations

in quantity and quality are the result of misdirected zeal. Most

careful observers now agree that there should be an authoritative

standard of identity of every product sold in a container. The

methods for attaining that objective are not entirely clear. Experience in that field is too recent to admit of dogmatic opinions. A division of responsibility between government and private industry seems

to be the course best calculated to serve profitably both private

industry and the consumer. Probably the most important contribution to consumer familiarity

with contents and can sizes was made by the late Dr. Bigelow, who

established in true scientific fashion the proper weight of contents for

each size of cans of normal quality fruits and vegetables. This was a

self-imposed task under the direction of the trade association of that

industry, the National Canners Association, and it is a splendid ex- ample of the cooperation which organized industry is able to offer in

the field of standardization.

The process of educating the consumer probably should be based on

uniformity of method in declaring the required label information. In

matters of education one can borrow profitably from the field of applied

psychology. If four facts regarding the product must be stated, there

should be a rather definite pattern for presenting those four facts, free from obscuring data, so that the absence of any essential declaration will be noticed.

^ Any departure from a legally defined standard

of identity should be indicated in a specially allocated label space and

in prescribed terms. The relative prominence of essential data

should be definitely- fixed. Yv7hen the consumer can see that there is- consistency and uniformity in presenting the terms and definitions

by which the merits of competing products may be judged, she will

become a discriminating buyer and the merchants seeking her favor

will not risk offending her by inadequate information. When the consumer becomes better accustomed to the standardization of

packaged goods, the packer will have less excuse for odd sizes and
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 125

'more regard for the economies and other rewards of the policy of

standardization.

The Acting Chairman. Thank you, very much, Mr. Cosby.

Mr. Boyle. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the last speaker if there is any attempt to regulate the labeling of quantity. Frequently

you will see a statement of "average weight, 8 ounces," or "not less than 8 ounces," or "not less than 8 ounces when packed." I have

liere a label from bread, which reads: "net weight 15 ounces, or less." What does that label mean?

Mr. Cosby. I will not undertake to answer for the producer of the

product. The label manufacturer takes his orders from his customers

and does not inquire as to the honesty of the weight declaration, or matters of that sort. That question probably should be directed to the producer of the product rather than to the label manufacturer.

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF REPORT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

Mr. Btjssey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that

the report of the Committee be adopted and approved and that the

present Committee be continued with such changes in the personnel

thereof as the President of the Conference deems necessary, the Committee to confer with the different branches of the industry for the

purpose of working out and seeking the introduction of necessary legislation pertaining to standardization of package commodities, as outlined in the Committee report.

Mr. Levitt. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pisciotta and his Committee

spent a great deal of time on this matter and are to be congratulated

on the wonderful job they have done. I realize today there have been some matters put forward that will probably need some further consideration and discussion. However, I think this is one of the most

progressive steps that has been made by the Conference, and while I have not gone into it personally, I am satisfied to take their views in

this matter. I want to second the motion as put by Mr. Bussey, of

Texas, for the adoption of the report and the continuation of the

-Committee, and for their meeting with these various people, so that

the differences that have arisen can be settled and adjusted.

Mr. J. G. Rogers. Gentlemen, I have sat here this afternoon and

listened to all the ramifications of this subject. I think in principle

we are all in agreement with what the Committee is trying to do. But

the subject is replete with technicalities and there is danger in moving

too fast. I am thoroughly in accord with the thought that there

have been abuses in the package packing industry. However, the

packing industry has its problems, too, undoubtedly, and we have to approach this subject in a common-sense manner.

This report provides for standardization by weight. I believe the

experts who appeared here this afternoon have definitely shown that

if you do that you are going to get into thousands of sizes of containers.

In New Jersey we tried to approach a problem of coordinating

weight and volume and found our snags there. We found that there were 50 different grades of apples, all weighing differently, and that

to arbitrarily set one weight for a bushel of apples was out of the

question. And we found the same commodities grown in different

States will vary in weight. Therefore, in the packaging of viscous

and semisolid foods especially, you will have different densities, and

other factors enter into it, so that in different States different sized
126 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

cans must be provided to contain a pound of the same commodity.

Also you have different recipes in the industry, which result in different

viscosities and densities, and which again cause differences in the size

of containers to contain the same weight.

I was very gratified to hear this afternoon a member of one industry say he refused to make a false container. We have found

whisky bottles made up as pints, although they contained only 14 ounces. When I made a statement to that effect on this floor, I was

challenged, and it was said that no member of the industry would make

up and falsely label a bottle like that. I wonder if the label manufacturers have given us the cooperation they should and could have

done. You fellows have run across markings you need a magnifying

glass to read. Those things are things that can be corrected. The

ethics of the manufacturers should be raised so that they will not put some of those things on the market. But when you get to canned

products, you face a big problem, and as I grow older, I am a little more hesitant to jump into these things.

Gentlemen, I think a very splendid effort has been made here to develop this subject, to show what is wrong, and what we might be

able to do. Perhaps we will have to break down this situation into

certain commodities that will lend themselves to sale by weight, as

against others which should be standardized by volume.

I think the Committee should be continued, because it has done

such splendid work, Mr. Pisciotta particularly. I don't believe anybody in the country has ever before made such an extensive study as

this. But I think there should be even more study and that the

Committee should find out if they can really go through with the

recommendations in this report which, as I see it, is very arbitrary in

recommending something which may not, in effect, work out. It- seems almost impossible for the various container manufacturers to meet this, without putting on the market such a multitudinous number

of sizes that the same confusion would exist that we encounter at

present.

