Y4 ,

.e 76/

89-89- REPEAL

GOVERNMENT

Storage

OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER c.*"

ACTS OF 1916 A D 1928

1967

X

fE6 3

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

rg EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

- SECOND SESSION

E=0

cc Ln ON

CC 

cc S. 17 and S. 1773 0

0- BILLS TO REPEAL CERTAIN ACTS RELATING TO

rg CONTAINERS FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, AND r-9

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

AUGUST 30, 1966

Serial No. 89-82

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

72-402 WASHINGTON : 1967
4 ,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman

JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island

A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma

FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Ohio

E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska

VANCE HARTKE, Indiana

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, Oregon

ROSS BASS, Tennessee

RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana

GERALD GRINSTEIN, Chief Counsel

EDWARD JARRETT, Chief Clerk

JEREMIAH J. KENNEY, Jr., Assistant Chief Counsel

RALPH HORTON, Assistant Chief Clerk

MICHAEL PERTECHUS, Staff Counsel

Ii

NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire

THRUSTON B. MORTON, Kentucky

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado
CONTENTS

Pagd

Text of S. 17 1

Text of S. 1773 2

Agency comments:

Department of Apiculture 11

Department of Commerce 3

Federal Trade Commission 3

General Accounting Office 2

Statement of—

Atwood, Edward W., secretary and counsel, Keyes Fibre Co.; partner,

Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen & McKusick, 465 Congress Street,

Portland, Maine 6

Cleveland, Wayne, vice president, sales, Keyes Fibre Co., 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, N.Y 8

Dimond, John J., Chief, Regulatory Branch, Fruit and Vegetable

Division Consumer and Marketing Service, Department of Agricultui e, 'Washington, D.0 4

Statement submitted—

Muskie, Hon. Edmund S., U.S. Senate 2

Letters, etc.:

Foster, Martin A., secretary-manager, Wenatchee Valley Traffic

Association, Wenatchee, Wash 13

Freeman, Hon. Orville L., Secretary of Agriculture, to Hon. John W.

McCormack 12

REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS OF

1916 AND 1928

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 8:55 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office

Building, Hon. Norris Cotton presiding.

Senator COTTON. The committee will come to order.

S. 17 and S. 1773, would repeal the Standard Container Act of

August 13, 1916, and May 28, 1928, which established standard sizes

for certain fruit and vegetable containers made of wood veneer.

These two acts are now obsolete as a consequence of new container

types and changing marketing practices. By and large, fresh fruits

and vegetables are no longer sold in baskets by volume measure but

by weight or count.

S. 17 was introduced by the distinguished Senators from Maine,

Mrs. Smith and Senator Muskie.

I have here a statement from Senator Muskie which he doesn't ask

to have read but which will be inserted in the record at this point.

Also, the reports from the various agencies involved that have been

queried about this bill will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The described material follows:)

[S. 17, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To repeal certain Acts relating to containers for fruits and vegetables, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the Acts of Congress listed below are hereby

repealed:

(a) The Act of August 31, 1916, entitled "An Act to fix standards for Climax

baskets for grapes and other fruits and vegetables, and to fix standards for baskets

and other containers for small 

fruits, 

berries, and vegetables, and for other

purposes" (39 Stat. 673, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 251-256);

(b) The Act of May 21, 1928, entitled "An Act to fix standards for hampers,

round stave baskets, and splint baskets for fruits and vegetables, and for other

purposes" (45 Stat. 685, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 257-257i).

SEC. 2. This Act shall become effective on

Staff counsel assigned to this hearing: Michael Pertschuk

1
2 REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS

[S. 1773, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To repeal certain Acts relating to containers for fruits and vegetables

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the following Acts of Congress are hereby

repealed:

(1) The Act entitled "An Act to fix standards for Climax baskets for

grapes and other fruits arid. vegetables, and to fix standards for baskets and

other containers for small fruits, berries, and vegetables, and for other

purposes", approved August 31, 1916 (39 Stat. 673; 15 U.S.C. 251-256); and

(2) The Act entitled "An Act to fix standards for hampers, round stave

baskets, and splint baskets for fruits and vegetables, and for other purposes",

approved May 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 685; 15 U.S.C. 257-257i).

SEC. 2. This Act shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar

month following the month in which this Act is enacted.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE

I wish to express support for legislation to repeal the Standard Container Acts

of 1916 and 1928. I joined the senior Senator from Maine, Mrs. Smith, in

sponsoring this bill while similar legislation has been introduced by the distinguished Chairman of this Committee, Senator Magnuson.

