« ПретходнаНастави »
SEC. 16C. The Commissioner of Food and Agriculture shall issue a certificate of registration for a dairy farm which, upon inspection made by him within thirty days prior to the date of issuance of such certificate, clearly indicates satisfactory compliance with the requirements as to milk standards and dairy farm inspection provided for in section 12. The certificates of registration for any given registration year shall be plainly distinguishable by color from those issued during immediately preceding years. Each dairy farm registered by the Commissioner of Food and Agriculture shall receive without cost a numbered certificate of registration which shall while in effect, be posted in a conspicuous place at all times on said farm. Each certificate of registration shall expire on the following June thirtieth. An annual application for renewal thereof shall be made to the Commissioner not later than the preceding May thirty-first on forms furnished by the Commissioner. If a certificate of registration is lost a duplicate copy may be obtained from the Commissioner of Food and Agriculture upon written application and at a cost of fifty cents each. The Commissioner of Food and Agriculture shall also from time to time renew a certificate of registration, provided that he has made, in the case of each renewal, at least two inspections of the dairy farm involved within one year prior thereto and has thereby determined that continuing compliance with the requirements of section 12 is being maintained. The Commissioner of Food and Agriculture may accept, as a basis for the issuance or renewal of certificates of registration, the inspection reports of milk inspectors within the Commonwealth with respect to farms inspected by them; provided that such reports certify that such farms maintain compliance with said requirements.
Any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, in the case of farms located without the Commonwealth, the Commissioner of Food and Agriculture shall issue certificates of registration to farms that are certified to him as being in compliance with the requirements of section 12 by a state agency having authority similar to his in the state in which the farm is located, provided that said state agency is certified by the Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare as being qualified to participate in the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments, and provided further that said duly authorized state regulatory agency has first stipulated in writing to the Commissioner that it will, in the issuance and renewal of certificates of registration or like authorization under its own dairy farm inspection program,
similarly accept inspection reports made by the Commissioner of Food and Agriculture with respect to farms located within the Commonwealth.
The Commissioner of Food and Agriculture may, based upon reasonable information alleging violations by a dairy farm, of the regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of section 12 of this chapter, cause an investigation to be made to determine the validity of the violations. If the Commissioner determines that the violation of the regulations constitutes a hazard to health on the basis of reasonable evidence, he shall forthwith withdraw, pursuant to appropriate procedures, the registration of said dairy farm. He shall immediately notify the Department of Public Health of the alleged violations and the results of the subsequent investigation which he may have instituted.
If the dairy farm from which the registration has been withdrawn is located without the Commonwealth, the Commissioner may accept information for re-registration as provided for registration in this section or he may cause an inspection to be made by an investigator of his department to determine if said farm has been brought into compliance with the regulations.
Sec. 9. Section 16J of said Chapter 94 as amended is hereby amended by deleting the words, “milk regulation board” and inserting thereof, the words Department of Public Health”.
Sec. 10. Chapter 94, Section 16L of the General Laws, is hereby repealed and the following new section inserted in place thereof:
Sec. 16L. No person shall sell, exchange, deliver or have in his possession with intent to sell, exchange or deliver milk shipped into the Commonwealth from a milk plant, receiving station or pasteurization plent, unless said milk plant receiving station or pasteurization plant has been licensed by the Department of Public Health.
Whoever sells, exchanges or delivers or has in his possession with intent to sell, exchange or deliver milk shipped into the Commonwealth from a milk plant, receiving station or pasteurization plant, which has not been licensed by the Department of Public Health, shall be punished for a first offense by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, for a second offense by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand dollars or for a subsequent offense by a fine of five thousand dollars or by imprisonment of not less than six months.
The Department of Public Health may accept as a basis for licensing such plants located without the Commonwealth certification that said establishments are in compliance with the requirements of section 12 by a state agency having authority similar to it in the state in which said establishment is located, provided that said state agency is certified by the United States Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare as being qualified to participate in the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments.
Sec. 11. Said Chapter 94 is hereby further amended by striking out section 48D, inserted by section 8 of Chapter 757 of the Acts of 1955, and inserting in place thereof the following section:
SEC. 48D. No person shall blend milk and cream for sale except in an establishment holding a pasteurization plant license. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars for each offense.
