39,5 LABELS ON TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS

(LISTING OF SPANDEX AND SIMILAR FIBER S)

GOVERNMENT— -■

Storage

H E A R I N G

BEFORE TH E

SUB COM MIT TEE ON COMMERCE AN O FI NA NC E

OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON

INTERS TAT E AND FOREIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESE NTATIVE S

E1GHTY-NIN TH CONGKESS

FIR ST SESSION

ON

H .R . 80 6 a n d H .R . 51 60

BILL S TO AMEND TI IE TE XTI LE FI BER PRO DUC TS IDEN -

«O

□

J]

J

□

□

□

r

A

<

TIFICA TION ACT TO PE RM IT TH E LIS TIN G ON LAB ELS 

OF CERTAIN FIBE RS CONSTIT UTING LESS THA N 5 PER 

CENTUM OF A TE XTI LE FI BER PRO DUCT

AP RI L 27, 1965

S e ria l N o . 89-5

Pr in te d fo r th e use of the 

Com mittee on In te rs ta te a nd Foreign Commerce

47-838

U.S . GOVERNM ENT PR INTING OFFIC E

WASHING TON : 1985
3 nt •

5 ^?

CO M M IT TEE ON IN T E R S T A T E AN D FO R EIG N CO MMER CE 

OREN HARRIS, Arkansas, Chairman

H A R L E Y O. ST A G G ER S, W es t Vir gi nia

W A L T E R RO GER S, Tex as

SAM U EL N. F R IE D E L , M arylan d

T O R B E R T II. M AC DON AL D, M as sa ch us etts

JO HN JA RM AN , Ok laho ma

LE O W. O’B R IE N , Ne w Yo rk

JO HN E. MOS S, Cal if or nia

JO HN D. D IN G ELL, Mich igan

P A U L G. ROGERS, Flo ri da

H ORACE R. KO RN EG AY, North Car ol in a

LIO N E L VAN D EERLIN , Cal if or nia

J. J. P IC K L E , Te xa s

F R E D B. RO ON EY , Pe nnsy lv an ia

JO HN M. M URP HY, New Yo rk

D A VID E. SA T T E R F IE L D II I, V ir gi nia

D A N IE L J. RO NA N, Illin oi s

J. O LIV A IIU OT , New Ha mpshire

JA M ES A. M ACK A Y, Ge or gia

JO HN J. G IL LIG A N , Ohio

C H A R LE S P. FA R N SLE Y , K en tu ck y 

JO HN B E L L W IL LIA M S, M iss iss ip pi

W. E. Wil li am so n, Clerk

Ken net h J. P ai nt er , Ass ista nt Clerk

Andrew Stev enson

Kur t Borchardt

W IL LIA M L. SP RIN GER, Illin ois 

J. AR TH U R YO UN GE R, Cal ifor nia 

SAM U EL L. DEVIN E, Ohi o 

AN CH ER NELS EN , Minn esota 

H A ST IN G S K E IT H , M as sa ch us etts 

W IL LA R D S. CU RTI N , Pe nnsy lv an ia 

GLE NN CU NNI NGH AM , Ne br aska 

JA M ES T. BR O YH IL L, Nor th Ca ro lin a 

JA M ES H A R V EY, Mich iga n 

TI M L E E CA R TER , Ken tu ck y 

HOW AR D H. CA LL A W A Y , Ge orgia

Professional Staff

J ames M. Men ge r, Jr . 

William J. Dixon

Sub co mm itte e on Com me rc e an d Fin an ce

TO R B E R T H. M AC DONAL D, M as sa ch us etts, Chairman

JO HN D. D IN G E LL, M ichiga n H A ST IN G S K E IT H , M as sa ch us etts

J. O LIV A IIU OT , Ne w Ham ps hire W IL LA R D S. CU RTI N, Pe nnsy lv an ia

C H A R LE S P. FA R N SLE Y , Ken tu ck y

II
C O N T E N T S

Tex t of—- Page

H.R. 806____________________________ ___________ ______ . . 1

H.R. 5160___________________ ____ _____________________ . . . . 1

Report on H.R. 806 from—

Agriculture Department______________________________________ 3

Bureau of the Budget________________________________________ 2

Commerce Department_______________________________________ 3

Federal Trade Commission____________________________________ 2

Statem ent of—

Casey, Donald T., vice president, Galey & Lord Co., a division of

Burlington Industries, In c__________________________________ 12

Hanson, Stephen C., assistant vice president, Sears, Roebuck & Co_. 14

Hicks, Dr. Elijah, E. I. du Pont de Nemours Co_________________ 9

Koch, George, Sears, Roebuck & Co____________________________ 14

Kornegay, Hon. Horace R., a Representative in Congress from the

Sta te of North Carolina____________________________________ 4

Kranz, James, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co__________________ 18

Stewart, Eugene L., in behalf of Manm ade Fibe r Producers Association, Inc __________________________________________________ 9

Additional information submitted for th e record b y -

American Cyanamid Co., letter from W. D. Kavanaugh, manager,

Washington office__________________________________________ 20

Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., letter from Seabury Sta nto n___________ 19

J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., letter from Wallace M. Sutto n, manager,

yarn sales depar tment______________________________________ 6

Kayser-R oth Hosiery Co., lett er from Joseph J. Bird, executive vice

president_________________________________________________ 6

in

LABELS ON TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 

(Listing of Spandex and Similar Fibers)

TUESD AY, A P R IL 27 , 19 65

H ou se of R epresen ta tiv es,

S u bco m m it tee on C om m erce an d F in a n c e

of t h e C o m m it t e e on I nterst ate and F orei gn C om m erce,

Wash ing ton , D.C.

The s ubcomm ittee m et, pu rsua nt to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2218, 

Ra yb urn Hou se Office Bu ild ing , Hon. To rb ert II . Macdo nald (c ha irman of the subcommittee ) pre siding .

Mr. Macdonald. Th e subco mmittee will come to o rde r. Th is morning the Subcom mittee on Comm erce and Finance is ho lding h earin gs 

on two bills which deal with an area c oming w ith in the j urisd ict ion of 

the Federal Tr ad e Comm ission. Th e two bills are ide ntical , both 

introd uce d by our collea gues on thi s committee, H.R. 806 by Mr. Kornegay of No rth Carolina , and H.R . 5160 by Mr. Stag gers of West 

Vi rgini a, and would amend the Textile Fi be r Prod uc ts Identification 

Act. Th e purpose of these two bills will be exp lain ed by the witnesses 

and, the ref ore, I shall not tak e any time to describe the objectives of 

the bills.

(IT.R. 806 and II.R. 5160 follo w:)

[H .R . 806 an d H.R. 5160, 89 th Con g., 1st se ss.]

A BIL L To am en d th e T ex til e Fib er Pro duct s Id en tifica tion A ct to pe rm it th e li st in g on 

labe ls of ce rt ai n fib ers co nst ituti ng le ss th an 5 per ce nt um of a te xtile fiber pr od uc t

Be it en ac ted by th e Sen ate a nd H ou se of Rep re se nta tive s of th e Un ite d Sta te s

of Amer ica in Co ng res s assemb led , T h at para gra ph (1 ) of su bs ec tio n (b ) of sectio n 4 of th e Tex tile F ib er Pro duct s Id en tifica tion Ac t (15 U.S.C. 7b(b ) (1 )) is 

am en de d by in se rtin g im m ed ia tely be fo re th e per io d a t th e end th er eo f th e fo llowing : “, but no th in g in th is section sh all be co ns true d as pr oh ib itin g th e dis ­

cl os ur e of an y fib er pr es en t in a te xtile fib er pro du ct which has a cl ea rly 

es ta blish ed an d de fin ite fu nc tiona l sign ifica nc e whe re pr es en t in th e am ou nt 

co nt ai ne d in su ch p ro duct ”.

Sec. 2. P ara gra ph (2 ) of su bs ec tio n (b ) of section 4 of th e Tex tile Fib er 

Pro duct s Id en tifica tion A ct is am en de d by in se rtin g im med iately be fore “ : Pr ovi de d fu rth e r” th e fo llow in g: “, bu t no th in g in th is section sh al l be co ns true d as 

pro hi bi ting th e d isclos ur e of a ny fiber pre se nt in a te xtile fiber pr od uc t whi ch ha s 

a cl ea rly es ta bl is he d an d de fin ite fu nct io nal sign ifica nc e whe re pre se nt in th e 

am ou nt s ta te d ”.

Mr. Macdonald. Th e com mittee is in rec eip t of repo rts fro m va rious departm ents and agencies, and the repo rts w ill be inc lud ed in the 

rec ord at this poin t.

1
9 LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS

(The reports referred to follow:)

Executive Office ofthe President,

Bureau ofthe Budget,

Washington, D.C., March 31,1963.

Hon. Oren Harris.

Chairman, Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of 

the Bu reau of the Budget on II.R. 806, a bill to amend the Textile Fiber Products 

Identifica tion Act to perm it the listing on labels of certain fibers constitutin g 

less th an 5 percent of a textile fiber product.

II.R. 806 would remove the absolute prohibition aga inst the designation on a 

label of any fiber weighing 5 percent or less of the tota l fiber content of the 

product. Such designation would be perm itted where the fiber has a clearly 

established and definite functional significance where present in the amount 

stated. We understand th at fibers have been developed since the enactment 

of the Textile Fibe r Products Identification Act which contribute significant 

functional cha racteristics to the tota l product although weighing less than 5 

percent of the total fiber content of the product.

