Specifically, we strongly object to section 23, paragraph (b) which states, "for eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no State or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the State or other geographical area of production or origin. Gentlemen, we respectfully ask that this particular part be deleted from the bill. The marking and labeling provision of the South Carolina egg law has enabled the State to better control unfair trade practices, has kept undesirable eggs out of the State, thus assuring the consumer of the quality as stated on the package. To take away this authority would be detrimental both to producers and consumers of eggs in South Carolina. The definition of "Commerce" is also confusing. Under section 4, paragraph C, it is defined as: "The term 'Commerce' means interstate, foreign or intrastate commerce." At other places in the bill it says "interstate or foreign commerce." The term "egg handler" means any person who engages in any business in commerce which involves buying or selling any eggs (as a producer or otherwise). Under the definition of "commerce" this would include all our producers who sell eggs only within our State. Shell egg producers are in every nook and corner of these United States. To administer such controls as are contained in this bill would be a monstrous task and cost millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. I cannot find any definition of "plant" that applies to our shell egg grading plants they all apply only to plants "processing egg products." The term "processing" means manufacturing egg products, including breaking eggs or filtering, mixing, blending, pasteurizing, freezing, drying, and so forth. Specifically, and I repeat, we strongly object to section 23, paragraph (b) which states, "for eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no State or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the State or other geographical area of production or origin. Gentlemen, we also respectfully ask that you eliminate shell eggs that are packed for consumers and sold through normal trade channels from the bill. The Secretary of Agriculture's report to the Senate Agriculture Committee on S. 2116 says: "A questionnaire was sent to States in 1968 to find out about existing legislative and inspection programs for eggs and egg products. The report states that "all States had shell egg regulations." Most States have closely patterned their mandatory requirements for standards, grades, and weight classes for shell eggs after official USDA standards." The marketing and labeling provision of the South Carolina Egg Law has enabled the State to better control unfair trade practices, has kept undesirable eggs out of the State, thus assuring the consumer of the quality as stated on the package. To take away this authority would be detrimental both to producers and consumers of eggs in South Carolina and would work the beginning of the end for egg producers in my State. The trend today in agriculture is more and more toward big corporate farming . . . the big are getting bigger and the small farmer is having to find another means of a livelihood. Since appearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee to testify on the companion bill S. 2116 last November 14th expressing grave concern and strongly opposing this section requiring doing away with any labeling as to origin, a serious threat to the egg industry in the Southeast and the Nation, in fact, has developed. I am speaking now of shell eggs imported into the United States from many countries around the world. Statistics from the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, show that import of shell eggs into this country have skyrocketed this past fiscal year. July to June, 1968-69 there were only $665,000 in value of eggs imported. But during the July to June, 1969-70 period, there was a total value of $7,263,000 imported or about 12 times the value as the year before. Ninety-five percent of the eggs imported in fiscal 1970 were in the months of December through April. During this period the average farm price to South Carolina producers declined over 35 percent. In January, egg leaders in the Southeast expressed fear that the number of eggs being imported was a threat to producers in this country. They also indicated that the housewife has a right to know the origin of the eggs she buys. We know what has happened to our textile industry in South Carolina due to imports. We know what has happened to the Florida tomato farmers as well as our South Carolina tomato farmers due to imports. Fresh tomato entries into this country expanded by a third this past fiscal year as compared to the 1968-69 fiscal year. Will this trend follow on eggs? Will our egg producers be put into the same position as our cotton and tomato farmers if H.R. 16092 is passed without striking out section 23, paragraph (b)? We contend that these imports are a serious threat to the egg producers in South Carolina. Section 17 of the bill titled "Imports," page 25, lines 11 through 14, of H.R. 16092, states: "All such imported articles shall upon entry into the United States be deemed and treated as domestic articles subject to the other provisions of this act." Gentlemen, this bill, if not amended so as to eliminate shell eggs and specifically section 23, paragraph (b), is only one more step toward expediting the end of an industry in South Carolina that is not presently owned and operated by just a few big corporate entities. We beg of you and beseech you to let them survive. If you are going to enact this bill into law, why not a similar one for Georgia tobacco, Georgia peanuts, Georgia peaches, Louisiana yams, Maine potatoes, Florida oranges, and so forth? (I ate Virginia ham for breakfast this morning, all on the menu. I guess it is very prominent, on every ham I have seen in our State.) Let me express again my sincere thanks to the committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of the egg producers of South Carolina, and bring to your attention the objections as stated on H.R. 16092 and other related bills. