Historic, archived document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
ARDIZATION
and INSPECTION of
mM
ae
ve
A
C;
Miscellaneous Publication No. 604
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Se
Agricultural
U.
Marketing Scervtce
Washington, D. C.
CONTENTS
Artificial ice and the refrigerator car create need for standards......
Abuses broughi about by long-distance dealing......................
First attempts at standardization.............. ccc ccc cece cece eee eeees
Government participates in field of standardization..................
First United States grades issued for potatoes................ece ce eees
Authority granted te establish a terminal-market inspection service...
Inspection extended to shipping points...........cccccececececscscecs
States participate in standardization program..............-.eeeeeee:
Rapid progress in issuing standards since 1921..............2.0eceeee
U. S. standards permissive in character.............ccececeecececeees
Basic principles followed in developing standards....................
Requirements of standards represent trade demands................
Uniformity of language in requirements for standards...............
Tolerances in U. S. standards...... RS PRN Gee oS SUG 8
Standards for raw products for processing.............--seeeeeeeeees
Consumer standards: 3:2 of55 Seekonk Soe hance none Sie een eee Cee
The Inspection Service <.6ccc he a eee eee
Shipping=point Inspection’: .)...cisccec es sce ere eee oe Mets ole eco tee
Training shipping-point inspectors............. cece eee c cece ee eees
Inspection procedUre «2550 2. 5 OR Voce oa ee We ee
Why shippers take inspection. ............. cece cece cece cece eeeees
Inspection of raw producis for processing................eeeceees
Inspection on the basis of consumer standards...................
Federal inspection at receiving markets................eceeeecees
Service under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act...........
Revised August 1956
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. 8. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 15 cents
a
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION OF FRESH
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
By Raymond L. Spangler, Marketing Specialist, Agricultural
Marketing Service
Standardization and inspection of fresh fruits and vegetables have made great
strides since 1913. Prior to World War I, U. S. Standards and Government in-
spection had not yet materialized and the stage was being set for the unusual
developments that were to follow. Most of the nearly 700,000 cars of fresh
fruits and vegetables shipped annually by rail to city markets are bought and
sold on the basis of official standards, mostly Federal, and more than half of them
are inspected and certified for grade by Federal-State inspectors at shipping
points.
A large portion of the shipments by motortruck are also inspected. Federal-
State inspectors also inspect close to a half-million carlot equivalents of raw
products for processing and farmers’ stock peanuts annually. In the receiving
markets, Federal inspectors also inspect annually in the neighborhood of 50,000
cars of fresh produce besides a slightly greater volume of supplies purchased by
Government and private agencies.
The packing of fruits and vegetables in accordance with the requirements of
official standards is the first step required for orderly marketing and efficient
buying and selling (fig. 1). They furnish the yardstick for measuring varia-
tions in quality, and their use has made possible a basis for satisfactory long-
distance dealing.
Clear and definite standards are indispensable in the settlement of disputes
between buyers and sellers. They also make easier the settlement of claims
against transportation companies when it is necessary to establish the value of a
product before a fair adjustment can be made.
Standardized grades form the basis for market news prices and are necessary
to permit an intelligent comparison of market prices.
Separation of products into various grades furnishes a basis for growers to pool
their products in cooperative marketing associations in order that all may share
equitably in the season’s sales.
More effective distribution of fruits and vegetables is permitted by separating
them into various grades. Market demands vary in different localities and
effective distribution consists in finding the market that will give the greatest
return for the grade of product offered for sale.
The desirability of standard grades as a basis for advertising is plain in that
advertising is without meaning and therefore useless unless backed up by products
uniformly graded and packed.
In the field of financing, either private or governmental, standardized grades
are of first importance in establishing the value of products upon which loans
may be made.
Finally, trading on the basis of quality is the greatest stimulus to better methods
of production and marketing because it helps growers and shippers to correct their
3
4 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
ail
N—3665
Figure 1.—The packing of fruits and vegetables in accordance with official standards,
as done in this Florida citrus-packing house, is the first step required for orderly
marketing and efficient buying and selling.
mistakes. It assists them to obtain proper remuneration by requiring them to
adopt more careful and effective methods of growing, packing, and marketing
their produce and to eliminate waste in handling.
ARTIFICIAL ICE AND THE REFRIGERATOR CAR CREATE NEED
FOR STANDARDS
The need for standards and a system of inspection became apparent after the
introduction of artificial ice and the invention of the refrigerator car, which were
of such great significance to the fruit and vegetable industry. Naturally, these
developments meant a great shift in producing areas and rapid expansion in
production. Until about 1890, most of the fresh fruits and vegetables were
produced on high-priced lands close to the cities and large centers of population;
but with the development of long-distance shipping, made possible through
artificial ice and the refrigerator car, production shifted from this high-priced
land to cheaper new lands. Sandy lands in the Southern Coastal Plain became
potential fruit- and vegetable-growing areas. It was about this time also that
California and the Northwest began to enter the field as competitors of other
production sections. California soon came to be known for its citrus and other
fruits as well as for a large variety of fresh vegetables. Idaho went heavily into
the production of potatoes, and Washington, and Oregon engaged in the
production of apples and pears. As time went on, other States became noted for
the production of certain fruits and vegetables.
i
i
i
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 5
The rapid shift in producing areas and increased production also brought
about a great change in American dietary habits. Many adults can remember
when fresh fruits and vegetables out of season were a rarity. This was when
everyone looked forward to the time when melons, tomatoes, and other such
products would be ripe. Such delicacies were enjoyed only during the season
that each reached maturity in its own particular locality, and tin cans from the
grocers’ shelves or jars from the home cellar furnished the chief supply of fruits
and vegetables in winter. It is true that some fresh fruits and vegetables are still
available only in season; but thanks to modern transportation systems and
artificial ice, the seasons for the most perishable products have been extended.
Such fresh vegetables as head lettuce, celery, snap beans, cauliflower, broccoli,
carrots, and peppers, are obtainable in the markets of the larger cities almost
the year-round. In winter the fresh fruit and vegetable department of any
grocery store has probably become just as important as any of its nonperishable
departments.
ABUSES BROUGHT ABOUT BY LONG-DISTANCE DEALING
As was to be expected, the changes brought about by the rapid shift from
more or less local dealing to long-distance dealing in fruits and vegetables created
many new problems. The late Wells A. Sherman,' who for many years admin-
istered the fruit and vegetable standardization and inspection work of the United
States Department of Agriculture, describes the situation around the turn of the
century as follows in his book Merchandising Fresh Fruits and Vegetables:
The worst abuses which the produce business has ever known grew rapidly and naturally
out of the conditions brought about by the universal ice supply and the refrigerator car.
The wholesale handler of perishables in the city, whether he was a commission man or buyer,
was no longer in personal touch with the grower. The distant grower seldom if ever visited
the market and usually knew nothing of market prices or of the condition of his goods on
arrival except what the receiver chose to tell him.
The inevitable happened. There was “easy money” for the unscrupulous man who could
get goods sent to him on commission from afar. The industry became infested with a class
of parasites who preyed upon the shipper and interfered with the business of the legitimate
trader. . . . The abuses were not all on the city end. The distant shipper was often a
plunger. He, too, was after “easy money.” He had no reputation to maintain in the far-
away market. He was often guilty of false packing. He frequently made little effort to
exclude the stuff which should not have been shipped. If he had an opportunity to sell
outright, his products were always represented as of the best. The city merchant who was
unwilling to share the opprobrium which attached so generally to the commission business
and who was willing to buy f. o. b. shipping point, found that he must reserve the privilege
of rejection on arrival if the goods did not prove upon inspection to be of the kind and quality
specified.
Thus, “f. o. b., usual terms’ came to mean that the buyer took the goods after loading
on cars at shipping point at an agreed price, but payment was deferred until the goods reached
destination and had been inspected by the buyer. Around this method of sale other abuses
have developed which are now in process of abatement.
Such a state of affairs as Mr. Sherman describes could not be prevented
during the early part of the present century when there were no standards by
which the value of produce could be measured. Abuses by tradesmen, how-
ever, were not all the handicaps that had to be endured because of this lack of
common language. Without standards to measure gradations of quality, an
equitable basis was lacking upon which to make future contracts. Descrip-
tions could be made, but they were a poor substitute for definite standards. If
* SHERMAN, W. A. MERCHANDISING FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES; A NEW BILLION DOLLAR
INDUSTRY. 499 pp. 1928. (See pp. 37-38, 39.)
6 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
a dispute arose between buyer and seller, there was no basis for settlement.
Claims against transportation companies amounting to millions of dollars were
difficult to settle because it was almost impossible to establish the value of
a product.
Without standards there was no intelligible basis on which prices of produce
could be compared. Even though a shipper was able to obtain price quotations
for a product on different markets, these prices meant little because he had no
way of knowing the quality on which they were based. He would always be
in doubt as to whether a variation in price at different markets meant a varia-
tion in quality, or whether the price quoted was lower on one market than on
another for the same quality of produce.
Lack of standards was a handicap to growers belonging to cooperative market-
ing associations because there was no practical basis for pooling their products.
Without standards a basis was also lacking for the safe and successful use of
credit.