In view of the above, the Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to 

enactment of this bill.

Sincerely yours,

Phill ip S. Hughes,

Assistan t Director for Legislative Reference.

Federal Trade Commission, 

Washington, D.C., April 2,1965. Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington. D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request of February 9, 

1965, for comment on II.R. 806, 89th Congress, 1st session, a hill to amend the 

Textile F iber Pro ducts Identification Act to perm it the listin g on labels of certain 

fibers constitu ting less than 5 percent of a textile fiber product.

In the report which the Commission submitted to this committee on February 

8, 1965, on II.R. 12775, 88th Congress, in response to its request, it was stated 

that the views of the Commission in th at report should likewise apply to the 

subject bill, II.R. 806.

We are atta ching hereto a copy of this report of February 8, 1965.

By direction of the Commission.

Paul Rand Dixon, Chairman.

X.B.—Pursu ant to regulations, this report was submitted to the Bureau of 

the Budget on March 2, 1965, and on April 1, 1965, the Bureau of the Budget 

advised that there is no objection to the submission of this rep ort from the 

standpoint of the administration’s program.

Joseph W. Shea, Secretary.

Federal Trade Commission, 

Washington, D.C., February 8,1965. Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request of October 29. 1964, 

for comment on II.R. 12775, 88th Congress, 2d session, a bill to amend the Textile 

Fiber Products Identification Act to permit the listing on labels of certain fibers 

constituting less than 5 percent of a te xtile fiber product.

The bill, in effect, would amend subsections 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile 

Fiber Productio n Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70(b) (1) and (2 )), mistakenly 

refe rred to in the bill as 7b(b) ( 1), so as to perm it the disclosure of any fiber 

present in a textile fiber product, rega rdless of what percentage the amount thereof bears to the total fiber content, when it is clearly established that such 

an am ount has a definite functional significance.
LABELS OX TEXT ILE FIBER PRODUCTS 3

Su bs ec tio ns 4 (b ) (1 ) an d (2 ) of th e ac t now ex pr es sly pro hib it th e d es ig na tion 

by ge ne ric na m e or tr adem ark of fib ers pre se nt in am ou nts of 5 pe rc en t or les s 

of th e to ta l fiber co nt ai ne d in th e pr od uc t. Su ch le ss er fib ers m us t be iden tif ied 

only as “o th er fibe r” or “o th er fib ers ,” as th e case may be.

It is ou r under st an din g th a t whe n “s pa nde x” fib er is ad de d in th e am oun t of 

3 pe rc en t of th e to ta l fiber co nt en t of a pr od uc t, de fin ite st re tc h chara cte ri st ic s 

a re give n to th a t p ro d u c t; whe re more th an 3 pe rc en t is ad de d, th e pro du ct 

st re tc hes too mu ch an d th e “s pa nd ex ” los es its fu nct io nal sig nif ica nce. Be ca us e 

of ra pi dl y ad va nc in g techno logy in te xt iles , it is ve ry pr ob ab le th at oth er fibers 

ha vi ng th e same ch ara cte ri st ic s as “s pa nd ex ” will be develop ed w ith in a com ­

par ati vely sho rt p er io d of tim e.

In vie w of th is tech no logica l ad va nc e in th e pr od uc tion of elas to m er ic 

(s tr etc h ) fibers, th e Co mm ission su pp or ts en ac tm en t of H.R. 12775, which was 

in trod uc ed in th e la st Co ngres s, as we ll as II.R . 80G, which was in trod uc ed in 

th e 89 th Co ngres s.

By d irec tion of th e Co mm ission .

. P act. Rand D ixon, Chairman.

Genera l Counsel of th e Depa rtme nt of Commerce,

Washington, D.C., March 10,1965.

H on . Oren H arr is,

Chairman, Committee on In ter sta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha irma n : This is in fu rt h er repl y to yo ur re qu es t fo r th e views 

of th is D ep ar tm en t co nc erning H.R. SOG, a bi ll to am en d th e Tex tile Fib er Pro duc ts Id en tif ic atio n Ac t t o pe rm it th e list in g on l ab el s of c er ta in fibers co nst itut in g 

les s th an 5 p erce nt o f a te xtile produ ct.

Thi s le gi slatio n wo uld am en d section 4 of th e Tex tile Fib er Pro du ct s Id en tifica tion Ac t (15 U.S.C. 70b.). Th e pre se nt se ct ion 4 specifically pr oh ib its li st ­

ing an y fiber or grou p of fib ers weigh ing 5 per ce nt or les s of th e to ta l fiber 

co nt en t of th e pr od uc t. This pro hi bi tion w as en ac te d to el im in at e th e ri sk of 

de ce ptive m er ch an di sing pra ct ic es a t a tim e whe n th e presen ce of a fiber 

in such sm all quanti ty could no t ha ve im par te d an y sign ifi ca nt pro pe rtie s to 

a te xtile pr ou ct. Sin ce th en , new ty pes of sy nth et ic fib ers ha ve bee n develop ed 

whic h are ca pa bl e of co ntrib ut in g m ea ni ng fu lly in th es e am ou nt s to th e pr op ­

ert ie s of a te xtile pr od uc t, but which ca nn ot be list ed be ca us e th eir w ei gh t is 5 

pe rc en t o r less o f t he to ta l fib er weig ht.

Th e legi slat io n wo uld perm it list in g su ch fib ers whe ne ve r th eir pres en ce im ­

p art s sign ifi ca nt p ro pe rtie s to th e p ro du ct.

Th e D ep ar tm en t su pp ort s th is prop os ed am en dm en t be ca us e it wo uld allow th e 

te xt ile m anufa ctu re r to fu lly in fo rm th e co ns um er w hi le it co nt in ue s to pro te ct 

th e la tt e r from m isle ad in g ad ve rtisin g.

We no te th a t pa ge 1, lin e 5, of Il .R . 806 co nt ai ns an in ad ver te nt err o r in th e 

U ni ted S ta te s Code citat io n to section 4 of th e Tex tile Fib er Pro duct s Id en tifica tion Act. The c or re ct citat io n is 15 U.S.C. 70 b( b) (1 ).

We ha ve been ad vise d by th e B ure au of th e Bud ge t th a t th ere wo uld be no 

ob jection to th e su bm ission of ou r re port fr om th e st an dpoin t of th e ad m in is tr ation 's pr og ram.

Sinc erely ,

Robert E. Gil es.

Depa rtm ent of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C., Apr il 2, 1965.

Ho n. Oren H ar ris ,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. C ha ir man : Thi s is in repl y to you r re qu es t of F ebru ary 9, 1965, fo r 

a re port on H.R. 806, a bi ll to am en d th e T ex tile F ib er P ro duct s Id en tifi ca tion 

A ct to pe rm it t he li st in g o n labe ls o f c ert ain fibers const it uti ng le ss th an 5 pe rc en t 

of a te xti le fiber p ro du ct.

The D ep ar tm en t reco mmen ds th e pa ss ag e of th is bil l.

Th e Tex tile F ib er Pro duct s Id en tifica tion Act, pa ss ed i n Sep tem be r 1958, sp ec ifies th at, ex clus ive of pe rm issibl e orn am en ta tion, an y fib er or gr ou p of fib ers
4 LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS

pr es en t in an am ou nt of 5 pe rc en t or less by w ei gh t of th e to ta l fibe r co nt en t 

sh al l no t be de si gn at ed by th e ge ne ric na me or the tr adem ark of such fiber or 

fibers, bu t sh al l be de sign at ed only as “o th er fib er” or “o th er fib ers” as th e case 

may be. W he n th e act was pa ssed , ph ys ic al ch ar ac te ri st ic s of t he va riou s te xtile 

fibers di d no t differ suf ficien tly to ha ve an y fu nct io nal sig nif ica nce in th e consu m er ite m whe n a p art ic u la r filler w as pr es en t in such sm all am ou nt s. This 

si tu ati on has ch an ge d. Th e ch em ical an d te xti le in dust ri es ha ve re ce nt ly de ve loped a cl as s of “e la st ic ” fib ers wh ich , whe n pr es en t in as li tt le as 3 per ce nt by 

weigh t, ca n ha ve a de fin ite fu nc tiona l sig nif ica nce.

Th e B ure au of t he B ud ge t ad vi se s th a t th ere is n o ob jection to th is r ep ort fro m 

th e st an dpoin t of t he a dm in is tr ati on’s prog ram.

Sinc er ely yo urs,

Orvil le L. F reem an, S ec re to ry .

Mr. Macdonald. I would like to say before we call the first witness 

who will be the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the full committee, Mr. Kornegay, that this marks at least two 

historic things that J think should be noted. First of all, this is the 

first time that any subcommittee of the In terstate and Foreign Commerce Committee has used this room which will be our subcommittee 

hearing room and as such, I suppose despite all the things you have 

heard about this building, I think tha t having a subcommittee hearing 

this type of legislative jurisdiction merits this room and I think the 

number of witnesses and other interested people here would certainly 

have overcrowded any other rooms that would have been available for 

the subcommittee prior to the building of the Rayburn Building, and I 

think it speaks for itself as to why the building is here and why it 

should be here.

Also, I would subjectively point out that this is my first hearing as 

chairman of a subcommittee of the great Committee on Interstate and 

Foreign Commerce and so I am doubly honored of being chairman 

and opening this room.