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions? Mr. MARTIN. I would like to say that we have Mr. Al Dennis, a producer, Mr. McElveen, and Mr. Pete Yoder here in addition to Mr. Moore who are actual egg producers. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Would these gentlemen like to make a statement? Mr. DENNIS. I am in agreement with the commissioner. Mr. YODER. I endorse the statement by the South Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture. Mr. MOORE. If you don't mind, I would like to put in for the record some statements from about 20-odd producers in the State. Could we file these for the record? Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Without objection, their statements will be made a part of the record. (The statements follow :) Hon. W. R. POAGE, ELGIN, S.C., September 14, 1970. Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As an egg producer with approximately 75,000 hens and having been in the egg business for 20 years, we are strongly opposed to Section 23, Paragraph B, of Bill 16092, which is now before your Committee. We in South Carolina have become one of the leading southeastern states in producing quality eggs and are known nation wide for our grade and quality of eggs. This is due to the South Carolina egg law, which is strictly supervised and enforced. We endorse the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture Harrelson before your Committee. We, as egg producers, certainly feel that the housewife is entitled to know where the eggs she buys are produced and packed. We would appreciate your voicing our opposition in this matter. Sincerely, G. P. MONROE, Jr. STATEMENT OF E. H. MATHIS, PRESIDENT, PIEDMONT EGG PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Mr. Chairman, I am E. H. Mathis, President, Piedmont Egg Producers Association, Inc., Greenville, S.C., speaking for the members of this cooperative. I would like to voice our objection to certain sections of this bill, namely HR 16092, now before this committee. Our objection has to do with the portion of this bill concerning labeling of eggs, specifically, Section 23, par (b), which states "for eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no state or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the state or other geographical area of production or origin”. Gentlemen, we respectfully ask that this portion of the Bill be deleted. Since this portion of the Bill conflicts with our state law, which was designed to protect the producers of our state as well as the consumer from undesirable eggs coming into our state. To force our state to change our existing law we feel would be detrimental to both producers and consumer. If you feel compelled to enact this Bill as it now stands; into law, why not enact similar ones for Lousiana yams, Milwaukee beer, Idaho potatoes, Florida oranges, etc. Let me express my thanks to the Committee for permitting me to speak on behalf of the members of our organization, and bring to your attention the objections we have to this portion of the Bill namely HR 16092. The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee On Agriculture, Washington, D.C. OAKDALE FARMS, Van Wyck, S.C., September 10, 1970. DEAR MR. POAGE: In regards to Bill, H. R. 16092 Section 23, paragraph (b) which states "For eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no state or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the State or geographical area of production or origin. If this section is incorporated in the final bill H.R. 16092 it would eliminate certain provisions of the South Carolina Egg Law. Since passage of the South Carolina Egg Law the quality of eggs sold in South Carolina has risen steadily until in my opinion they are second to none. The South Carolina Egg Law requiring eggs not produced in South Carolina be Labeled Shipped has kept surplus eggs from other areas virtually free from South Carolina. The successful operation of the South Carolina Egg Law has led other states to enact similar legislation to combat dumping of inferior eggs in those states thus avoiding serious price erosion. If section 23, paragraph (b) remains in Bill H. R. 16092 it will enhance the buying by large chains and other volume egg buyers in surplus areas and moving into stable markets to lower egg prices to the whole egg industry. Any price reduction in the Egg Industry would certainly cause many egg producers all over the United States to go out of business. As a producer and packer of eggs I endorse The statement of Commissioner Of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your Committee. This statement covers other areas of concern. Your consideration of these objections will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT YODER, Owner. LANCASTER FEED & FARM SUPPLY CO., The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. POAGE: As long time South Carolina egg producers, we are opposed to certain sections