Such were some of the problems that confronted the fruit and vegetable in-
dustry at the turn of the century, when the volume of produce being shipped
was increasing by leaps and bounds.
FIRST ATTEMPTS AT STANDARDIZATION
Growers were really responsible for the first efforts to ease a bad situation
and they took the first step in an attempt to establish a measure of commercial
standardization by marking containers with their names. Many were success-
ful in building up a personal reputation by packing a high-quality product or
by honesty of pack. Growers names and addresses are not so helpful to them
now in selling produce as they were originally because the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, and most of the State standardization laws or rules and
regulations established thereunder require that all containers be marked with
the name and address of the packer or distributor.
The next step in the evolution of standardization was grading on the markets
by commission men. Much of the produce coming into the markets was of
poor quality and failed to meet the demands of the retail trade; but rather
than criticize the producer whose business he wished to keep, the commission
man did his own sorting and repacking. This grading in the city markets
reached considerable proportions before the more definite State and Federal
standards were established. Another common practice was for city dealers
to send their representative to country shipping points in order to purchase and
supervise the grading and packing of products demanded by their trade.
Another development in standardization was the use of trade-marks and
brands by some of the larger shippers’ and producers’ organizations. This
development immediately preceded the use of definite, established standards
and was in reality a primitive system of grading. The shipper who adopted
a trade-mark or brand usually tried to have his fruits and vegetables meet
certain standards or at least he did not allow the more defective products to
get into the pack. Use of brands did not prove very successful, however, as
dealers in the markets used them in competitive advertising and there was a
general tendency to make the buyer think that the brands which a dealer
handled were superior to the corresponding brands of his competitor. Brands
and trade-marks are used extensively today but their use is often coupled with
definite official standards.
Such were the first meager attempts by individuals and commercial firms to
solve some of the knotty problems which confronted the fruit and vegetable
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 7
industry before the establishment of State and national standards and before
legislation was enacted to govern the standardization of fruits and vegetables.
GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATES IN FIELD OF STANDARDIZATION
Representatives of Congress in Washington naturally became conscious of the
chaotic conditions existing in the fruit and vegetable industry through their
constituents. The first attempt of the Federal Government to relieve the situation
was 1n 1912 when Congress passed the Sulzer bill, otherwise known as the United
States Apple Grading Law. This act specified dimensions for the standard apple
barrel and provided certain requirements for standard grades of apples of various
sizes when packed in standard barrels. ‘The act provided a penalty of one dollar
and costs for each barrel of apples sold or offered for sale if it was marked as to
grade and failed to meet the requirements specified in the act. Packing of apples
under the requirements of this act was voluntary, and the quantity so packed was
insignificant.
Congressional action in 1913 marked the real beginning of concentrated effort
by the Federal Government to aid the fruit and vegetable industry as a whole in
the marketing of their products. In that year Congress made the first appropria-
tion for conducting studies in the marketing of farm products. An appropria-
tion of $50,000 was made to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to diffuse among
the people useful information on subjects connected with the marketing and
distribution of farm products. Thus, the original authority for conducting
investigations with a view to establishing standards came about through the
passage of the regular agricultural appropriation bill and not through an organic
act, as may be commonly supposed. This procedure was followed until 1954.
Since that time the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 has been cited as authority
for the development and promulgation of U. S. standards for fresh fruits and
vegetables.
Shortly after the first appropriation was made, the Secretary of Agriculture
created the Office of Markets to carry out the work authorized by this provision.
Workers were soon assigned to make field investigations, with a view to even-
tually establishing U.S. standards. During the first 2 years major efforts in this
direction were devoted to potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries, cantaloups, and
peaches.
In 1915, the need for national standards for fruits and vegetables was greatly
emphasized by the inauguration of a telegraphic market news service by the
Department of Agriculture. It soon became obvious that unless prices quoted were
based upon products of comparable quality, no particular significance could be
attached to price variations in the different markets. Staff technicians, therefore,
redoubled their efforts in field investigational work with a view to establishing
practical grades for the country as a whole.
Progress in formulating standards during the first few years was naturally
slow. Investigators were obliged to visit all commercial producing sections
where standards for any particular crop were under consideration. Countless
numbers of meetings and conferences had to be held and there were many
differences of opinion to iron out between growers, shippers, and receivers
before standards suitable to the whole country could be formulated.
FIRST UNITED STATES GRADES ISSUED FOR POTATOES
At the time the United States entered World War I, the marketing of
potatoes by grade was thought to be practicable. As it happened, the choice
8 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF ACRICULTURE
of potatoes as the first product for which grades were to be established, was a
fortunate one. The 1917 crop was large and the Federal Reserve Board
authorized its member banks to accept warehouse receipts as collateral security
for loans for potatoes that had been properly packed, stored, and insured.
The Board notified the United States Food Administration that since potatoes
constitute a readily marketable nonperishable staple, they came within the
regulation relating to commodity paper. Following this action of the Federal
Reserve Board, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United
States Food Administration jointly recommended United States grades for
potatoes, the use of which became mandatory on January 31, 1918, as far as the
licensees of the latter organization were concerned. This ruling was not lifted
until after the signing of the armistice.
AUTHORITY GRANTED TO ESTABLISH A TERMINAL-MARKET
INSPECTION SERVICE
It was about this time that Congress considered the establishment of a
terminal-market inspection service. In an emergency act passed on August
10, Ig17, to provide, among other things, for the national security and defense
by stimulating the distribution of agricultural products, authority was granted
to the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and certify to shippers the con-
dition as to soundness of fruits, vegetables, and other food products when re-
ceived at important central markets. Immediately following this action, the
Bureau of Markets, which grew out of the Office of Markets, established
inspection offices in 34 of the larger markets, and by June 30, 1918, a total of
6,069 inspections had been made.
The following year Congress granted authority to make inspections in the
markets, both for quality and condition, for receivers and other financially
interested parties, as well as shippers, and to charge fees to defray the expenses
of such services.
The establishment of an inspection service produced an urgent need for
standards, and specialists in the field continued their investigations in order to
fulfill this need as soon as possible. In 1918, the standardization investiga-
tions for strawberries and Bermuda onions were completed and grades were
accordingly recommended. No new grades were issued in the following year,
but in 1920 grades for northern-grown onions and sweetpotatoes were an-
nounced. Grades for cabbage and white Spanish peanuts were released in 1921.
INSPECTION EXTENDED TO SHIPPING POINTS
In 1922 another important step was taken by Congress which stimulated the
need for national standards. In the agricultural appropriation bill for the fiscal
year 1923, authority was given the Department of Agriculture to certify quality
and condition of fruits and vegetables at shipping points.
With the passage of this act in 1922, the Department now had authority
to establish voluntary standards for fruits and vegetables and to conduct an in-
spection service, both at shipping points and in the terminal markets. This,
in fact, was all the authority required for the gradual expansion of a greatly
needed system of national standardization.
The Department of Agriculture had anticipated that it might be called upon
to make inspections at shipping points; even before the passage of the act in
1922, trained supervisors had been loaned to a number of Western States, which,
by this time, were deeply involved in State inspection problems. Shipping-
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 9
point inspection work was immediately reorganized on a cooperative Federal-
State basis in a number of States, particularly in the far Western States. Several
years later cooperative agreements for the conduct of the service were effective
in all but a few States, and since 1942, practically all States have been a party to
such agreements. Shipping-point inspections during the first fiscal year 1922-23
totaled 72,466. Inspection expanded rapidly during the succeeding years, until
during the fiscal year 1956 a total of 763,979 carlots were inspected at shipping
points, not including an additional 462,687 carloads of raw products inspected at
processing plants. The total of all types of inspection in 1955-56 including
those at receiving markets, was 1,386,663 carloads. Such figures are a significant
tribute to a governmental service maintained for the benefit of an industry,
when it is considered that inspection is voluntary and paid for by the industry.
STATES PARTICIPATE IN STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM
Since the Department of Agriculture had recommended grades for only a
few products prior to 1922, it was necessary to make some inspections on the
basis of the State grades then in force. It is well to note that during the period
when the Federal Government was developing its standardization and inspection
programs, similar programs were being conducted by the various States. The
States began to pass legislation pertaining to the standardization and grading of
various products in an attempt to abolish some of the abuses to which the
industry had been subjected for a number of years.
New York was the pioneer State to enact standardization legislation. A law
was passed there in 1909 provided that no person could sell or brand apples,
pears, or peaches as grown in New York State unless they actually had been
produced within the State. This act was amended in rogrr to include the first
grade requirements for apples. In 1913 Montana and Maine passed the first
mandatory apple-grading laws. In 1914 the State of New York passed similar
legislation and Massachusetts, Delaware, Connecticut, and California followed
with apple-grading legislation in 1915. Several other States issued grades for
apples and other products, either by legislation or regulation, prior to 1919.
Enactment of State standardization legislation began in earnest following
World War I when most of the so-called general State standardization laws
were passed. These laws served to provide the States with the necessary author-
ity to establish official standards for the grading and inspection of fruits and
vegetables and other products. Most of such laws authorize an officer in author-
ity, such as the commissioner of agriculture or the director of markets, to
promulgate official standards for fruits, vegetables, and other products, as well
as standards for containers of those products. Provisions are usually made for
the appointment of inspectors, charging of fees for inspection, making certificates
prima facie evidence in all State courts, prescribing rules for the marking of
containers, and making such rules and regulations as necessary for conducting
a standardization and inspection program.
