officials before the initial regulations were promulgated, but I don't believe it has been nearly enough, nor do I believe that the States have been given sufficient recognition in the act itself.

If Congress is going to pass a statute with the implication that the States are eventually going to enforce it, then I believe the States' role should be recognized. So before we address ourselves to the precise language and while I do believe the States would go along with total preemption, I think to go along with it there has to be a simultaneous recognition of their place in it.

So, if the States have a recognized place in the development of the policy and the regulations, I think preemption would go down their throats a lot easier than the way that it has been handled.

Senator Moss. I think you answered, then, that the statute should be more explicit as to the role of the States, and without saying whether or not I think it is explicit enough, I would say I believe the States ought to have a role in enforcement. I think it ought to be made clear that the States have the power, if they wish, to have more stringent rules than Federal rules, if they care to do so within their

own area.

They ought not, of course, be restricted from setting standards within the State that do not measure up to the Federal standard. Of course, I would hope the Federal standards would be higher than they are now. But the States, I think, ought to be very active in this enforcement.

As you say, they are charged with enforcing weights and measures within their own jurisdiction, and, therefore, they have the staff and the competence to do this. They are doing it, as far as I know, well in our various States. This ought to tie in with that function that is traditionally theirs.

So, we will examine it carefully to see if we think that the statute ought to be more explicit than it is.

Senator PEARSON. Will the chairman yield?

Senator Moss. Certainly.

Senator PEARSON. What are the enforcement duties of the States under this particular Federal legislation?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The act preempts State authority with respect to the mandatory regulations under the act. Some States-for example, the State of California shortly after fair packaging became law-the State of California drafted a statute which simply says what the regulations of the Federal Government turn out to be those will be our California regulations. So, in fact, the initial statute the initial bill that was drafted by California-would have perhaps gone beyond the preemption than it has in fair packaging and labeling. It would have applied to all packaging and labeling regulations.

Senator PEARSON. But under this act that we are having oversight hearings today, what is the enforcement provisions of the States? Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The act does not say the States shall go on doing what they have been doing.

The act does imply that that will be the case. The act does say that the Secretary of Commerce and the FDA and the FTC will do all they

can to make available the regulations that come out of the Federal Government with the implication, again, that the States will take these things and make them their own regulations and go on enforcing the net weight requirements and the labeling requirements under the State law.

Before the advent of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, under the Food and Drug Act, and under the uniform model regulation and model law-packaging and labeling law-the States were developing a pretty standard set of packaging and labeling requirements-primarily labeling requirements.

The law presupposes that they will go on and enforce these regulations, the accuracy of the net weight, the accuracy of the identity of the commodity, the name of the manufacturer, et cetera.

Senator PEARSON. That is instructive.

I thought one of the reasons we passed this act in 1966 was because the States had failed to move.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. There is certainly a difficulty

Senator PEARSON. And, of course, the preemption, we couldn't have 50 standards applied to Kellogg Cornflakes' manufacturer and so forth.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I don't think it was a case the States had failed to move.

I think certainly there was a recognition, in order to get 50 States to develop the same model regulation, whether through their legislature or by administrative order, that it takes time, and indeed there was a gap, a necessary gap, in between the time that the national conference on weights and measures would adopt a new regulation and all of the States would adopt it. That does take time.

I think the States will buy total preemption, but I think there should be a recognition of the State role, the role of enforcement and the role in the development of the policy and the regulations. I think that is what we should address ourselves to.

Senator PEARSON. I am still troubled by the preemption.

If you are going to have enforcement under the State laws, you are still going to have a variation in what sort of enforcement procedures you are going to have, what the standard will be, particularly relating back to the State. I leave that.

Let me just pose this one question: The enforcement of the regulations is under the National Bureau of Standards, under the Commerce Department, under Food and Drug, under also the FTC.

Have we too many heads to this thing? Is there any unity of purpose or any unity of management of this particular program?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Of course, the standards that would be developed by the Department of Commerce and the National Bureau of Standards are strictly voluntary. There are only two agencies that are involved in mandatory regulations. That is FDA and FTC.

The regulations of FDA and FTC with respect to the labeling that must appear on packages are pretty uniform.

Senator PEARSON. Why is it taking so long to get some of these regulations out?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That, I think, you will have to ask the appropriate agencies.

Senator PEARSON. Very well.

Mrs. Knauer, let me ask you one further question.

I note, properly so, you make reference to some segments of industry that have complied, the paper industry, cereal, detergent, some of the salad dressing. They have done a pretty good job, haven't they? Mrs. KNAUER. They have done a voluntary job of cutting down proliferation of packages. The cereals went down from 24 to 16, at least when they use up all the present package stocks. Apparently they will be at 16, with the exception of some fringe small operators that may not comply. The average housewife worries why you need 16 different size containers to confuse her, and yet, when she looks into it, there is a matter of density between something like Grapenuts and something fluffy. When this is explained to her she understands.

I would say in those areas covered, they have done a pretty good job in cutting down on the sizes.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Very frequently, when they get finished, the procedure, whether it be a voluntary agreement within a trade association or something under the Department of Commerce's standard-making procedures, when they go to the trouble of coming to an agreement and limiting sizes, you still have quite a few in number and it is still difficult for the consumer to make a comparison.