Our first witness will he Mr. Kornegay. I would like to say that 

Mr. Kornegay is one of the hardest working and one of the most distinguished members of our full committee and it is a pleasure to have 

him with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. HORACE R. KORNEGAY, A RE PR ESEN TA TIV E 

IN CONGRESS FROM TH E STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Kornegay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. Before I launch into my statement, let me 

congratulate you as chairman of this subcommittee on the first hearing 

in this new subcommittee hearing room and also congratulate you on 

your chairmanship of the subcommittee and wish you many, many 

years of happy tenure over this subcommittee.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you.

Mr. Kornegay. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 

Horace R. Kornegay. I am a Member of Congress representing the 

Sixth Congressional District of North Carolina and I appreciate very 

much the opportunity to appear here today in behalf of H.R. 806, a 

bill which I had the pleasure to introduce.

I might explain for the benefit of the committee some of the background which prompted my introduction of this bill. It is my pleasure to represent one of the heaviest concentrations of textile-producing 

areas in the Nation. It has been pointed out to me bv textile manu-
LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PROD UCTS 5

facturers both within and without the district I represent tha t an 

inequity now exists in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

The act, when enacted in 1958, contained a provision which prohibits mention in advertising or labels of fibers in a textile product 

in amounts of less than 5 percent. This provision was included as a 

protection for the consuming public.

However, since enactment of the act, the textile industry and the 

fiber producers have made tremendous technological advances. One 

of the great developments that these two great industries have introduced has been the spandex family of fibers. Utilization of this revolutionary new fiber can add value and desirable functional characteristics to textile products when used in amounts of 5 percent or less. So, 

it now develops tha t in the span of a few short years the dynamics of 

two allied industries have made a section of the Fiber Identification 

Act archaic.

The bill I have introduced would amend the act to erase this 

inequity, which instead of protecting the interests of the consumer is 

now a hindrance.

The amendment I propose would be of great benefit to the consuming public as well as the fiber-producing firms, the textile industry, 

and distributing and retail organizations.

As President Johnson said in his economic report submitted to the 

Congress in Janu ary of this year:

If is imp ortant that regulatory policies be adopted to changing needs and 

conditions. Economic and technological progress may lead to changes in the 

desirable scope and method of regulations.

H.R. 806 meets this recommendation of the President by up-dating 

an outmoded law’.

I might point out to the committee that favorable reports on H.R. 

806 have been submitted by the Federal Trade Commission, the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, and the Bureau of the 

Budget. In addition, Mrs. Esther Peterson, special assistant to the 

President for consumer affairs, has endorsed the principles set forth 

in the bill.

I also would call to the committee’s attention a typographical error 

in the bill in line 5. It should be corrected to read “70. (b) (1).”

You will, during the course of your hearing, hear from others who 

are interested in this proposed legislation and I, as the bill's sponsor, 

appreciate your giving them the opportunity to be heard.

I have here two letters from textile-producing firms that I would 

ask the subcommittee to consider and to place into the record. The 

first one is from Mr. Wallace M. Sutton, manager of the yam sales 

department of the J . P. Stevens & Co., one of the largest textile concerns in the country. In the interest of time, I will not read Mr. 

Sutton's letter but simply say that he thoroughly and completely endorses the provisions of H.R. 806 and points out why it w'as certainly 

in the interest of his company as well as the public to amend the law 

to permit the labeling of substance contained in the textile fiber product in amounts or quantities by weight of less than 5 percent if it 

has a clearly established and definite functional significance to the 

textile fiber product.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection, it will be received for the 

record at this point.

47-838—65——2
6 LABELS ON TE XT IL E FIBE R PRODUCTS

(The letter from Wallace M. Sutton follows:)

J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.,

Synthetics Division, 

Greensboro, N.C., April 22,1965.

House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen : I am the manager of the yarn sales departm ent for J. P. Stevens 

& Co., Inc., with hea dqu arte rs in Greensboro, N.C., selling yarn to the weaving 

and knitting trades. We were one of the first producers of corespun spandex 

yarns and probably are the larg est yarn sales operation of this product to date.

Our inability to adequ ately describe the contents of corespun spandex yarn 

today, due to legal restrictions, is a problem to our customers and, of course, in 

turn, the ir customers, inasmuch as they are faced with the same problem.

■I am sure th at you will have presented before you the evidence in the form 

of fabrics and garments that amply demonstrate the tremendous effect less than 

5 percent of spandex in a product has on the physical cha racteristics of these 

products.

I am quite certain that the ability to honestly describe the fiber contents in 

every detail in corespun yarns conta ining spandex will be a gre at benefit to 

the entire textile trade and more importa ntly to th e consuming public. Without 

the ability to adequately describe these contents in less than 5 perc ent is actually 

misleading and, of course, con trary to the intent of the original law.

Although, my position with J. P. Stevens is th at of m anag er of the yarn sales 

department, I am speaking for the e ntire company when I say that we are most 

highly favorable for prompt passage of the Fiber Identification Act amendment 

as represented by H.R. 806.

Respectfully yours,

Wallace M. Sutton, 

Manager, Yarn Sales Department.

Mr. Kornegay. The next letter I would like to submit is from Mr. 

Joseph J. Bird, who is the executive vice president of the KayserRoth Hosiery Co. of Burlington, N.C., another large, nationally 

known organization. It specializes in the manufacture of hosiery and 

in this letter, too, Mr. Bird emphasizes the desirability of the enactment of this legislation.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection, it will be received.

(The letter of Mr. Joseph J. Bird follows:)

Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., 

Burlington, N.C., April 21,1965.

Hon. Horace R. Kornegay,

Congress of the United Sta tes, House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Horace: You have advised us of t he scheduled hearing on H.R. 806 beginning at 10 a.m. Tuesday, April 27, 1065, and I regret very much my schedule 

will not perm it me to appear in p erson; however, we ar e vitally interested in the 

passage of the proposed legislation.

In your introduction of this bill you have pointed out the various reasons why 

an amendment is desirable to the Textile Fibers Products Identification Act to 

perm it the disclosure of any fiber regardless of the percentage used in a product, 

it should be identified when it serves a significant and functional purpose.

Spandex fibers were developed by the various manufactu rers for the prim ary 

purpose of replacing rubber in certain are as because of the inherent quality of 

rubber to deteriora te under certain conditions or in contact with certain chemicals and oils. In our own industry, following the introduction of anklet length 

socks for men and women, we have h ad serious problems from time to time with 

the deterio ration of the rubber yams used in the top of the socks. I am enclosing two pair of socks as an example of what happens to rubber in many instances when used in the tops. I am enclosing also two pair of socks wherein 

spandex yarns have been used in the tops. To identify these, one pair color 

gold anklets and one pair color black over-the-calf socks contain the rubber 

yarns and the one pair grey ank lets and the one pair color navy over-the-calf
LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS 7

socks bo th co nt ai n sp an de x yarn s in th e top . Non e of th es e socks ha ve ev er 

been wo rn. Th ese soc ks were pic ke d out o f our sa m ple od ds a nd ha ve been in in ­

ve nt or y fo r a pp ro xi m at el y 18 mon ths.

If you wi ll plea se no te th e ru bbe r in th e to p of th e blac k sock s has comp let ely 

dete ri ora te d an d th e ru bb er in th e gold socks is co mplete ly lif el es s an d a t th e 

po in t of comp let e de te ri or at io n. The c olor grey an d na vy socks co nt ai ni ng sp andex, you wi ll note, st il l ha ve sa ti sf acto ry st re tc h an d co mpressio n w ith no sig n 

of det er io ra tio n.

We ha ve on oc casio n br ou gh t in ch em ists f ro m m an y diffe re nt o rg an iz at io ns in 

an at te m pt to le ar n th e re as on s fo r th e ru bber det er io ra tion. No so lu tio n lia s 

ev er bee n foun d, as th er e see ms to be se ve ra l th in gs th a t will ca us e th is to 

ha pp en . Mu ch of th e dete ri ora tion is att ri b u te d to co pp er co nt en t in th e dy ein g 

of th e socks or whe re th ey com e in co nt ac t w ith co pp er in an y way in th e d ye ing 

mac hi ne s or in th e w ate r pip es. The re a re oth er fa cto rs su ch as su nl ig ht , hea t, 

ble ac h an d va riou s oil s or lu bri ca nts to ca us e th e det er io ra tion of ru bb er . This 

does no t h ap pe n w ith s pa nd ex fibers.

In ou r op inion th e co ns um er will be give n su bst anti all y lo ng er w ea r fo r th e 

same money whe n sp an de x is used in th e to p of th e socks. We find th er e is a 

sl ig ht in cr ea se in th e co st of m an ufa ctu ri ng of ap pro xim at el y 2 ce nt s per dozen 

an d man y mill s are re lu cta nt to ad d th is slig ht in cr ea se in co st du e to th e fa ct 

th ey are p reclud ed from labe lin g th e pro duct th a t it c on ta in s sp an de x, as o ppose d 

to rubb er. In oth er wor ds it is dif fic ult to a dd co st an d no one be aw ar e of it in 

im prov ed qu ality.

The re is also th e p roblem of alle rg y. M an y peop le are a ller gi c to r ubber a nd it 

is a se riou s prob lem fo r th os e wh o are. My ow n wife ha pp en s to be one of thos e 

victim s. B ut th is is no t tr u e w ith sp an de x. In all of th e th ou sa nd s of te st s 

th a t ha ve bee n mad e th er e is no rej>ort of an y al le rg ie s develop ing .