To give the history of all the State legislation that has been enacted with respect
to the standardization of fruits and vegetables would not be particularly pertinent
to this discussion. Suffice it to say that all States except Iowa have passed one or
more laws on the subject. In most States, laws specifically require that U. S.
standards shall be official for one or more products, or an officer with authority
by law has officially promulgated U. S. standards for one or more products. In
all States, U. S. standards are used very extensively as a basis for packing and sale
of most of the commercial fruits and vegetables produced.
391205°—56
_
10 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
RAPID PROGRESS IN ISSUING STANDARDS SINCE 1921
Beginning in 1922, the standardization project in the newly created Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, which took over the duties of the Bureau of Markets and
Crop Estimates, was able to increase substantially its issuance of standards. In
that year, grades for asparagus, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, lettuce, peaches,
and tomatoes were issued and those for cabbage and potatoes were revised. For
each of the next 10 years, an average of about 6 new standards for fruits and
vegetables were added and, of course, many of those previously issued were
revised. As of June 30, 1931, a total of 67 new standards, covering 50 different
commodities, had been recommended. By this time, U. S. standards had been
issued for the principal products, so during the ensuing years technical employees
were able to devote more time than previously to developing standards for some
of the less important commodities.
Some new standards have been promulgated every year since 1920 except the
last one, and U. S. standards for 76 different products have been issued. Since two
or more standards are necessary for some products, owing to differences in types
and uses, a total of 142 sets of standards have been issued. These include 4o
standards for 20 different fruits, 85 standards for 48 different vegetables, and 17
standards for 8 other products not classed as fruits and vegetables, such as peanuts,
edible tree nuts, and tomato plants.
The order in which U. S. standards have been developed has been determined
largely by the needs of the various industries. No standards have been promul-
gated unless there was enough evidence to indicate that their issuance would be
a benefit to the particular industry concerned. In spite of the large number of
U. S. standards that have been issued, there are still some products for which
standards have not been issued. Standards intended primarily for use as a basis
of packing and sale of products in large packages at the wholesale level have been
issued for all but a few relatively unimportant commodities. Thirty-two stand-
ards for 25 raw products for processing have been issued, thus leaving a great
many products for which standards have not yet been developed.
The decided trend toward prepackaging of fruit and vegetables for retailing to
consumers brought about a demand for consumer standards during the last
decade. To date, standards have been developed and issued for 11 vegetables and
1 fruit. It will be many years before consumer standards are developed for all
products.
U. S. STANDARDS PERMISSIVE IN CHARACTER
Generally speaking, the U. S. standards for fresh fruits and vegetables are
permissive standards; that is, their use is optional as far as the law under which
authority is given for their issuance is concerned. Certain other Federal and
State laws, however, grant authority for making the grading of produce com-
pulsory under certain circumstances. The Export Apple and Pear Act, enacted
in 1933, is a mandatory Federal act which provides that it shall be unlawful
to ship apples or pears in the raw state to foreign countries, except in less
than carlots, unless they meet certain minimum grades prescribed by rules and
regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Under provisions of the Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, authority is
granted for restriction of shipments of produce by grade, size or maturity.
Thus, grading of certain products has been made compulsory in production
areas which have adopted marketing agreements and orders.
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 11
Compulsory grading of many fresh fruits and vegetables in accordance with
requirements of official U. S. standards is required by the provisions of many
State laws. A few States also require compulsory inspection of some products,
either by law or by regulations under lawful authority.
BASIC PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED IN DEVELCPING STANDARDS
Through experience, certain basic principles have been recognized as funda-
mental in the development of a practicable and useful set of standards. Prob-
ably the most important principle 1s that a set of standards for a fruit or vegetable
must recognize definite gradations in quality of the entire supply. This means
that they must be applicable to all portions of the supply before they can serve
as an equitable basis for trading in the commodity.
In the development of a set of standards, the standards for grades are the
most important. It must be recognized, however, that U. S. standards also
include standards for factors other than grades, such as standards for bunching
in the case of bunched vegetables, or standards for packing, which usually deal
with such factors as the arrangement in the containers, uniformity of size, and
tightness of pack. ‘Thus, upon inspection, a product nicht meet the require-
ments of a grade but fail to meet the standards for packing, or vice versa, and
be so reported.
In developing standards for grades, the highest grade in a set of standards
represents the quality and condition characteristics most desired by the trade
and which command the highest prices in the markets. The lower grades
represent qualities not so desirable but which have good food value and are
merchantable. Naturally, the lower grades, under normal marketing conditions,
command lower prices than the higher grades. The number of grades included
in a set of standards depends to a large extent on the number of distinct
gradations of quality that the industry makes and which is usually governed
by relative value of the product. For example, it is feasible to have more
grades of quality for such products as citrus fruits, apples, and pears, which
have relatively high value, than for cabbage and some of the root crops, which
have a relatively low value and which, from the growers’ or shippers’ viewpoint,
do not warrant sorting into so many grades.
In formulating standards intended primarily for use in wholesale trading of
fresh fruits and vegetables, the Department of Agriculture, in the beginning,
adopted the numerical system of nomenclature for grades, with some exceptions.
In general, the designation “U. S. No. 1” was given to the highest grade for a
product. U.S. No. 1 grade, as a rule, represents good, average quality that is
practicable to pack under commercial conditions. Usually, under normal
growing conditions, better than half of the crop will be of U. S. No. 1 grade.
The designation TG GINO. ’ ordinarily represents the quality of the lowest
grade that is deemed practicable to pack under normal conditions. Minimum
requirements for a U. S. No. 2 grade are usually set low enough so that shippers
ordinarily would not deem it advisable to ship products which will not meet
the requirements of this grade. Exception to this rule, of course, would be
made when an acute shortage of a commodity occurred.
The term “Unclassified” has been adopted to describe produce which has not
been graded in accordance with the requirements of any grade. It is not con-
sidered a grade but is provided as a designation to show that no definite grade
has been applied to a lot.
In formulating standards for some products, it was found that the U.S. No. 1
and U, S. No, 2 designations were not sufficient to represent all of the gradations
12 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
of quality packed by shippers in the case of a number of the more highly
specialized products. Many shippers of these commodities preferred to pack
a top-grade product of high color perhaps and practically free from defects and
for which they would receive premium prices. Thus, it was necessary in some
sets of standards to provide a grade designation for a product superior to that
ordinarily termed “U.S. No. 1,” so the designation “U. S. Fancy” was chosen
to describe such quality. Ordinarly, the percentage of a crop packed to meet
the requirements of a U.S. Fancy grade is relatively small.
In a few standards it has been found necessary to provide a grade designation
for a quality of a product between U.S. Fancy and U. S. No. 1, as in the standards
for peaches and potatoes. The designation “U. S. Extra No. 1” is applied to
this quality.
It has also been necessary to provide an intermediate grade between U. S. No. 1
and U. S. No. 2 in the standards for a number of products in order to provide a
designation for quality not up to the U.S. No. 1 standard, but noticeably superior
to the U. S. No. 2 quality. The terms “U.S. Commercial” and “U. S. Combina-
tion” were adopted to describe this quality. Minimum requirements for a U. S.
Commercial grade are slightly lower for some factors than those for U.S. No. 1.
U. S. Combination denotes a grade made up of a certain percentage of specimens
meeting the requirements of U. S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 grades. These grades
are often used to pack a crop which is below average in quality owing to abnormal
growing conditions, or they are used as a grade designation for a lot packed to
meet a higher grade but which fails in some respects.
The U.S. No. 3 grade designation is used only in a few standards, for example,
those for citrus fruit, a highly specialized product which lends itself to separations
into many different plassifieation®.
In developing the names and number of grades used for U. S. standards for
fruits and vegetables, each product has been considered separately, and the aim
has been to formulate standards, upon the basis of trade practices, that will fulfill
the needs of each particular industry. Some criticism has been made of the
system of grade names, in that such terms as “U. S. Fancy” or “U.S. Extra No. 1”
are misleading and represent hidden grades. Such criticism, however, has
usually come from persons not using the standards, rather than from growers,
shippers, and receivers whom the standards are intended primarily to benefit.
Members of the produce industry are generally well acquainted with requirements
of standards and are not usually confused by grade names which digress slightly
from the straight numerical system. In fact, the use of terms other than
numerical in U. S. standards has been included in practically all instances at the
request of the industry.
REQUIREMENTS OF STANDARDS REPRESENT TRADE DEMANDS
Contrary to the belief of some persons that requirements of grades in U. S.
standards represent the theories of inexperienced departmental employees, grade
requirements for the most part actually represent the ideas of members of the
particular industry concerned. The small staff of technical employees, who
finally put the standards into words, are really only the referees. Whenever
demands for a set of standards are considered sufficient to warrant going ahead
with their development, a member of the technical staff is assigned to the field to
make the necessary investigations. Representative growers and shippers in all of
the principal producing sections are visited and their ideas solicited.
