Page images

sections of the bill, of course that will settle the matter; but if we are to be left in, these matters of grade and condition, etc., should remain with the Federal and State agencies where they now rest and where the whole problem of grades and standards has been developed.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to clear up one thing. Is it a fact that these matters of variety and standards of quality and fill are now taken care of by the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Economics, by laws now in existence?

Mr. FRASER. Yes, and by State mandatory laws and regulations. In this manner and taking the matter of grade: Most States require that the package be branded. If a package is marked with the grade U.S. No. 1, or any other United States grade designation, then it must meet these specifications. Once the container is so marked, it must meet the grade. Penalties apply for misbranding. If apples are sent in bulk or loose in crates, no markings are required although there are canner apple grades covering bulk apples. In addition, there are the State mandatory apple grades in practically all of the leading apple producing States; also mandatory pear and other fruit grades in many of the leading States. If we have to lose all the work we have done and be subject to unknown regulations, the industry I represent views such a situation with alarm.

Next, I want to refer to section 22, "Voluntary Inspection Service." If you intend to develop this service, we would like to ask its use in connection with inspection applying to tolerances in connection with our fruits and vegetables and have any such inspection at point of origin to be final. In other words, we would like to clear our carloads of apples, fruits, and vegetables at point of origin as being within the requirements of the law so far as spray residue is concerned, and not pay out $500 in freight and then find at destination that shipments are held up because someone raises the question of the tolerance.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you proposing that we omit any reference to tolerances so far as apples are concerned?

Mr. FRASER. No. The control of poisons and adulterants should be left where it now is, viz, the Food and Drug Administration. The CHAIRMAN. I cannot make any promises, of course.

Mr. FRASER. If we have to stay under this law, we want to get all the benefits we can. If we can get the inspection of our cars so that we will know that they are clearly within the requirements of the law, and if we can get certificates which are final which can be attached to the papers that go along with the cars, we would like that very much indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any precedent for this? Is there anything there in other agricultural provisions?

Mr. FRASER. I do not know of any country where the unqualified and conclusive right is given to clear the commodity at point of origin and have the point of origin inspection absolutely final. The commodity is usually subject to further examination at any time while in transit or on sale.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the grain grading?

Mr. FRASER. I do not know about grain. That is different. You do not have the spray residue and other factors. At the present time, under our Export Control Act for apples and pears, clearances under proper safeguards are being made at point of origin, but it is a privilege extended by the Government and not compulsory on the part

of the Government. On such shipments we have in effect three inspections for we have to meet the tolerance under the Food and Drugs Act in addition to grade and plant quarantine. If all clearances could be secured at point of origin, we would like it.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the situation as to protest? Would there be any protest?

Mr. FRASER. Under present practice we are subject to reinspection anywhere as to residue, standards of quality, grade, and condition. At present a receiver at any United States destination can call for reinspection or may appeal inspection on all points-grade, condition, etc.

The CHAIRMAN. You would be willing to pay for the inspection? Mr. FRASER. We are paying for it now. We are maintaining an inspection service available to all the trade, on each car and truck load of fruits and vegetables. Illustrated with apples but practically all fresh fruits and vegetables are being standardized. Shippingpoint inspection is growing more and more every year.

The CHAIRMAN. I am more or less unfamiliar with this subject and want to know more of it. Do we have in New York State a Federal inspection such as you have spoken of?

Mr. FRASER. Yes, a combined Federal-State service. We have both shipping-point and destination-receiving-points Federal-State inspection service and the officials issue a Federal-State certificate. The CHAIRMAN. Is there such an arrangement on the Pacific Coast? Mr. FRASER. Yes. It is available practically everywhere, either at point of origin or the distributing markets.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a joint inspection so that it can be inspected interstate and intrastate?

Mr. FRASER. Yes, it is all established now. We have a large amount of machinery developed and the Government, the States, and the industry have done a lot of work. I do not think any industry, in cooperation with governmental agencies, has done more to assure the public of a first-class product.

The CHAIRMAN. If this bill were passed as written, would it interfere with what you are doing in your present arrangements?

Mr. FRASER. It certainly would. Under the wording of this bill it would take the establishment of grades away from the States and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and lodge it in the Bureau of Foods and Drugs. It would disrupt and nullify the principle of State rights as applied to grades. It must be remembered that this is a vast country with varying varieties and conditions and that after all the growers in the respective States have fundamental rights as applied to their grades. Under this bill there is no appeal from whatever blanket all embracing specifications might be laid down by a Federal bureau, which thus far has had no connection or experience with grades.

