It might be well, I believe, to tell you about some of our other competitors in the world market so you can determine where the squeeze is coming from. Holland, another ECA country, has increased canned fish production from an average of 56,000 pounds during the years 1936-38 to about 14.000,000 pounds last year. Her exports in the 1947-48 season of canned fish totalled 12,300,000 pounds. Canned fish exports in Norway totalled 76,000,000 pounds in 1947 as compared to 39,000,000 in 1938. I learned from a Canadian report where Norway is contemplating the building of 48 freezers with ECA funds. She expects to export larger quantities of fish with these new facilities and looks to the United States to import large quantities of frozen fish. This can only have one result. The market for canned fish will suffer along with the market for frozen fish. On the one hand, you have an influx of imports and on the other a backing up of canned fish that ordinarily would move in export channels.

It is quite noticeable that the increase in production of canned fish in Denmark has increased substantially and that exports in 1947, totalling 3,300,000 pounds were three times those of 1938. Sweden has also had a phenomenal increase in her canned fish exports. In 1938, they amounted to 2,200.000 pounds, and in 1947 amounted to 5.600,000 pounds. Even though production in France is hindered by shortages of tinplate, she expected to have available for export about 7,000,000 pounds in 1948. All these countries expect to get our American dollars through direct sales to importers in this country.

American canned fish products such as California pilchards are superior in quality to pilchards canned by South Africa or the Netherlands, but as time goes on, these countries are expected to improve the quality of their packs. There is no method in the American canning of fish that is unknown to our foreign competitors. Actually some of our foreign competitors have new and modern plants that are superior to our own in many respects. Our Government has invited many foreign agents into our plants to learn our methods and the result is that we have developed keen competition.

Two unknowns that are potent in the production field face the American fish canner on top of what I have already set forth. Japan, No. 1 fishing nation in the world before the war, has already regained that position. She is also out to regain her world export markets and is cutting in on us already. She not only produces tuna and crabmeat, but pilchards and other species of canned fish. Under General MacArthur, she is giving every encouragement to recapture what she has lost. The second unknown is Russia. We have no figures on her production, but through what she has already had and added fishing grounds which she took over from Japan, she is a factor in canned salmon. Britain has given the Soviet Union a contract for about 360,000 cases of canned salmon to be delivered in 1949. It can almost be assumed as a final analysis that unless this Government does something more than it has in the past, she will forfeit her No. 2 world position in the fisheries to the Soviet Union, which country is doubtless promoting her fishery. And it can further be assumed that America's oldest industry, which is also a billion dollar one, will be lost forever.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert in the record a letter from Mr. George T. Harrison, president of Tilghman Packing Co., Tilghman, Md., to the President of the United States on the date of May 20, 1947. And the copy of a similiar letter to Mr. Howard Bruce, Deputy Administrator, Economic Cooperation Administration, as a supplement to my statement.

THE TILGHMAN PACKING CO.,
Tilghman, Md., May 20, 1947.

The PRESIDENT,

The White House,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The writer was a member of the War Foods Advisory Committee (fish canning section) during the war. There were 11 men appointed on that Committee from industry in the country. At the first meeting held in Washington, the Government Chairman talked to the Committee for over an hour as to ways and means of getting our industry geared to produce more canned seafood, and we were repeatedly urged to do the necessary along this line, saying that food was the first line of deefnse and would be one of the greatest factors in winning the war as well as the peace.

The writer took it seriously and the personnel of our company realized that there was actually only one way that we could step up production with less labor and that would be through building labor-saving machinery. We could see that this would be very expensive, but we planned and promptly built our own machinery shop and mechanized our plant to a point where we produced over six times as much canned seafoods and vegetables as we had done at any time prior to the war. All of this was accomplished with less labor than we had formerly used. We built one shad filleting machine manned by six operators that cut as many fillets as 300 people could have done by hand in the same time. We built a cutting table with belts, conveyors, etc., which eliminated the use of 20 people who were placed in another part of the plant to cut smaller fish, which procedure allowed us to step up production 2,000,000 pounds in 2 months by thus using these 20 people.