Often, meetings of representatives of the industry are held in the various pro-
ducing sections. Grading and packing operations are observed and the principal
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES is
defects of the commodity are noted for each growing region. Receivers in the
markets are also consulted as to their ideas of grade requirements. Often it is
necessary to consult fruit and vegetable specialists and pathologists at universities
and colleges of agriculture to obtain details concerning certain diseases and insect
injuries that affect a particular crop.
Information is gladly received from all sources that may be able to offer some-
thing of value in setting up workable grade requirements. Naturally, there
are many differences of opinion to iron out, and this is where the field investi-
gator plays his part as the referee. When he feels that he has obtained the
necessary information to formulate a set of standards, he draws up the original
draft, incorporating the suggestions which he has obtained from his investiga-
tions in the field. The proposed standards are then reviewed by members of
the technical staff in Washington. Often a tentative draft is sent back to trade
representatives and inspection supervisors for criticism before processing the
proposed standards for publication in the Federal Register under notice of rule
making. During the period between publication for rule making and final
promulgation comments from interested parties are considered. Under the
Administrative Procedures Act, all Federal agencies are required to give public
notice and to comply with the fale making procedure prior to issuing any regu-
lation. ‘This system provides the maximum assurance that all interested parties
are given an opportunity to present their views and comments before final pub-
lication of new or revised standards.
The period of time necessary to formulate a set of standards varies with the
commodity. Sometimes investigational work for certain products may be com-
pleted and standards recommended within a few weeks. Again it may take
months, and for some products the investigations have taken parts of several
years. It has always been the policy of the Department not to issue standards
for official use until they are considered practicable and workable.
UNIFORMITY OF LANGUAGE IN REQUIREMENTS FOR
STANDARDS
Anyone who has occasion to use U. S. standards for fruits and vegetables will
note a considerable degree of similarity and uniformity in the wording of the
grade requirements. Such uniformity of language is maintained for the pur-
pose of making them more easily understood by inspectors and members of the
industry who use the standards. Similar terms and expressions in one set of
standards usually have similar interpretations in others, even though they apply
to different commodities.
In formulating the standards, it has been the policy to follow a certain order
in listing the grade factors. Such factors as color, shape, freshness, and firm-
ness, and other factors which have to be defined in more or less general
descriptive terms, are usually given first. Then usually follows freedom from
certain defects, sue) as decay, and freezing 1 injury or other defects of a serious
nature. For the grade factors covering the less serious defects, in which it 1s
desirable to allow a certain degree of injury, the expressions “free from injury,”
“free from damage,” “free from serious damage,” and “free from very serious
damage” are generally used.
Each expression in the order named signifies a greater degree of injury.
Ehussana-U: S. Fancy grade, where it is intended that only a slight seve
of injury for certain defects be permitted, the expression “free from injury”
is used. “Free from damage” is usually used for certain grade factors of U. S.
No. 1 grade, which would be interpreted as an injury not materially affecting
14 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
appearance, or the edible or shipping quality, or as causing any appreciable
waste. The expression “free from serious damage” is associated generally with
certain grade factors in U. S. No. 2 grades and finally, “free from very serious
damage” with those in U.S. No. 3 grades. It is often necessary, however, to use
two or more of the above expressions in one grade for certain factors.
U. S. standards have been criticized for being too lengthy and too technical.
It has been the policy of the Department to make standards as simple as possible
but it must be remembered that the extent to which a standard reflects relative
value of a product depends to a large extent on the completeness with which
it defines various grade factors that influence quality. Therefore, whenever
possible, grade factors are defined as definitely as possible in order to facilitate
uniformity of interpretation. Descriptive standards, to be practical, must be
reasonably specific. Some factors are very easily defined objectively by specity-
ing the size of an area or the percentage of the surface of a specimen which
may be affected. Other factors, such as color, firmness, and shape, are very
intangible and can be defined subjectively only in general descriptive language.
TOLERANCES IN U. S. STANDARDS
Early in the development of U. S. standards as a basis for wholesale trading,
it was found necessary to provide suitable tolerances in the various grades in
order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling. Persons
inexperienced in the application of standards often question the need for tol-
Granmces. tho appiccs the necessity for them, however, such persons need
only to visit a packing shed where any product is being graded and packed for
shipment.
In any commercial preparation for market operation it is necessary that sort-
ing and packing be done rapidly in order to hold costs toa minimum. Certain
types of products such as apples, peaches, citrus fruits, and onions, usually
are passed over movable conveyor belts, and defective specimens are removed
by sorters as they move along on the belts (fig. 2). Under such a system, it
is not humanly possible for employees to see all defects in specimens, especially
those which are not plainly visible, such as very small worm holes in apples
or peaches. Consequently, a few defective specimens naturally go into the
packed containers and unless reasonable tolerances are provided in the grades,
products would rarely, if ever, meet grade requirements.
The percentage of idlewences provided in grades for specimens failing to
meet grade requirements varies with the different products, usually from 5 to
10 percent. The latter tolerance is the most prevalent. However, serious
defects resulting from freezing injury and soft rot which may develop further
and spread to other specimens, are usually restricted to 1 or 2 percent. Where
a total tolerance of 10 percent is allowed in certain grades, often this total is
restricted to 5 percent for certain serious defects other than soft rot and freezing
injury.
STANDARDS FOR RAW PRODUCTS FOR PROCESSING
In addition to developing U. S. standards for use in wholesale trading in
fresh fruits and vegetables, the Department of Agriculture has formulated
U. S. standards to serve as a basis for purchasing certain raw products for
processing. The first set of such standards was issued in 1923 for cannery
tomatoes. These standards were revised in 1926 and since that time their use
has extended to practically all the principal States which produce tomatoes for
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 15
3700
Figure 2.—Sorters grade oranges on movable conveyor belts in a Florida packing house.
processing. In 1933 separate standards were recommended for tomatoes for
the manufacture of strained tomato products. During the 1955 season, close to
780,000 tons were inspected by Federal-State inspectors.
U. S. standards have been issued for raw products for processing as follows:
Apples, asparagus, snap beans, lima beans, beets, blackberries and similar berries,
strawberries, blueberries, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cherries, sweet corn, pickling
cucumbers, currants, grapes, onions, freestone peaches, pears, peas, sweet peppers,
sweetpotatoes, raspberries, spinach, and tomatoes. Copies of these standards, as
well as other U. S. standards, are issued in pamphlet form and can be obtained
free of charge upon request to the Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Washington 25, D. C. A checklist showing the products
for which such standards have been issued and their effective dates is also avail-
able from the same source.
Before U. S. standards for raw products for processing were issued, it was the
usual practice for canners and processors to purchase their supplies at a certain
flat rate per unit. Under such a system, they often experienced great difficulty
in getting the quality of raw product necessary to pack a high-quality finished
product. Processors must have ripe fruit and tender vegetables in order to
make the best quality of finished products. Under the flat-rate system of pay-
ment, many growers were not particularly careful about bringing in their crops
at the time they were at the most desirable stage of maturity for processing.
For example, tomato growers often delivered tomatoes that were not red-ripe,
and corn growers sometimes let the ears get overmature before harvesting,
in the belief that they would get more weight. The establishment of standard
grades has largely corrected these practices.
16 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
U. S. standards for raw products for processing are designed to do away
with the outmoded flat-rate method of purchase. This was done by providing
two or more grades in each set of standards. In the correct application of
the standards, processors pay premium prices for the percentage of a delivery
that will meet requirements of the highest grade and correspondingly lower
prices for the percentages which meet requirements of the lower grades.
Usually no money 1s paid for culls. Such a system of payment for produce
provides an incentive for the grower to deliver the highest percentage possible
of the higher grades, as this gives him greater returns per unit of delivery.
The system benefits the processor by enabling him to keep his production costs
at a minimum, because less labor is required to prepare the product, his yield
per unit purchase is greater, and finally he is able to pack a higher quality of
finished product for which he receives greater returns. Even the consumer
benefits under such a system by being able to purchase a better quality of
processed products.
Many fruits and vegetables are being processed for which U. S. standards
have not yet been developed. Dehydration and quick-freezing of fruits and
vegetables have extended the need for U. S. standards for more products. It 1s
the plan of the Department to provide such standards as the demand arises and
time permits.
CONSUMER STANDARDS
The development and promulgation of U. S. consumer standards for fresh
fruits and vegetables is a comparatively new project. The program was initiated
about 1946 primarily for the purpose of furnishing the rapidly expanding pre-
packaging industry a basis for packing and sale of fresh produce and to permit
consumers to purchase supplies on the basis of quality grade standards. It was
recognized that the U. S. standards in effect for fresh products packed in large
containers for sale to the wholesale trade in carload and truck lots were inade-
quate to serve the needs of prepackagers who pack higher quality products in
small packages ready for distribution to consumers. Products packed in large
containers on the basis of U. S. standards used in wholesale trading often are not
satisfactory to consumers without further sorting and reconditioning.
Potatoes were chosen as the first product in the fresh products field for the
development of consumer standards. After considerable investigation the official
consumer standards for potatoes were made effective by the Department in 1947
with the hope that their use by shippers would be helpful in satisfying consumers’
demands for better quality potatoes.