In the matter of containers, there are now on the Federal statute books four laws relating to standardization of containers for fruits and vegetables:

The standard apple barrel law (also known as the Sulzer bill which was the first bill providing for standardization of a package and for grade specifications, and which was initiated by this industry), approved August 2, 1912. The standard barrel law for fruits and vegetables and the standard barrel for cranberries approved March

4, 1915. The Standard Container Act approved August 31, 1916. The Standard Container Act approved May 21, 1928. The barrel laws and the Container Act of 1928 are weights and measures laws under the Bureau of Standards, and as such apply to intrastate as well as interstate commerce, and to the specifications, marking and fill of the container. These laws apply to barrels, baskets, hampers, climax baskets, etc., and include even the quart and pint tills.

Their development has stimulated the use of the sale of fruits by measure or volume rather than numerical count or weight.

Leading producing States have adopted standardization of container laws and provisions for many commodities they produce. This bill is destructive of law and the essentials of stability which the law gives, for it authorizes an appointed Executive to prescribe by regulations "the quantity of the contents in such terms of weight, measure, or numerical count as may be prescribed by regulations." All power centers in the Executive. The present bill does not provide for repeal of the present laws so that these would be in effect in intrastate, while regulations of an unknown character would apply in interstate traffic. We could not operate under such conditions. To repeal the present container laws and place this industry under regulations as this bill provides is preposterous and to propose to have both provisions in law will lead to chaos. We cannot conceive how any such proposals should ever have been considered.

Not only that, but under this bill tolerances can be arbitrarily fixed by the Secretary with no right of appeal and no required consultation with the industry. To bring a case and convict and fine, all the Government needs to do is to prove the fixing of the tolerance and by its own analysts that the fruit exceeds the tolerance and the case is ended. The Secretary does not even have to permit the defendant to take a sample of his own fruit and check up on the Government analysis. By section 16 (c) the court may allow a sample to be taken but is not compelled to. The Government does not even have to prove that whatever it finds to be present may be injurious to health. Under the present law and practice, the Government must affirmatively prove its case in each instance including proof that what it alleges to have found is or may be injurious. This is as it should be. The opinions of doctors and toxicologists change and vary from time to time. Every person is justly entitled to his day in court. Under this bill he practically has no day in court. Tolerances can be shifted up or down with very few formalities and to which shifting the citizen is not even required to be consulted.

It is one thing to write in the substance of law provisions which he who runs may read and which are a definite and positive guidance to the courts in the administration of such law, but it is an entirely different thing to invest any person with the right to make law by rules and regulations and subject to constant changes.

A perusal of this bill would lead one to believe that the underlying thought of its purpose is to invest the Secretary of Agriculture with almost complete dictatorial powers and from whose actions and findings there is very little if any appeal.

There are many more features which should be dealt with but I will name but one more and that is the matter of false advertisement as defined in section 9. The wording of this paragraph leaves wide open

the placing of penalties even on the most innocent advertisement. Basing fines and imprisonment on "ambiguities and inferences creating a misleading impression" places the advertiser of fruits and vegetables in a very dangerous position.

We have enough regulations and safeguards for the consumer now. We do not need more.

In grade regulations and their enforcement, the present law, as applied to grades, condition, etc., as now administered by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics jointly with the States, should remain asit now is and fruits and vegetables should be exempted from the definition "food" in sections 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11 by inserting after the word "food", "other than fresh fruits and/or fresh vegetables." Fruits and vegetables should remain in section 10 covering tolerances. This matter belongs to Foods and Drugs Administration, subject to consultation with the industry, a proper right of appeal and subject to the Government proving its case in the event of seizure as I have heretofore indicated.

There is no chance of appeal in this bill that I can find. If we are to meet adjustments proposed by this bill, then you are going to have thousands, yes millions, of dollars lost. We move about a million cars of fruit and vegetables annually by rail and to force such possible far reaching readjustments, with the situation as it now is, would be a momentous undertaking. I am speaking only for the million cars moved by rail; then there is equivalent to a million cars moved by truck. It is a colossal undertaking and a dangerous principle to place such an industry under the arbitrary rule of any executive, no matter how wise he may be, and it is an unwise principle to grant powers on the assumption they will not be used. We are prepared to go along on any reasonable basis, but we are not prepared to disrupt all the progress we have made, to again finance the reestablishment de novo of entirely different methods and practices necessary in the movement of our commodities. We would like to submit a brief and it will take us a few days to prepare that.