The Secretary of Agriculture in his reports to the Congress concisely presents

the need for passage of this legislation. He points out that:

(1) Most vegetables and fruits are now sold by weight and count and therefore the volume of the container, as regulated by the Standard Container Acts,

has lost its importance.

(2) Over 90% of fresh fruits and vegetables shipped by container in interstate

commerce are not regulated under the Standard Container Acts.

(3) The costs required to administer the Acts can no longer be justified.

For these reasons, the Secretary recommends that the Acts be repealed.

This problem was brought to my attention because of the interest of the Keyes

Fiber Company of Waterville, Maine, a firm with a well-established reputation

in the packaging field. The Keyes firm is interested in manufacturing a quart

and one half container, largely for use in displaying and marketing berries. Under

the terms of the Standard Container Act, they are prohibited from doing so since

the quart and one half size is not specifically cited in the existing Act.

On previous occasions, the Act was amended to permit the manufacture of

different sized containers. However, the art of packaging is changing so rapidly

that the establishment of exact sizes in legislation is no longer either feasible or

desirable. The manufacture and labeling of all containers will be reviewed under

the terms of the so-called "Truth-in-Packaging Act," S. 985, previously approved

by this Committee and passed by the Senate.

The types of materials used for manufacturing containers have proliferated.

Since materials such as wooden boxes and plastic bags, now widely used in the

packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables, are not regulated under the Act, firms

using regulated materials are placed at a distinct disadvantage.

Since the repeal of this Act would curtail unnecessary Federal expenditures,

while at the same time eliminate discrimination in the field of packaging, I urge

that the legislation be approved thereby repealing the Standard Container Acts

of 1916 and 1928.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D.C., January 18, 1965.

B-119364.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In reply to your letter of January 12, 1965, inviting

our comments on S. 17, a bill to repeal the standard containers (fruits and vegetables) acts of August 31, 1916, and May 21, 1928, you are advised we have no

information or comment to offer concerning the proposed legislation.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL.
REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS 3

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., May 4, 1965.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of January 15, 1965,

requesting our comments on S. 17, 89th Congress, 1st Session, a bill "To repeal

certain Acts relating to containers for fruits and vegetables, and for other

purposes."

The bill would repeal two existing laws (15 U.S.C. 251-256 and 15 U.S.C. 257-

257i), both of which fix standards for baskets and other shipping containers for

fruits and vegetables.

As we understand the subject bill, it would repeal these laws, so as to enable

fresh fruits and vegetables to be shipped in any size or type of basket, hamper

and other containers.

We previously submitted to your Committee on July 29, 1964, our report on

S. 2930, 88th Congress, 2d Session, which is identical with the subject bill.

The Commission does not have sufficient knowledge and experience with respect

to the shipping and packaging problems with which the bill deals to express any

opinion as to the necessity or appropriateness of its enactment.

By direction of the Commission.

PAUL RAND DIXON,

Chairman.

N. B.:

Pursuant to regulations, this report was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget

on March 2, 1965, and on May 4, 1965, the Bureau of the Budget advised that

there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the

Administration's program.

JOSEPH W. SHEA,

Secretary.

HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in further reply to your request for the

views of this Department concerning S. 18, a bill "To amend the Act of August

31, 1916, so as to provide a standard for a dry one-and-one-half-quart container."

and S. 17, a bill "To repeal certain Acts relating to containers for fruits and

vegetables, and for other purposes."

These bills are concerned with the Standard Container Acts of August 31, 1916

(15 USC 251-256) and May 28, 1928 (15 USC 257-257i) which established standard sizes for certain fruit and vegetable containers made of wood veneer.

S. 18 would amend the Act of 1916 by the addition of a one-and-one-half-quart

size to those standard sizes currently authorized. It is understood that the

additional size is desired to enable the producers of the standardized wooden

baskets to compete more favorably with newer types of containers that have

become popular since 1916 and have not been standardized by Federal law as to

size or shape.

In view of the inequitable situation that now exists, this Department would

interpose no objection to enactment of S. 18 to amend the Act of 1916. However,

we believe that a more appropriate solution can be achieved by enactment of

S. 17 to repeal the Acts of 1916 and 1928 which are now obsolete as a consequence

of the introduction of new container types and changing marketing practices.

In general, we see certain advantages for manufacturers of containers as well as

the consumers in the standardization of container sizes and shapes. However,

to be effective and equitable, such standards should be observed by all producers

of containers and not by only a limited segment of the container industry. The

Acts of 1916 and 1928 apply to only one type of container among many competing

products.

