Federal Trade Commission Documents Received Apr. 26, 1996 P894219 B18354900149 August 29, 1956 Richard A. Ricardi 44 Chauncey Street Watertown, MA 02172 (617) 926-4258 Robert Pitofsky, Chairman Federal Trade Commission Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 Dear Chairman Pitofsky, I write to comment on an article that appeared in the Thursday, March 28th edition of the Boston Globe, and which was recent topic of conversation on WBUR radio in Boston, concerning your dispute with New Balance, Inc. and the larger issue of the meaning of "Made in USA" in a global trade context. Please consider these comments carefully because, as those of someone with no direct loss or benefit to be had by your decision, they are probably among the most genuine you will receive. I am among the small but not insignificant percentage of consumers to whom the "Made in USA" label is important. I look for it on every purchase I make, from large durable goods to dollar items. (My wife will attest that this, to her chagrin, is true). I have nothing directly to gain from doing so; I am not pro-Labor; I am not a manufacturer; I am not an international trader. I am simply a consumer that seeks to invest in United States jobs with every purchase, whenever possible. I have been a purchaser of New Balance athletic shoes since 1985, for two reasons: 1) they are excellent athletic shoes, and 2) they are mostly made in the United States. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Jim Davis, and strongly urge you not to change the definition of "Made in USA" to suit his situation or any other manufacturers', domestic or foreign-based. "Made in USA" does and should mean only one thing: One-hundred percent designed, manufactured, and assembled in the United States. And unlike many issues, this is one of objective truth. Either a product is one-hundred percent made within the border of the United States employing people within the border of the United States, or it is not; it cannot be both at the same time. As Chairman of the FTC, it is your responsibility to uphold the highest standards that benefit the American consumer and serve the American economy. If you permit a product with even a small percentage of its value made outside of the U.S. to wear the "Made in USA" label without qualification, you will be permitting widescale deceit of American consumers who care about investing their purchasing power in the domestic economy. If you permit a weakening of the law to accommodate some products, I will never again be able to trust the "Made in USA" label on any product. Is this fair to consumers that care about this, or to those manufacturers that do still produce an entirely domestic product? There are many more economically significant and readily apparent abusers of the domestically-made sentiment than New Balance. Given your limited enforcement resources, you should be pursuing Riccardi, p. 2 them first. Also, there is something illogical and unjust about hassling New Balance, a company committed to local manufacturing in an industry that has fled overseas, regardless of the law. On your behalf, Jim Davis should amend his labels. He needn't worry about any loss of sales if his "Made in USA" label has an asterisk attached to it: if a consumer buys his product in part because they believe it is made here, that consumer will still buy his product knowing it is partially made here, because his major competitors such as Nike and Reebok are nothing more than pathetic in their commitment to manufacture in the United States. New Balance remains among the best there is in its commitment to making shoes where it sells them. I expect to remain a New Balance customer as long as this is the case (and they continue to make great shoes). Despite the sorry decline of manufacturing in the U.S., some companies still do actually design, manufacture, and assemble their products entirely within our borders - they, and only they, deserve the right to carry the "Made in USA" label. Anything less than that should carry some kind of qualification. I've seen such things as "Assembled in USA of domestic and foreign components," or "Assembled in xxx of US and foreign components," which don't seem to overly burden manufacturers. With large durables, a percentage domestic/foreign seems a good idea (it seems to work well in the auto industry, why not washing machines, computers, etc.?). This is the only objectively correct way, and I don't believe it's too much to ask - that if a product is not 100% U.S. -made, that its manufacturer doesn't say, or even imply that it is. It is up to you, through the public power invested in you and your agency, to do the objectively correct thing. One-hundred-percent domestic manufacturers - and there are still a substantial number of them make jobs, sustain families, and support government operation through taxes more than any other type. They are the most thorough creators of added value to our nation's GDP, and should be encouraged to remain 100% domestic through any reasonable government incentive. One clear incentive is to give them - and only them - the right to claim an unqualified "Made in USA" on their packaging and their product. I strongly urge you to make the "Made in USA" label mean just that and nothing but that, for those manufacturers and consumers who care. The courtesy of a reply as acknowledgment of this letter will be appreciated. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Richard A. Ricardi cc: Jim Davis, CEO, New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. Senator Edward Kennedy, Mass. Representative Joe Kennedy II, Mass. Senator John Kerry, Mass.