The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Information for Consumers By Ruth Moyle EDITOR'S NOTE: We have lll’l't‘ llJC‘ lira! of a varies of (U'llt‘ll’x by [Miss Ruth fl'lnylc', rr’temlv uppnllllt'tl m flll‘ stuff of IlU/llt‘ Et‘OllU/llit'J EA:- (unsion Service to Work in the field of ('unrttmr'r lulm'mrititm. Min Moyle wrm‘ lmrn near Paris; 01".. and grow up on u l‘flll't‘ll in Alberta. Sllt‘ ix a graduate of \luctlonald l!l.\‘lill!1t’ and took lle‘ tlt'grt‘y in Home Et'mtmnrrr at the Unirerrltv of Wilmington. um- iuring in Nutrition unu‘ Child C(ll't‘ and Develop. mytrt. Her [itLtlt’l‘tUllfflIL’ Marlins include clothing. lt'IlflL‘S and t-onmmc‘r problems. Experience (is a rural .\('ll('lUll Marlin. liomt' wottonrit't feather in a high .rclirlol. and nutrition- itt in (l City health department ('ontr‘ilmtr' in MM -\loylu'.r mitlt'rxtmnliiig of the t'mmmwr pr'ohlonu of thy litmwnmkcr. For illt’ pm‘t .\‘f.\' yyurr .xlm lm.‘ tit-m Consumer Consultant with the (‘unmliim Broadcasting Corporation uml lll‘l‘ rmlio pm- ummmm‘ Hill'lt’l' the Maine of "lei Harding" (“'1’ won known to ll'DHlt‘ll rill (ll’t‘l‘ tlrt- province, Il/t- untit‘ipule u lawn llllt’l’li'Sf in this ('ulmnn. out what some Canadian housewives think about the quality of our processed foods. A5 Miss Chapman explained. for six years. as “Ruth Harding. Consumer Conxultanl" I had a morning programme. carried daily on CBC from Newfoundland to British Columbia. in this capacity. I was invited to speak “as the voice of the Consumer“ to the Canadian Institute of Food Technologists and later to the Ontario Food Pro- ccssors to bring to them the Canadian Woman's Opinion of the quality of processed food. Accordingly l mentioned this on my programme a number of times asking interested lixlcnerx to write in their opinions on the subject. In all some four to five hundred letters came to me at (BC. Many were from individualxfimen as well :15 women. Others came from groupsâ€"Women's institutes. Provincial C.A.C. groups. Guilds, Homemaking Clubs and so on. IT MIGHT be a good idea to explain how I found i feel it is only right to emphasize the fact that these commentx came only from a small pcr‘ centage of today‘s consumers. To have gathered a wide cross-section of opinion would have re- quired a fulletime rexearch programme. 1 was somewhat nonplussed to note that actually Vcl’y few of the letters had anything to say abont the quality of food. Rather they dealt with such factors as “Food Additivex‘ and Preservatives." “Packaging.” "Labelling." “Sales Gimmicks" and certain types of advertisingâ€"to mention only a few. This raises a question: Does thin fact. that only it very few women mentioned quality. mean it is always satisfactorily high? Or does it mean there SUMMER 1959 are other Conxumcr problcmfi of greater imporâ€" lance? i tried to impresx the 'l'cchnologistx and ProA ducers with this factithat to become a discerning, buyer takes a lot of time. that houseuivm are not only Conbumers and keepers. and spendcrx of the famin incomeâ€"they‘re Mothers and Homemakers) its ucll. 1 suggested that the aide variety of food.» on the market today. the great number of trade name“ one sees everywhere and the persixtunt flood of advertisingisome of which is. frequently mean» inglcm and tJninformativciconlinucx to make it increasingly difficult for Canadian “omen to be come ax expert buyer» a» we would Wish. Add to ihix all the glamorouv packaging. uhich often makex it diflicult for us to decide uhich i: the mox‘t nutritious and economical bu). and it's czmily seen that the Consumer's greatext problem today is to keep pace with the hlti‘tdt’cdx of itcnh that crowd the shclvex of modern slorcxâ€"cach one of Which maktn auch a strong bid for our food dollar. Ccrlainly today'x shopper must be alcrt and aware. if site i\ to know which goods are of corn sistently high quality. which procemors \land he- hind their goods and which labclx and advertising give ux accurate information and actual descrip- tions. Changes in load shopping huhilk add to our problems. Some time ago the manager of a Tor ronto \upcrmarkct Hated that (isn'- ot' llh week‘s business is done between \ix and nine o'clock on Friday evenings. Well. such a crti'xh in that. with the whole family 'in attendance to "help" Mother with the Week‘s \ht)pping undoubtedly helpx to contribute to our \uxceptihility to win pressure, to gimmick» and to impuGC buying. So. how do we buyâ€"by grade. trade name or labels. by premiums. {tLlVCrllNinLL on impulnc or by quality? ' Here is what these women told me: As you'd expect I didn't find any ohjcctionw to any of the time+aving. labour-saving funds that have been prepared for m. Certainly for the busy housewife in the»: days of little or no help. for the part-time housewife. for Cmcl‘gCHL'lCN and in living siluutium Where limited xpacc and equip- ment is available. lhcxc have proven a great boon. even if aomcwhal more expensive. By and large moxt letters expressed uprct‘izition of the Food and Drug Department of National Health and Welfare. for the watch they keep over the ever-increasing axe of food ttleitivcxâ€"L‘hcnr ical preservatives. insecticides and so frequently housewives naked for a continuing and an even more closely controlled programme. At the same time I found that many consumcrfi are becoming somewhat dubious. if not \keplical on this pointâ€"the fear that more cmphaxix is being placed on the improvement of appearance 9