(The brief referred to by Mr. Fraser follows:)


The proposed Federal Food and Drugs Act, S. 1944, concerns itself with anything which affects the life, structure, and functions of the body of man, or other animals, and all cultivated plants and many not in cultivation. Particular attention must be given to the definitions, for these indicate the scope of this bill. The manufacture, shipment, sale, advertising, and traffic, in interstate commerce, in any and all things coming within the above scope are by this bill placed under the regulations, and rules to be promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture, which can be fixed and changed at will. It conveys supreme powers on an appointed executive without, apparently, right of adequate appeal.

The law proposed is not and amendment to the present Food and Drugs Act but is an entire rewriting of the law.

So far as the fruit and vegetable industry is concerned, the disruption which might be forced on the industry by this law may be of so stupendous and farreaching a character that it might mean the de novo redevelopment of methods and practices in distribution at a cost of untold millions of dollars, the sweeping aside of the practices and laws under which the industry has been developed and now operates and, the possible institution of new methods and practices established, not by law based on economic principles, but by regulations and rules promulgated by an administrative officer of the Government.

We naturally view such sweeping changes with alarm and voice our opposition to the passage of this bill in its present form.

Our interests deal primarily with the food problem. Incident to the production and preparation of food for market, we have an increasing interest in the subject of drugs. In our fertilizers, manures, soil ameliorants, and soil treatments; in the protection of crops against insects and diseases caused by bacteria, fungi, and other agents; in the treatments necessary to prepare our crops for market, their packing, storing, and distribution, we have an ever-increasing recognition of the many ways in which chemistry enters into our life and problems. This bill, however, goes far beyond this. Not only does it provide for control of standards of quality of food, manner of packing and markings on containers, the containers themselves, supervision of methods of packing, storing, and distribution, but it deals with labels, labeling, advertising, manner of wrapping, and marking in the retail store and provides for unknown regulations and rules, yet to be promulgated, to govern in this vast field.

Present laws, Federal and State, the work and study of generations, the rights of States to their laws, developed to meet specific requirements of a continental range of climatic and other conditions, all these are to be swept aside in order that autocratic powers may prescribe what we can eat and when and how it shall be handled.

If the powers are not to be used, they should not be granted. If granted, they will probably be used and if used, they may so disrupt the industry that great and unnecessary loss will be incurred.

The present law defines food as including "all articles used as food * man or other animals."


In this bill the term "food" as defined in section 2 (a) includes everything used for food by man or other animals and all substances entering into their composition. It includes fertilizers for plants and feeding stuffs for animals, the substances from which they are derived and any substance used in their preparation which affects the composition of the crop grown, for example:

In the case of acid phosphate fertilizer, it includes the raw rock from which the fertilizer is prepared and the sulphuric or phosphoric acid used in its acidulation and all the materials entering into the preparation of the sulphuric acid or any other material used in manufacture, for all of these may affect the composition of the crop to which the fertilizer is applied.

In the case of synthetic fertilizers, it covers the air as well as the other ingredients used in their composition.

The proposed act embraces the water used and all fertilizers, manures, lime, land plaster, and other soil ameliorants. Since the bacterial flora and other soil organisms play an important part in determining the nutrient value of the crops grown, cultures of these methods and practices in soil management which increase or reduce their presence and so affect the chemical composition of plants are likewise included.

In endorsing the bill Secretary Wallace referred to the "totally new food constituents and important nutrition elements like the vitamins."

Since the vitamin content of milk is affected by the way in which a cow is fed and the way in which the hay was cured and the manner of light to which the cow has access, these are included. Wide variation exists in the vitamin contents of plants and animals. Boards of health have for years required pasteurizing of milk in specific manner only to find recently that the process ordered and practiced destroyed the vitamins. We are not ready to have standards promulgated in this field for our plants and we cannot too strongly express our disapproval of the proposed manner of placing regulations in effect.

We are not prepared for the possibility of having long established producing sections ruled out of the producing field on account of vitamin content of the roduct or soil, water and climatic conditions resulting in "constituent" content that may not meet temporary theories, or to have rules established as to the use of fertilizer and culture, all to meet an ideal or theoretical concept of what ought to be built into the product by nature. This bill is more far-reaching in its possibilities than many appreciate.



Section 2 (e)-"Interstate Commerce": The definition as now drawn covers "foreign commerce" as well as "interstate".

Section 2 (h) and (k): The terms "package" and "in package form" should be clarified. Fresh fruits and vegetables are displayed in their original packages or in bulk. The consumer buys primarily in small quantities by weight, measure,

« PreviousContinue »