At the last meeting of the War Foods Advisory Committee, the Government chairman told us men from industry that if we had anything on our chests to get it off. I then stated how our company had taken that job seriously and increased production through modern machinery, and that in the last 18 months there had been one Sicilian, one Brazilian, two Frenchmen, two Chinese, and one Englishman sent to our plant by one of the branches of our Government with a letter requesting us to show them through our plant for the purpose of acquainting them with our modern machinery. Naturally we were hesitant. However, Mr. President, any request that we got from our Government we honor, and so we showed them through. These men not only examined very carefully our plants, machinery, and entire equipment, but we have learned that they inspected also the salmon and pilchard plants on the west coast and plants in Boston and Gloucester, as well. I stated that I was certain that after I had finished my statement, I was going to be told by some representative of the Government that this was a part of the good-neighbor policy, but I wanted to go on record as having stated that in my humble opinion it was a part and parcel of the good-sucker policy. The only thing that could come from this policy was a lowering of our own standard of living either directly, or indirectly, by raising the other countries' standard of living. Even though all of these countries have cheaper wage scales than we have, they are handling their fish products by hand or with very primitive machinery. So we can, with our modern machinery, compete with them in our own markets. However, now that they have knowledge of our machinery and plants, plus cheap labor, when they begin exporting to this country, the packers here, who have spent substantial sums of money equipping their plants, will have great difficulty in meeting the price of the foreign product. many plants will close and many people will be thrown out of work.

We are perfectly willing to pay the present taxes, though they be various and sundry, and if necessary we might find ways and means of paying additional taxes, and most assuredly will do so if imperative and in order to feed anyone throughout any part of the world needing food, regardless of race, color, or creed ; but we do feel, Mr. President, that canned foods and seafoods which are produced in this country (and there are large surpluses on the market and in warehouses) should be sent to these people rather than give them money with which to buy their own food, for instance, there is on hand at the present time considerably more than 2,000,000 cans of herring that are surplus in several Maryland canners' warehouses. These cans contain 1 pound and analysis show they contain 741.2 calories each, or one-half of the minimum daily diet of a Greek or German at the present daily ration. We know there is more nutritive and caloric value in canned fish products than there is in some canned foods and cereals and other products which are now being sent from this country to starving Europe. At the present time they can be bought at about 15 cents a pound, which is much cheaper than many items now being sent overseas for relief food supplies. We hope that you will start a proper investigation as to why there is not now some means of marketing through governmental channels the surplus supply of canned foods now held in warehouses throughout the East. If this is not accomplished, the canners and processors will be forced to close. This certainly will embarrass the farmers financially and it will bankrupt the watermen. We personally know of several thousand employees who have already lost their jobs in Maryland due to food plants closing and we also have checked and found that many of these people have gone on relief.

We hope that you will understand, Mr. President, that this letter is meant to be constructive only. We fully realize that it is a huge job to run the Government, and it is our desire not to hinder but to help in any way possible. The matter of which I write is important and imperative.

Thanking you for your consideration and assuring you of our fullest cooperation, always, we are

DEAR MR. BRUCE: Confirming our telephone conversation of today, we appreciate the opportunity of presenting the following facts to you.

We are very much disturbed over what is going to happen to the fishing industry of this country. In 1942 the Agriculture Department bought 332,841,000 pounds of canned fish products and exports for UNRRA, lend-lease and overseas army. The first 6 months of 1948 they only bought for export 4,331,000 pounds. The Marshall plan (ECA) has given to Greece and Italy a total of $7,259,000 of the United States taxpayer's money with which to buy fish. Instead of buying the fish from the United States to keep our canneries operating, they have bought fish with this amount from Canada and Newfoundland approximating 38,800,000 pounds. The only amount of fish purchased from the United States with this money received from ECA was $8,800 worth.

Imports of fish from foreign countries to the United States in 1947 was 407,276,000 pounds. For the first 9 months of 1948 our imports of fish were 348.547,000 pounds of cod and herring.

