Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

NEW YORK, N. Y., July 15, 1958.

Chairman WARREN MAGNUSON,

Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Relative to bill S. 237, defining lobster and preventing other forms of seafood under this name of lobster from being sold as such. The present law is very specific in this respect, defining imports as rock lobster or rock lobster tails, which are a distinct specie and always referred to as rock lobster. Considerable sums of money have been spent over the past 10 years in advertising the rock lobster tails. So the consumer has a complete knowledge of the rock lobster through this advertising and in no manner do rock lobster infringe on the Maine lobster, furthermore rock lobster tails are always sold in the frozen state, while the Maine lobster is sold in the fresh, and without dissecting any part of said lobster. Therefore I request that you and your committee refrain from changing the present law, which is adequate and protection for all concerned. Very truly yours,

EASTERN COMMISSION Co.,
MICHAEL LIEBL, President.

PHILADELPHIA, PA., July 14, 1958.

CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Please do all you can to stop passage of bill S. 237. We need South African rock lobster in our business. Rock lobster is a true name and we must not forget Africa purchases over $260 million in American products yearly. you.

Thank

WM. M. MCCLAIN, INC.

PORTLAND, MAINE, July 23, 1958.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:

The undersigned, an association consisting of those interested in the fishing industry in the State of Maine, and comprised of boatowners, processors, ship chandlers, and marine insurance agencies, hereby endorses and urges the passage of S. 237.

ASSOCIATED FISHERIES OF MAINE.

NEW YORK, N. Y., July 11, 1958.

SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE,

Washington, D. C.:

We go on record as objecting vigorously to passage of Senate bill 237 from our long experience in wholesale seafoods. We can state authoritatively that rock lobster is not detrimental to Maine lobster in sales; but on the contrary in many localities has actually stimulated the sale of Maine lobster. We urge strongly that you give this consideration as passage of this bill will prove to be an unnecessary hardship with no purpose.

AMERICAN SEA FOOD DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
HARRY STEINBERG, President.

Chairman MAGNUSON,

NEW YORK, N. Y., July 11, 1958.

Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

We understand there is a hearing on bill S. 237. We have read this bill and we strongly object to a change in name of rock lobster tails and deep-sea lobster which names were approved by U. S. P. F. & D. One name as long as 30 years ago. We believe the only effect this bill will have will be to restrain trade and adversely affect our trade relations with friendly foreign nations.

EMPRESS FISHERIES CO., INC.,
BUD NESNOW.

COMMITTEE FOR A NATIONAL TRADE POLICY, INC.,
Washington, D. C., July 17, 1958.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Committee for a National Trade Policy, a committee of American businessmen devoted to the expansion of United States trade with the rest of the world, wishes to register its opposition to Senate bill 237 (and its companion bills) designed "to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the term 'lobster' for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."

We oppose these bills because they would tend seriously to restrict imports of lobster and lobster products for reasons that have no foundation in terms of health standards but are entirely related to efforts of the domestic lobster industry to restrict competition.

The restriction of legitimate competition is in conflict with the tradition and the best interests of the free enterprise system, with the best interests of the consumer, and with the national interest as a whole. In this instance, the effect of such restriction is compounded by the fact that S. 237 would curtail competition that was not really competition from "like" products. Consumers who buy or order lobster are connoisseurs on the subject. They know the distinctive style and flavor of the New England lobster, compared with the lobster imported from Canada and the lobster tails that come from Florida and from many foreign sources. Consumers who order or buy lobster tails, even if they might not be as enthusiastic about the product if it were called crawfish tails, would not be likely to shift their purchases to the New England lobster. There is a big price difference and it would be wrong to assume that the New England lobster industry would benefit.

The lobster tail has as much right to being called lobster as does any other member of the lobster genus, of which the New England lobster is but one member. The term "lobster tail" is accepted by the trade, by the consumer, and by the United States Government as a valid term even though all concerned are aware of the fact that it is really a crawfish tail. Fish nomenclature is such that rock lobster is the same as sea crawfish, and this fish in point is neither lobster nor crawfish.

New England lobster has such a distinctive position in the United States market for fish that there would even be little if any reason for lobster from that region to be marketed specifically as New England lobster, or Maine lobster, or Massachusetts lobster. But if the lobster industry of that region is so concerned about the integrity of their product, such identification-though actually not needed-might be a suitable outlet for such concern.

The provision that interstate and foreign commerce in lobster be limited to lobster not smaller than 316 inches would keep the smaller Canadian lobster out of the United States market-and for no other reason than that the marketing of United States lobster smaller than 316 inches is prohibited by conservation measures in this country. Such a restriction of imports would not mean more business for the United States lobster industry but rather would tend to bring the industry higher prices for what it is allowed to catch-and all at the expense of the American consumer and of a sector of United States trade with Canada.