I am wondering whether all of this hasn't been considered in a very

able fashion by the Food and Drug Administration in the Department

of Agriculture. Surely they must have encountered these things im

their experiences through the years. I don't know whether they have

been hesitant about approaching standardization or whether they

have just chosen the easier way, in advocating that there be a statement

of contents on the food package and that everybody shall be guided

by that. It is a question, of course, whether we can protect the cus- tomer against himself. The average American today has education

enough to be able to read and understand a label on the package, if that label is the proper kind of a label. Perhaps, after all, if industry

knows what we want, it may clean its own house so that we can get

somewhere without an upheaval, which is a thing to avoid.

Have we gone far enough to put these recommendations in a bill before Congress? May not various experts come in and show the

impracticability of the plan and demonstrate that it is something

which cannot be accomplished? Mr. Pisciotta and his Committee

describe what they believe is a simple solution. But I think it has

been developed here this afternoon that the problem is not an easy one to solve, that we still have some distance to go yet before you can

confidently prescribe the remedy. I think the Committee should by
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 127

all means be continued, in order to contact other industries. No doubt

the Committee has done much along this line, but possibly some new

thoughts may have been developed today. For these reasons, I shall oppose the motion as it stands, to adopt and approve the present

report.

(As an amendment to the motion to adopt the report, a motion was made and

seconded that the report be laid on the table but that the Committee be continued and report back to the Conference at some future date.) Mr. Levitt. Mr. Chairman, the Food and Drug Act has been mentioned in the debate. You and. I know that this act relates primarily

to quality. Why should weights and measures departments sit back

and rely on that act to regulate quantities. If we can handle the

quantitative end, let us do so. I think the original motion covers the situation; the Committee is to confer with these gentlemen and reach some agreement. If we

table this motion, we will just be putting it off another year and we

won't be accomplishing anything.

Mr. J. G. Rogers. The recommendations in that report are what

will be tabled. If the matter be referred back to a committee with

instructions to work it out with the various members of the industries

affected, that will put the Conference on record as not taking an arbitrary action. The original motion provides for definite approval of

everything in the Committee recommendations, although it has been

shown here this afternoon that they cannot be carried out.

(A motion was made and seconded to table the amendment.)

The Acting Chairman. We are voting on the motion to table the

amendment.

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.) Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, speaking on the original motion,

I am in favor of the Committee report. A few moments ago a repre- sentative of a can company stated that this company would not manufacture a depressed lid to make a gallon can short 8 cubic inches. I want to tell you I have three cans with the label of that company on

them. They were measured yesterday by the National Bureau of

Standards; one of them is 8.6, another is 4.7, and the third 6.2 cubic

inches short.

Again, I may say that, through the help of Mr. O'Keefe, we learned

last summer, that there was a carload of salad dressing coming to Minneapolis, short weight. When we investigated, we found glass

containers which had "one quart" blown in the glass, although the

bottles would hold this amount only when filled to the overflow point.

If you will permit me, I will read from an article published in a Minneapolis newspaper:

There no longer is misrepresentation, but the elements of "sham" and optical

illusion are still present, and not even the glass manufacturer pretends they are

not. In fact, he makes a definite point of it. Here are some sample descriptions

in the catalog of one manufacturer: "* * *

? » pride of all glasses. Thin-blown, heavy sham-bottom crystal

glasses. Appears two ounces larger than other heights. The ideal glass for beer

service. The "* * a concave heavy sham-bottom, thin-blown glass. Has very

fine quality appearance. Looks extra big because of its heavy bottom.

New tall whiskey glass. A fine quality thin-blown clear crystal glass with triple

sham-bottom. Looks exceptionally large, but holds only regular whisky serving.
128 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Popular whisky glass, heavy pressed. Wide, high-cut flutes shammed, looks

large.

The "* * *" beer mug is made of best-quality glass, full finished with extra- heavy bottom. Large strong handle. Looks large for its capacity.

Deluxe beer stein, made of best quality glass, finely finished with smooth top

and bottom. Has a large, strong handle. Shammed to make it appear large

for its capacity.

And so on and on—for the brimming glass or mug that slides across the bar. The eyes see a lot more than the mouth receives. And if the psychologists took

to drinking, what a lot of deductions they could make on optico-mental illus- ions—deductions with what a powerful kick. Inasmuch as some glass manufacturers do not hestitate to come

out and print phony descriptions in the catalogs and to educate the

dealers how to sham and pretend, I think it is high time we adopt the

Committee's report.

Mr. Totjrtellot. Mr. Chairman, I would regard it as a cooperative

act if my friend who has just spoken would let me have a sample of

the can of which mention was just made, so that we can run down and

stop anything of that nature. I have just completed an investigation that I thought was thorough, of the manufacture of oyster cans

all over the country, and I am not aware of any such condition as he

cites. But if it exists, I promise you it will be rectified. Mr. Kanzer. I want to put myself on record as approving and

commending the report. On the basis of what we heard Mr. Campbell say there need be no hesitation with reference to the capacity basis

for liquids; this opened the door completely for 100-percent approval

for standard containers for liquids. My friend Joe Rogers thinks that

there are considerations which might make us hesitate with reference

to the weight basis. However, this motion distinctly provides that

the Committee will further confer with the industry. The principle

is correct and the report is correct, and I think it should be adopted.

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.) (At this point, at 5:10 p. m., the Conference adjourned to meet at 9:30 a. m.»

Friday, June 9, 1939.) o