Mr. TALCOTT. I can tell you I appreciate very much the suggestion. I am only saying this because I don't want to jeopardize anybody else's commodity, peaches or tomatoes, or anything else, with my bill. I don't want my bill, the lettuce bill, to hang up anybody. I came here also this morning to testify or to at least lend my support on behalf of peaches.

Mr. SISK. Is there any objection that you know of from the industry?

Mr. TALCOTT. I know of no objection anywhere.

Mr. SISK. That was the point I was trying to make here.

Mr. FOLEY. The committee had originally scheduled tomorrow for an executive session. It is going to be postponed but we will meet later this week to make a determination on what action should be taken with respect to these various bills. However, we are certainly happy to have your expressed support for the legislation, Mr. Talcott, and if you have any statement you would like to include in the record we would be glad to accept it.

Mr. TALCOTT. I have nothing to add to the statements to be made by the Department and the association, except to add my strong advocacy for this. It is very important to the lettuce industry to be able to advertise and I think they are wise in developing marketing orders.

Mr. FOLEY. We appreciate having your support of the legislation. Are there any questions from any of the members of the subcommittee of Mr. Talcott?

Mr. SISK. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate my colleague's statement and I certainly support his bill. All I was trying to do, and I hope my good friend understands, was to expedite both yours as well as other legislation that is pending. I thank the gentleman for his statement.

Mr. TALCOTT. I understand, and I appreciate it. The only reason I was asking for any delay was just not to jeopardize any of the other bills that might be associated with it for lack of testimony.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Goodling?

Mr. GOODLING. Just one question, Mr. Chairman, to either you or the sponsor of the bill. In the title we say "including paid advertising." Is that written into all similar bills?

Mr. FOLEY. Yes; it is standard. Well, we have a kind of class of legislation, of which this is one, which are almost exact in their phraseology except for the substitution of various commodity names, but the phrase "including paid advertising" is standard in this type of legislation.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all, then.

Mr. TALCOTT. One other thought, Mr. Chairman, if I may just take another 30 seconds. One of the witnesses appearing questioned my bill relating to tomatoes. All I was doing was trying to have my bill piggybacked to the tomato bill so that they could be considered at the same time. I have no reason to support or not support tomatoes.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Talcott.

Mr. TALCOTT. Thank you.

Mr. FOLEY. We will recall at this time Mr. Floyd Hedlund, the Director of the Fruit and Vegetable Division of the Consumer and Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture. Having gotten you away from the witness table for 5 minutes, Mr. Hedlund, we are

very happy to see you back again. We would be very happy to hear your testimony now with respect to H.R. 18560.

STATEMENT OF FLOYD F. HEDLUND, DIRECTOR, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DIVISION, CONSUMER AND MARKETING SERVICE, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. HEDLUND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

H.R. 18560 would amend section 608c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to permit a marketing order on lettuce to provide for any form of marketing promotion, including paid advertising.

The Department recommends passage of this bill.

American farmers have become increasingly sophisticated in their approach to marketing. Promotion has become accepted among many fruit and vegetable growers as a useful measure to help maintain or strengthen demand for their products.

In recent years the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act has been amended to authorize paid advertising for many fresh fruits and vegetables. This bill would add lettuce to the list. We believe that for the sake of equity as well as for the overall benefit that may be derived any group that actively seeks to develop a promotional program through this means should be permitted to do so.

There is currently only one Federal marketing order in effect_for lettuce that being in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. The lettuce industry in the West is now considering a marketing order covering lettuce grown in the Western States. Enactment of H.R. 18560 would enable growers in those areas to take advantage of the advertising authority. Any new or amended marketing order can become effective only after a public hearing and approval by twothirds of the producers involved.

The preamble to this bill refers to lettuce only. However, we note in examination of the text of the bill that tomatoes are also included. The Department has no objection to the inclusion of tomatoes and stated our position in a letter to your committee on July 24, 1970, on the bill H.R. 15842.