The re are m an y ot her pr odu ct s th a t a re gre at ly en ha nc ed no t only in long er 

w ea r fo r th e co ns um er bu t w ith a mor e co m fo rtab le f it w ith th e u se o f sp an de x.

Th e su pp or t stoc ki ng fo r me n an d wo me n has been a re vo lu tionar y in no va tion 

in th e pa st se ve ra l ye ar s fo r th e re li ef of tire d leg s an d w hile su rg ical-typ e 

sto ck ings ha ve been av ai la bl e fo r man y years w ith th e us e of ru bber yar ns, we 

w er e ne ve r ab le to m an ufa ct ure one to g ive mild c om pressio n fo r thos e th ou sa nd s 

of people w ho did no t re quir e su rg ic al stoc king s an d a t th e sa m e t im e needed som e 

su pp or t. Thi s w as du e to th e f act ru bber y arn s co uld no t be m ad e fine en ou gh or 

sm all enough, bu t th is has been ac co mplishe d th ro ug h th e us e of sp an de x fib ers 

which ca n be mad e in ve ry fine y arn s an d a t th e sa m e tim e re ta in sufficie nt com ­

pres sio n whe reby la die s’ ho sier y can now be mad e ve ry sh ee r an d ha ve fa sh io n 

ap pe al an d a t th e same tim e giv e ad eq uat e su pp ort fo r th e re li ef of tire d legs , 

th us en ab ling th ou sa nd s of w om en to da y to b e ab le to work. Bef or e th e develop ­

men t of th es e stoc king s th is could no t be don e. The m ed ical pr of es sion ge ne ra lly 

to da y ha s ap pr ov ed an d rec om men ds th e us e of su pp ort stoc king s fo r i>eople w ho 

ha ve pr ob lems w ith ti re d leg s.

It is ou r op inion th er e will be oth er fib ers to b e deve lope d in th e fu tu re si m ilar 

to sp an de x th a t will a lso ha ve s ig ni fica nt fu nc tiona l va lu e in t he va riou s pr od uc ts 

which sho uld also be id en tif ied f or th e be ne fit of th e c on sumer.

We sinc erely ho pe an d feel co nfiden t yo ur co lle ag ue s will look w ith fa vor on 

th e p as sa ge o f H.R. 80(1.

The e nti re i ndust ry ap pre ci at es y ou r co op er ation in i nt ro du ci ng a nd s up po rtin g 

th is bill.

K in de st re ga rd s.

Sincerely ,

Jo s. J. Bird,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Korneoay. 1 would point out to the committee th at Mr. Bird 

sent here for the pur pose of the he aring some good examples of what 

we are ta lking abou t when we are t alking about the efficiency and du ra ­

bility and e lasticity of spandex and th e libers in the spa nde x fam ily.

In these hose t ha t I pass up to you. Mr. Ch air man, th ey con tain ru bber, the old-fashione d way of ma kin g elas tic fo r hose. Now these 

hose have never l>een worn or w ashed and they have been in inv ent ory 

fo r 18 month s and you need only to look at the tops t ha t con tain r ubber 

to see the dete rio ration that has tak en plac e in tho se hose in both st ru ctural makeup and e lasticity.
8 LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIBE R PRODUCTS

Another couple of pairs here contain spandex, the fiber we are talking about. These also have been in inventory for 18 months and have 

never been worn or washed and you can see, certainly, the difference in 

them. These tops appear to be in very good condition. This is sort 

of a graphic illustration.

Also, someone was nice enough to print H.R. 806 on a sheet of 

spandex. I will pass this up for the chairman’s examination.

Here also is another pair of hose with spandex and you can tell what 

it will do in quantities of less than 5 percent. Here are some made 

with just regular fibers, Mr. Chairman, tha t I would submit. This 

one has spandex in it. I think the example here is wool and orlon, 30 

percent without the stretch fibers.

I point out and certainly as witnesses will do after me, that spandex 

is not limited in its application to hosiery at all, but to all types of 

men’s clothing, ladies’ dresses, foundation garments, and I understand 

it makes a particularly attractive bathing suit for young, shapely 

girls.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this privilege of testifying.

Mr. Macdonald. It is a pleasure to hear from you. I just have one 

question, Mr. Kornegay. Is spandex itself a trade name ?

Mr. Kornegay. No, sir; it is not. I am glad you asked that because 

we want to make it perfectly clear to the subcommittee and for the 

record tha t spandex is a generic name. It is manufactured by a number of concerns in the United States. I might say, parenthetically, 

Mr. Chairman, tha t when the idea of the bill was first suggested to me 

that, too, was my first question. Certainly, we do not want to be in 

a position of introducing any special legislation, which this is definitely not. It is sold and manufactured on the open market and it is 

just a generic name.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Curtin ?

Mr. Curtin. Mr. Kornegay, it is a pleasure to have you before us 

this morning and I do not think any Member of the Congress could 

present this problem any better than you can and have done here.

Mr. Kornegay. Thank you.

Mr. Curtin. There are a few features of your bill about which I am 

curious. Would the purpose of this bill be that every particular fiber 

that is in a piece of cloth would be listed, regardless of what its percentage might be as to the total ?

Mr. Kornegay. No, sir. Under the original act, or under the law 

as it stands today it must contain 5 percent or more by weight before 

it can be listed. Now, in 1958 -when the act was passed, it was considered generally by everybody involved tha t any substance in quantities of less than tha t amount could not add any significant factors 

to the product and therefore, it would leave room for all kinds of 

advertising and labeling gimmicks that might lead to sales which had 

no foundation.

Mr. Curtin. But is not the purpose of this to say that every type of 

fiber under 5 percent must be listed ?

Mr. Kornegay. No. The purpose is to say tha t if a substance or a 

fiber in quantities of less than 5 percent has an established and functional significance, then it may be labeled.

In other words, this does not say any substance or fiber in a fabric 

less than 5 percent should be labeled or could be labeled, for that mat-
LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PROD UCTS 9

ter. Before it qualifies to be labeled and before it is to be advertised, 

it must have a definite or clearly established and definite functional 

significance. We say, of course, tha t spandex is an example of tha t 

definition; that it does have a clearly established and definite functional significance, as we have seen, I think, very graphically from 

the textile products that have been presented to you here.

Mr. Curtin. 1 can see your point, particularly as to Spandex—which 

I think you have proven very well—but in other fibers th at might be 

put in cloth, who is going to be the judge as to whether it is clearly 

established tha t it has a definite functional significance?

Mr. Kornegay. The FTC. They have jurisdiction over the act, you 

see, and if, after due investigation, they determine tha t it did have 

clearly established and definite functional significance, then it would 

be sufficient in my opinion for the manufacture and selling agents to 

label and advertise.

Mr. Curtin. Is there any objection to this legislation of which 

you are aware ?

Mr. Kornegay. None that I know of, sir. All of the depa rtments and agencies have returned favorable reports. I know of no 

Member of Congress who has raised any objection.

Mr. Curtin. How about in the industry ?

Mr. Kornegay I know of no one in the industry that has an objection to it.

Mr. Curtin. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you, Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. K ornegay. Now I might, in answer to tha t last question, say 

some of them just do not care. One man wrote me and said he would 

like to see the whole act abolished. You get that kind of result, but 

T know of no one who is fighting the proposal. This one man said 

he did not like the whole act.

Mr. Macdonald. Our next witness is Mr. Eugene L. Stewart.

STATEMENT OF EUG ENE L. STE WA RT, IN BEHA LF OF TH E MANMADE FIBE R PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY

DR. ELIJAH HICKS, E. I. du PONT de NEMOURS CO.

Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Curtin, my name is Eugene 

L. Stewart, and I appear here today as Washington counsel for the 

Manmade Fiber Producers Association, Inc., to express tha t association's support of II.R. 806 and its companion bill, II.R. 5160, and 

the similar bill, S. 1129 recently passed by the Senate.

The members of the association account for more than 90 percent of 

the U.S. production of manmade fibers in the United States. Spandex 

is also produced by Firestone and United States Rubber and representatives of these companies are here today in the hearing room. 

Three of these companies—American Cyanamid Co.; Chemstrand Co., 

a division of Monsanto Co.; and E. I du Pont de Nemours & Co., 

Inc., are currently producing Spandex fiber. Others have plans for 

entering this field, and all of the members make fibers which go into 

fabric blends whose properties are enhanced by the addition of small 

amounts of Spandex fiber.

Spandex is one of the most remarkable developments in the textile 

field in many years. Its chemical nomenclature is established in the
10 LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS

definitio n prom ulg ate d by the Federal Tr ad e Commission as a segmented polyu rethan e. Th is is a brief des cription of its chemical 

composition.

Spandex has elastic pro perties superio r to rub ber in most technical 

applicat ion s, bu t it has an entirely different chemical structur e.

Mr. Curtin . Would th e gentlem an yield for ju st a m inute?

Mr. Stewart. Yes.

Mr. Curtin. W ha t is the basic prod uct from which Spandex is 

made ? Is it oil, a coal derivat ive , or what ?

Mr. Stewart. I t is mad e fro m chem icals whi ch are synthesized in 

pol ym er ch emistry to form long-chain polymers.

Mr. Cur tin . There must be some base fo r it. Is it oil, rub ber? 

Basically , it mu st come fro m some pro duct.

Mr. Stewart. You and I, M r. Cu rti n sha re this in common—we are 

not chemists. We have a tech nical gen tlem an from the I)u Po nt Co. 

who can give you a very p recise answer.