We feel it is time our Government recognizes the fact that they should purchase more fish products through the money allocated by ECA and through the Quartermaster Corps from United States canneries and processors so that this industry can survive. Today the majority of employees in the various fish canning establishments are unemployed and drawing unemployment compensation.

It is certainly a deplorable condition for the United States to use their tax money to aid these needy countries and still have this uncalled for unemployment within its own borders for which we must pay compensation. The picture is anything but pleasant when it can be so easily remedied.

England, according to the National Geographic magazine's January issue, is supplying this year to the Germans 540,000,000 pounds of fish. You can see they are not taking their money and sending it to the United States to buy fish from the packers over here to feed foreign countries.

On January 3, 1949, the Baltimore Sun carried the following item:

"FLOATING FISH FACTORY LAUNCHED BY ICELAND

"WASHINGTON.-A floating fish factory-Economic Cooperation Administration officials in Iceland have reported the arrival from Portland, Oreg., recently of the 8,900-ton vessel Haeringur, purchased under ECA's $2,300,000 loan to Iceland. This largest, newest and most unusual member of Iceland's fishing fleet has been outfitted with additional equipment in Reykijavik Harbor and has already gone into operation. It will sail from harbor to harbor on the southern coast of Iceland this winter to receive and process the fish brought in by fishing trawlers."

With kindest regards, we are

Your friends,

THE TILGHMAN PACKING CO.,
GEORGE T. HARRISON, President.

COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON AND TUNA PACKERS ASSOCIATION,
Astoria, Oreg., February 7, 1949.

Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: The Columbia River Salmon and Tuna Packers Association and the industry at large on the Pacific coast have viewed with alarm the increasing importations of certain fish and fish products from foreign countries.

During the recent war years, we built plants, boats, and installed equipment for a large production of fishery products. These found excellent acceptance in our domestic market because of their fine quality and workmanship. Producers, distributors, fishermen, shore workers, processors, canners, and suppliers have spent their time, money, and energy to the development of this fishing industry which is now being threatened by the ever-increasing unrestricted importations of fishery products from foreign countries.

With particular reference to fillets, fresh and frozen, the imports of these have more than doubled the previous year during 1948, reaching the astounding total of over 52,000,000 pounds. With the expanding construction of plants, fishing vessels, and other facilities in foreign countries, the importations could be ever increasing. With their lower cost of labor and operations, it is no wonder that we foresee the ruin of our domestic market unless the quotas are restricted. It is not the principle of the Trade Agreements Act that we oppose. We realize the obligation of our Government to certain foreign countries, but the American fishing industry cannot survive the importation of an unlimited quantity of foreign products to our limited domestic market without wrecking the economy of our own fishing industry-affecting the lives and fortunes of our people making up this great industry.

To alleviate this very adverse condition, we earnestly recommend your giving serious consideration toward establishing a limit upon the importation of both frozen and canned fishery products, and, at the same time, make some provision for the purchasing of American canned fish, including salmon and tuna, by the Economic Cooperation Administration. Respectfully,

COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON AND TUNA PACKERS ASSOCIATION, By HENRY GOODRICH, of the Executive Committee.

OFFICE OF FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL RELATIONS

FOREWORD

The abrupt drop in 1948 in exports of United States fishery products was cause for concern to an industry which looks to the foreign markets for an outlet for a significant part of its production, particularly of the canned pack. This concern led to a request for a study by the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations of the fishery production and trade in western Europe to provide pertinent facts which would aid members of the United States fishery industry in the formulation of their production and marketing programs.

This circular summarizes the personal observations of Mr. Arthur M. Sandberg, marketing specialist of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, who conducted the study for this Office. In the course of the foreign survey, which was conducted during the period mid-August through mid-October 1948, Mr. Sandberg visited the United Kingdom, France, Eire, the Netherlands, Belgium, western Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, and Greece. To broaden the picture with respect to competition in western Europe, information available in the Washington offices was utilized in the preparation of the statements relating to the fishery situation in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, French Morocco, the Union of South Africa, Russia, Japan, Canada, and Newfoundland.