We believe that the redefinition of ichthyiological nomenclature, as well as the curtailment of the whole lobster market to the procrustean bed of the size limitation set for conservation purposes in this country, would be against the national interest in every respect.

Sincerely yours,

GEORGE L. BELL, President.

LIVE FISH Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., July 16, 1958.

SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE,

Capitol Building, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: We are dealers and distributors in the city of Pittsburgh and cover the tristate area for all types of fish and seafood products.

Our reason for writing to you at this time is our concern for Senate bill 237, which is being heard presently by your committee. I feel that I should bring to

your attention our views on this matter and some information relative to this bill. Enclosed is a statement of our views and objections which we have also forwarded to our State representatives.

Should you want any further information we will be glad to forward it to you. Thank you for your interest and cooperation in this matter.

Respectfully yours,

BERNARD BENKOVITZ, Vice President.

VIEWS AND OBJECTIONS TO SENATE BILL No. 237

We object strongly to Senate bill S. 237 regulating the interstate transport of lobster and the definition of "lobster." The following statement lists our views and objections to bill No. 237.

Rock lobster tails imported from foreign nations-South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Cuba-are completely different species than the species known as Maine lobsters. In no way are rock lobster tails sold or merchandised in competition with the species genus Homarus americanus, commonly known as Maine lobster. A perfect illustration is a restaurant menu which lists both rock lobster tails and Maine lobster as two completely different entrees. The word "lobster" is a descriptive noun describing many different varieties of the crustacean family such as Polinaurs Argus and Jasus Llandi. It is cetrainly not a word which

belongs to or describes that particular lobster found in Maine.

The growth of the sale of rock lobster tails in this country has grown tremendously in the past 10 years and is now a vital and major part of the seafood industry from coast to coast. It is not the intent of the producers, importers, dealers, distributors, retail outlets, and restaurants to confuse the consumers with the sale of rock lobster tails with lobster known as Homarus americanus (Maine lobster). These two completely different products, rock lobster tails and Homarus americanus, are merchandised and sold by all those named above as different products and, as a result, should not be regulated by this bill, as is attempted.

Much money has been spent in advertising for the purpose of informing the consumer the difference between rock lobster tails and Maine lobster. It would be foolish to hurt a major part of the seafood industry of this country for a small, minor, selfish segment of the industry. We in Pittsburgh, as distributors and wholesalers of both products, rock lobster tails and Maine lobsters, would suffer a tragic blow as a result of passage of this bill, as would all dealers, retail outlets, distributors, restaurants, and importers.

I am sure that it is not the intent of this committee to hurt many people in an industry for the benefit of a few, and of equal importance to hurt and damage the flow of merchandise from foreign nations, such as South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Cuba. I am sure that we definitely export more to these nations than do we import, and that the passage of this bill would do much to hurt the flow of products between ourselves and these nations.

LIVE FISH CO.,
BERNARD BENKOWITZ,
Vice President.

CENTURY SEAFOODS, INC., Philadelphia, Pa., July 14, 1958.

CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: We feel that passage of Senate bill S. 237 would be detrimental to the best interests of our business and the business of many other importers, and would reflect unfavorably upon the trade balance between this country and the Union of South Africa.

A great deal of money has been spent on publicity, public relations, etc., of South African rock lobster tails, which has also been effective for the native Maine lobster.

We feel that these items are separate and distinct from one another, and are not on a competitive basis.

Therefore, it is our contention that passage of this bill will in no way further the ends of the American fisherman or producers, but would work a hardship on many firms in this country.

Respectfully,

WILMER BRYER.

Re Senate bill S. 237.

Hon. W. G. MAGNUSON,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

RUPERT FISH CO., INC., New York, N. Y., July 11, 1958.

DEAR SENATOR: Title II of this bill, section 201, states that, for the purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the word "lobster" shall mean "only that species of decapod crustaceans of the genus Homarus known as Homarus americanus. The word "lobster" shall not be included in the common and usual name, and a number of species are mentioned and specific reference is made to the term "rock lobster." As we understand it, this means the bill will make it illegal under Federal law to call rock lobster by its true

name.

