« ПретходнаНастави »
regulation, domestic dates are inspected for grade factors which are in addition to food and drug requirements. To clarify the quality factors which are considered when dates are being inspected for grade, they are set forth below:
Color.—Essentially, color factors are graded as it pertains to the uniformity of color associated with the particular color of the variety being inspected. Therefore, color considerations are scored as to whether the variety has characteristically "fairly good color," "reasonably good color,” or “good color."
Uniformity of size.—This factor applies only to whole and pitted styles, and dates are scored as to whether they are "characteristically fairly uniform in size," "reasonably uniform in size," and "practically uniform in size."
There is no size factor pertaining to net weight or count per unit set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Dates.
Absence of defects.—The quality factors considered in scoring for absence of defects ranges from those pertaining to food and drug defects to the physiological defects such as improperly ripened fruit or damaged by broken skins. It is understood that some importers have declared that the factor of broken skins would preclude them from entering dates. The truth is that under United States grade C, there is a 100-percent tolerance for broken skins.
Character.-Character requirements under the United States Standards for Grades of Dates pertain to the texture and pliability applicable to the variety of dates being inspected. Scores are given for character which are defined as "fairly good character," "reasonably good character," and "good character."
SAFEGUARDS EXISTING UNDER SECTION 8 (E) We are advised that certain importers have objected to the bill on the ground that variations between some imported and domestic varieties would in fact preclude the importation of dates because the grade requirements could not equitably be applied to imported dates. This is not true. Even assuming there are variations, there are adequate safeguards provided in section 8 (e), title IV, Public Law 690 (68 Stat. 906), the applicable portion of which reads as follows: "Whenever the Secretary of Agriculture finds that the application of the restrictions under a marketing order to an imported commodity is not practicable because of variations in characteristics between the domestic and imported commodity, he shall establish with respect to the imported commodity such grade, size, quality, and maturity restrictions by varieties, types, or other classifications as he finds will be equivalent or comparable to those imposed upon the domestic commodity under such order."
While this safeguard is provided in section 8 (e) its applicability is in fact negated by the very existence of the United States Standards for Grades of Dates.
MARCH 12, 1958. Mr. J. L. HARVEY, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Food and Drug Division, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARVEY: Mr. Dwight K. Grady, before a subcommittee of the House Agricultural Committee, in support of H. R. 7760, testified that:
1. The present quality control under the Federal order (order No. 64. Marketing Orders, Part 964, Dried Figs) is stricter than food and drug (inspection of imported dried figs and fig paste).
2. The 5-percent tolerance established under the order for insect infestation is more restrictive than the food and drug regulation.
3. Food and drug regulations (USDA, Bureau of Chemistry, dried figs, March 10, 1927) does not make any restrictive provisions with respect to insect heads in sliced figs or fig paste. Such as the maximum limit of 13 insect heads per 100 grams of paste.
We would appreciate it very much if you would tell us if these statements are true and accurate.
Enclosed please find copy of testimony Mr. Grady courteously gave our attorney, Edwin G. Martin, after the subcommittee hearing.
Also enclosed is copy of Federal marketing order No. 64.
S. M. WOFF Co.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Food AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. C., March 18, 1958. Mr. Ross CONNELLY,
8. M. Wolff Co., New York, N. Y. Dear MR. CONNELLY: Your letter of March 12, calls attention to testimony of Mr. Dwight K. Grady before a subcommittee of the House Agricultural Committee on hearings on H. R. 7760.
The regulatory announcement made effective by the Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1927, is still in effect as far as it goes, which refers to figs and establishes a tolerance of 10 percent for figs showing mold, fermentation, worms, larvae, and insect action. It does not refer to sliced figs or fig paste or to fig stock intended for grinding into paste. Parenthetically, the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture is the predecessor of the Food and Drug Administration, which is now an operating agency in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The testimony-says that the marketing order of the Department of Agriculture establishes the maximum limit of 5-percent tolerance for insect infestation where figs would be marketed as sliced figs or fig paste, and that such re quirement constitutes a more stringent one than is imposed by the Food and Drug Administration. The 5-percent tolerance for wormy figs which are to be ground up into paste or to be made up into sliced figs is an internal or manufacturing limitation designed to produce a fig paste that will meet the tolerance for that product as marketed. Fig paste or sliced figs do not lend themselves to examination and classification for worminess on a piece-to-piece basis but must be examined by some method which determines a percentage or proportion of worms on a weight basis. To meet this situation the Food and Drug Administration has long maintained a tolerance on fig paste or sliced figs of 13 insects per 100 grams. This is determined by extracting out worm or larvae parts and counting the heads. Ordinarily the grinding is sufficient to make fragments of each larvae but the heads are likely to be left sufficiently intact to permit identification and counting.
Sliced figs and fig paste found in interstate commerce after shipment from California points, or upon importation from foreign countries, are subject to the same standard by the Food and Drug Administration. That is, the socalled head count of 13 worms or larvae heads per 100 grams.