This study was conducted under the provisions of the Research and Marketing Act of 1946, as amended. The possibilities for broadening the foreign market for other agricultural commodities also are being studied, and the findings are presented in circulars which can be obtained, free, from the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations, Washington 25, D. C.

JOSEPH A. BECKER, Chief, International Commodities Branch.

THE MARKET FOR UNITED STATES FISHERY PRODUCTS IN WESTERN EUROPE

By Arthur M. Sandberg, Marketing Specialist

The fishery industry of the United States once had a good market for its products in Europe. But postwar problems, principally those of international exchange and to a lesser extent those of the growing trend toward self-sufliciency, have slowed that trade to a virtual standstill. Furthermore, there is little indication that such problems will be solved in the immediate future.

For years Europe provided an outlet for one-half or more of the edible fishery products exported from the United States. During the 5 years, 1934 to 1938, domestic exports to Europe averaged 62,000,000 pounds, 52 percent of the total exports of 118,000,000 pounds. In the war period (1940-44) shipments to Europe, mostly lend-lease to the United Kingdom, averaged around 116,000,000 pounds, and in the 3 years, 1945-47, they averaged 101,000,000 pounds (table 1, p. 18). Out of a total of 212,000,000 pounds of edible fishery products exported by the United States in 1947, about 116,000,000 pounds were shipped to Europe. During the first 9 months of 1948, total United States exports of these products amounted to 72,000,000 pounds as compared with 159,000,000 pounds in the similar period of 1947, and 170,000,000 pounds in that part of 1946. Of the 72,000,000 pounds exported in the January-September period in 1948, only 14,000,000 pounds were exported to Europe. The total exports for the year 1948 may not exceed 85,000,000 pounds, considerably less than prewar, and probably only about onefifth of this total will be destined for European markets.

Over the past 15 years, United States exports have been mostly canned fishery products, largely salmon and sardines. Domestic canned fish production has remained fairly constant over this peiod. In 1934-38 the canned pack averaged about 697,000,000 pounds, annually. The pack in 1946 totaled 699,000,000 pounds, and in 1947 reached 754,000,000 pounds.

The United States also has been an important buyer of foreign fishery products. During the three postwar years, 1945-47, United States imports of edible fishery products exceeded domestic exports by an average of 244,000,000 pounds or $43,000,000 anually. With a reduction of more than 50 percent in the quantities exported during the first 9 months of 1948, as compared with the preceding years, and an increase of 28 percent in the imports, the 1948 import excess totaled 277,000,000 pounds or $64,000,000 at the end of September. A further increase in this excess of imports over exports is expected to be registered in the last 3 months of 1948. This compares with a prewar annual excess (1934-38 average) of 213,000,000 pounds or $16,000,000.

Most European countries are racing to build up their fishery production, both for domestic needs and for export. Fishery production in major producing countries of Europe (except U. S. S. R.) was above the prewar level in 1947, when approximately 11.2 billion pounds were landed (table 2, p. 19). Belgium, Denmark, Eire, and Iceland had doubled their prewar production and other countries generally were at or above prewar production levels. In Germany and Italy, production was still below prewar, but sought-for goals can be expected to be reached in the near future.

Between 1934 and 1939, the catch reported by the specified countries increased from 7.8 billion pounds to 10.1 billion, then dropped to low levels during the war. Many of the fleets were beginning to approach prewar size in 1946, and production reached 9.5 billion pounds. Additions to the fishing fleets were made during 1948, and production for that year in the countries listed (table 2) is expected to total about 12.3 billion pounds, an increase of 34 percent over the 1934-38 average.

Although there are some counterinfluences, such as the effects of overfishing and shortages of materials and equipment, the developments in production are proceeding to the point where there is some concern whether European fisheries can continue to expand their activities and obtain satisfactory markets for their production. This brings up the question of what is likely to happen when other food products which have been scarce return to the markets in greater quantities, and what may happen to the fish situation should distribution not keep pace with production. Already, increased supplies of fresh fish in many of the food-deficient areas have lessened the need for imports. Countries which have developed their output to provide food for deficit areas are finding it increasingly difficult to market at capacity. Some countries are already expanding their fish exports to the United States and others are planning to enter this market.