Moreover, the problems which promoted the establishment of size standards

in 1916 and 1928 have largely disappeared with regard to containers for fresh

fruits and vegetables. This is a consequence of the growing practice of selling

most produce at the retail level by weight or count rather than by volume measure.

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C., April 6, 1966.
4 REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS

For these reasons, we believe that the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928

are obsolete and recommend that they be repealed.

Our support for repeal of the Standard Container Acts, which deal almost

entirely with containers utilized at the wholesale rather than the retail level, in

no way diminishes our support for S. 985, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

which, with certain amendments, has the support of the Administration.

For similar reasons, we suggest that the Committee consider the extension of

S. 17 to include the repeal of the Standard Barrel Act of 1915 (15 USC 231-236)

and the Standard Lime Barrel Act of 1916 (15 USC 237-242). These statutes

resemble the Standard Container Acts in many respects and are equally obsolete.

While we are unaware of any inequity resulting from the Standard Barrel Acts, a.

recent survey among State weights and measures officials has confirmed our impression that these Acts no longer serve a useful purpose. This is because the

barrel, as a unit of volumetric measure, now is of little importance in the commerce of the commodities covered by these statutes. Accordingly, we recommend

that they also be repealed.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be na

objection to submission of our report from the standpoint of the Administration's

program.

Sincerely,

ROBERT E. GILES,

General Counsel.

Senator COTTON. The first witness is John J. Dimond, Chief, Regulatory Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Consumer and Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture. We shall be glad to hear

from Mr. Dimond.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. DIMOND, CHIEF, REGULATORY BRANCH,

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DIVISION, CONSUMER AND MARKETING

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. DIMOND. S. 17 and S. 1773 are similar bills to repeal the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928. These acts prescribe standard

sizes and capacities for certain types of baskets and hampers used in

the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables.

The Department recommends that S. 17 and S. 1773 be passed.

This action would repeal the two Standard Container Acts referred to

above.

The first of these acts is the act of August 31, 1916 (15 U.S.C.

§§ 257-257i), known as the Standard Container Act of 1916. It establishes standard sizes for Climax baskets for grapes and other fruits and

vegetables and fixes standards for baskets and other containers for

small fruits, berries, and vegetables. The act provides for the examination of containers subject to regulation to determine their compliance with the law.

The second of these acts is the act of May 21, 1928 (15 U.S.C.

§§ 257-257i), known as the Standard Container Act of 1928. It

establishes standard sizes for hampers, round stave baskets, and splint

baskets used for fresh fruits and vegetables. Specifications of containers covered by the act are submitted to and approved by the

Department if such containers are of the prescribed capacity and not

deceptive in appearance.

When these laws were enacted they covered the principal types of

containers used for the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables;

namely, baskets and hampers. At that time, because of the large

number of sizes of containers being manufactured, there was a great

desire to bring about some degree of standardization in these containers. In the years since the enactment of these Standard Con-
REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS 5

tamer Acts, changes have taken place in the containers used for shipping fresh fruits and vegetables. Baskets and hampers have largely

been displaced by newer types of containers, none of which are subject

to Federal regulation, capacity, size, or shape. During the past 10

years, for example, the number of factories producing containers

subject to the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928 has declined

from 183 to 129. The number of different containers manufactured

by these plants has dropped from 726 to 584.

It is now estimated that less than 10 percent of the fresh fruits and

vegetables shipped in interstate commerce are now packed in containers regulated under these Standard Container Acts of 1916 and

1928. In view of the limited volume of fresh fruits and vegetables

currently being shipped in these regulated containers, the Department

believes that the continued administration of these two acts is no

longer justified. Furthermore, a savings of approximately $16,200

can be achieved through repeal of these laws without detriment to

the fruit and vegetable industry or the public.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, one of the Departments, the Department of Commerce, has made a survey on the matter of whether these

acts should be repealed, and the State of New Hampshire, Mr.

Laramie, recommended that they be repealed.

Senator COTTON. Thank you for your statement.

Referring to that inquiry by the Department of Commerce, do I

understand an inquiry was made, a survey was made, census taken

of all the States with respect to the repeal of these acts?

Mr. DIMOND. It is my understanding that they put an inquiry to

each of the States, but I think only 33 have answered. The maj ority—

I think there were 19 in repeal, 11 opposed, and 3 who answered

and made no recommendation.

Senator COTTON. Did those that were opposed give reasons for

their opposition to the repeal?

Mr. DIMOND. The information that I have on them, the copies that

I have seen of these letters, none of them were particularly strong on it.

