Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, western division, protests against the passage of this bill in its present form and urges the Congress of the United States to consider the food industry on its own merits in a separate bill.

This resolution is filed only as expressing the position of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, western division. I have no authorization to express an opinion on this point for the International Apple Association.

There are certain things that the fruit growers are particularly concerned with. I might say that we very much appreciate Dr. Campbell and Dr. Haven Emerson's statement in regard to the necessity for the tolerances on fruits and vegetables. A very wise legislator and administrator named Moses, 3,500 years ago, told his people that the great problem confronting them in their existence was the control of insects. From that time to this we have had increasing reason to appreciate the force of his statements. He said, "You cannot serve Baal", for Baal was the god of flying things, "If you are going to live, you cannot let him live; you must rid yourselves of him and his, entirely." To attempt to meet the lead tolerance this year many of our industry tried palliative measures; we tried to spray with materials which were suggested and that were new, so that our fruit would be within the tolerances. They failed to control. It cost the fruit growers millions of dollars. The insects destroyed their crops. Dr. Freeman suggested yesterday that there was difficulty in meeting the export standards of tolerances in connection with Maryland apples. I wish to assure you that the tolerances now in force in the United States assure the consumer more protection than is found in any other part of the world. Any apples that can meet the standard of the United States can be exported. The United States is the only country having a tolerance for lead. Dr. Freeman probably misunderstood the conditions as to spray residue in Maryland. The exports are not going because of spray residue holding them up; but because few exports are going out; it is our business relations that are holding them up-tariffs, duties, quotas, and other trade barriers. Our growers are particularly concerned with certain phases of the bill, and one is section 24. In Great Britain the retailer is held liable if found distributing apples or other fruit showing a spray residue in excess of the tolerance. I do not know from reading this bill, but I would like to know, who would be held liable here-whether the grower, the packer, the wholesaler, or the retailer is to be proceeded against in this county. We believe it would allow us to be victimized if somebody decided that a child had a stomach ache and alleged it was due to spray residue on the apples and it might be only the tannin in the apple or something else, and we ask that this section go out. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fraser, I agree with you fully. I said several times I cannot, for the life of us, see why this was put in the bill. If the injury is received from some food or drug, there is a method provided for it at the present time.

Mr. FRASER. We think it would lead to no end of trouble and we would be in a serious position. We would like, if it is possible, that the word "may" be used in sections 3 and 7 in the first line of each. The CHAIRMAN. Sections 3 and 7?

Mr. FRASER. That it "may" be deemed to be adulterated, not "shall." If our industry is going under these regulations, I want to

30390-34- -14

point out that we are under a great many regulations already. None of our packed apples marked under Federal specifications or State mandatory grade laws can be offered for sale unless they meet the grade specifications established for the grade, and, if as laymen, we read this bill, we find that it confers the power on the Secretary of Agriculture, although Dr. Campbell assures me that it will not interfere with current practices in packing, grading, and marketing of apples, it will confer the power to specify the manner in which we must pack and the manner in which we shall mark, and the standards of quality and of fill of package for all fruits and vegetables but, Dr. Campbell has assured me that this matter of standardization of grades, and so forth, will be left with the Bureau of Agriculture Economics, where the handling of this matter now lies. We do not want two bureaus charged with this regulation.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that matter that you are referring to now? Mr. FRASER. "Section 11. The Secretary is hereby authorized to fix, establish, and promulgate definitions of identity and standards of quality and fill of container for any food."

There are many things with which we have had trouble in the past. We have 48 standards for grades in our different States. We have also definitions of varieties put out by the various Departments of Agriculture, and in our marking requirements for packed apples we now require that even the variety name be marked on the package. We have developed standards of requirements, we have tolerances in regard to spray residue and we had had problems in connection with the fill of the container. At one time we were confronted with regulations possibly prohibiting the use of paper wraps and caps and cushions. The position was taken that these should not be included. My point is that if you give us such phraseology that fresh fruits and vegetables are excluded from the portions of the bill dealing with the provisions covered in Section 11 above and so safeguard our interests, we shall then feel that we are being properly treated in this matter. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we were to do that, are there existing laws now that give protection to the public in connection with the sale of fruits and vegetables?

Mr. FRASER. Absolutely. The Federal Government through the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has for years established permissive grades and specifications for apples, pears, and other fruits and a long line of fresh vegetables which grades they keep up to date. These grades together with the State mandatory grades form the basis for the United States Inspection Service for grade and condition. All of the leading apple-producing States, both east and west, have mandatory grade laws or mandatory grades established in conformity with law.

The CHAIRMAN. When you speak about fruits and vegetables, you are speaking of raw fruits and raw vegetables?

Mr. FRASER. Yes. We feel that this matter of grades should be left with the various agencies where it now is. It has taken 20 years of hard work to reach our present position and we are opposed to any disruption.

The question of filling packages is also a very serious problem with A proper pack is essential to make a satisfactory delivery. American growers have been packing apples for 200 years for export. They have had experience. If fruits and vegetables go out of these

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

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