Following the issuance of these standards, the Department began to receive
requests from prepackagers to develop consumer standards for other products.
As a result consumer standards for spinach leaves and tomatoes were developed
and issued in 1948. Since then, consumer standards for 8 other vegetables and 1
fruit have been promulgated which include those for carrots, celery, husked corn
on the cob, kale, Italian sprouting broccoli, Brussels sprouts, parsnips, turnips,
and cranberries.
In order to distinguish consumer standards from the other types of standards,
the alphabetical system for grade names was adopted. This policy is in line
with other commodity divisions in the Agricultural Marketing Service which
have issued standards for products prepackaged for consumers. U. S. standards
for processed fruits and vegetables, poultry, eggs and dairy products are identified
by alphabetical grade names.
In general, the requirements of the consumer grades are the same as for
comparable wholesale grades except that tolerances for defects and other factors
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 17
are smaller and cleanliness requirements are higher. Such a policy has facili-
tated the development of consumer standards because less field investigational
work is necessary. It also qualifies sorters in packinghouses, trained to sort
produce on the basis of wholesale grades, to sort it on the basis of consumer
grades without much additional training. The policy also facilitates inspection
in that inspectors use the same grade interpretations for inspecting a product
under either type of standards.
Use of consumer standards as a basis for packing and sale of produce has
not yet become extensive. As with the development and issuance of other types
of standards it is anticipated that it will take many years to develop consumer
standards for all fresh products that are prepackged.
THE INSPECTION SERVICE
Most of the preceding discussion pertains to the history and development of
U. S. standards by the Fruit and Vegetable Division of the Agricultural Market-
ing Service and its predecessors. The discussion that follows will take up the
practical application of the standards.
As previously stated, the inspection service has been active since 1918 when
Congress provided for inspection at receiving markets; 4 years later, in 1922,
Congress provided for extending the service to shipping points. Federal inspec-
tion offices are maintained in 76 of the larger cities throughout the country and
all 48 States cooperate with ifie United States Department of Agriculture in
rendering service to growers and shippers at shipping points.
Shipping-Point Inspection
The shipping-point inspection service is maintained in the various States by
means of cooperative agreements between the Federal Government and some
State agency. The cooperating State agency is generally the State department
of agriculture, although in a few States it is with some other agency, such as
the State college of agriculture. Agreements are now in force in 47 States, and in
the remaining State the work is conducted under a federally operated trust fund.
Shipping-point inspection is available to financially interested parties in practically
all commercial- producing districts (fig. 20:
Differences in State laws account for some variation in the provisions of
agreements, namely, in the salaries of supervisors and inspectors, disposition
of fees collected, and other such matters. In general, however, agreements
provide that the service shall be under the joint direction of the Federal and
State agencies. The Federal supervisor licenses the inspectors and is directly
responsible for their training and supervision in the interpretation of standards,
methods of making inspections, and certificate writing. Hiring of personnel,
collection and disposition of fees, and the like, are left largely to the State
cooperating agency. Inspectors must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Federal supervisor that they are capable of properly inspecting the products for
which they are licensed.
In most of the important fruit and vegetable producing States where ship-
ments are made throughout most or all of the months during the year, Federal
supervisors maintain their offices the year-round. In some States, however,
where the deals are short, as is the case in several States east of the Mississippi
River, the Federal supervisor remains only during the active shipping season.
Licensed inspectors in the latter States also move from State to State as shipping
seasons progress. Many inspectors who work in Florida and Texas during the
18 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
N-—7349
Figure 3.—Federal-State inspector inspects potatoes in a partly loaded car at a North
Dakota loading station.
winter months, follow the crops northward during the late spring and summer
months and return to the South in the fall for citrus and winter vegetable
inspection. In this manner they secure almost year-round employment. No
small tribute is due these Federal-State inspectors, who, as they follow the crops
and move from place to place year after year, do so at real sacrifice to family life.
The extent of the organization of the shipping-point inspection service within
a State is largely dependent upon the volume of work to be handled. In the
more important producing States of California, Florida, Texas, Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, and some others, where large shipments of varying
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 19
kinds of produce are made the year-round, an extensive organization of in-
spectors is required. The Federal supervisors in such States have found it
necessary to establish branch inspection offices in the various producing districts.
Competent and experienced inspectors are placed in charge of these offices and
every effort is made to render quick and efficient service to applicants for in-
spection. Certificates of inspection are usually typed in and mailed from these
branch offices, because to have this work done in the central State office would
cause considerable delay.
In contrast to this type of highly diversified shipping- -point inspection work,
the bulk of the inspection work for the year in some States is handled through
one central temporary office where possibly a large volume of work may be
confined to one or two crops for a short period of time. The Georgia peach deal,
the Mississippi cabbage deal, and the early potato deals in the Atlantic seaboard
States are examples of deals of this sort.
The shipping season for these crops lasts for only a few weeks or months
and shipments inspected during these short periods constitute the bulk of the
shipping-point inspection work for the year. Consequently, the Federal super-
visor in charge of inspection for the deal sets up an organization to handle it
adequately, after which the temporary office may be closed until the following
season. Miscellaneous requests for inspection of the products produced in smaller
volume at various times are then handled from the State’s headquarters for
shipping-point inspection.
Training Shipping-Point Inspectors
At the beginning of a shipping season of an important crop, the Federal super-
visor usually assembles his inspection force, including experienced and inex-
perienced men, for training in grade interpretations and general inspection pro-
cedure. In some States regular training schools for inspectors are held prior to
the opening of a shipping season or a canning deal. In Ohio, Indiana, and
several other States where a large number of inspectors are employed to inspect
the tomatoes delivered to canneries for processing, training schools are held
annually for them just prior to the harvesting season. Such schools are consid-
ered necessary for the proper training of such large groups of men, because
uniformity of grade interpretation is of great importance in the proper conduct
of the service. Similar schools are held in Florida, Texas, California, Washing-
ton, Maine, and many other States for training inspectors to inspect such im-
portant crops as citrus, apples, and potatoes.
At these schools trainees are instructed in all phases of the inspection of the
product covered in the school. They are expected to become familiar with all the
requirements of the various grades for the product established by the U. S.
standards. Probably the most important attribute of a capable inspector is a
thorough knowledge of the grades of the fruit or vegetable he inspects. He
must be able to identify the various defects and diseases that affect the particular
product and to place the individual specimens in their correct grade classification.
Various methods are employed to enable the inspector to gain this necessary
knowledge. Supervisors and other trained inspectors assist him by demonstrating
the sorting of samples of the product into their proper grade. For scoring certain
defects, grade definitions are specific and the inspector needs only to follow the
written specifications. Certain other types of defects, such as those classified
s “off-color” or “misshapen,” can be defined only in general descriptive terms,
so he must gain this information by being shown specific examples of a product
with such defects or by the use of visual aids.
20 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
Skill in the proper interpretation of grade defects is not the only attribute of a
good inspector. He may be able to score grade defects of a certain product per-
fectly, but unless he can accurately record and report his findings, his inspection
is worthless. Thus, a good inspector must demonstrate his ability to record
his notes in systematic and proper form, as these are the basis of his final report
on the inspection certificate. Ability to describe and report his findings on the
final inspection certificate, accurately and in accordance with instructions, is just
as important in making an inspection as accurate judgment in appraising the
physical aspects of a product.
One of the principal aids in training new inspectors and enabling the inex-
perienced ones to interpret properly various grade factors for certain products is
by use of imitation fruits and vegetables modeled and produced in the Depart-
ment. These plaster models are painted by artists who have become highly
skilled through long experience, and they are used to illustrate the lower limits
of a grade for many products. Such models are particularly helpful in illustrat-
ing defects of color or shape, because it is impossible to define these factors in
descriptive language. It is not feasible to furnish plaster models to all inspectors,
owing to the length of time necessary to prepare them, and the cost. However.
over a long period of years the Department has been able to supply each Federal
supervisor, as well as each receiving market inspection office, with many models,
and each year new ones are added to the list. Photographs, both colored and
uncolored, are also used to a considerable extent to illustrate various grade defects
of certain products. Many color comparators also have been distributed to
inspectors to aid them in proper color interpretation for grades of certain
products. Such visual aids help materially in maintaining uniformity in the
interpretation of grades throughout the country.
At the conclusion of training, new inspectors are usually given a written
examination to determine their grasp of the subject. Even after receiving instruc-
tion in such schools, new inspectors are fie assigned to work with older
experienced inspectors before they are allowed to proceed alone.
During the first year, a new inspector may work on only a very few products—
possibly on only one. Thus, the Federal supervisor would license him to inspect
only those products for which he demonstrates special fitness. As time goes on,
he may receive training in the inspection of additional commodities, in which
case, these commodities would be added to his license card. As an inspector’s
license is extended to cover additional products, he naturally becomes more
valuable to the service. However, it may require several years of experience
before he is proficient in the inspection of as many as a dozen products. Experi-
ence often qualifies an inspector for better paying positions in private industry.
Some become packinghouse managers. Others become marketing specialists
in the United States Department of Agriculture. Others fill desirable marketing
jobs in the State governments and in industry.