They recommended that they be retained as guides for their State

enforcement.

I am not certain that all States have such regulations. But the

ones that do have it, it is on a periodic basis, I believe, with the

availability of funds to have enforcement. Many of them prefer to

rely on the Federal acts as a guide to enforcement.

Senator COTTON. There is a Standard Packaging Act, so that the

repeal of these two specific acts referring to fruits would not leave a

complete hiatus in the matter of regulation. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. DIMOND. I refer to our report of March 30 on this subject

(see page 11), a letter addressed to Senator Magnuson. In the last

paragraph, on page 2 of that letter, the Department referred to S. 985,

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, where we recommended that a

section of this act be amended to include the definition "Packaging

container subject to the provisions of this act."

Senator COTTON. I am informed that the chairman of the committee has received an opinion from the Legislative Counsel's Office that

such an amendment would not be necessary.

72-4O2-67------2
6 REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS

Mr. DIMOND. It was my understanding, the way the bill was

drafted, that there was some question whether containers would be

under it. I have limited information on the subject.

Senator COTTON. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which I

understand is the overall act on all commodities, simply excepts those

for which there are special acts. Apparently the opinion of the Legislative Counsel was based on the assumption that if these two acts were

repealed and ceased to exist, then automatically these commodities

would come under the regulation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act, because the general exemption was only on those products concerning which there were special acts.

Mr. DIMOND. I can see how you would reach that conclusion.

Senator COTTON. I don't know if that is so, and we will check it.

I am sure that is the case.

We thank you very much for your statement.

Mr. DIMOND. Thank you, Senator Cotton.

Senator COTTON. Mr. Wayne P. Cleveland, vice president, sales,

Keyes Fibre Co., 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, accompanied by

Edward W. Atwood, secretary and counsel, Pierce, Atwood, Scribner,

Allen & McKusick, 465 Congress Street, Portland, Maine.

We will be very glad to hear from you and your associate.

Mr. Atwood, your statement as furnished to the committee will go

into the record in toto. You are at liberty to read all of it to us, or

you are at liberty to emphasize certain points and enlarge on it orally

as suits your convenience.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE P. CLEVELAND, VICE PRESIDENT, SALES,

KEYES FIBRE CO., NEW YORK, N.Y., ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD

W. ATWOOD, SECRETARY AND COUNSEL, PIERCE, ATWOOD,

SCRIBNER, ALLEN & McKUSICK, PORTLAND, MAINE

Mr. ATWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will dispense with reading the statement because it would be a

little bit redundant. It really repeats and relies upon and supports the

position taken by the Department of Agriculture.

We also have seen a letter from Mr. Giles, General Counsel of the

Department of Commerce, addressed to Senator Magnuson under

date of April 6, 1966, expressing the same view. We recognize that

the presentations of opinion and the recommendations of these

Departments and the gentlemen in these Departments carries much

more weight than anything we could say, because they are dedicated

public servants with no profit motive, no private interest at all.

Mr. Dimond, who has just spoken, as I understand it heads the

Division of that Department which has had enforcement of these laws

under his jurisdiction. And his predecessors for 15 years join in that

recommendation.

We are here so that you will hear the voice of a manufacturer of the

products which are affected by these acts.

So far as our present production is concerned, the one part of the

1916 act with which we are vitally concerned is the second section

which covers and relates to containers for small fruits, berries, and

vegetables. We have run into complications with respect to that

phase of the act. We have had those problems of ours under discussion
REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS 7

with the Department of Agriculture. We have received the utmost

cooperation. Everything is working fine except that we feel that

these acts, both of them, are obsolete. We feel that they lack clearness in some respects, which causes problems with respect to what

we might do in the future with regard to other products for the

packaging of produce.

•We are conscious too of the fact, as called to the attention of this

committee by Secretary Freeman, that considerable money will be

saved to the public and to the Government if these acts are enacted

because the costs of enforcement will be removed.

We note that in a letter which Secretary Freeman, of the Department of Agriculture sent to Speaker McCormack on May 20, 1964,

which was addressed not only to these two acts but also to the Tobacco

Plant and Seed Exportation Act, Naval Stores Act, and the Wool

Standards Act, that he concluded with the statement that if all of

those acts were repealed, there would be a saving of slightly over

$2 million. I am commenting on that because some part of the letter

is quoted in the text of our statement. I did not want the committee

to think that I was saying national repeal of these particular acts

would save that much money. It wouldn't. They are part of the

parcel.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can add much more. It seems to

us that these laws result in an unrealistic, unnecessary, and groundless

limitation on manufacturers and retailers and consumers, and that

they prevent the manufacturers from meeting the needs of the sellers

of produce and consumers of produce.