Amendment of the existing marketing order for lettuce to provide promotional authority would cost the Department an estimated $7,500. The average cost of operating a marketing order amounts to approximately $25,000 a year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Hedlund. Mr. Jones?

Mr. JONES. No questions.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Goodling?

Mr. GOODLING. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hedlund, on page 2 of your testimony you say the lettuce industry in the West is now considering a marketing order.

Would this particular bill apply only to lettuce grown in the West? Mr. HEDLUND. Oh, no; no, sir. This, as I understand it, would apply to lettuce grown anywhere a marketing order was eligible. Mr. GOODLING. Well, I would hope it would apply everywhere. You more or less indicate here this would be a western bill.

Mr. HEDLUND. No; I mentioned that, Congressman Goodling, because that area is the only one besides the Lower Rio Grande Valley that is now considering a marketing order for lettuce.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, one other question.

If I may return to H.R. 18272, you speak of Elberta peaches only. This would apply to every variety of peaches, would it not?

Mr. HEDLUND. Yes, sir; the proposed bill, H. R. 18272, would apply to all varieties of California-grown peaches.

Mr. GOODLING. Yes.

Mr. HEDLUND. But I mentioned the Elberta peaches as being those that are covered under the current Federal marketing order for California peaches.

Mr. GOODLING. But the new bill would apply to every variety?

Mr. HEDLUND. It would apply to all varieties grown in California. Mr. GOODLING. Some of us are hopeful we may get away from the Elberta variety. We think we have a little more quality in better varieties than the Elberta.

Mr. HEDLUND. As you know, Congressman Goodling, the trend has been away from Elberta varieties.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Hedlund, in your remarks I noticed you said that you believe, speaking for the Department, that any group that wishes to use advertising this way should be permitted to do so. Does that constitute advance approval of general legislation which might be introduced to permit paid advertising under marketing orders?

Mr. HEDLUND. Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose so. I think our statement said here "to any commodity eligible for a marketing order under this provision of the statute." We weren't presuming to say anything beyond that.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Sisk?

Mr. SISK. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you again, Mr. Hedlund. We appreciate your appearance.

Mr. HEDLUND. Thank you.

Mr. FOLEY. The final witness on the schedule this morning will be Mr. A. E. Mercker, the executive secretary of the Vegetable Growers Association of America, Washington, D.C. It is a pleasure to welcome you again, Mr. Mercker.

STATEMENT OF A. E. MERCKER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Mr. MERCKER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

H.R. 18560 would amend section 608c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to permit a Federal marketing order on lettuce to include any form of marketing promotion, including paid advertising.

I believe that the objectives of H.R. 18560 would result in significant benefits to the lettuce industry. The power of advertising is interwoven in the dynamic development of American capitalism which has resulted in a total gross national product beyond the fondest hopes of our Founding Fathers. This is the story about the man and his mule. When asked why he was berating his mule, both vocally and physically, the man replied, "I was just trying to attract his attention." Assuredly,

modern advertising methods are needed to attract more attention to our important lettuce crop.

In the 1959 Census of Agriculture, lettuce production was reported on 7,188 farms. In the 1964 census, there were 4,670 farms reporting. Paralleling trends throughout agriculture, I expect a smaller number of farms reporting lettuce production in the 1969 census. Nevertheless, 17 States produced a commercial volume of lettuce in 1969, according to reports of the Statistical Reporting Service. In 1969, these States combined harvested almost 228,000 acres of lettuce. Average yield per acre was 195 hundredweight, and total production amounted to 44.5 million hundredweight. The average shipping-point value was $5.42 per hundredweight, and total crop value at shipping point was $241 million. The shipping-point value of the lettuce crop exceeds that for any other fresh vegetable.

In addition to the commercial production designated above, there is a significant volume of greenhouse lettuce production.

The 1969 average annual retail price for fresh lettuce was 31.1 cents per head about 18 cents per pound-according to the records of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS price, applied to the shipping-point tonnage, indicated a total retail sales value in the neighborhood of $800 million. Thus, if advertising increased lettuce sales by only 1 percent, for example, a potential $8 million would be added to the lettuce economy.