Inspection Procedure
Many large shippers who operate packinghouses place blanket orders with the
inspection service for inspection of all of their shipments. Federal supervisors
or keymen in charge of the field office nearest the packing plant usually assign
certain inspectors to be responsible for the w ork at such packinghouses. The
inspector, therefore, upon reporting to the packinghouse in the morning, ascer-
tains from the shipper or his foreman what cars are to be loaded and inspected
that day. The smaller shippers may place their orders for inspection by telephone
with the nearest inspection office where the Federal supervisor or keyman in
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 21
charge assigns inspectors to various points in the vicinity in accordance with the
work requirements of the day.
Let us assume that a licensed inspector has been assigned to a certain packing-
house to make an inspection of a car of boxed apples being loaded, and note the
procedure he might follow in making and reporting the inspection. Upon
arriving at the packinghouse he would probably select a package of the product
being graded by the sorters and examine perhaps 50 ‘apples from the packed
container. He would score defective apples or off-sized apples in the sample and
note the information on his score sheet. Then he would probably immediately
select another packed box and score a similar sample.
Inspection of a few samples would, no doubt, indicate whether or not the sorters
were doing their work properly, and the inspector would so report his findings
to the packinghouse foreman. If the samples were found to be close to the
borderline for the grade being packed, the foreman would probably request
his sorters to be more careful. Such information given by the inspector is very
helpful to the packinghouse foreman, as it may save much time and labor cost
in loading out a car of a certain grade of product.
Assuming that the inspector found the few samples he selected within the
grade tolerance, he would probably then take time to make other necessary
entries on his worksheet of information finally to be shown on the inspection
certificate. He would record the time and date that he started the inspection, the
car number and initials, the kind of car, the name and address of the applicant
for inspection, and the name of the shipper. He would then probably look
over the car and note and report to the foreman any defect in equipment that
might affect the shipment. Before completing his inspection, he would note
on his worksheet the condition of the bunkers with respect to the amount of
ice, position of hatch covers, and whether plugs were in or out and drain pipes
were open or closed.
Next, under the heading “Products,” he would show the name of the product,
variety if known, the kind of container with its identifying marks and brands,
such as would appear on the label or on the box, the size of the apples stamped
on containers, and the lot numbers. Before completing the inspection, he would
note on the worksheet the number of containers loaded in the car as found by
actual count or by shipper’s manifest.
By this time, the inspector would probably select at random more packed boxes,
examine samples from each, and record his findings on the note sheet. The
record would give the number of defective and off-sized apples in each sample,
as well as indicate the range of color, shape, and the stage of maturity. As load-
ing of the car progressed, he would also note on the worksheet the method of
loading the car, the number of rows and layers of boxes, the stripping of the
layers, and whether the car was loaded full length or in the ends with center
bracing between doors.
During the course of the inspection, the inspector would probably examine
samples from at least 15 packed containers as a basis for reporting the size and
the quality and condition of the shipment. If he found irregularities in the
samples inspected he would examine more samples than he would if they ran
quite uniform in grade defects. In any case, the inspector would examine as
many samples as he believed necessary to be representative in size, quality, and
condition of the shipment. Upon completion of his examination of samples he
would then total his score of various defects and off-sized apples, and calculate the
percentages. He would then be ready to enter the size and quality and condition
statements for the car as a whole on his worksheet.
22 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
If the average of defective apples was within the tolerances specified in the
grade packed, he would enter the name of the grade under the grade heading.
If the average exceeded the tolerances, he would report the load as failing to
meet the grade and the reasons therefor. Before leaving the car, the inspector
would note the time of completing his inspection, and as a final step tack up a
card to show where, when and by whom the car was inspected.
Before leaving the packinghouse, the inspector would recheck all his notes,
including the one covering the car number, to see that all information was com-
pletely and accurately recorded. Upon returning to the inspection office, which
might not be before nightfall if he had other cars to inspect, the inspector would
hand in his worksheet to the supervisor or inspector in charge, who would also
check the information entered on the sheet before having the certificate typed
for mailing to the applicant. A copy of the typed certificate is attached to the
worksheet for filing in the inspection office. Such is the usual procedure in
inspecting a car of fruits or vegetables at shipping point, with variations, of course,
to take care of different products and situations.
A reproduction of a typical shipping- -point inspection certificate, which is
furnished each applicant for inspection, is shown in figure 4.
Why Shippers Take Inspection
The question is often asked as to why growers and shippers are willing to pay
several dollars for a little sheet of paper giving a description of a carload or truck-
load of produce when inspection, so far as the Federal Government is concerned,
is not compulsory. In the first place, he knows that the information given on
the inspection certificate is accepted as prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein by all Federal courts and most State courts.
Consequently, if he has a contract with a distant buyer to deliver a carload
of a product of a certain grade, as shown on the certificate, he has the satisfaction
of knowing that his shipment complies with the grade provisions of that contract
and if, for that reason, the shipment is not accepted by the receiver, the latter
must prove just cause for the rejection. He regards the few dollars invested
in the inspection service as cheap insurance, and indeed it is when compared
with the loss that might be incurred in case of the unjust rejection of even one
car of produce.
There are other advantages which the shipper appreciates also. Many large
shippers receive valuable assistance from the inspectors in the proper methods of
grading, packing, and loading their produce for shipment. Inspectors are not
required to carry on such educational work, but when asked, and time permits,
they are only too willing to pass on their non ledee to others.
Aside from all other advantages, many shippers feel that the cost of the service
pays them well simply from the psychological effect that the presence of the
inspector in the packinghouse has on the quality of work done by the employees.
Inspection of Raw Products for Processing
Federal supervisors in the various States also supervise the inspection of raw
products for processing at canneries and other processing plants. In a few
States this type of inspection reaches greater proportion than the regular carlot
shipping-point inspection of fruits and vegetables for fresh market. Such inspec-
tion calls for somewhat different procedure than carlot inspection. The canner
or processor, who usually is the applicant, must necessarily make application
for inspection considerably in advance of the harvesting season in order that the
inspection service may make the necessary arrangements to furnish the service.
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ZS
ORIGINAL
Form FV 47 (Virginia)
(12-86-48)
Formerly FPA10 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND IMMIGRATION B 44979
INSPECTION CERTIFICATE
This certificate is issued in compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing the inspection of various products pursuant to the act
making appropriations for the United States Department of Agriculture, the Acts of Virginia Assembly, and is admissible as prima facie evidence in all courts
of the United States and of Virginia. This certificate does not excuse failure to comply with any of the regulatory laws enforced by the United States Department
of Agriculture, or by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration or the Federal Food and Drug Administration.
Inspection Kind Car initials
point ____Winchester, Va. _ of car_Refrigerator and number FGEX 5 6 2 6 5
Inspection begun 4:15 p-m., Jan. 17, 1956- Completed 8:4 -m., Jan. 18, 1956
(Hour, date) (Hour, date)
Applicant____Winchester Apple Co, _____ Address_\inchester, Va.
Shipper_____ __Same Address _____—=—=— Same
I, the undersigned, on the date above specified made personal inspection of samples of the lot of products herein described, and do hereby cert that the
quality and/or conditions, at the said time and on said date, pertaining to such products, as shown by said samples, were as stated below: ty
Condition of car: Hatch covers closed, plugs in, bunkers full of ice.
Products: Red York APPLES - in tub type bushel baskets labeled "W. Brand,
Winchester Apple Co., Winchester, Va.", and stamped "U. S.
Fancy, Red York, 2-3/4 inches up." Loader's count 528 baskets.
Loading: Through load, end to end offset, 22 stacks, 6 rows, 4 layers.
Generally fairly tight. Ring faced. Paper lined. Corrugated
Paper caps under lids. Shredded oil paper in face only.
Generally 2-3/4 to 3-3/4 inches in diameter, mostly 3
to 3-1/2 inches.
Quality and condition: Generally 50% to full red, mostly 60% to 90% good red color.
Grade defects within tolerance. Mostly firm, some firm ripe.
No decay.
U. S. Fancy, 2-3/4 inches up.
Inspector.
PLEASE REFER TO THIS CERTIFICATE BY NUMBER
DN—838
Figure 4.—The Federal-State inspection certificate is an offical record of the grade, con-
dition, and description of the shipment.
In connection with the inspection of raw products, Federal supervisors and
inspectors give a great deal of service to growers by demonstrating the applica-
tion of the U. S. standards for the products. For cannery tomato inspection in
particular, where color of the tomatoes is such an important factor, inspectors
take time at the beginning of the season to show growers which ones they should
pick in order to receive maximum returns for their product. Also, Federal
supervisors and inspectors are often called upon to demonstrate the application of
24 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
14619
Figure 5.—Federal supervising inspector demonstrates to growers, canners, and canners’
fieldmen at an Indiana picking school how to pick tomatoes for processing to meet the
requirements of United States standards.
the U. S. standards at picking schools held throughout producing areas (fig. 5).
In this manner, growers learn the requirements of the standards and are able to
instruct their pickers accordingly.
Licensed inspectors are usually assigned to a processing plant or a loading sta-
tion for the season. Charges for inspection are placed on a weekly basis. The
cost varies in different States, but in the early part of 1956, the range was from
about $90 to $120 per man per week. Such charges include the inspector’s salary,
cost of supervision, and supplies other than inspection equipment.