Mr. Hick s. I am Elija h Hicks , technical direc tor fo r the Du Po nt 

Co. The ma terials th at are used in Spand ex fibers come from a nu mber of sources. Some cf them are from petroleu m. Some of them 

may even come from som ething as plebian as corncobs and the y are 

ma terials which are carried t hrou gh a considerable n um ber of chemical steps before they a re pu t into poly mers, as Mr. Ste wa rt mentioned. 

Some of them are sim ila r in certa in respects to polyesters. Some of 

them have oth er compositions. Basically , the y come fro m the pe tro ­

leum industry, from the oil indu str y and fro m the ra th er specialized 

areas of such th ings as corncobs o r cane, bagged gas is sometimes used.

Mr. Curtin. Th an k you, sir. I am sorry to hav e interru pted you, 

Mr. Ste wa rt.

Mr. Stewart. I have here a packag e of 70-denier Spand ex filam ent 

th at will afford you an op po rtu nity to see fo r yourselves the fineness 

with which this new man made fiber may be produced and its elas tic 

pro per ties. A pra ct ic al rub ber filam ent cannot be m ade th at fine. If 

it could, it would tak e a filament of abo ut twice th at cross section to 

have com parable strength . These finer deniers hav e equivalent 

str ength to permit the ma nu fac ture of fabrics fo r fo undatio n ga rments, 

for exam ple, of a sheerness and pow er th at is impossib le to duplicate 

with any o f the various ty pes of rub ber filaments.

Spa ndex has abo ut 10 time s the abr asion resistan ce of na tural or 

syn the tic rubber. It is res istant to man y chem icals and cosmetic oils 

th at att ack rubber. It ha s better flex resistance a nd it will accept dyes 

rea dil y, where as ru bber will not.

A t the tim e the Te xtile Fi be r Prod uc ts Ide nti fication Act was 

passed, this man mad e fiber was just emerg ing from the develop men t 

stag e. I t was then thou gh t th at its pri ncipa l use would tie in foun ­

dation garm ents and other articles in which sub stantial quantities of 

the fiber would be used in the f abric construc tion . Thus, at th at time 

the possibility th at the pro hib ition in the act a ga ins t mentioning any 

fiber present in a text ile a rticle in quantities of 5 percent o r less raised 

no concern in anyone’s mind.

Since th at time it has been discovered th at spandex has remarkabl e 

ut ility in im pa rti ng stretc h and recovery chara cte ristics to ordin ary 

bro adw oven and kn itted outerwe ar fabrics .

Th e key discovery here was the core -spinning technique fo r spandex. 

Now, y arns m ade by this tech nique have a cen tral core or filamen t of
LABELS OX TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 11

the sort, I have exhibite d to you and that is encased in a sheath of conven tion al spun ya rn made fro m any na tural or manm ade fiber or 

blends.

I have a package of this type of core-sp un ya rd and this is th e type 

of ya rn in which the spande x is p resent by wei ght, in a q ua ntity of 5 

per cent or less. Th is pa rtic ul ar ya rn has a she ath of acrylic fiber 

which has been encased a rou nd the spa ndex filament.

By va rying the weigh t an d prop ortio n of the core filament and 

the sheath yarn s, an almo st infinite varie ty o f f abric types ca n be made, 

light to heav y, cool to warm, smooth t ex tured to rough and v ery elastic 

to almost rig id.

Now, whereas elas tic ya rn s are mad e in lar ge quantities for use in 

fou ndation garm ents and the like for control purposes, these she ath 

or core warns are used in outerwe ar fabrics, skirts, coats and the like, 

for com fort, not fo r con trol an d in most instance s, these fab ric s th at 

give th is new dimension in comfort because o f th e str etc h qu ali ty contain spa nde x in qu an tities of 5 perce nt or less. As a m atter of fact, 

for certain appli catio n, fo r certain articles if more th an 5 perce nt 

of spandex is used, it will de tra ct fro m th e c om fort quality whi ch it is 

sou ght to achieve thr ou gh the use of spandex .

The cost of sp and ex ran ges from $8 to about $16 a poun d. Th e p artic ular filam ent which I show ed you first, 70 denie r filamen t is $13 a 

pou nd, so you can see th at th ere is no ince ntiv e on the p ar t o f a te xtile 

mill to use more of thi s rem ark able ma nm ade fiber, spandex, than is 

necessary.

I do no t want to bore you with endless exam ples, bu t to illustra te 

fab rics mad e wi th spande x whe re the spa ndex is prese nt in quantities 

of 5 percent o r less, 1 show you th ese samples.

Here, we ha ve a p oly ester /co tto n spa nde x fabric. Th e spa ndex accounts for 5 perce nt by weigh t a nd you will notice the degree of stretc h 

which t hat fa bric has.

The second exam ple is p olyeste r/c otton spandex, 4 percen t spandex 

by weight and it has 60 percent stretc h. These are examples which I 

would like to leave with the subcommittee. You will notice th at these 

fab ric s are th e typ e th at are used in shirting s, skirts , and the like. In 

addit ion , we have in this beautifu l piece of fab ric, mad e of acrylic 

rayon and span dex , only 2 perce nt spa nde x and ye t, the re is 46 perc ent 

stretc h in th is p ar ticu la r fabric. Th is is the kind tha t would be used in 

a la dy's sk irt or suitin g, f or example.

Th is dram ati c story, the re ma rka ble pr op ert ies added b y spande x in 

amoun ts o f 5 p erce nt or less, can only be told to the public efficiently if 

the manufactur ers , pa rti cu larly the man ufacturers of garm ents into 

which this fab ric goes are allowed, on the lab eling and in the ad ve rtising , to mention the presence of the spandex.

How ever, section 4( b) (1) and (2) of the Texti le Fi be r Prod uc ts 

Ide ntification Act proh ibi ts the m ention on labels or in ad ve rtisin g of 

the span dex because it is present in qu antities 5 perc ent or less.

If th e ind ustry , that includes not only the filler producing indu str y 

but also the spinne rs, the weavers, the fitte rs, the garm ent man ufacturers, and the ret ailers , if they cannot men tion in adve rtisin g the 

presence of spande x present in am oun ts of 5 percent or less and rel ate 

th at identification to th e garm ents by m entio nin g sp andex on the la bel, 

the consum er ha s no way to lie informe d o f th e signific ant fiber prese nt
12 LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS

in the garm ent which accounts for th is s tre tch ab ility whi ch gives thi s 

com fort ch ara cte ristic to the garme nt.

We urg e th at the comm ittee act fav ora bly upo n thi s much needed 

legisla tion as prom ptly as possible. Stretch fab rics and garm ents are 

coming onto the mark et in eve r-in creasing volum e and the lack of 

effective com munica tion between the man ufac turer and the consu mer 

because of the pres ent prohibition in the law is not only a disservice to 

the consumer, but it acts somewhat as a d ra g upon the ful l comm ercial 

dev elopment in the textile indu str y of the use of spandex fiber.

Th is concludes my formal statem ent, Mr. Chairma n. In common 

with the othe r indu str y witnesses here, we are g ratefu l to you and the 

subcomm ittee fo r afford ing this op po rtu nity to testi fy on the bill.

We are also gr ateful to M r. Ko rnegay fo r his notable lea der ship in 

this legislation.

Tha nk you.

Mr. Macdonald. Th an k you, Mr. Stew art .

M r.H uo t?

Mr. IIuot. I missed part of yo ur testimony. Are you sug gesting 

th at the perce nta ge be on the labe l or the labe l merely ind ica te th at 

spa nde x is used in th e produ ct ?

Mr. Stewart. Because the spa ndex has a clearly esta blis hed and 

definite funct ion al significance w hen prese nt in the fa bric in quantities 

of 5 pe rce nt or less we ask th at t he law be ame nded so as to allow the 

fac t of the presence of spa nde x and the p ercentage to be shown on th e 

label and ref erred to in the ad ve rtisin g of the garm ent in question.

Mr. IIuot. Th at is all, M r. C hairm an.

Mr. M acdonald. Mr. Ke ith ?

Mr. K eith . No questions.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. C urtin ?

Mr. Curtin. Xo questions, Mr. C hairm an.

Mr. Macdonald. I jus t have one very br ief question and may be 

irrele vant actually. Wh en was th is pro duct firs t inven ted ?

Mr. Stewart. T would t ur n to the o rigina l m an ufacturer of spandex, 

the Du Po nt Co. and ask Dr. Hicks if he wou ld res pond to th at 

question.

Mr. Hick s. It was first introduced in evalu ation q uanti tie s in 1957.

Mr. ^Macdonald. Th an k you, sir.

Ou r nex t witness is Mr. Do nald T . Casey, vice presi dent o f the Galey 

& Lo rd Co., a division of B ur lin gton Ind us tri es, Inc .

STAT EMENT OF DONALD T. CASEY, VIC E PRESIDENT OF GALEY & 

LORD CO., A DIV ISION OF BURLING TON IND UST RIE S, INC.

Mr. C asey. Mr. Ch airma n, and members of the committee, my name 

is Do nald T. Casey. I am a vice pre sid ent of the Gale y & L ord Co., 

a tex tile man uf ac turin g and selling org aniza tio n which is a division 

of B ur lin gton In du str ies, Inc.

Galey & Lo rd ma nufac tur es, promotes, and sells nov elty yarndye d and piec e-dyed tex tile fab rics, pa rti cu larly in the cotton and 

cotton, manmade fibers blen d catego rv, servin g principa lly the 

apparel tra de.