Mr. Wayne Cleveland, vice president in charge of sales of our

company, is very intimately knowledgeable on this question so far

as the market practices and the products and so forth. He is here

and would be delighted to answer any questions that the committee

may have.

I know that is about the substance of our position.

Senator COTTON. Thank you, Mr. Atwood.

Let me ask you gentlemen this: If these two acts are repealed by

the Congress, what, if anything, does their repeal permit you in the

industry to do, or permit you to refrain from doing, that is not now

your practice?

Mr. ATWOOD. Mr. Chairman, at the moment we are not being

unduly restricted by these acts because of the fair and liberal attitude

of the Department of Agriculture. However, the Department of

Agriculture, when you get into the question of ambiguity, has expressed to us, and I think it is in the letter which Mr. Gardner of that

Department wrote to me, that the word "small," when you say small

fruits, berries, and vegetables, applies only to fruits and does not

apply to vegetables. These products of ours are used very widely

to package vegetables which are not small vegetables. Yet if that

interpretation is correct—and I am very doubtful whether it is or

not, but it is there, and it has been stated as the view of the Department—if that was strictly enforced, the way this act reads, any container, any vegetables, would have to be packaged in these multiples

of quarts. It just isn't feasible. To us it is a very dangerous thing

to have in the books if improperly administered.

At the moment we are not suffering, let us say that. But we are

very much concerned with respect to our product development in the
8 REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS

future that an unreasonable application of this law, or an unreasonable

interpretation by a court, would raise havoc in the industry.

Senator COTTON. You mean if some liberal minded bureaucratic

official should come along and take this seriously, then you would be

in trouble?

Mr. ATWOOD. Yes.

Mr. CLEVELAND. We have had difficulty trying to get an interpretation on whether this word "small" in the act refers just to fruits or

whether it refers to fruits and vegetables. One interpretation is that

it refers to small fruits, but all vegetables. One of the containers

that we would like to make—this happens to be a pint and a quart

which we do make—we would like to have a quart and a half, which

is not covered, and it is used very extensively for packaging, among

other things, as a size for peaches and string beans. If beans are

packed in that, according to one interpretation, it is completely

wrong.

Senator COTTON. What are the products of your company? What

products does your company package or can?

Mr. CLEVELAND. It packages for all meats, produce 

SenatorCOTTON. You make the packages?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. You do not package the products yourself.

Mr. CLEVELAND. No, sir.

Senator COTTON. Are those representative of the packages you

make?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I did leave some

brochures which would outline a good many of the other products.

It is strictly manufacturing for packages, for containers, as opposed

to the packaging itself.

Senator COTTON. Those exhibits that you have on the table are

made of plastic?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Molded pulp.

Senator COTTON. Are they waterproofed?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes, sir. They have additives that give them

moisture resistance. They are not waterproofed. They are resistant.

Senator COTTON. Are those for berries?

Mr. CLEVELAND. This size (pint) is used very extensively for berries,

for blueberries, for strawberries. The pint is used extensively for

that.

Senator COTTON. One container is a pint and the other is a quart?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes, sir. These two sizes of course are within

the limits of the present acts. But variations of this are not. For

instance the quart and a half which is for weight more or less than for

an actual quart and a half. As Mr. Atwood pointed out, we can use

it with an interpretation of the weights with the Department of

Agriculture. We would feel much safer if it were repealed.

Senator COTTON. This committee recommended to the Senate and

the Senate passed the so-called Truth in Packaging Act which I personally thought went too far. The purpose of that act was to reduce

the number of sizes or quantities that appeared on the shelves of

markets because it was supposed to be confusing to the housewife

when she had to choose between too many sizes.

Do these two acts that we are now considering repealing in any way

militate to hold down the number of sizes or varieties of containers?
REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS 9

Mr. CLEVELAND. I can only express an opinion, and it would be

"no."

Senator COTTON. Their repeal would not open up the practice that

at least a majority of this committee and the majority of the Senate

are on record as considering a terrible practice, of having the housewife

confronted with too many different sizes?

Mr. CLEVELAND. No, sir.

Mr. ATWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a different area in a

sense. The type of packaging we are talking about is merely a

container in which the retailer will place a certain quantity of produce,

and the quantity that goes in is determined either by count or weight.