Equipment for the inspection of raw products usually consists of an inspection
table, scales for weighing samples, containers, such as galvanized tubs or buckets
for holding samples, a slide rule or computation chart for calculating percentages,
and various other miscellaneous articles. Speed is essential in inspecting raw
products so that deliveries can be kept moving into the processing plant and
loss of time to growers and truckers be held to a minimum. For this reason,
considerable attention is given to providing good and properly arranged
equipment.
Tables for the inspection of tomatoes, for example, are usually constructed with
four compartments to hold the tomatoes of various grades as they are sorted.
The tops of the tables are also made so that they can be tilted for dumping the
sorted tomatoes into buckets resting on scales. Many processors furnish scales
with dials extending above the tops of the tables, so that the inspector can read
them without leaving his position at the front of the table.
In actual inspection procedure, the inspector selects containers from growers’
loads, believed by him te be representative of the lot, as they are delivered to the
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 25
14549
Figure 6.—Federal-State inspectors grade samples of tomatoes from growers’ loads being
delivered to a cannery in Ohio. U.S. No.1 tomatoes are placed in the center com-
partment of the tilt-top table, and U.S. No. 2’s and culls are placed in the outside
compartments. When sorting is completed, the inspector tilts the table top to allow
the tomatoes to fall directly into containers resting on scales. Finally, he records the
weights and computes percentages of each seperation, which he also records on the
inspection memorandum.
processing plant or loading station. He then carefully dumps the selected sam-
ples on the inspection table, examines each specimen, and places it in its proper
grade compartment (fig. 6). When he completes the sorting of samples, he
records on the inspection memorandum the weights of the specimens in each
compartment. By use of the slide rule or a computation chart he then calculates
the percentage of each grade by weight in the sample and records it. A signed
copy of the memorandum is handed to the grower or trucker, another is retained
for the applicant, and a third one is retained by the inspector (fig. 7). Final
settlement for the load is based on the percentages of each grade shown on the
memorandum.
Inspection of raw products for processing on the basis of U. S. standards has
been increasing for a number of years. The system of having an unbiased
Federal-State inspector determine the percentage of the various grades in de-
livered loads is pleasing to both processors and growers. Under it, the grower
has the incentive to deliver the best quality of produce possible, because the
higher the quality the better are his returns. Naturally, under such a system,
the canner receives better quality raw products from which to manufacture
higher quality finished products. The system has also done away with countless
numbers of heated arguments between growers and processors over settlement for
products delivered.
26 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
falar Sete yack INSPECTICN CERTIFICATE F-() 999 66
This certificate is issued pursuant to the act making appropriation for the United States Department of Agri
culture and is receivable as prima facie evidence in all courts of the United States. This certificate does not
excuse failure to comply with any of the regulatory laws enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture
or Federeal Food and Drug Adhininistration.
Date (,27, (9SE Yow $/30 PY. _
Grower.
Products i pected =) DewradaciUne Wi See eee. of containers SO
(Grower's count)
Inspection poin
PERCENT
I, the undersigned, on the date above. specified, made
personal inspection of samples of the lot herein de-
scribed, and do hereby certify that the conditions at
the said time and on the said date as shown by said
samplos were as stated herein.
—T
INSPECTOR
The information below is for the convenience of the canner andits accuracy is not vouched for by the above inspector.
GzOSS hw iG i ese ss aw Octo (@) pen ee,
GES Care a heya ye nee ee ss] FOSS AU eH One ex (Ce ei eee CD
INGE aya eee sibs Culls
VALUE OF TOTALLOAD §
DN—839
Figure 7.—lhis type of inspection memorandum showing the percentage of each grade
and culls in growers’ loads, is issued on products for processing.
Inspection on the Basis of Consumer Standards
Since the inauguration of the consumer standards program, the Department
has been prepared to furnish inspection to applicants either on a lot basis or
on a continuous inspection basis. When a lot inspection is requested it is
assumed that the applicant has packed a lot of produce to meet the requirements
of a certain grade and wishes to have an inspection certificate to confirm it.
Under such circumstances the inspector takes representative samples from the
lot, examines the contents, and reports the quality, condition, and grade of the
product on the inspection certificate. The cost of lot inspections is calculated
either on a carlot basis or on the amount of time it takes to make an inspection.
In the markets the regular fee for a quality and condition inspection as of
August 1956 was $10 per car and the hourly rate was $4.
Continuous inspection, on the other hand, employs an entirely different type
of operation. This service is provided primarily for shippers or prepackagers,
whose volume of production is sufficient to warrant paying for the services of an
inspector to be on hand at all times when the product to be inspected is
being packed. The service is furnished to applicants located either at country
shipping points or in terminal markets. To obtain the services of an inspector
under a continuous inspection arrangement, the applicant may request it either
through a Federal inspector located in the nearest terminal market inspection
office or through a Federal supervising inspector located in the State in which
the applicant desires inspection. In either case, the applicant is required to sign
a contract of agreement which provides principally for the manner in which
payment will be made for the service, obligations of the applicant in maintaining
———
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 27
sanitary conditions in the packing plant, and obligations of the inspector in
performing the services.
The applicant is also required to furnish any special equipment which may be
required, such as scales, containers for holding samples and similar equipment.
The inspector in carrying out his assignment under a continuous inspection
agreement takes samples of the product at regular intervals as they come off
the packing line. After analyzing a sample he records his findings on a quality
control sheet. The record shows the time of making the inspection of the
sample, the percentage of defects including separate columns for the percentage
of decay or other serious defects, the percentage of offsize, grit content if clean-
liness is a factor of grade, and other information pertinent to the determination
of the quality of the product. If a sample fails to meet the requirements of the
grade being packed the inspector immediately notifies the foreman of the plant.
He in turn can take such steps as necessary to correct the situation. Often
slowing up the sorting belt or increasing the pressure of water in washing
tanks, if grit content is involved, will do the trick. In other words, the chief
duty of a continuous inspector in a packing plant is to keep the management of
the firm informed as to whether the quality of the pack is being maintained.
Applicants operating under a continuous inspection agreement may or may
not grade-label their products. However, an applicant using the service is
privileged to place the U. S. consumer grade designation of the product within
the outline of the official United States Department of Agriculture shield. It
is also permissible to state within the outline of the shield that the product is
packed under continuous inspection of the United States Department of Agri-
culture. Some prepackagers have used the services of a continuous inspector
without grade labeling or use of the official shield because they believe the services
of the inspector in maintaining their quality control is well worth the cost of
the service.
The cost to an applicant operating under a continuous inspection agreement
was about $100 per week early in 1956. This figure covers the inspector’s salary,
the cost of his training and supervision, and cost of quality control sheets and
inspection certificates.
Federal Inspection at Receiving Markets
Inspection of fresh fruits and vegetables at receiving markets is conducted
under Federal supervision only, whereas, inspection at shipping points is done
under Federal-State supervision. As will be recalled, this service, inaugurated
in 1918, was established 4 years before Congress provided for inspection at
shipping points, for the purpose of enabling shippers to ascertain the condition
of produce upon arrival in the markets. The service was later extended to re-
ceivers and other financially interested parties.
Inspectors are employed under Civil Service regulations. They must have a
certain amount of training or experience in related work to qualify for the posi-
tion, and pass a competitive examination successfully before entrance into the
service. New inspectors are usually given several weeks of intensive training in
Chicago or New York, or in one of the other large market centers. During this
period market pathologists of the Agricultural Marketing Service assist in the
training by giving a course of instruction in the symptoms, significance, and
identification of the principal market diseases. To aid trainees in learning this
phase of the work, specimens of fresh fruits and vegetables affected by various
types of decays and defects are brought in from time to time from the cars where
they were inspected, so that by the end of the training period the men have
become proficient in the identification of the most important diseases and defects.
28 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
Assistance by market pathologists, however, does not end at training schools.
Their services are available at all times as consultants in Chicago, New York,
and Washington, and supervisors and inspectors at shipping points and in the
markets are continually sending the consultants specimens of various fruits and
vegetables affected by diseases for identifeation and study. Proper identification
of diseases in lots of fresh fruits and vegetables inspected has great significance
in connection with the settlement of controversies between shippers and receivers
and claims against transportation companies. Equitable settlement of a dispute
over the arrival condition of a shipment frequently hinges on the question of
whether the diseases found were present at shipping point or developed in
transit. Thus, it is very necessary that inspectors keep abreast of the times in
this important phase of standardization and inspection.
Training also includes instruction in the requirements of standards and in
inspection technique. In addition to classroom work in these subjects, trainees
are assigned to assist experienced inspectors with actual inspections in cars Or
trucks, An cold storages. These experienced inspectors instruct the trainee in
all phases of the work including opening of the car, taking samples, scoring of
defects, entering the findings on the note sheet, and proper wording of the infor-
mation to be shown on the inspection certificate.
The trainee often is given the responsibility of interpreting the notes and
reporting the facts to be shown on the certificate. His work is carefully checked
by experienced inspectors and supervisors and through constructive criticism
he learns inspection procedure quickly and gains confidence in himself. Exami-
nations are given each week to indicate the trainee’s ability as an inspector. Such
intensive training is usually continued for a period of 6 weeks or 2 months.
