We will proceed to the other witness, John I. Sutherland, executive vice president, American Seed Trade Association.

Oh, I am sorry. I had forgotten we have an author of one of the bills here. We will be very happy to hear at this time from Congressman Jones of North Carolina.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear before this committee in support of H.R. 10236, introduced by my able colleague, Tom Abernethy from the State of Mississippi.

Also, I have introduced H.R. 10552, which is an identical bill. Both bills are brief and provide for uniform standards of agricultural seeds which are transported in interstate commerce.

The need for this legislation is apparent, especially in view of the scientific advances being made in research both by private industry and our agricultural colleges. At the present time many of our States are operating under varying standards of certification as to purity and genetic qualities. This legislation will permit the Secretary of Agriculture to set minimum standards which must be met by seed producers before they will be permitted to engage in interstate commerce.

In 1967 112 billion pounds of certified seed was produced in the United States, and it is estimated that between 50 and 60 percent of the total produced was involved in interstate commerce. Now, all of these sales were made with a varying degree of requirement as to their purity. H.R. 10236 also permits the Secretary to set procedures and standards for certification of seed imported from foreign countries. These standards will be comparable to those required of American producers.

By the same token, it is felt that this requirement of uniformity can be of invaluable assistance in the advancement of our export program. By way of interest I would like to note that between July 1, and June 30, 1968, the farmers of this country exported 8 million pounds of certified alfalfa seed for a total value in excess of $4 million.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, according to the information I have, virtually every segment of the seed producing industry of this Nation is in support of this legislation. I hope this subcommittee will give this a favorable report.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Thank you, Mr. Jones. We appreciate your appearance before us.

Any questions, Mr. Abernethy?

Mr. ABERNETHY, No.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Mathias?

Mr. MATHIAS. No, no questions.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Thank you very much.

Mr. JONES. Thank you.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Sutherland, we appreciate you bearing with us while we had Congressman Jones testify. We will be very happy to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF JOHN I. SUTHERLAND, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

My name is John Sutherland. I am executive vice president of the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), whose national office is located here in Washington, D.C. The ASTA represents 530 company members who have offices in all States, except Alaska. It also represents 42 affiliated State and regional associations and, we believe, the seed industry at large.

The ASTA supports, in principle, the proposed amendment in House bill No. 10236 and related bills (H.R. 10423, 10552 and 10653).

On June 17, 1969, during the 86th annual convention, the ASTA Board of Directors approved the following resolution:

Whereas the ASTA has agreed with the principle of the proposed amendment to the Federal Seed Act to provide for uniform minimum standards of genetic ards by re-defining “Certified Seed" and "Official Certifying Agencies," and

Whereas H.R. 10236 provides for the establishment of uniform minimum standards by re-defining 'Certified Seed' and 'Official Certifying Agencies,' and

Whereas the minimum standards would be those approved by the Secretary and Whereas it is understood that the intent will be to approve the standards set forth for seed certification by AOSCA.

Therefore be it resolved that the ASTA reaffirm its support of the principles set forth in H.R. 10236 to provide for uniform minimum standards of genetic purity and identity for all classes of certified seed with the understanding that the approved minimum standards and procedures will be determined through a procedure which will assure that the desires of the producer, the seed industry and the public interests are recognized.

Resolved further that: AOSCA will apprise the ASTA of their existing standards, and procedures for changing the standards, by crop, prior to Senate and House hearings.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while supported in principle by the association, did not receive unanimous support from all segments of the membership. The concern of these members is expressed in the board resolution which stresses the need for clarification in the procedures to be used by the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in developing genetic standards under the rules and regulations of this amendment.

The ASTA wishes to develop a formal procedure with AOSCA in proposing genetic standards to the USDA which would give equal representation to the seed industry-who use the voluntary certification service and, the seed certifying agency-which offers the service so that both will be recognized.

Federal recognition of certification through this amendment, with State control, should achieve more uniformity in interpretation of genetic standards and strengthen seed certification both at home and abroad. It is the desire of our industry to have participation in the development of these recommendations with the AOSCA and the USDA. While approximately 6 percent to 8 percent of all the seed is certified, it is a significant amount to the seed producer, the seed industry and the public.

It is also the ASTA's request and understanding that these proposed amendments to the Federal Seed Act apply only to minimum genetic standards and that other minimum standards, such as purity

and germination remain unchanged. We hope some clarification for the record can be given on this matter.

During the testimony by previous witnesses, certain information was developed which indicated options are available to State seed associations under the present system as far as complying with the recommended minimum standards of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies. The point was made that most of the State agencies make an effort to follow the standards but some, maybe two or three, find it more to their liking in part to make and follow their own rules. If we could take the above statement at face value and assume out of a total of 43 State associations there would be 41 that would at all times be 100 percent in compliance with the rules and regulations and only two or three going their own way, it would not be too bad. That isn't exactly the way it works, however, and as far as the industry's concerned the point which needs to be stressed is that it is not always the same two or three State associations that are not complying. The whole membership of 43 State associations may at times have taken their turn at setting out a new ruling or a part of a standard and are subject to doing so in the future. This becomes one of the main weaknesses of the present system of certification and will continue to be an aggravation to the seed trade when merchandising some kinds of certified seed across State lines. H.R. 10236 is designed to correct the situation.

The association appreciates the opportunity of appearing before you, Mr. Chairman and this subcommittee, and will be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Abernethy?

Mr. ABERNETHY. No questions.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Mathias?

Mr. MATHIAS. Yes.

