(1935-39 -- 1956-57)

Prepared by NATIONAL LIVESTOCK AND MEAT BOARD Source: NATIONAL FOOD SITUATION, APRIL 1958, US. DA.

Mr. WILSON. Here is a book put out by a lady that you know, and I imagine you have been at Ruth Wakefield's place, the Toll House Tavern, in Whitman, Mass., have you?

Senator PAYNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILSON. In fact, you haven't been to the New England States unless you have eaten at this one particular place.

Senator PAYNE. We are having a few commercial plugs now?
Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Mrs. Wakefield wrote this book and she told the people how to prepare lobsters and seafood so that more people will eat out-Wakefield's Toll House Recipes.

Senator PAYNE. You drop by my office and I will be glad to give you some books that you can distribute, too, on how to prepare lobsters. Mr. WILSON. We would certainly be delighted to have them.

I am about through. I have something for my friend, Senator Lausche from Ohio.

One of the best seafood places in the country, where he eats, is in Columbus. I was there last Thursday, and with a committee of eight and we discussed this lobster bill, and we think it is as bad as the trout bill. And we hope the President vetoes it if you pass it. Senator PAYNE. Do you think you are ready for a coffee break? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; we are ready.

Senator PAYNE. Mr. Wilson, let me say that we are happy indeed to have you here. I don't know that there is any need for the admiral figuring on coming up here. I think you have given us a pretty good review of the entire situation.

Senator PAYNE. The next witness is Mr. Donald L. McKernan, Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. McKERNAN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. McKERNAN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to appear before this committee.

Senator PAYNE. I don't know as we have had too many bills-we have had a few but not too many-for you to come up and officially testify on, since you have assumed those duties.

Mr. McKERNAN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Donald L. McKernan. I am Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and I am a practicing fisheries biologist. That term was used yesterday by both you and Senator Lausche.

The Department of the Interior, Senator, is very well aware of the problems facing the lobster industry on the east coast. We are actively searching for ways of helping the lobster industry and we are working very closely with the very competent State agencies the one from Maine, Mr. Green, testified about yesterday.

We agree that there is a serious problem and that a solution is needed. Furthermore, we are very pleased and proud and we respect the attempts that you have made, both in this legislation and in others, to help the fishing industry of the United States.

With respect to this particular bill, S. 237, after considerable study by members of our staff, we find that we must report unfavorably on it for the following reasons:

(1) This measure purports to have certain conservation objectives under title I of the act which follows closely the language of the act of Congress which deals with interstate shipment of fish (16 U. S. C. 851). This particular act, title I, follows closely the Black Bass Act. It provides for aid in certain respects by the Federal Government in the enforcement of State conservation laws and regulations concerning fish, we deem inclusion of like language in S. 237 to be unnecessary because of a statute already in effect.

Since there seems to be some doubt as to whether lobsters come within the province of the Black Bass Act, perhaps some clarification of the original act may be necessary. We feel that the conservation objectives of S. 237 could be most easily obtained by the changing of the phrase "black bass or other fish" to "black bass, other fish or lobster" in the statute referred to, together with a few minor additions.

(2) Title I of S. 237 further would prohibit the importation into this country from foreign countries of lobsters with a carapace measurement of less than 3/16 inches. We feel that this is not a true conservation measure but rather a restriction on a class of foreign imports.

A great deal of discussion has already been put on the record before this committee concerning this particular matter, Mr. Senator, and I think perhaps little more need be said about it, except that it is correct that in Canada, and perhaps certain other places, lobsters would grow to maturity at a smaller size and it would not be harmful to the conservation of this species to allow them to be harvested and utilized at a size smaller than 316, which perhaps is the correct size for the harvesting of lobsters in all or some of the States along the Atlantic coast. But this does not necessarily mean that in other environments, in other areas, that a lobster could not be harvested at a smaller size and still be well within the restrictions imposed by conservation principles.

Senator PAYNE. Do you assume from your reading of the bill and your interpretation of the bill, S. 237, that it applies to both live as well as processed or only to the live lobster?

Mr. McKERNAN. I think after your explanation, Mr. Senator, it is obvious that it was your intent to apply to live lobsters. Perhaps the bill could be clarified very slightly in that respect, however.

Senator PAYNE. Would you be good enough, for the benefit of the committee-forgive me for injecting in here you mentioned about the possibility of an amendment to the Black Bass Act, with a few minor additions. Would you be willing to sit down with the staff to let us have your views on that?

Mr. McKERNAN. We would be pleased to do so, Senator.

If such size restrictions as a national policy with respect to size of lobsters were deemed necessary, it should rightly be the subject of a separate legislative proposal, the enforcement of which, if enacted, should be given to the United States Bureau of Customs, the agency generally charged with such duties.