It is an entirely different area than when you are talking about a

package of corn flakes or something like that where you have a

deceptive packaging problem. I don't see that what we are talking

about here, or the repeal of these two acts, in any way opens up the

field for greater deception of the consumer. But to the contrary, it

enables the manufacturer and the packager and the seller to give the

purchaser a container in which he can comfortably carry home the

quantity he wants to buy. And the amount of it, determined by

count and weight, and not just filling a package up to the top, smoothing it off, and saying here is a quart of berries.

Senator COTTON. Those containers are used mostly by the retailer?

Mr. ATwooD. Exactly.

Senator COTTON. I seem to remember when I was a boy on a New

Hampshire farm, which isn't far from Maine, that if these bureaucrats

got busy talking about truth and packaging in berries, you could

sell a quart of berries and by the time the customer got them home,

shaken down, it would look as if they had been cheated. So it

wouldn't be practical for a manufacturer to be packaging that sort

of small fruit. It is just a matter of scooping out these berries by

the retailer and having something to put them in; is that correct?

Mr. ATWOOD. That is true.

Senator COTTON. One more question, and this should probably be

addressed to Mr. Atwood.

Having been a small town lawyer, I am always much impressed

with anyone who comes in representing a big firm with five, six, or

seven names to it.

Mr. ATWOOD. We are just a counsel firm.

Senator COTTON. Maybe so. Did you have occasion to examine

the matter that we raised with the previous witness about whether

the repeal of these would leave any hiatus, or whether the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act would automatically fill the gap?

Mr. ATWOOD. On my last visit to Washington, which must have

been 3 or 4 weeks ago, Mr. Pertchuck called this point to my attention. I checked it and read the act. I came independently to the

same conclusion which Mr. Pertchuck reported to me yesterday, that

if these acts were repealed, and no change is made with respect to the

point raised, that it automatically clears itself. I understand that is

Mr. Pertchuck's conclusion.

Senator COTTON. So supervision remains.

Mr. ATWOOD. Right.

Senator COTTON. Thank you, gentlemen.

(The prepared text follows:)
10 REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS

STATEMENT OF KEYES FIBRE CO.

Respectfully represents Keyes Fibre Company that:

(1) It is a Maine corporation with its principal place of business in Waterville,

Maine.

(2) It is engaged primarily in the production and sale of a wide variety of molded

pulp products including plates, dishes, food prepackaging trays, egg cartons, egg

flats, egg trays, fruit packs and interior packaging materials for fragile articles.

It has manufacturing plants in Waterville, Maine, Hammond, Indiana Sacramento, has a 

and Wenatchee

'

Washington. Keyes Norway A/S (100% owned)

has a plant in Viul, Norway. Canadian Keyes Fibre Company Ltd. (.50% owned)

has a plant in Hantsport, N.S., Canada. An affiliate Societe des Emballages

Keyes has a plant in Ile d'Elle, France. An affiliate, Keyes Italiana S.p.A., has

a plant in Catania, Sicily.

(3) It is anticipated that the substance of this Brief Statement will be submitted

orally to your Committee at the hearing on the above Bills on August 30, 1966 by

Wayne P. Cleveland, Vice President-Sales of Keyes Fibre Company, and Edward

W. Atwood, a Director and Secretary of Keyes Fibre Company and a partner in

the law firm of Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen & McKusick of Portland, Maine,

which is its general counsel.

(4) S. 17 and S. 1773 would each repeal two Acts, one enacted in 1916 fixing

standards for (a) Climax baskets for grapes and other fruits and vegetables and

(b) for baskets and other containers for small fruits, berries and vegetables, and one

enacted in 1928 fixing standards for hampers, round stave baskets, and splint

baskets for fruits and vegetables. The products of Keyes Fibre Company and

the requirements and needs of the users thereof and of the consumers of the

products packaged therein are materially and adversely affected by the provisions

of the 1916 Act relating to containers for small fruits, berries and vegetables but

are not affected at all by the provisions of such Act relating to Climax baskets

or by any of the provisions of the 1928 Act.

(5) Under the provisions of the 1916 Act, as interpreted by the Department

of Agriculture, containers for small fruits, berries and vegetables may only be

of the following sizes: dry pint, dry pint, dry quart and multiples of dry quart.

