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. The 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 objection will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, JACKSON EGG FARM, SEPTEMBER 10, 1970. The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, DEAR M. POAGE: Being an Egg Producer for many years I am opposed to Section 23, paragraph (b) of the Bill, H.R. 16092, which is now being considered by your Committee. Under the South Carolina egg law enacted in 1956, the egg industry has grown in our State and has enabled hundreds of "small" farmers such as I to maintain a year-round income from eggs. Having worked long hard hours to build my own business I feel that I and other businesses in rural communities in South Carolina do not want the Federal government to interfere now and break our own law's labeling requirements. Your consideration of my objections to this Bill in making your decision would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, R. W. DURR, Jr. LAKE CITY, S.C., The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, DEAR CONGRESSMAN POAGE: I have been in the egg producing business in South Carolina for many years, and I object 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 been moved or are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no state or local jurisdiction may require labeling to show the State or local geographical area of production or origin." Such legislation would tear down our South Carolina egg law. Under this law which was enacted in 1955, 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 greatly economic loss which in turn would have and undesirable effect on a great number of business men and businesses in many rural communities in South Carolina. The egg council of South Carolina has endorsed the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your Committee, and I certainly do the same. 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. JACK R. BURCH. CHESTERFIELD FEED AND SEED STORE, HURST EGG CO., The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 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. R. LEVERNE HURST, Owner. TRIPLE Q FARMS, INC., Hon. W. R. POAGE, McCormick, S.C., September 9, 1970. Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. POAGE: As an egg producer and processor in South Carolina I am opposed to certain sections of Bill H.R. 16092 which is now under consideration by your committee. I strongly object to section 23, paragraph (b). Such legislation would tear down our South Carolina egg law, forcing many small producers out of business. Many families would suffer great economic loss. As a producer and processor I endorse the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your committee. Your consideration of our objection will be greatly appreciated. CHARLES H. QUARLES. SCATTERED FARMS, Hon. W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Cameron, S.C., September 8, 1970. DEAR MR. POAGE: As a South Carolina egg producer for many years, I am 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 affect 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. Respectfully submitted, Hon. W. R. POAGE, W. A. DENNIS, Jr. WAGON WHEEL FARMS, Murrells Inlet, S.C., September 8, 1970. Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. POAGE: As an egg producer in South Carolina, I am opposed to the bill H.R. 16092, section 23 paragraph B which states that eggs may be moved in interstate or foreign commerce without any local jurisdiction or origin. Having been a producer for the past 15 years and operating before and after our present egg law, I am fully aware of the possible problems that will confront the egg producers in the state should such legislature be passed. Your consideration of our opposition to this bill will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, CHARLES R. WELCH. CATHEY'S POULTRY FARM, Anderson, S.C., September 10, 1970. DEAR MR. POAGE: I am an egg producer in South Carolina and I am opposed to certain sections of the Bill, H.R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your committee. I 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." I think origin, grade and size has helped our egg sales here in South Carolina considerably and especially our origin. I, as a producer, have endorsed the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your Committee. Respectfully submitted, BOB CATHEY. MT. PLEASANT, S.C., September 10, 1970. The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: We are very strongly opposed to certain sections of H.R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your Committee. In particular Section 23, paragraph (b) would destroy our South Carolina egg law, passed in 1956, which requires labeling of eggs as to origin. As with other areas we have some unscrupulous merchants who will buy poor quality eggs that are surplus anywhere in the country and sell them as grade "A." Since the customers of these merchants are usually low income persons, this law would cause the very persons it is supposed to help to be unfairly taken advantage of. Very truly yours, ALEX R. MITCHELL, JR. PIEDMONT, S.C., September 9, 1970. The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am an egg producer in Greenville County with approximately 18,000 layers. You might consider this a small producer, which I am, but I am the largest producer in prosperous Greenville County. I wish to voice my opposition to Bill H.R. 16092, Section 23, paragraph (b) for this would kill the most important part of our South Carolina Egg Law, protecting small producers. Thank you for any consideration you may give the small producers of our state. Respectfully, The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. W. C. HAMMOND. SUNNY BRITE EGGS, Seneca, S.C., September 8, 1970. DEAR MR. POAGE: I am an egg producer in South Carolina and I am opposed to certain sections of the Bill, H.R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your committee. I 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." I think our present egg law here in South Carolina has helped us producers greatly and would like to see it left as is. I, as a producer, have endorsed the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your Committee. Respectfully submitted, The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, DERRILL ABLES. GREER, S.C., September 9, 1970. DEAR HONORABLE POAGE: In reference to Bill H.R. 16092, section 23, paragraph (b), I wish to express my opposition. This paragraph would, if enacted, put small producers (15,000 layers) like me out of the egg business. We have a good Egg Law in South Carolina and would not like to have any changes made in labeling and advertising. Thank you for any consideration given us. The Honorable W. R. POAGE, JIMMY W. WOOTEN. SHUMAN'S EGG FACTORY, Reevesville, S.C., September 10, 1970. Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, DEAR MR. POAGE: We have been an egg producer in South Carolina for the past 20 years: and having been so we do oppose to Section 23, paragraph (b) of the bill, H.R. 16092, which is now being considered by your committee. We do not want this to happen because it would tear down our South Carolina egg law. Not to mention what would happen to many farm families that depend on this as their survival. We would appreciate all that you can do before this bill becomes another one of laws. DEAR MR. POAGE: As a producer and marketer of eggs, we would like to express our support of the South Carolina Egg Producers Council's position regarding the Bill, H.R. 16092, which is now under consideration by your Committee. We trust that you will give the Council's objections thoughtful consideration. Sincerely yours, FR. M. BERNARD IVEY, O.C.S.O., Business Manager. LUCY CREEK FARMS, The Honorable W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Beaufort, S.C., September 10, 1970. DEAR MR. POAGE: I have been an egg producer in South Carolina for the past thirteen years and I feel that our egg law has been very helpful to me in establishing a local market for my eggs. I further feel that the sections of the Bill, H.R. 16092, which would do away with the original requirements would be harmful to my farm business. I do not feel that the labeling requirements as stated in our South Carolina law work a hardship on anyone from out of state and I know they are very beneficial to all smaller producers in the state. Please give these matters careful consideration before the bill becomes law. WILLIAM D. OWENBY, Owner. LATTA MILLING AND GRAIN COMPANY, Hon. W. R. POAGE, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. POAGE: I am an egg producer in South Carolina and am 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." Under the South Carolina egg law which was enacted in 1956, the egg industry in our State has grown and enabled hundreds of "small" farmers like myself to maintain a year-round income from eggs. Small producers built our industry and I do not want the Federal government to step in now and tear down our own law's labeling requirements, not only me but many farm families would suffer great economic loss which in turn would have an undesirable effect on business in rural communities. I do endorse the statement of Commissioner of Agriculture William L. Harrelson before your committee. Your consideration of my objections will be greatly appreciated. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Wampler? CHARLES F. CARMICHAEL, Manager. Mr. WAMPLER. I want to compliment you on a very fine statement. I think you raised some very valid points and the committee should very carefully consider them in our deliberations. I don't question the accuracy of your statement regarding imports of eggs. I was not aware that it had reached such proportions. What would be your reaction to requiring the marking of all imported eggs as to the origin of that egg-indicating that the country of origin be stamped on the egg? Mr. MARTIN. Of course, there would certainly be no objection to that. We haven't been disturbed as much by these imports as some of the other States who do not have as strict labeling laws as we have. Texas also has the same laws that we have on labeling as far as origin. Mr. WAMPLER. It appears to me they will be treated just as domestic eggs. |