Galey & Lo rd is one of the o ldes t companies servin g this trad e and 

throug h th e years it has been ded icated to dev eloping new fabrics .
LABELS ON TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 13

In th is role, I certainl y believe it is accu rate t o say th at , G aley & Lo rd 

is a lead er. Galey & Lo rd is constan tly experim entin g with new 

weaves, fibers, fabrics, and blends wi th the pr im ary purpo se of pr oducin g new and different, and exc itin g fabrics . I t ha s been a pioneer 

in the develop ment of stretc h fab ric s made of cotton an d spa ndex 

and blends of cotton, polyester, and spand ex fibers.

At the pre sen t time , we are offe ring f or sale ap proxim ate ly 37 fa brics and I th in k it is interesti ng to note th at only 6 of thes e cloths 

were ru nn ing in our mill on a pro duction basis 10 y ears ago. Th is 

points up the volatile na ture of the tex tile indu stry toda y an d the 

ma ny chan ges th at are constantly taki ng place with the int rodu cti on 

of new fibers and man ufac turin g tech niques conti nuall y bei ng in tro ­

duced.

Th e development of spa ndex ya rns in Ma rch , 1962 and the whole 

concept of stretc h fab ric s fo r appa rel is an entirely new develop men t 

since the Texti le Fi be r Prod uc ts Identifica tio n Ac t of Ma rch 1960. 

Gale y & Lo rd has exp erime nte d continually wi th core spun yarns 

since the y became ava ilab le and we hav e fou nd whe n wo rki ng with 

spandex, as we did wi th polyester blen ds, th at the re is no “corr ect” 

percen tage for all fabrics .

We found polyester cotton blen ds sometimes work best at perce ntages of 50/50 ; 65/35 : 75/25, and so fo rth and we ha ve fou nd the same 

to be true when dealing with core -spu n spa ndex ya rn s; th at is some 

work best at levels o f 3,4, 5, and 6 percen t by w eigh t.

Until the i ntr oductio n of spand ex, no othe r fiber used in amoun ts of 

less than 5 percent contribu ted usefuln ess to the qu ali ty or pe rfo rm ­

ance of a fab ric. How ever, the introduction of spa nde x yarns 

changed this. We have fou nd t ha t in man y typ es of fab rics that less 

th an 5 p erc ent sp and ex by weight gives bett er results th an sim ila r constructions w ith a spande x con tent of over 5 perce nt by weig ht.

Unf or tuna tely, un der the present res tricti ons of th e Te xti le Fibe r 

Prod uc ts I dentification Act, it is necessary to have ov er 5 pe rce nt spandex in order to disclose the spande x conten t to th e tra de and ul tim ate ly 

to the consum er.

To meet th e requirem ents of the act, m ills have h ad to ma nufac tur e 

fab ric s not necessarily ap pr op riate fo r specific end uses. Th is has 

placed the mills and ga rm en t man ufacturers in a very difficult position . Ga rm ent manufacturer s have had to cu t and sew these same 

inap pr op riate fab ric s into garm ents if they wante d to promote and 

adv ertise the fiber.

Ap proa ch ing the problem rea listic all y we mu st conclude th at the 

ultim ate consumer in most instances is the loser, since in many instances the most des irab le fab ric s are no t rea dil y being pro duc ed by 

the mills. Many stretc h fab rics tod ay are being woven with more 

than 5 percen t spa nde x only t o con form to the pro vision s o f the labeling law and no t to enhance the intrinsic value of the fab ric itse lf.

Being force d to fab ric ate w ith s pan dex fibers in amoun ts exceeding 

5 p erc ent h as worked well in a few instances, bu t in most instances it 

has had a lim iting effect on fab ric develop men t. I t is my pers onal 

belief th at all fab rics should be developed with the ultim ate goal of 

fun ctional significance and because of the res trictions plac ed upon us 

by the labelin g law, our mill designe rs, stylists, and technicians have 

had their cre ati vity stifled by ha vin g to pro duce cloths with over 5 

percen t spande x by weight.
14 LABELS ON TE XT ILE FIBE R PRODUCTS

I t is ra th er int ere sting to note th at fab rics conta ining as lit tle as 3 

percen t s pandex ya rns o fte n produc e b ett er re sults and p erf orin better 

th an those conta ining over 5 perce nt by weight. Fo un da tio n gar ­

ments, swimw ear, heavy-d uty garm ents and ladies stretc h pants may 

req uir e amoun ts of spande x in excess of 5 perc ent to give the fab ric 

necessary ‘•muscle.’’

For example, this piece of tar po on s tretch fab ric which I have here 

con tains 6 percen t spandex. On the other hand, men’s suits, sportscoats, and short s perfo rm infinite ly be tte r with amoun ts of spandex 

of only 3, 4, and 5 pe rce nt due to the need for an “easy str etc h.’’

For example, thi s piece of yarn- dyed da cro n/cotto n stretc h fab ric 

con tains 3 percent spande x, and as you will note it is basically the 

same f abric as that earlie r show n with the 6 p erce nt spa ndex content.

At the time the labeling law was intr oduce d, it is tru e th at the re 

were no fibers in the m ark et th at could be used in amo unts as small as 

1 percen t—5 percen t which would give val uab le cha rac teristics to a 

fabric in much greater prop ortio n th an would be ind icated by the 

sma ll percen tage of weight required. How ever, with the i ntr oduction 

of spande x thi s is no longer tru e and we now know th at small quantities of spande x yarn can contribu te use fully to the quali ty and pe rformance of a fabric.

Ex perim ental work in stretc h fab rics is a continuing process which 

will no doubt go on fo r man y yea rs and developm ent of the most desirable fab rics at the prese nt time is bein g impeded by the effort to 

produce cloths with over 5 perce nt spa ndex by weight fo r the m ark eting reasons given above.

If the proposed ame ndm ent H.R . 806 becomes effective and it becomes possible t o ide nti fy fa brics as hav ing less th an 5 percent spandex 

con tent, it will release cre ative development work which almost cer ­

tai nly will produce new and des irable types of stretch fabr ics.

Th an k you, very m uch.

Mr. M acdonald. Th an k you, s ir.

Do any of the members of the subcomm ittee have any questions of 

the witness?

Mr. Keith . No questions.

Mr. Curtin-

. No questions.

Mr. Macdonald. We will now call on Mr. Ste phen C. Ila nson , assis tant vice president, Se ars, Roe buck & Co.

STATEMENTS OF ST EPHE N C. HANSON, ASSISTANT VICE PRESID ENT, 

AND GEORGE KOCH, SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., INC.

Mr. H anson. Th an k you, gentlemen , f or the op po rtu nity of ap pe aring before you today.

Ary nam e is Ste phe n C. Hanso n. I am an assista nt vice pre sident 

of Sea rs, Roebuck & Co., and serve as gen eral ma nager of their New 

York buying office.

I am here, however , as a rep res entative o f the retai lin g ind ustry to 

endorse H .R. 806. Spec ifica lly, I represent the American Retail Fe dera tio n whose m embership includes 45 statewide and 31 nation al reta il 

associations: the I ns titu te of Distr ibu tio n, whose memb ersh ip includes 

8,000 non variety retail sto res ; and the V ariety Store Association, whose 

mem bers hip includes 8,000 va rie ty stores.
LABELS OX TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 15

Bv way of background, let me say that as retailers, our purpose is 

to provide customers with desirable products of the type in which they 

show interest or need. In wearing apparel lines, the evidence of customer interest in ease and comfort is most apparent. As people lead 

more active lives, this demand will grow accordingly. This being 

the case, there was little surprise when stretch became a positive factor in fabrics. Stretch adds elements of improvement to the fit— 

to the ease and comfort of garments.

In our search for fibers to impart stretch characteristics to textiles, 

we found ourselves drawn to the core-spun or wrapped spandex type. 

While there are other ways of impa rting stretch and all of them 

have worthwhile and proper applications, the process with the gre atest range of application is this wrapped spandex technique. It can 

be used with textiles of any weight, light or heavy, plain or fancy. 

Clearly, it has a place—an important place—in the fabric picture 

of today and tomorrow.

The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act has served to set 

reasonable ground rules for manufacturers and for those of us involved 

in the distributive function, thereby protecting customers from the 

questionable and deceptive practices of the few. I am aware that 

many industry representatives worked with the Congress in developing language that was at once practicable yet serving the interests of 

the consumer. A section of tha t legislation deserves new scrutiny, 

however, in the face of this opportunity which wrapped spandex 

offers us. This section is the so-called 5-percent restriction.

Originally, the 5-percent restriction seemed entirely reasonable. It 

had the result of limiting a meaningless enumeration of additional 

fibers, usually natural fibers, which added little or nothing of significance to a fabric. No one foresaw the speed of the emerging fiber 

technology which would produce new fibers and which would create 

entirely new end products.

Spandex is such a manmade fiber. Its elastic properties are so 

pronounced that relatively small amounts can be used in a wide variety 

of fiber products and still provide desirable stretch qualities. But, 

spandex is extremely expensive and necessarilv adds to the cost of 

the final product.

The following illustration would give a comparison of the relative 

current costs of a basic broadcloth fabric in different types beginning with 100 percent carded cotton and going through blends up to 

a core-spun blend.

A 109/58 100 percent carded cotton of 45 to 46 inch width costs 

3iy 2

 cents per yard.

. A 109/58 50 percent cotton/50 percent polvnosic rayon in 44 to 45 

inch width is 35 cents per yard.