A container for produce which would contain the equivalent of 134 quart is very

popular with retailers for in-store packaging because it is versatile enough to be

used for a number of different items and is popular with consumers as it packages

a convenient quantity for the average retail purchaser. Also when the container

is so used, the contents are, almost without exception, sold by weight or count

rather than by volume measure. Yet if any of the items so packaged are "small

fruits, berries or vegetables" the law has been violated. No sound reason exists

to-day for such a limitation. It is incompatible with modern marketing methods

and practices. This is • recognized by the Department of Agriculture. We

respectfully refer to the letter of Mr. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture to your

Chairman, Senator Magnuson, dated March 30, 1966, a copy of which is annexed

hereto, recommending that these Acts be repealed. No more compelling argument for the repeal of such Acts could possibly be made than that set forth in such

letter and we therefore heartily endorse it and incorporate it in this Brief by this

reference. To the same effect, and equally forceful, was an earlier letter of

Secretary Freeman, that of May 20, 1964, to the Honorable John W. McCormack,

Speaker of the House, a copy of the pertinent narts of which is also hereto annexed.

These letters of Secretary Freeman highlight the following points, which we

submit fully justify and call for repeal of these Acts, namely:

(a) Since the enactment of these Acts in 1916 and 1928, great changes have

taken place in the containers used for shipping fresh fruits and vegetables;

(b) Most fruits and vegetables are now sold by weight or count and consequently

slight variations in volume capacity of containers are no longer an important

marketing factor; and

(c) The cost of administering these Acts is no longer justified.

Of interest is the view of the fruit growing industry in the State of Washington

that such laws as the Acts sought to be repealed stifle improved methods of fruit

packaging. See letter of Mr. Foster, Secretary-Manager of the Wenatchee Valley

Traffic Association to Senator Magnuson dated March 22, 1966 (copy attached).

In conclusion, we submit that for a number of sound reasons the Acts in question

should be repealed by the enactment of S. 17 or S. 1773, namely:

Obsolescence. This is the major reason and is fully discussed in the letters of

Secretary Freeman above referred to.
REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS

Ambiguity. The 1916 Act fails to define "small fruits, berries and vegetables"

and it is not clear whether the word "small" as used applies only to "fruits" or

also to "berries" and "vegetables".

Expense. The expense of administering these Acts is not warranted.

We therefore urge that your Committee act favorably with respect to either

S. 17 or S. 1773.

Respectfully submitted.

Dated August 29, 1966.

HOD. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman Committee on Commerce,

U.S. Senate.

11

KEYES FIBRE Co.

By WAYNE P. CLEVELAND

Vice President, dales.

EDWARD W. ATWOOD,

Secretary and Counsel.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., March 30, 1966.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of January 13, 1965, for

a report on S. 17, a bill to repeal the Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928

which prescribe standard sizes and capacities for certain types of baskets and

hampers used in the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables.

This Department recommends that these Acts be repealed.

The Act of August 31, 1916 (15 U.S.C. §§ 251-256), known as the Standard

Container Act of 1916, establishes standard sizes for Climax baskets for grapes

and other fruits and vegetables and fixes standards for baskets and other containers

for small fruits, berries, and vegetables. The Act provides for the examination

of containers subject to regulation to determine their compliance with the law.

The Act of May 21, 1928 (15 U.S.C. § 257-257i), known as the Standard

Container Act of 1928, establishes standard sizes for hampers, round stave

baskets, and splint baskets used for fresh fruits and vegetables. Specifications of

containers covered by the Act are submitted to and approved by the Department

if such containers are of the prescribed capacity and not deceptive in appearance.

When these laws were enacted, baskets and hampers were the principal types

of containers used for the shipment of fresh fruits and vegetables. At that time,

because of the large number of sizes of containers being manufactured, a strong

movement developed in the industry, particularly among container manufacturers, to bring about some degree of standardization in order to reduce the

resultant unnecessary costs, confusion, and deception.

In the years since the enactment of the Standard Container Acts, great changes

have taken place in the containers used for shipping fresh fruits and vegetables.

Baskets and hampers, formerly the principal types used, have been displaced

in large part by newer types. During the past 10 years, for example

'

the number

of factories producing containers subject to the Standard Container Acts of 1916

and 1928 has declined from 183 to 129, or a reduction of 31 percent, while the

number of different containers manufactured by these plants has dropped by

20 percent, from 726 to 584.

Of the large and increasing number of containers now widely used, such as

fiberboard cartons, wirebound and nailed crates, wooden boxes and lugs, mesh,

paper, and plastic bags, some were not in use at all for fruits and vegetables at

the time these Acts were passed. None of these newer containers are regulated

by Federal law as to shape, size, or capacity.

Moreover, most fruits and vegetables are now sold by weight or count. Consequently, slight variations in the volume capacity of containers are not longer

an important marketing factor. Largely because of the growth in the use of

containers not covered by the Standard Container Acts, it is estimated that less

than 10 percent of the fresh fruits and vegetables shipped in interstate commerce

now are packed in containers regulated under these Acts.