Mr. Sutherland, the ASTA represents 42 States or members of 42 States?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Yes.

Mr. MATHIAS. Are there any other such associations?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. No, there are actually 37 State associations and five regional associations, and they are affiliated with the national organization.

Mr. MATHIAS. What is the percentage of 530 company members as compared to the total seed producers?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. It is estimated that the membership of the association represents between 80 and 90 percent of all the seed produced in the United States. This includes flower seeds, vegetable seeds, seed corn, sorghum, farm seeds, all types of seeds.

Mr. MATHIAS. Where does it figure, then, 6 to 8 percent of the total seed grown is certified seed? What happens to the rest of it?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. The other 90, 92 percent, 94 percent is handled as uncertified seed by our membership.

Mr. MATHIAS. Where is the concern, then?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Well, in certain kinds of seed, cotton, alfalfa, it has historically been the type of merchandising that has existed to certify this seed, and there is a need in the industry to have certified seed which has been promoted to the farmer at a, you might say, a Good Housekeeping stamp of approval type of labeling. So this has

been promoted over the last 50 years, and there still is a demand for this type of service. Therefore, the industry, on certain kinds of seeds, continues to use this service.

Further, it does guarantee through a recordkeeping process the genetic purity of the variety.

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, it seems to me that 90 percent of the people that grow these seeds do not really want it certified. They have no concern over certification of seeds. If they did they would have made standards a long time ago. If the growers only grow 6 to 8 percent of the seed and they want that certified why didn't they a long time ago want the rest of the 90 percent of the seed certified? Why is it right now that your group, which doesn't represent 90 percent of the growers, want all the seed certified?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. If I have left that impression I would like to correct the record in that we are still only asking for certification of this 6 to 8 percent. We are not asking for this to be mandatory for all seeds. This would be a voluntary program which would apply to the current seed being now certified. There would still be this 90 percent, approximately 90 percent of uncertified seed still being sold in the United States.

Mr. MATHIAS. So this bill would just clarify the 6 to 8 percent of the seed that is being certified now?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. That is correct, because

Mr. MATHIAS. The minimum standard from 6 to 8 percent?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Yes.

Mr. MATHIAS. But they are certified now. Even within certified seed there is a discrepancy there?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Yes, we have found

Mr. MATHIAS. In the minimum standards?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. We have found on one kind of seed one State might interpret a standard differently than a neighboring State. We would like to see this interpretation uniform in all States. We believe this is what this legislation would do. Under the Federal guidance they would give a uniform interpretation.

Mr. MATHIAS. Would you give me a concrete example of a minimum standard, say, in alfalfa or another seed that is easy to describe this definition?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Well, the minimum standard for genetic purity in alfalfa—I am going to guess at this-what is it, 70 percent? Dr. Scort. It is 99.5

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I wanted one that had a little broader range. Let's use arbitrarily the figure of say the minimum standard would be 90 percent on a crop. This means that the industry in labeling this seed would have to meet the standard. Now, they could label it 95 percent or 98 percent or 99.5, but the minimum would be 90. It varies for each kind of crop. As Dr. Scott has pointed out, for alfalfa it is 99.5 percent purity. It might vary for other kinds of crops.

Mr. MATHIAS. Would it be possible, say, if you had a figure of 8 percent of the people who grew certified seed, if you did adopt a national minimum standard would this put any of these certified seed growers out of business?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. No.

32-919-69-3

Mr. MATHIAS. Because, say a particular piece of land would just not produce up to this minimum standard.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. No, I believe that nationwide the current certification interpretations that are now applied by each State in many cases are meeting the minimum standards; therefore, this would not be an undue hardship on any of the State producers.

I think the main objective of this legislation would be to get uniform interpretation, and it could cause some hardship, but I think it would be a minimum.

Mr. MATHIAS. I am glad you pointed this out that only the 6 to 8 percent of the certified seed growers will be affected by this bill. I assumed it was for every seed grower in the United States that would have to come up to the minimum standards.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. No, this is not the case. There has been a development internationally. We export about $40 million worth of seed for dollars to European markets. The OECD and Common Market countries require that they receive certified seed; therefore, it is necessary for our Federal Government and our State agencies to certify seed and to attach this tag. This is the only way we can sell in this market; is to have this service by our Federal Government and the State agencies. So we do need this for our international markets, also.

Mr. MATHIAS. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Abernethy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Sutherland, do you represent the seed producers themselves? Do you represent the trade that markets the commercial

Mr. SUTHERLAND. We represent the trade that markets it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Who represents the producers? Is there anyone here that represents them?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I would feel that the certifying agencies are organizations of the farmer-grower, and they would be more likely to represent this group than we do.

Now, we do, however, have many, many, many contracts with the growers and the producers. Our companies do.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, now, what is the feeling of the growers regarding this legislation, if you know?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do not know. I cannot give you that information. I do believe—

Mr. ABERNETHY. Who would we check with to determine?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I believe the Farm Bureau has filed a statement in the Senate on similar legislation.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I am speaking of people who don't belong to the associations. I am just talking about John Doe out here as a seed producer. I just wonder if there should not be someone among the producers who should be checked with about this legislation.

Mr. SUTHERLAND, I would certainly agree with you, Mr. Abernethy, and I would assume that this legislation has been publicized and that the farmers who are represented by the Department of Agriculturethe Department would have given some consideration to this.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Yes. Incidentally, you have seen the Department's report on this legislation, I assume?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I have seen the statement the Department gave.