The 136/60 100 percent combed cotton broadcloth in 45 to 46 inch 

width sells for 36y> cents.

A 136/60 65 percent polyester/35 percent combed cotton in 44 to 

45 meh width sells for 53 cents.

Now, the 136/60.60 percent combed cotton 32 percent polvester/ 

8 percent spandex in a 45 to 46 inch width sells today at $1.10 per

The basic and eye-opening fact in this is that the core spun or 

wrapped spandex makes th at fabric cost more than double the next
16 LABELS ON TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS

lower price and this is in the face of its growing potential to our 

customer's way of life.

If I convert this to the retail price of a dress, it would mean generally double the price for tha t dress and herein lies the limiting 

factor in all of this.

The cost factor limits the use and application of this technique and 

this in turn limits opportunities for developing its possibilities with 

the resultant impact on jobs, new products, and customer enjoyment.

How could we reduce costs? We could wait for prices to drop as is 

customary in the evolution of synthetic fibers, but the real question 

here is : ITow fair is this to the customer ?

We could use less fiber and still retain as desirable a stretch characteristic in the garment, but here we come to the crux of the problem 

and the chance of doing something positive for the customer. Here 

we come up against the 5-percent restriction.

With spandex, we are trying to create an identifiable word which 

immediately communicates the idea of stretchability. It is essential therefore, that labeling and advertising copy contain mention of spandex. For that reason, we must be certain that in order to comply 

with the 5-percent restriction, 6 percent or more is used within each 

appropriate product. You will note that my example used 8 percent. 

The pattern generally is to use not less than 8 percent in women's 

apparel because of this labeling restriction.

The important fact is, though, tha t these stretch characteristics 

can be achieved in many products at levels of 5 percent or less, without reducing their contribution to a garment.

In some cases, performances are indeed improved by somewhat 

less elasticity. Where less can be used without impairing its contribution, these savings can be passed on to the customer.

Amending the 5-percent restriction to allow mention of fibers which 

fulfill a significant function, even though used in lesser quantities, will 

result in the benefits-of-cost savings and more informative labeling 

and advertising without jeopardizing the clearly desirable consumer 

protection features of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

As retailers, when introducing a new product, we must educate 

the consumer to its advantages, so as to encourage her to experience 

the benefits.

Under the present Textile Act, it is extremely difficult and awkward 

for us to carry out this function in the presence of this 5-percent provision. As a result, our customers are not fully benefiting from the 

advantage of the spandex fiber.

The law, as currently written, has led to some very incongruous and 

illogical situations. By way of emphasizing this point, let me cite 

from the current Sears, Roebuck & Co. spring-summer catalog. I use 

examples from this catalog only because it is the one with which I am 

most familiar. Similar examples from the stock catalogs of other 

retailing firms would also point up incongruous situations arising 

from the present law.

I think it is dramatic in a certain sense, if I may show this to the 

committee. As you open the present catalog, the first, thing you see 

is this word “spandex.” As something of interest to the consumer 

and value to her, it has a very prominent place here. You note in this
LABELS OX TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 17

example, because of the desire fo r a power factor in th is str etch , we 

have gone all the wav to 12 perce nt and we have no prob lems. Bu t 

then y ou go throug h other exam ples a nd where there is no reason for 

th at much to be used we use much less but I th in k it is extremely c onfusin g to the custom er. If I may rea d fro m this example of a fitted, 

readyma de slipcover, all we are able to say abou t it is “ a top qu ali ty 

ordina ry slipcover caref ully woven of 96-percent cotton fo r dependable service and excellent du rability a nd 4 perc ent o the r stretch fib ers.” 

In o the r w ords, we are not able to tell the custo mer t ru ly w hat the ad ­

vanta ges are t ha t we are offering.

Mr. Macdonald. Let me ask a question of you at th at point. If 

th is bill intr oduce d by Mr. Ko rnegay becomes law, how would this 

change the openin g?

Mr. H anson. It would n't in the case of the 12-percent example, I 

have shown you. But in the case where the appli catio n calls fo r less, 

where it is bu ried in the copy, “4 percent other f iber,” we have not been 

able to tell the custome r nor say an ything me aningful about act ually 

wh at is here. We j us t say th is is stret-ch. They say, “Is it ru bb er?” 

Th ey don’t wa nt rub ber . We are lim ited in our ab ility to tell the truth 

in our labe ling app roach.

Xow, as I poi nted out to you we do have item s in the cat alo g which 

hav e 2, 3, or 4 perce nt. Bu t even fo r those items, in every case, we ar e 

unable t o tell the cu stom er they have spand ex. Three or fo ur p erce nt 

spa ndex would have l>een adequate to give the desired stretc h pr op ­

erties. An excess amount of this expensive com ponent has been put 

int o the pro duct merely to advertis e the fact th at it does con tain 

spa ndex—which causes an ar bi trar y and we feel unnecessary’ expense 

to the customer. It is a curious parado x th at the use r must pay a 

pre mium to be assured tha t the p rod uct has the desired cha racteristics.

There are item s in Sea rs curre nt cat alo g which contain as I said 

2, 3, and 4 percen t spandex . Even tho ugh these items have as much 

streng th as is considered desirab le, we are unable to tell this to our 

custome rs except throug h statem ent s which run the risk of cau sing 

more confusion th an cla rity, such as “3 perc ent oth er fibers add ed 

fo r str etc h.”

Wh ile my case has rested on one pa rtic ul ar tex tile fiber, I think 

we can expect con tinu ed new develop men ts in technology’ which will 

pro vid e a dditional and va luab le p roperties to all fiber products. Yo ur 

ap prov al of this amend ment will give s tim ulus to such deve lopm ents.

We in retail may or may not dir ectly dic tat e the pa rti cu lar mercha ndise which comes off’ the pro duction line, dep endin g on our 

buyin g arr angeme nts . Our collective wishes, however , h ave a str on g 

influence. We are the ultim ate s tep in the d istrib utive process. Our 

ab ility to attrac t consum er dem and depends upon a con tinu ed ability 

to provide valu e at fair, com petitive prices. H.R. 806 can assist in 

th is process.

I, the refore , endorse this bill liecause I believe it is reasonable, and 

it is just. It s result will lx* the cre atio n of new uses, new pro ducts , 

more com fort and l ett er fit for man y differen t typ es of g arm ents conta in in g differen t types of file rs. Consumers of all ages sta nd to 

benefit from so simple a change.

Th an k you, gentle men.
18 LABELS ON TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS

Mr. Macdonald. An y questions ?

Mr. H uot. Mr. Chairma n, how does th is change com pare with th e 

changes th at were made on the Wool Ac t ?

Mr. H anson. I am afra id I am not inform ed, sir. Mr. Koch who 

is wi th me I believe could ans wer th at for you.

Mr. Koch, wou ld you come up and answe r that ?

Mr. K och. I am George Koc h of Sears, Roebuck & Co. The FT C 

ha d the au thor ity un der the Wool Ac t to make the change witho ut 

legislation a nd they do n ot have it in the Textile Act and the wording 

here is the same as the FT C itself injected into the Wool Act rule to 

meet the problem.

Mr. II uot. An d the FT C would not gr an t thi s as a ru lin g ? It is 

necessary then th at we pu t leg islation in t o cha nge thi s ?

Mr. Koch. Th e FT C feels, sir, the y do not hav e the au thor ity by 

reg ula tio n to change the Textile Act. They did feel they had the 

au thor ity clea rly under the Wool Ac t to mak e the change by regu lation throu gh the regulat ory process.

Mr. H uot. I do not quite see how the y feel the y hav e the rig ht 

un de r the Wool Ac t to do it wi thou t legislation and cannot do it on 

this as a policy.

Mr. Koch. May I call on an othe r att orney, from Du Po nt Corp., 

Mr. Jim Kranz sit tin g rig ht behind me ?

Mr. H uot. An d you repre sen t Du P on t ?

STATEMENT OF JAMES KRANZ, ESQ., E. I. du PONT de NEMOURS 

& CO.

Mr. Kranz. I repres ent D u Po nt. Th e W ool Ac t w hich was passed 

in 1939 con tain ed no pro hib ition on men tion of fibers in amoun ts of 

less th an 5 percent. I t permitted you n ot to mentio n them if you did 

no t wa nt to, bu t it did n ot pr oh ibit you fro m me ntioning them.

Regulation s were issued by FTC un de r the Wool Act, which made 

no men tion o f this problem a t all, shortly af te r the passa ge of th e act. 

In 1959, the Textile Fi be r Pr od uc ts Identifica tion Ac t was passed 

proh ibiting mentio n of 5 perce nt or less and reg ula tions were issued 

by FT C und er the new law and the y have rule I I I in those reg ula tions 

which also im ports a flat proh ibi tio n by reg ula tio n on mentio n of 

fibers pres ent in amounts of 5 pe rce nt or less.

A lit tle ov er a year ago th e C omm ission decided to conform its W ool 

Ac t reg ula tions to those issued un der the Textile Fi be r Prod ucts 

Identifica tio n Act. In oth er words, to make the two sets of regu lations as nearly the same as possible, and in the proposed reg ula tions 

th at were issued fo r he aring and discussio n by the indu str y by the 

Com mission under th e Wool Act, there was an ident ical r ule I I I which 

wou ld impose, by reg ula tion, un de r the Wool Act, the flat pro hib ition 

of any mentio n of any fiber presen t in amoun ts of 5 percen t or less. 