The suggestion that the application of a 5-percent total count limitation on whole figs which were intended for grinding in paste constitutes a more rigid limitation than is imposed by the Food and Drug Administration, is not accurate. Fig paste or sliced figs, whether imported or not are limited by the Food and Drug Administration to 13 worms per 100 grams.
There is no application of so-called 5-percent insect tolerance under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because tolerances under that act apply to articles offered for market. It is an error to say that the Food and Drug Administration's regulation makes no reference or restrictive provision with respect to insects which may be present in sliced figs or fig paste.
While it is true that no reference is made in the announcement of 1927 to fig paste or sliced figs or tolerances therefor, the tolerance of 13 heads per 100 grams for paste and sliced figs has been in effect for many years.
It is true that the Food and Drug Administration does not operate inspection services on deliveries by growers to packers. From the standpoint of the consumer, the test is the quality of the food that goes on the market rather than the quality of the food that is brought from the farm to the packinghouse, where sorting is done.
The utilization of the 5-percent tolerance for figs intended for grinding into paste under the Agriculture marketing order will have no effect upon the character of the figs employed for grinding into paste in Greece, Turkey, or Portugal. The test that will be applied to the imported article is the 13-head count per 100 grams, which is precisely the same test that will be applied by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture to paste and sliced figs produced in California. Sincerely yours,
John L. HARVEY, Deputy Commissioner.
AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR TRADE WITH ITALY, INC.,
New York, N. Y., March 27, 1958. Hon. GEORGE M. GRANT, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. GRANT: We are writing you in connection with H. R. 11056, introduced by Congressman B. F. Sisk on February 27, 1958, and other similar bills, presently under consideration by your subcommittee.
Our chamber, an American organization incorporated in 1887 under the laws of the State of New York, comprises most leading importers, distributors, and agents handling some of the commodities referred to in the above bills, such as lemons, dried figs, fig paste, and shelled walnuts.
In this connection, we voice our vigorous, considered opposition to any extension of restrictions on said imported commodities by means of an amendment to section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as subsequently amended to date.
We are convinced that no valid reasons exist for relieving the Food and Drug Administration of its present authority to inspect these products. We maintain that the interests of many American importers deserve to be protected against what appears an obvious attempt to unfairly restrain their legitimate trade. Under the apparent purpose of imposing new standards on many foreign products, the proposed legislation seeks in fact to place certain domestic growers in a privileged position. What is more important, the rights of American consumers would be denied arbitrarily as no additional protection would be offered from the sanitary viewpoint, while on the other hand they would be subjected frequently to the payment of higher prices and in many instances denied the privilege of buying the imported variety of goods which they may prefer.
We trust that for the above reasons H. R. 11056 and all other similar bills will not be approved by your subcommittee, and we request that our position be included in its records. With sincere thanks for your valued consideration, we remain, Very truly yours,
MARIO F. HUTTON, Executive Secretary. Mr. Hagen. I believe that concludes our hearing, gentlemen. We certainly appreciate the presence of each one of you and your very fine testimony.
(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee adjourned.)
EXTEND AND EXPAND MILK PROGRAMS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
H. R. 294, H. R. 297, H. R. 8152, H. R. 9618,
H. R. 10324, and H. R. 10390
FEBRUARY 26 AND 27, 1958
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
WASHINGTON : 1958
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HAROLD D. COOLEY, North Carolina, Chairman
WILLIAM S. HILL, Colorado, ex officio member of all subcommittees W. R. POAGE, Texas
CHARLES B. HOEVEN, Iowa GEORGE M. GRANT, Alabama
SID SIMPSON, Illinois E, C. GATHINGS, Arkansas
L'AUL B. DAGUE, Pennsylvania JOHN L, MCMILLAN, South Carolina
RALPH HARVEY, Indiana THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi PAGE BELCHER, Oklahoma CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma
CLIFFORD G. MCINTIRE, Maine WATKINS M. ABBITT, Virginia
WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS, New York JAMES G. POLK, Ohio
ROBERT D. HARRISON, Nebraska CLARK W. THOMPSON, Texas
HENRY ALDOUS DIXON, Utah PAUL C. JONES, Missouri
WINT SMITH, Kansas JOHN C. WATTS, Kentucky
OTTO KRUEGER, North Dakota HARLAN HAGEN, California
CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin
DONALD E. TEWES, Wisconsin VICTOR L. ANFUSO, New York
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota ROSS BASS, Tennessee
DELEGATES COYA KNUTSON, Minnesota
E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska W. PAT JENNINGS, Virginia
JOHN A. BURNS, Hawaii D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida
A. FERNÓS-ISERN, Puerto Rico
JOHN J. HEIMBURGER, Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DAIRY PRODUCTS
THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi, Chairman JAMES G. POLK, Ohio
WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS, New York LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin
DONALD E. TEWES, Wisconsin COYA KNUTSON, Minnesota
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota JOHN A, BURNS, Hawaii