Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to the vicinity of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, on the south. This species is distinguished from others in having twenty pairs of gills, and in having its first three pairs of legs terminating in chelae, or pincers, the first pair of which are large and massive. The word "lobster" shall not be included in the common and usual name of (1) such similar species of Homaridae as the Nephrops norvegicus, commonly found in the waters of Norway, and the Homarus gammarus, common to the waters of Europe; (2) members of the family Palinuridae, including the representative genera Panulirus, Jasus, and Palinurus which have sometimes been called by such terms as rock lobster, spiny lobster, sea-crawfish, red lobster, thorny lobster, langouste, crayfish, Sydney crayfish and Kreef; (3) members of the Scyllaridae family, sometimes referred to as the Spanish lobster or bear crab; or (4) the fresh water crayfish, or crawfish of the Austroastacidae, Parastacidae, and Estacidae families.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1957.

LOBSTER LEGISLATION TO BE INTRODUCED BY SENATOR PAYNE

(From the office of Senator Payne)

Senator Frederick G. Payne (Republican, Maine) announced today that he is introducing legislation to impose a minimum size on lobsters which may be shipped in interstate commerce or imported into the United States from foreign countries and define the word "lobster" for purposes of the Federal Food and Drug Act. Senator Payne has devoted considerable study to the problems facing the commercial fisheries, and his lobster bill is designed to assist lobster fishermen in meeting unfair foreign competition and to assist the States in enforcing their own laws relating to lobster fishing.

Senator Payne indicated that practically every lobster-producing State has a minimum size limit on lobsters which may be taken or possessed within the State. The justification for regulating the minimum size of lobsters stems from both conservation and economic factors. The purpose of the Payne lobster bill is to make illegal the shipment in interstate commerce of lobsters that are illegal under the laws of the State in which they are taken or possessed. If there is no State law governing the size of lobsters, the bill would establish a minimum size of 36 inches measured along the center of the body shell. The measure would also make illegal the importing from a foreign nation of lobsters that would be illegal under the laws of the State into which they are imported, or in the absence of State laws lobsters less than the minimum size established by the bill could not be brought into the State.

The Maine Senator pointed out that the bill is patterned after the Black Bass Act which has been in effect for several years and which prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of fish which are illegal under the laws of the State in which the shipment originates. Payne's bill differs from the Black Bass Act in two significant respects. The first is that Payne's bill is somewhat broader in that in addition to barring shipments in interstate commerce it prohibits imports of lobsters that are illegal under the laws of the State involved or under the terms of this bill if there is no State law. The second difference from the Black Bass Act is that the Payne lobster bill defines the meaning of the word "lobster" for purposes of the Federal Food and Drug Act.

Among other things the Federal Food and Drug Act prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of food that is misbranded. With regard to lobster there has never been any adequate definition of just what species of shellfish were included within the term Senator Payne said. As a result many crustaceans that are not really lobsters at all are shipped under the label of lobster. Such product as African rock lobster (an entirely different species than the lobster of the North Atlantic waters of the United States and Canada), crawfish, and many other species are commonly shipped and sold bearing only the label of "lobster." Payne's bill would provide that the word "lobster" could be used as a label only on the species Homarus americanus, which is the lobster common to the Atlantic coastal waters of the United States northward from Cape Hatteras into Canada.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Hon. FREDERICK G. PAYNE,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES,
Washington, D. C., May 26, 1958.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR PAYNE: Information collected by this Bureau indicates that the price of lobsters has declined sharply in recent weeks as indicated in your letter of May 19.

Prices for lobsters delivered to Boston ranged from 60 to 65 cents per pound until early May. On May 4 the price broke to 47 to 50 cents per pound due to. large imports from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. A further decline to 45 cents took place on May 8, and on May 16 lobsters were being quoted at from 42 to 47 cents per pound. This would be equivalent to about 40 cents per pound in Maine.

The decline in lobster prices is not unusual since heavy imports of lobsters. normally occur the latter part of April and in May and prices normally drop at this time.

In 1957, the price of lobsters at Boston until May 1 was about 55 cents per pound. On May 2 there was a decline to 50 cents which held fairly steady until the 22d when large shipments were received from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The price declined to 48 to 50 cents and on May 24 dropped to 45 to 50 cents, depending on size and quality.

In 1956 the price decline was unusually drastic. Prices for lobsters ranged from 78 to 90 cents per pound delivered at Boston until April 27. During the week of April 28 to May 4, they declined to 55 cents and during the following week dropped to 45 to 50 cents.

The price decline in the current year occurred somewhat earlier than in 1957 or 1956 since shipments from Newfoundland came in earlier than is customary. As the production of lobsters in the United States is low during May and June, dealers depend mainly on imports from Canada during this period.

We are unable to furnish you at this time with information on the total imports of lobsters from Canada during April or the early part of May. Monthly data released by the Bureau of the Census on imports of lobsters do not become available until 6 weeks or more after the end of the month. It will therefore be a number of weeks before statistics are available on the total volume of lobsters received from Canada during April.

Information on the domestic production and imports of lobsters by months for recent years is shown graphically on pages 32 and 33 in the April-June issue of Commercial Fisheries Outlook which is enclosed.

If you have any questions concerning the lobster situation, we shall be pleased to attempt to answer them.

[blocks in formation]

Landings of Maine lobsters during 1957 decreased by 19 percent over 1956, a record year. They will continue at a low level this quarter, only slightly higher than in the first quarter (chart 35).