Th e indu stry rais ed the objection and the p oint th at sp and ex ha d now 

been deve loped and as fa r as wool products were concerned, no t to 

pu t us in the same s trai t jac ket as we were op erating u nd er the Textile 

Identifica tio n Act.
LABELS OX TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 19

The Commission regarded tha t position and revised its new rule 

under the Wool Act to permit mention of certain fibers present in 

amounts of 5 percent or less, but they felt they did not have the power 

to make the same provision in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act rule because the act contained a flat prohibition on mention of 

fibers present in amounts of 5 percent or less.

Mr. H uot. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. Any other questions ?

If there are no more questions of the witnesses, is there anything 

further you would like to say, Mr. Komegay ?

Mr. Korxegay. No, Mr. Chairman. I think they are all the witnesses and we appreciate the hearing you have afforded to us on this 

matter.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Keith ?

Mr. Keith. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to 

have included in the record a letter from Berkshire Hathaway, a 

manufacturer in my district. They are enthusiastic in their support 

of this legislation.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection, it will be put into the record at 

this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

B er k sh ir e H a th a w a y, I nc.,

New Bedford, Mass., A pril 2,1965.

H o n . H a st in gs K e it h ,

House of Representative s,

Washington, B.C.

Hear Hastings : Bill H.R. 806, which would amend the Textile Fib er Prod ucts 

Identification Act to permit the identification of certain fibers constitutin g less 

tha n 5 percent of a textile product, will come before the Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance of the House Interst ate and Foreign Commerce Committee 

for hearings in the near future.

This hill will be sponsored by Congressman Horace Kornega.v, of North Carolina, and has the broad support of the fiber companies, and the Federal Trade 

Commission and the Commerce Department are on record as favo ring it. The 

American Textile Man ufac turers Insti tute will also support this bill—which 

will be of g rea t assistance to many sections of the industry.

For instance, many of the very popular stretch fabrics which are now being 

produced in gre at volume are made from cotton or synthetic yarns spun around 

a core which perm its the finished product to s tretch with the motion of the body 

or limbs and then regain its original shape.

Spandex is an example of this type of inner core which has been extensively 

advertised along with other types which have the same use. As the amount of 

spandex compared to the tota l fabric is, in many instan ces, less than 5 percent, 

under the present law the seller is prohibited from mentioning the fac t that 

spandex is used.

The re is, of course, no desire to mislead the public, but stre tch yarns and 

fabrics are now in the ir infancy and it would be of tremendous assistance to the 

buyer and the seller if thi s amendment could pass so that all concerned might 

know the type of yarn used to obtain the necessary stretch .

I hope tha t, as a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance of 

the House Inter sta te and Foreign Commerce Committee, you will do all that 

you can to insure the passage of this am endment un der H.R. 806.

I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Congressman Torbert 

H. Macdonald, chairman of the subcommittee, in the hope th at he will also 

consider this amendment favorably.

With best regards as always,

Sincerely,

Sea bv ry Sta nto n.
20 LABELS OX TE XT ILE FIB ER PRODUCTS

Mr. Keith. I would like to have also included in the record a letter 

from the American Cyanamid Co., which is also in favor of the 

legislation.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection, that letter will be received and 

made a part of the record.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Am er ic an C yanam id C o.,

Washington, D.C., March 25,1965.

H o n . H a st in g s K e it h ,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dea r H a st in g s : To su pp le m en t our ph on e co nv er sa tio n, I wo uld lik e to ca ll 

yo ur att enti on to som e of th e mor e pert in ent re as on s wh y th e pre se nt Tex tile 

Fib er Pro duct s Id en tifica tion Ac t ne ed s to be am en de d. Co ng ressman Kornega.v 

has in trod uc ed II.R . 80(> to co rr ec t th e defic ien cie s of th e ac t. This bill has been 

re fe rr ed to th e Co mmitt ee on In te rs ta te an d Fo re ig n Co mm erce an d I und er ­

st and th a t it ha s been as sign ed to th e Su bc om mitt ee on Co mm erc e an d Fi na nc e 

an d I be lie ve he ar in gs o n the bil l are to b e sc he du led fo r th e near fu tu re .

You ha ve in qu ired w het her or not B er ksh ir e- H at haw ay Mills are in te re st ed 

in th is legi slatio n. I believe the y are but I ha ve not as y et che ck ed it ou t. I will 

ad vi se you wh en I do.

As ha s ha pp en ed befor e, scien ce has ou tp ac ed th e re qu irem en ts of a ra th er 

specifically wor de d law . Th e so- called 5- pe rcen t ru le in th e pr es en t la w mad e a 

gre at de al of sen se when fi rs t en ac te d in 1958. It co nt in ue s to mak e good sense 

w ith resi>ect to th e fib ers w ith which th er e h ad bee n co mmercial ex pe rien ce at 

th a t tim e. Sin ce 1958, ho wev er, it has been de te rm in ed th a t ve ry sm all am ou nt s 

of sp an de x fiber blen de d w ith o th er fib ers su ch a s ac rylic , co tto n, nylon , an d wool 

in am ou nt s ra ng in g from 1 to 5 pe rc en t giv e re m ar kab le an d cu rr en tly de sire d 

str etc h c hara cte ri st ic s t o f ab ric.

Whil e us e th ere of is no t pr oh ib ited by law , am ou nt s of sp an de x fib er les s 

th an 5 pe rc en t of th e to ta l fa bri c co nte nt ca nn ot be ca lle d to th e at te nti on of 

th e co nsum ing pu blic eit her by ge ne ric na m e or tr adem ark , but m us t be desig ­

na te d only as “o th er fib er.” It is re ad ily ap pare nt t h a t th e ve ry co ns um er fr aud 

an d de ce ption th a t th e p re se nt Fib er Id en tifica tion A ct w as int en de d to p re ve nt is 

now a new po ss ibili ty if th e c on su ming pu blic c an no t be in fo rm ed a s to th e a ctu al 

sp an de x co nte nt of a p art ic u la r fa br ic . A simple am en dm en t of pre se nt law will 

pe rm it in dust ry an d re ta il ers to in fo rm th e pu blic of th e ad va nta ges of sp an de x 

fiber, an d th e co ns um er to mak e an in fo rm ed decis ion . In ad ditio n, su ch an 

am en dm en t will det er th e un sc ru pu lo us re ta il er from pa lm ing off in fe rior pr od ­

uc ts as thos e fa br ic s co nt ai ni ng sp an de x. W e unders ta nd th is to be p a rt of th e 

re as on th e Fed er al Tra de Co mm iss ion fa vors am en dm en t of pre se nt law an d 

has am en de d it s Wo ol Ac t ru le s to pe rm it th e us e of de sign atio n of sp an de x in 

woo l w he re p re se nt in am ou nt s o f le ss th an 5 p er ce nt .

F u rt h er, fa il ure to am en d th e pre se nt law w ill plac e m anufa ctu re rs of sp an de x 

fiber a t a m ar ke ting di sa dvan ta ge to oth er man m ad e fibers an d proc esses fo r 

cre at in g st re tc h chara cte ri st ic s in fa br ic s, and re ta il ers will lik ew ise suffe r. 

In ad di tion to American Cya na m id Co., oth er m aj or chem ical co mpa nies su ch as 

E. I. du Pon t de Nem ou rs & Co., Inc., Mon sa nto Co., th ro ug h it s Che m stra nd 

affilia te a nd U ni ted S ta te s R ub be r Co., to n am e a few , ar e in te re st ed in th e m an ufa ctu re an d sa le of sp an de x fiber. Likewi se, th e te xti le m anufa ctu re rs who 

in co rp or at e th is m ate ri al in th e clot h wish to ca ll at te nti on to th e fu nc tion al 

pr op er ties of sp an de x. Thi s le gi sl at io n is, th er ef ore , im port an t to a wi de segm en t o f th e eco nom y an d will no t r esu lt in ben efit t o a spec ial in te re st.

A no th er reas on fo r de siring am en dm en t of th e pr es en t law is on e gen er at ed 

by econom ics an d tec hnolo gy. In m an y fa br ic s, it wo uld no t be econ om ica lly 

fe as ib le t o in co rp ora te as mu ch a s 5 p er ce nt of spa nd ex fib er in to th e to ta l co nt en t 

of a p art ic u la r st re tc h fa br ic. In mos t in stan ce s. less th an 5 per ce nt sp an de x 

fib er wou ld he re qu ired . We be lie ve t h a t ap pr ox im at el y 3 per ce nt sp an de x fiber 

in st re tc h fa bri cs will become th e ge ne ra lly ac ce pt ed co nte nt be ca use of econ ­

om ies an d tech ni ca l re qu irem en ts. It has bee n fo un d th a t st re tc h fa br ic s conta in in g 5 pe rc en t sp an de x are no t su itab le fo r as wide a ra ng e of use. In som e 

in stan ce s, a 5-pe rcen t sp an de x fiber co nte nt (irre sp ec tive of co st) has been foun d 

to be to ta ll y unsu itab le an d a t th e ve ry le as t not to ha ve a des irab le "h an d” 

or feel.
LABELS OX TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 21

I hope that we can count on your intere st in this meritorious legislation. If we can help you in any way with rega rd to it we shall be happy to do so.

Sincerely yours, W. D. K ava naugh, 

Manager, Washington Office.

Mr. Macdonald. Th at concludes o ur he aring on H.R. 806 an d H.R. 

5160. (Th ere upon, a t 11 :05 the subcommittee proceede d to othe r business.)

a