In view of the limited volume of fresh fruits and vegetables currently being

shipped in containers subject to regulation under the Standard Container Acts of

1916 and 1928, the continuing trend toward wider use of types of containers not

subject to Federal regulation, and the fact that most fruits and vegetables are

now sold by weight or count, the Department is convinced that continued administration of these laws is no longer justified and that a saving can be achieved
12 REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS

through repeal of these laws without detriment to the fruit and vegetable industry

or the public.

Although practically all of the containers regulated under these Acts are used

as shipping containers and not as consumer packages, there are some such as

berry boxes, which are still used for marketing products to the consumer on a

volume basis. While we recommend that these Acts be repealed, we believe that

the interest of consumers should continue to be protected through the prohibition

of unfair and deceptive packaging and labeling practices. Such prohibitions are

contained in S. 985, the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act", which, with certain

amendments has been endorsed by the Administration. So that there will be

no gaps in consumer protection, we recommend that S. 985 be amended to provide

that the containers now regulated under the Standard Container Acts would not

be freed from regulations by the repeal of these Acts but would, in that event,

become subject to the provisions of S. 985. Such an amendment is needed sinceSec. 8(3) of S. 985 now excludes from the definition of "package" containers subject to the provisions of the Standard Container Acts.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation

of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program and the

Bureau favors the amendment of S. 985 as indicated above.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., May 20, 1964.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is enclosed a proposed bill to repeal the Standard

Container Acts of 1916 and 1928, Tobacco Plant and Seed Exportation Act of

1940, U.S. Grain Standards Act of 1916, Naval Stores Act of 1923, and Wool

Standards Act of 1928.

Over the years, economic conditions and marketing practices have changed so

that the need for these Acts is no longer as great as when the legislation was

passed. Therefore, to promote greater efficiency and economy in Government,

in accordance with the President's request, we are recommending the repeal of

these Acts. The portion of these activities that needs to be continued will be

performed under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. This would include

financing the grain inspection service on a voluntary fee basis. Savings in appropriations realized by repeal of these Acts, involving limited or special interests,

would be available for use in areas of more vital public importance.

The following paragraphs set forth in more detail the reasons for the Department's proposal:

Standard Container Acts of 1916 and 1928 prescribe standard sizes and capacity

for certain types of baskets and hampers used in shipping fresh fruits and vegetables. When these laws were enacted, baskets and hampers were used for a large

part of the fresh fruits and vegetables shipped in containers and standardization

of the volume capacity was needed to prevent deception. Since that time, there

have been many changes in shipping containers for fresh produce. Containers

not in existence at that time have been developed and have become important.

The containers now most commonly used are crates, lugs, boxes and bags. Also

the construction material has changed significantly with fiber board, paper,

and film now being commonly used. These containers have not been standardized

by Federal law as to capacity or shape. Most fresh fruits and vegetables are now

sold by weight or count rather than by volume measure so that deception due to

slight variations in container volume is no longer an important marketing factor.

Less than 10 percent of the fresh fruits and vegetables are now marketed in the

regulated types of baskets and .hampers. This Act, therefore, is of very limited

usefulness and the cost of administering it is no longer justified.

The repeal of the above Acts would result in a reduction in direct appropriations

from the general fund of the Treasury of about $2,013,000 on an annual basis.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation

of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN,

Secretary.
REPEAL OF THE STANDARD CONTAINER ACTS 13

Senator WARREN G. MAGN17SON,

...Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: It appears S. 17 would repeal antiquated U.S.

standards for fruit and vegetable containers of which many, if not all, are no

longer in use. We urge that you seek enactment of this legislation.

Our industry has consistently opposed state and federal standards for fruit

containers. New containers are continually being developed to deliver fruit

to consumers with fewer bruises and in better condition. The trend is toward

consumer packages such as three and four pound bags and small trays of six or

eight apples over-wrapped with film. Master containers for these small packages

will continue in an experimental stage for a considerable period of time and in

the meanwhile it is quite likely new packaging will develop.

Packaging standards enacted into law are too inflexbile and tend to stifle

improved methods. We hope you will resist legislation that would require

definite container specifications for fruits.

Sincerely yours,

WENATCHEE VALLEY TRAfFIC ASSOCIATION,

Wenatchee, Wash., March 22, 1966.

MARTIN A. FOSTER,

Secretary-Manager.

Senator COTTON. Is there anyone else here who desires to testify?

We have no other witnesses on the list.

If not, we thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 9:22 a.m., the committee was adjourned.)


N