With regard to that portion of the measure dealing with import restrictions, we would like to call attention to the following excerpt

from the President's letter of January 10, 1957, to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives:

As an aspect of national policy dedicated to fostering the security and economic growth of the United States, this Nation seeks to encourage in all feasible ways the continued expansion of beneficial trade among the free nations of the world. In view of this policy I am, as I have said before, reluctant to impose a barrier to our trade with friendly nations unless such action is essential and clearly promising of positive, productive results to the benefit of the domestic industry in question.

The nations which would be adversely affected by the enactment of S. 237 would be: Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the West Indian possessions of Great Britain and France, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, which ship large quantities of lobsters to the United States. In addition, 15 other nations have exported minor quantities of lobsters and spiny lobsters to the United States.

Senator PAYNE. Let me ask there, so that we will get this question clear. You mention these countries: Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the West Indian possessions of Great Britain and France, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia which ship large quantities of lobsters to the United States.

Do they ship large quantities of lobsters to the United States?

Mr. McKERNAN. They ship large quantities of species of lobsters other than Homarus and Americanus, except Canada, which ships them in.

Senator PAYNE. I want the record to be clear on that, that lobsters, as we know them, and as they are commonly understood by the American public at least, lobsters as such, do not come from all of these countries.

Mr. McKERNAN. No; that is correct, Senator.

Senator PAYNE. That a species that has taken a name, or has assumed the name of a lobster, with a prefix to it, does come from some of these other countries?

Mr. McKERNAN. Yes. Of course, perhaps the European lobster, which to some extent is shipped in, had the name originally, and in : a sense our American lobster took the name from it.

Senator PAYNE. That's right.

Mr. McKERNAN. Originally.

The demand by the consuming public of the United States for lobsters, spiny lobsters, and closely related crustaceans, cannot be filled by either the domestic production of lobsters-Homarus americanusor by the imports of these lobsters from Canada. United States production of these lobsters in 1956 total almost 30 million pounds while imports from Canada the same year amounted to about 23 million pounds, both based on round or whole weight. The United States production of spiny lobsters that year totaled over 3 million pounds, round weight.

Imports of spiny lobsters-and I should add there that that is a common name which is often applied to rock lobsters, for examplewere over 25 million pounds, mainly of the tail segments. When converted to round weight so as to be comparable to the data on New England production and imports from Canada, the round weight of

29315-587

spiny lobster imports would be equivalent to over 75 million pounds. Thus, the domestic production of Homarus americanus can supply less than one-fourth of the demand in the United States.

(3) Title II of S. 237 would require, for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, that the word "lobster" be applied only to that species of lobster found in the Atlantic waters contiguous to the North American coastline from the vicinity of Henley Harbor, Labrador, on the north, to the vicinity of Cape Hatteras on the south. It also would prohibit the inclusion of the words "in the common and usual name of similar species" or in connection with the designation of members of other families within the order, such as "rock lobster," "spiny lobster," or "red lobster."

Taxonomically, both the American and the spiny lobster belong to the order Decapoda, which group includes also the crabs, the shrimp and the crayfish, sometimes called crawfish. This group is divided, however, so that the American lobster belongs to the family Homaridae (Nephrosidae), the spiny lobster to a separate family, Palinuridae. Again, the American lobster (family Homaridae) is a closer relative to the freshwater crayfish (family Astacidae) than is the spiny lobster (family Palinuridae), since the first two species named are in the same subgroup or section (Astacura) while the latter is a separate section (Palinura).

This is, of course somewhat technical in nature, but the question came up yesterday.

Senator PAYNE. Was that not a freshwater crayfish depicted in the natural?

Mr. McKERNAN. Yes.

Senator PAYNE. I thought it was. It is not a salt water?

Mr. McKERNAN. The crayfish is normally the the common name crayfish is commonly applied to freshwater members of this particular subgroup Astacura.

While the word "lobster" has been used for many years in connection with the designation of the crustacean known as spiny or rock lobster and in other designations of similar nature, the problem presented apparently has been recognized by both the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration.

The regulations and announcements of both of these agencies have stipulated at various times as far back as 1915 that when the term "lobster" is used for other than the genus Homarus, it must be accompanied by a qualifying word such as "rock" or "spiny" in direct connection with that word and in type of equal size and prominence. Thus, we feel that present legislation is adequate to protect the consumer against misrepresentation, although there may be some question as to whether it completely precludes the possibility of misleading the uninformed consumer.

Accordingly, our Department recommends that S. 237 be not

enacted.

Senator PAYNE. You understand, of course, Mr. McKernan, that we did not intend in any way this bill as a conservation measure as such. I am talking now with reference to the imposition of a 316 minimum. It is simply directed at asking that lobsters as such that come in do not come in at a size smaller than that which is the smallest that we, in our lobster-producing States, impose upon our own people.