South African rock lobster has spent a sizable sum of money, after Federal agencies had approved the nomenclature of "rock lobster" for the product. In advertising and publicizing South African rock lobster, it has never been misrepresented, either as to country of origin or name of product-"rock lobster." There was never any time that the consumer did not have a complete knowledge of what she was buying from the advertising set forth by the South African interests. It could not be sold as Maine lobster, since everyone knows that Maine lobster is the entire crustacean and not just the tail. Furthermore, there is much proof to the effect that specifically, Homarus or Maine lobster, as it is commonly called, has increased in popularity and in area of distribution since the advent and promotion of the South African product. The two products are not competitive, so that the imported product is not in any way hurting the industry of the United States for Maine lobster.

In protection of our own interest, we wish to protect this vital segment of our business, as well as keep the trade between the various nations of the free world open.

We, therefore, respectfully ask that you vote "No" on this bill.

Yours very truly,

H. K. EARL.

Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

FARRELL LINES, INC., New York, N. Y., March 1, 1957.

Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: My attention has been directed to bill No. S. 237, introduced by Senator Frederick G. Payne, of Maine, as well as companion bills H. 2445, 2464, and 3023, introduced into the House by Congressmen Hale, McIntire, and Coffin, respectively. It is my understanding that these bills have been referred to the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

The food and drug authorities have approved and sanctioned the use of the words "rock lobster" for over 35-years. These bills, in my opinion, attempt to divert the good purposes of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to the special advantage of special interests and to gain the sole use of the generic term "lobster" for these fishing in special waters.

The import trade in South African rock lobster, which has been developed in cooperation with our company over many years, is an important source of revenue to our line and a producer of dollars to stimulate the export of the products of American farms, furnace, and factories.

This trade has been developed over the years by the packers and importers in cooperation through the South African Rock Lobster Association. Over the last 10-year period, this organization alone has expended over a half million dollars in advertising South African rock lobster tails. This organization has always been meticulous and fair in conducting its advertising in presenting the product to the consuming public as South African rock lobster.

Should this legislation come before Congress, may I enlist your support in opposing it.

Very truly yours,

JAMES A. FARRELL, Jr., President.

Re Senate bill 237.

BOOTH FISHERIES CORP.,
Chicago, Ill., July 11, 1958.

CHAIRMAN, INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE,
Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of my company, which has branches in all of the principal cities of the United States and who does business in all of the States in the Union, I wish to register a vigorous protest against the above-captioned bill. If it were to become a law, it would prevent those engaged in the production and marketing of rock lobsters from the State of Florida and those engaged in the importing and marketing of rock lobsters from Cuba, Mexico, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, the Caribbean countries, and others from calling their product by its true name. This would virtually destroy an important segment of the fisheries and would be of little or no benefit to the Maine lobster industry. A valuable food would be denied the American public and great harm would be done the fishing industry in the State of Florida, our good neighbors to the south of us, and those engaged in the marketing of rock lobsters throughout the United States.

Similarly, I oppose section 102 of the above bill as the provision requiring the Federal Government to virtually police State laws and impose the provisions of these State laws on lobster imports is discriminatory and unworkable. It would only have the effect of irritating our good friend to the north, Canada, and I believe it to be to our best interests to cultivate Canada's friendship rather than alienate it.

It is unfortunate that this bill was ever introduced and I trust that the committee will disapprove it.

Very truly yours,

R. P. FLETCHER, Jr.

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION,
Mount Vernon, N Y., April 23, 1957.

Re S. 237, Payne, interstate transportation of lobsters.
Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

The Capitol, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Payne bill embodies two main purposes, (1) the limitation of the use of the term "lobster" to the North Atlantic lobster, (2) the support of lobster size restrictions in interstate commerce by (a) the removal of any possible immunity of lobster from State law on the ground that the lobster is in interstate commerce (b) the imposition of a Federal penalty for the interstate transportation of lobsters acquired or possessed in violation of State law (c) the establishment of a 3 inch minimum size in Federal law.

The Commission is not concerned with the provisions of the bill respecting the use of the term "lobster" since under the compact its purview is limited to conservation matters.

In

The Commission recognizes the well-meant intentions of the legislation. general, it is in accord with these objectives. However, the Commission must oppose the bill. First, recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court embodying sweeping applications of the doctrine of preemption and broad liberties in interpreting the intent of Congress make it difficult for State governments to know what effect Federal legislation will have on State law and administration and what the courts ultimately will divine is the intent of Congress. Second, the Federal size limitation in interstate commerce which the bill would establish is lower than those now enforced by all but one State and that State is one of the smallest producers, in fact does not produce enough to meet its own needs. Moreover, this provision would permit the introduction of short lobsters into the markets of States with higher minimum sizes and completely disrupt the present management of the lobster fishery.

The Commission approves the provisions of the bill outlined in (a) and (b) above. However, the Commission understands that these aspects are now

« AnteriorContinuar »