Imports from Canada, January-December

Pounds

1957

1956_-.

22, 218, 000. 22, 484, 000

Imports of lobsters from Canada during 1957 were only about 1 percent below those in 1956. The second quarter is the seasonal high period for northern lobster imports, when approximately 50 percent of the total is entered (chart 36).

Prices should have a tendency to decrease in view of increased supply during latter part of the second quarter.

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][graphic]

1939.
1940_

1950.

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956.

1957 3

SUPPLIES OF CERTAIN FISHERY PRODUCTS

Supply of fresh and frozen spiny lobsters, various years

1 Round weight.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Supply of fresh and frozen northern lobsters, various years

[blocks in formation]

The answer comes from the Maine lobster industry. The lobster people are
quite rightly aroused by the importation into this country of various forms of
foreign "lobster." The imports are decidedly inferior crustaceans, as far as
eating goes. They include such things as tails of Australian and Chilean cray-
fish and African rock lobster, packaged and sold as "lobster."

We think the American eating public will be angry, too, when they find out
how they are being duped. The foreign meat is removed from the shell, frozen,
and shipped into this country. A Rockland lobster dealer said he learned on a
recent New York visit that a $3.75 "lobster" dinner actually contained only 58
cents worth of these phony substitutes.

Unfortunately, many people do not know how lobster should taste. It is easy
to disguise the crayfish meat by putting it in a "lobster" salad or Newburg.
People who have never dined on an honest Maine lobster eat such ersatz and
don't know the difference.

Senator Payne has a bill in Congress which would limit use of the word
"lobster" to that noble species known as Homarus americanus. It lives in the
chill waters of the North Atlantic from Cape Hatteras to Labrador. There is
no worthy substitute for its succulence.

We hope the Senator and the Maine lobster people win their point. It would
protect the unsuspecting restaurant patron. And also the hard-working lobster-
men of Maine, who haul in 85 percent of the United States catch of Homarus
americanus.

[Maine Coast Fisherman, February 1957]

WHAT'S IN THE STEW, BUSTER?

It may be a little late in the day to set forth on a white steed to do battle in the fair name of New England's Homarus americanus. But Senator Frederick Payne, Republican of Maine, is going to have a go at it.

The Senator has announced his intention to introduce legislation defining the word "lobster." He will propose that the branding of any of God's creatures, other than the true North American lobster, by this hallowed name be actionable under the Pure Food and Drug Act.

This is stirring news. Suggesting that it may be a trifle late is another way of saying that strong action should have been taken sooner. It might well be the old story of locking the barn door after the horse (read lobster) has been stolen. By now the South African rock "lobster" industry has spent millions promoting this imposture. Commission merchants have made fancy profits handling this spiny mountebank. Powerful steamship lines are fattening their coffers trafficking in the critters. And perhaps most discouraging of all, restaurateurs have found that it's easier (and cheaper) to throw out a tail of penuliris when the customer asks for lobster Newburg than it is to stock and serve Homarus.

It may seem a bit strong to term this a fraud perpetrated upon the American public. Intent is the biggest word in law, and there is little doubt that the intent is, and has been to exploit-to cash in on-the good name of Homarus and the high esteem in which it has been held for a thousand years. And who can offer an innocent interpretation of the fact that Maine dealers who ship lobster meat are being asked to include a larger and larger proportion of claw meat in their packages? Clearly, New England and Maritime lobster is being used as window dressing. One piece of claw meat in an ersatz lobster stew can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time. The Pure Food and Drug Act put the patent medicine and electric belt merchants out of business by insisting on honest labeling. We admit the comparison is invidious, and we don't wish to suggest that the African tail merchants are selling a harmful commodity. It may even be nourishing.

But it just ain't lobster, Buster.

So we're with you all the way, Senator. And don't let the opposition hand you that line about what's in a name. There've been millions of Yankee dollars invested in that name, for one thing. But our prime pitch is for the American public who don't like to be fooled any of the time.

They may not care about the name; but they want to know what's in that lobster stew!

Hon. FREDERICK PAYNE,

C. OWEN SMITH.

ROCKLAND, MAINE, January 14, 1957.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PAYNE: I have read with great interest the newspaper accounts of your proposed bill to the 85th Congress on interstate regulation of lobster and clarification of the term "lobster" for the purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. I should like to make several observations in regard to this proposed legislation. First, I can appreciate the political aspects of your proposed minimum measure of three and one-sixteenth. Secondly, I am most interested in the appellative controversy potential in your attempted clarification of terminology. Your battle obviously will be with the dealers of rock lobster, warty lobster, and other crayfish families of the Decapoda order that plagiarize the name "lobster" at the expense of Homarus americanus. I am certain you have capable biologist available for all your necessary research yet the thought occurred that even they might possibly overlook some pertinent details. For example, while as you know you have to go down through the zoological classifications to genus to rid yourself of all intruders your battle was fought and won. biologically speaking at Graz back in 1910 by the International Zoological Congress. I quote from the works of the eminent late marine biologist Dr. Hobart Herrick of Western Reserve University as it appeared in the Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, volume XXIX, 1909, Document No. 747, issued July 13, 1911 (p. 160f.):

"***The technical names for the lobsters adopted in a former work are here retained, pending a decision upon the question by the International Committee on Nomenclature of the International Zoological Congress, which met in Boston

« AnteriorContinuar »