Upon completion of the course, the new men are generally assigned to one of
the larger offices where they continue to work for some time with experienced
inspectors. Most of the Federal inspectors now serving in one of the 76 offices
located in the larger cities throughout the country began their careers in either
the New York or Chicago inspection offices. The Federal supervisors of
shipping-point inspection in most of the States received their training in the
markets as receiving market inspectors.
Inspection at receiving markets is not only available in the markets where in-
spection offices are located but in any other city or town, prov ided the applicant
is willing to pay the costs of transportation and other expenses of an inspector
to and from one of these offices. Such offices, of course, cannot be maintained in
all cities and towns of the country, because the volume of business would not
justify the cost. Receiving market inspection offices are maintained in the fol-
lowing cities:
Albany, N. Y. Dallas, Tex. Milwaukee, Wis.
Anna, Ill. Denver, Colo. Minneapolis, Minn.
Asheville, N. C. Detroit, Mich. Mobile, Ala.
Atlanta, Ga.
Augusta, Maine
Baltimore, Md.
Baton Rouge, La.
Birmingham, Ala.
Boston, Mass.
Buffalo, N. Y.
Charleston, W. Va.
Charlotte, N. C.
Chicago, Ill.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbia, S. C.
Columbus, Ohio
Duluth, Minn.
Fargo, N. Dak.
Harrisburg; Pa.
Hartford, Conn.
Houston, Tex.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Jackson, Miss.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Kansas City, Mo.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Louisville, Ky.
Madison, Wis.
Memphis, Tenn.
Miami, Fla.
Montgomery, Ala.
Nashville, Tenn.
Newark, N. J.
New Orleans, La.
New York, N. Y.
Norfolk, Va.
Oakland, Calif.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Orlando, Fla.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Portland, Oreg.
Portland, Maine
STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 29
Providence, R. I. San Antonio, Tex. Tampa, Fla.
Raleigh, N. C. San Diego, Calif. Topeka, Kans.
Richmond, Va. San Francisco, Calif. Trenton, N. J.
Riverhead, L. I., N. Y. Savannah, Ga. Vallejo, Calif.
Roanoke, Va. Seattle, Wash. Washington, D. C.
Rochester, N. Y. Shreveport, La. Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Sacramento, Calif. Springfield, IIl. Winter Haven, Fla.
St. Louis, Mo. Syracuse, NERY: Youngstown, Ohio
Salt Lake City, Utah
A large percentage of the requests for inspections at receiving markets are
for cars of produce which are believed by the receivers to have changed in condi-
tion during the transit period. Thus, the receiver may request inspection for
condition only. He wants the official inspection report for the purpose of show-
ing what percentage of the stock has deteriorated and to what extent.
The information on the report may be used in making final settlement with
the shipper and for the purpose of aiding in fixing responsibility for the deteriora-
tion. Possibly high car temperatures and lack of ice in bunkers may indicate
that the railroad company was negligent in handling the car. Again, the inspec-
tor may name the specific disease which causes the decay. The damage might
have been caused by a field disease which did not develop until after the car was
rolled. In such a case, the damage would be the shipper’s responsibility because
the product was not in suitable shipping condition. The inspection certificate
is of material aid in helping to fix responsibilty for damage and to determine
who shall stand the losses, if any.
Often the receiver may question the grade of a car of produce which was in-
spected and certified as of a certain grade at shipping point. Therefore, he
might request an appeal inspection. For such requests, usually two inspectors
are assigned to make the appeal inspection, in which case they would examine
at least twice the regulation number of samples. No charge for the inspection is
made to the applicant if it is found that the shipping-point inspection was in error
and the report is reversed.
Inspection procedure in receiving markets is similar to that employed by in-
spectors at shipping points. The Federal inspector selects representative samples
from various parts of the car or lot, analyzes them in accordance with require-
ments of the standards, and reports the facts on the inspection certificate (fig. 8).
Often in a car inspection it is necessary to restrict the inspection to the accessible
portion of the load, such as the two upper layers or even between doorways if
the car is heavily loaded or top-iced. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make
loads accessible for unrestricted inspection and often it is necessary for him to
furnish helpers and a truck to make the load accessible for inspection.
The receiving-market inspection certificate differs from the shipping-point
certificate in that separate headings are provided for the quality and condition
statements. On the shipping-point certificates these headings are combined. The
quality statement, of course, pertains to permanent factors of grade which do not
change in transit. Defects of a progressive nature, such as decay, freezing
injury, wilting, and other factors which are subject to change during the transit
period, are reported under the condition heading.
Receiving-market inspection is by no means confined to inspection for carlot
shippers and receivers. Receiving-market inspectors also inspect supplies, mostly
on the basis of U. S. standards, for many Government and private agencies, such
as the Navy, Quartermaster Market Center, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Vet-
erans’ Administration facilities, steamship lines and various city and county
institutions. During the fiscal year 1956, inspections for Government and private
30 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
Figure 8.—Federal inspectors make a destination inspection of a car of onions in an
eastern market.
agencies totaled 4€,636 carlot equivalents; whereas, 46,636 carloads of produce
for shippers and receivers were inspected in receiving markets.
Inspection of Government purchases is important from the standpoint of
ascertaining whether dealers deliver the quality of produce called for in contract
specifications. Without such inspection, the Government would, no doubt, be
ihe dumping ground for a large portion of the low-quality fruits and vegetables
which reach the markets.
"STANDARDIZATION AND INSPECTION FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 3]
SERVICE UNDER THE PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES ACT
A discussion of standardization and inspection of fresh fruits and vegetables
would not be complete without mentioning the service rendered by the Fruit
and Vegetable Division in enforcing the provisions of the Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act. This law, familiarly known to the produce trade as the PAC
Act or the PACA, was passed by Congress in June 1930 for the purpose of pre-
venting unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of fresh fruits and
vegetables in interstate or foreign commerce and to provide relief for those
who suffer from such practices. Under the provisions of the act, all dealers,
commission merchants, and brokers who handle fresh or frozen fruits or vege-
tables which move interstate or from foreign countries are required to have a
license in order to operate. The license fee is $15 per annum. The penalty for
operating without a license is fixed at not more than $500 for each such offense,
plus $25 per day for each day the offense continues.
Some of the practices prohibited under the act are:
1. Failure to account promptly and correctly and to pay in full for produce
received on consignment.
2. Failure to pay promptly the agreed purchase price of produce which com-
plies with the contract terms.
3. Rejection without reasonable cause of produce purchased or contracted to
be handled on consignment.
4. Making of any false or misleading statement, for a fraudulent purpose, in
connection with any transaction.
5. Failure to keep an adequate and correct set of records of the receipt and
sale of produce.
6. Failure of a seller, without reasonable cause, to deliver produce sold or
contracted to be sold or consigned.
7. Failure to pay earned brokerage or commission fees, and deficits sustained
by commission merchants on produce handled on consignment.
8. Failure without reasonable cause to perform any specification or duty,
express or implied, arising out of any transaction.
g. Misrepresentation (misbranding), by stamp, stencil, or label, of the kind,
grade, quality, quantity, or State or country of origin of the commodity.
to. Removing or changing in any way any card or tag, placed upon any con-
tainer or railroad car under Federal or State authority, that bears a statement as
to the grade, quality, or State of origin of the commodity contained therein.
11. Changing or permitting the changing, without the consent of the inspector,
of the contents of a load or lot of produce after it has been officially inspected.
It is true that the PAC Act is regulatory. However, in administering it, the
Fruit and Vegetable Division regards it as a service to the fruit and vegetable
industry. It provides relief against unfair trade practices, and under it the
Department will furnish assistance to anyone financially interested in a trans-
action covered by the law, including unlicensed growers or shippers. When a
complaint is submitted, the Department will, without charge, promptly com-
municate with the other party involved, make such investigations as may be
necessary, and endeavor to bring about an amicable informal adjustment of
disputes. If necessary, it will take formal action, give each party to the com-
plaint a chance to present his case fully, and determine the loss or amount of
damages to be paid. If a violation is found to warrant such action, the Depart-
ment will publish the facts and/or suspend or revoke the offender’s license.
32 MISC. PUBLICATION 604, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
Evidence of the extent of service rendered to the industry from the Washing-
ton office of the Department and the five branch offices located in New York City,
Chicago, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, Tex., and Winter Haven, Fla., is obtained
from the fact that 2,900 complaints were handled during the fiscal year 1956.
Of these complaints, 859 were personally investigated. By the end of the year,
2,208 cases were closed, which resulted in amicable settlements amounting
to approximately $976,000 and 214 formal reparation awards totaling about
$300,000.
It is obvious that such service to the fruit and vegetable industry could not be
given under the act without grades and standards and inspection. Contracts
between shippers and receivers ordinarily specify a certain grade of a product and
the information given on shipping-point and receiving-market inspection cer-
tificates usually furnish the evidence necessary for final settlement of many dis-
putes. The importance of the inspection service as an aid in enforcing the PAC
Act is further emphasized by the fact that section 14 of the act includes authority
for making inspections, and specifies that the official inspection certificates shall
be accepted as prima facie evidence in all courts of the United States.
O
|
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11