of the Bill, H. R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your Committee. We strongly object to Section 23, paragraph (b) which states "For eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no state or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the State or geographical area of production or origin." Such legislation would tear down our South Carolina egg law. Under this law which was enacted in 1956, the egg industry in our State has grown and enabled hundreds of "small" farmers to maintain a year-round income from eggs. These small producers built our industry and we do not want the Federal government to step in now and tear down our own law's labeling requirements. If this is done, many farm families would suffer great economic loss which in turn would have an undesirable effect on a great number of businesses in many rural communities in South Carolina. We, as producers, endorse the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your Committee. This statement covers many other areas of concern to us should this Bill as presently written become law. Your consideration of our objections will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Hon. W. R. POAGE, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. JAMES M. KIRK, President. HENRY L. CONNORS, Greenwood, S.C., September 9, 1970. DEAR SIR: We are a small state, and we have not grown into the poultry industry as rapidly or as greatly as other Southeastern states; but we have developed well and soundly, producing a product of excellent quality and reliability. Our steady and moderate progress is largely because of our size; we can be readily supervised and elect to be supervised by men of like character and disposition. We producers of this state are justly proud of our South Carolina Grade A eggs and want to continue our strict supervision for the benefit of protecting our product which also assures the consumer of the very best in eggs. Therefore, I am deeply opposed to Section 23, Paragraph B of the bill now in consideration before your committee H.R. 16092. With all due respect to those who do service with the federal government, no national agency with all its good intent can do for us in South Carolina what a far smaller group of dedicated and conscientious men are accomplishing with excellence. Sincerely yours, HENRY L. CONNORS. SOUTH CAROLINA COMMERCIAL EGG PRODUCERS COUNCIL, The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. POAGE: The South Carolina Commercial Egg Producers Council is opposed to certain sections of the Bill, H.R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your Committee. We strongly object to Section 23, paragraph (b) which states "For eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no state or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the State or geographical area of pro duction or origin." Such legislation would tear down our South Carolina egg law. Under this law which was enacted in 1956, the egg industry in our State has grown and enabled hundreds of "small" farmers to maintain a year-round income from eggs. These small producers built our industry and we do not want the Federal government to step in now and tear down our own law's labeling requirements. If this is done, many farm families would suffer great economic loss which in turn would have an undesirable affect on a great number of businesses in many rural communities in South Carolina. The egg council has endorsed the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your Committee. This statement covers many other areas of concern to us should this Bill as presently written become law. Your consideration of our objections will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, RIVERS SCARBOROUGH, President. BAKER'S EGG FARM, The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Round O, S.C., September 11, 1970. DEAR MR. POAGE: Being an egg producer I am strongly opposed to certain sections of the Bill, H.R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your Committee. I strongly object to Section 23, paragraph (b) which states "For eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no state or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the State or geographical area of production or origin." Such legislation would tear down our South Carolina egg law. Under this law which was enacted in 1956, the egg industry in our State has grown and enabled hundreds of "small" farmers to maintain a year-round income from eggs. These small producers built our industry and we do not want the Federal government to step in now and tear down our own law's labeling requirements. If this is done, many farm families would suffer great economic loss which in turn would have an undesirable effect on a great number of businesses in many rural communities in South Carolina. I have endorsed the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your Committee. This statement covers many other areas of concern to us should this Bill as presently written become law. Your consideration of our objections will be greatly appreciated. CLARENCE BAKER. SEPTEMBER 10, 1970. The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. POAGE: We as South Carolina egg producers, we are opposed to certain sections of the Bill, H.R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your committee. We strongly object to Section 23, paragraph (b) which states "For eggs which have moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no state or local 51-042 0-70————5 |