The manufacturer will say, "Look, you know, I have changed my packages, I have changed my labels." He may even have dropped a couple of pieces of equipment to bring this about, and still you have 15, 16 different sizes, sometimes more, and it is very difficult to make a comparison, despite the effort.

Senator Moss. I certainly appreciate this matter of enforcing it at the State level. When we held hearings out in Salt Lake City last July, Mr. Francis, testifying for the State, indicated their willingness and desire, as a matter of fact, to assist in every way they could in inspection and enforcement.

So I think that we can look forward to getting some real cooperation. from the States if it is clear what their area is and what is expected of the States as far as enforcement is concerned.

I appreciate your statement. I think the key word that I caught from it, Mrs. Knauer, is that "progress is minimal." That is what we are looking into.

Thank you.

Mrs. KNAUER. Thank you.

Senator Moss. Our next witness will be the Honorable Kenneth Davis, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Domestic and International Business, accompanied by Malcolm W. Jensen, Acting Deputy Director of the National Bureau of Standards' Institute for Applied Technology, and Dr. Milton Blum.

We are very glad to have you gentlemen before us this morning and look forward to hearing your testimony.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH N. DAVIS, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; ACCOMPANIED BY MALCOLM W. JENSEN, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; AND DR. MILTON BLUM

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We are glad to have a chance to appear before your committee this morning. The operation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is of interest to the Department of Commerce not only because of our responsibilities under the act, but also because of our basic mission to promote progressive business policies in the interest of the Nation as a whole.

Speaking on the subject of business-consumer relations recently, Secretary Stans staid that, among the consumer's basic rights, "he must have access to adequate information to make an intelligent choice among products and services." We believe that the consumer's ability to make a value comparison is essential to the proper functioning of the marketplace, and I will report to you today on the Commerce Department's current thinking on what should be done to holp the consumer in this vital area.

As the subcommittee is aware, the Department has had, for many years, the responsibility for assisting the States in adopting measures to insure a system of uniform weights and measures. Through the National Conference on Weights and Measures, our National Bureau of Standards has provided information and assistance to State officials on such matters.

Further, since the mid-1920's the Department has assisted public and private organizations in the development of commercial standards, now known as voluntary product standards; there are over 300 standardmaking bodies of this kind.

These functions have been of inestimable benefit in facilitating trade and in assuring business and consumers of accurate quantity, dimensional, and performance standards. It was because of the National Bureau of Standards' long experience in these areas that the Secretary assigned his responsibility under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to the Bureau.

Before reporting to you on the Department's broad thinking, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Malcolm Jensen, Acting Deputy Director of the Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards, to explain briefly the Department's activities under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

Senator Moss. Fine, we are glad to have you do that, Mr. Jensen.
Mr. JENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

In addition to normal reporting functions, the act gave the Secretary two responsibilities. Under section 5, he was to work, without regulatory authority, to bring about a reduction in the proliferation of package quantities, and, under section 9, he was to provide assistance to the States in achieving uniformity in the legal requirements pertaining to package labeling. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Federal Trade Commission have the regulatory authority in this area.

With respect to the second responsibility, the National Bureau of Standards, operating through the National Conference on Weights and Measures, has assisted local officials in developing model laws and regulations compatible with the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Personnel of NBS have maintained liaison with the two agencies given regulatory authority under the law, to avoid conflicts between Federal and State requirements. Generally speaking, reasonable uniformity among the labeling requirements of the Federal Government and those of the States has been achieved.

The approach of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to proliferation of quality sizes of packaged consumer products was unique. The act directed the Secretary of Commerce to identify those individual commodities, or reasonably comparable commodities, which were packaged in such quantities as to make value comparisons unreasonably difficult. The Secretary was then to use voluntary procedures to try to bring about a reduction or simplification in package quantities that would facilitate value comparisons. The only recourse the act made available to the Secretary, should voluntary efforts fail, was to report to the Congress with appropriate recommendations.

Cited in the statute are the procedures for the development of voluntary product standards published by the Department and referred to by Secretary Davis. Subsequent to the enactment of this statute, the Department issued procedures for the determination of undue proliferation, which outline the method to be followed should formal proceedings be deemed necessary.

On the basis of early studies and discussions with industry leaders, it was decided to proceed with implementation of the statute along informal lines. The plan was to identify a product category worthy of attention, to conduct a limited market survey to determine whether an undue proliferation problem might exist, and, if so, to meet with trade association executives and/or industry leaders to discuss the results of the survey, and, finally, to receive an offer by the industry to simplify the package quantity pattern. In no case was a formal finding made by the Department that such a proposed simplification would eliminate the possibility of a formal determination of undue proliferation. Since July 1967, substantial reduction in package quantities has been accomplished in the major product categories as shown in the listing submitted for the record. It shows that simplified quantity patterns have been developed for 35 product categories. These categories represent 10 percent of the annual consumer expenditures for packaged goods. Commodities that represent no problem at this time because they are (1) standardized by State law, (2) exempted under the terms of the statute, or (3) not felt to be unduly proliferated, represent 78 percent of the annual consumer expenditure for packaged goods. Of the remaining 12 percent, 8 percent represent proposals being evaluated now, and 4 percent commodities that are now being studied.

It should be pointed out that the often-heard reference to 8,000 items on supermarket shelves refers not to products, but to the total number of different packages in the supermarket. There are, in fact, less than 400 different products in a supermarket.