SEC. 12. Sections 12A, 12B, 13, 13B, 13C, 16H, 16K, 17, 17A, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 46, 47, 48B, 48C, and 48E of said Chapter 94 are hereby repealed.
EXHIBIT 12-AN ACT TO AMEND THE UNIT PRICING
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-Five
AN ACT To amend the unit pricing law Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SEC. 1. Section 115A of the General Laws is hereby amended by adding after the first sentence, the following new sentence:
The Council may, by regulation, require that unit prices shall appear in all places where item prices appear for packaged commodities regulated in accordance with this section.
(Federal Trade Commission News) FTC ANNOUNCES INVESTIGATION OF RETAIL FOOD PRICES The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it is conducting an industrywide investigation into retail food prices. The investigation will examine the relationships between market structure and concentration levels, on one hand, and the amount of price competition and level of retail food prices, on the other.
This investigation is part of the Commission's broad program involving competition in the food industry. It will focus initially on a limited number of cities: Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, Jersey City, Little Rock and Washington, D.C.
In its resolution directing the investigation and authorizing use of compulsory process, the Commission said its purpose is “To investigate the status and condition throughout the United States and in the various parts thereof of competition in the retail food store industry, including the degree of concentration in ownership or operation of grocery stores; the relationship between the levels of concentration and retail food prices; and the existence of any and all anticompetitive pricing practices, which may involve any violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ..., Section 7 of the Clayton Act ..., or any other statute administered by the Commission.
Pursuant to Commission policy the investigation will be nonpublic.
The Commission is making this announcement pursuant to the recent decision to make the existence of industrywide investigations public. The Commission takes no position as to whether violations of law exist.
EXHIBIT 7-NEWSPAPER REPORT ON USDA ACTIVITY
(From the Boston Evening Globe, Aug. 14, 1975) MEAT COMPANY CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL PAYOFFS
(By Stephen Curwood) Wilson & Co., one of the nation's biggest meat packers, made more than $72,000 in illegal kickback payments to induce stores to sell their meats, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) charged yesterday in an administrative complaint.
Wilson denied the charges in a statement issued yesterday from its Oklahoma City headquarters. Last year, Wilson grossed more than $2 billion from the sale of meats.
USDA said the payoffs and other promotion programs were conducted between 1969 and 1973 by the firm's Albert Lea plant in Minnesota without the knowledge or consent of the food wholesalers and supermarket chains whose companies or employees were involved.
"The payment program was aimed at increasing the sale of Wilson's fresh and processed pork products, thereby gaining a competitive edge over other packers in the same area, a summary of the USDA complaint said.
The USDA said more than $19,000 in "commercial bribe" payoffs were made to 15 employees of five companies to induce them to buy Wilson products. Gifts ranging from $50 worth of sporting goods to a $4000 automobile were made to the employees.
At one firm, Super Valu Stores of Hopkins, Minnesota, Wilson was charged with conducting a point promotion in which store managers and meat and merchandising buyers were given a choice of valuable gifts based upon the volume of Wilson products purchased.
The other outlets whose employees were named included Biggers Bros. of Charlotte, N.C.; Frickson Bros., of Bloomington, Minn., Twin Fair of Depew, N.Y.; and Red Owl Store, Hopkins, Minn. The outlets were not charged.
The USDA charged, in connection with the improper use of cooperative advertising funds, that more than $38,000 was paid, when "in fact no advertising services had been performed and the payments were actually a subterfuge to rebate a portion of the purchase price paid by customers for Wilson products.”
USDA also said Wilson converted to its own use more than $15,000 in cooperative funds that had accrued to two stores without the stores' knowledge or consent.
Wilson denied that its policies or practices "violated the Packers and Stockyards Act as charged.".
“Our policies are and always have been in strict compliance with the law," a Wilson spokesman said. "We feel confident the company is not guilty of any wrongdoing."
A USD, spokesman said the "filing of the complaint does not prove Wilson & Co. has violated the act. The firm has a right to a hearing to determine if the evidence supports the charges. If the charges are proved, the firm would be placed under a cease and desist order.” According to a USDA attorney, Wilson must respond to the charges in 20 days.