Production of lettuce is concentrated in California and Arizona. In 1969, California growers produced 65 percent of the U.S. total tonnage, and Arizona 20 percent. Significant commercial volume was harvested also in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Lettuce, especially the heading types, thrives on short days and cool nights. Because high temperatures are adverse for lettuce, production is limited to relatively few locations.

There are five types of lettuce: crisphead, butterhead, cos or romaine, leaf or bunching, and stem. The crisphead is more familiarly known as "iceberg." The butterhead type includes Big Boston. Bibb lettuce-butterhead type-is small and cup-shaped, about twice the size of a tulip. Elongated head lettuce is grouped under the cos or romaine type.

Cultivated lettuce is believed to be native to the Mediterranean and Near Eastern countries, and to have been cultivated for more than 2,000 years. Its popularity continues into the 1970's. Per capita use of lettuce and escarole has been holding at 20 to 22 pounds, accounting for a fifth of the total fresh-vegetable consumption, recently estimated at approximately 100 pounds.

We are well aware that the national interest is becoming increasingly focused on alleged nutritional deficiencies in the American diet. A wider use of lettuce in our diets would be highly beneficial.

A report of the Agricultural Research Service shows that one. pound of lettuce contains about 50 calories. Also, lettuce contains measurable amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrates, calcium, phosphorous, iron, sodium potassium, vitamin A, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and ascorbic acid. In the scheme of human nutrition, lettuce truly is a blessing.

H.R. 18560 provides a means by which lettuce growers can help themselves. To permit lettuce marketing orders to include any form of marketing promotion including paid advertising likely would improve sales of lettuce which contribute so importantly to the American diet.

The vegetable growers of this country have preferred to act on their own, taking the good with the bad. The Vegetable Growers Association of America, formed in 1908, consists primarily of small growers and about 40 of their affiliated local associations. Many resolutions have been passed by this association strongly recommending the use of marketing agreements. Therefore, we strongly urge that the committee pass this legislation which would permit growers to pay their own way through their own assessments in order to inform the public of the value of this product.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the opportunity to present this testimony, and we trust that our views will be given due consideration. Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Mercker. Any questions? Mr. Sisk? Mr. SISK. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Goodling?

Mr. GOODLING. I would like to ask one question off the record. (Discussion of the record.)

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Mercker. Mr. Jones, do you have any questions?

Mr. JONES. No questions.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you. That concludes the schedule of witnesses for this morning. We appreciate the cooperation of the witnesses in concluding the hearing expeditiously.

I would like to ask the members of the subcommittee and the staff to remain for a very brief executive session.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, before the record closes I would like to ask unanimous consent of the committee to insert a statement on behalf of the California peach growers.

Mr. FOLEY. Without objection, it will be received.

Mr. SISK. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert in the record a series of telegrams and two brief letters in support of the legislation from various individuals, growers, and packers in California.

Mr. FOLEY. Without objection, they will be received, and I understand these letters and telegrams are in support of H. R. 18272, the bill involving the peach marketing order.

Mr. SISK. That is right.

Mr. FOLEY. Without objection, the various letters and telegrams will be received.

(The statement, letters, and telegrams follow:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN KASABIAN, CHAIRMAN, PEACH COMMODITY COMMITTEE, CALIFORNIA TREE FRUIT AGREEMENT

We are informed that a hearing is to be held on August 3 on H.R. 18272 which seeks to amend the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to permit the promotion of California grown peaches under a federal marketing order program. California peach growers are very much in favor of H.R. 18272 and they urge that this Bill be favorably considered.

I am the Chairman of the Peach Commodity Committee of the California Tree Fruit Agreement and I am also the Chairman of the Fresh Peach Advisory Board of the State Marketing Order for California Fresh Peaches. These two elected bodies represent all California freestone peach growers who sell peaches in the fresh market.

Since 1939 Elberta-type peaches have been regulated under the Federal Marketing Order known as the California Tree Fruit Agreement. When this control was