to sell the inferior grades, is essentially a protectionist measure, closing the markets of the State to outside producers.

There appears to be more justification for certain State laws that prohibit the export of lowgrade produce to other States. It usually costs as much to ship the lower grades as it does to ship the higher grades. If the markets are distant and if the prices are low, a program that keeps the culls at home may prevent many "red-ink" shipments.

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS IN LAWS ON GRADING, LABELING, AND PACKAGING

This discussion has brought out the need for uniformity in grades and marking requirements and the need for standard packages. A great deal of improvement has been made in this respect during the past 25 years. Federal grades for cotton and the grain crops are now in nearly universal use in the United States, and there is widespread use of Federal grades in marketing most of the important farm crops. Some kinds of packages have been standardized throughout the country, and the number of different sizes and shapes of barrels, berry boxes, and fruit and vegetable baskets used in marketing farm products has been greatly reduced.

The resulting uniformity in grade requirements and in packaging has greatly facilitated interstate trade in most products. However, the grades commonly used for some farm products are far from uniform in different parts of the country. This is particularly true of grades for fruits and vegetables, eggs, and milk. Then in retail marketing, private brands are still commonly used for somewhat the same purposes as grades. Examples are the packers' brands for meats and the brands that individual canneries put on canned foods. There is still a definite need for more uniformity in grading requirements and in grade names, both in the wholesale markets and in the retail trade.

There is also a need for greater uniformity in the grade names for different kinds of foods. This is particularly true of retail grades. At present some retail grades are designated by

simple terms such as grade A, grade B, etc., or grade 1, grade 2, etc., while the grades for other commodities are designated by names such as "Choice," "Extra," and "92-Score." It is very difficult for the consumer to learn the meaning of the long list of grade names which are applied to different kinds of foods.

Then there is still need for greater uniformity in packages. Under the Federal container acts a great deal of progress has been made in standardizing barrels, berry boxes, and the various types of fruit and vegetable baskets. In recent years, however, there has been substantial increase in the use of boxes and crates in marketing fruits and vegetables, and the Federal container acts do not give any authority for standardizing these kinds of packages. As a result, boxes and crates are being made in all sorts of sizes and shapes and the resulting nonuniformity is a rather serious detriment to trade.

Greater uniformity in grades, marking requirements, and packaging might be accomplished by agreements among the individual States in order to reduce or limit differences, by Federal legislation, or best of all by a combination of these two methods. Undoubtedly greater uniformity is still to be desired in the grades for a number of commodities. Federal and State officials need to discuss this matter fully and frankly and work out practical methods of accomplishing the degree of uniformity that is believed to be desired.

One of the possible methods of bringing about a greater degree of uniformity in State grades is by cooperation among State officials. The six New England States have used this method to establish uniform regional grades. However, the Nation-wide character of the markets for most agricultural products indicates the need. for national conferences bringing together Federal officials and State officials from all parts of the country. Such conferences are held from time to time in connection with revisions of Federal grade specifications.

In some cases, at least, such conferences have also brought about greater uniformity in State laws and regulations. For example, in 1919 interested State officials from all over the

country met at St. Louis and, together with Federal officials, developed a uniform "good egg law" which was subsequently adopted by a great many States. Since the markets for most of our agricultural products are national in scope, in general, agreements among States should extend over as wide an area as possible, and in addition to cooperative efforts of the State officials it may be found desirable for the Federal Government to go further than it yet has to bring about uniformity in the labeling, grading, and packaging of certain farm products.

In addition to providing for more uniformity in grading, labeling, and packaging there is a constant need for reviewing grading requirements in order to make sure that they reflect as accurately as possible the preferences and needs. of consumers and dealers. If grade standards are not firmly established on such a basis, it is always possible that they may, in effect, arbitrarily discriminate against one type or another of the product and thus act as an obstacle to the sale of that type in the market in which it rightfully belongs.

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has under way a number of continuous studies which are useful in revising standards and grades to meet changes in market conditions. State departments of agriculture and the agricultural colleges, too, are conducting studies in this general field, the results of which have been very helpful. Also, technical research in nutrition and related fields has a bearing on many grading problems and the results of such research are being considered whenever it is

believed they can be applied to the problem of revising standards and grades.

In the past, some Federal and State grades have been criticized on the grounds that they have been written mainly by technical commodity experts without enough consultation with general economists, nutrition experts, and others who might contribute to the problem. This is probably a fair criticism, particularly of some of the grades which were set up immediately following the World War when it was necessary to act quickly and set up tentative grades to be revised later.

At present, it is generally recognized that the technical commodity expert must work with the general economist, the nutrition expert, and others; and in many cases several agencies have cooperated on research projects intended to bring to bear on the problem of grading expert knowledge in several fields. For example, the Bureaus of Home Economics, Animal Industry, and Agricultural Economics of the Department of Agriculture have under way for several years a joint study of the palatability of cooked beef as related to the quality of beef carcasses and of live animals. Much more work of this character probably needs to be done before it is possible to make full use of our knowledge of nutrition and palatability as a partial basis for grades for farm products. More work is needed, too, to develop a fuller and more detailed knowledge of consumers' preferences. In time such studies should give us a much better understanding than we now have of the real desires and needs of consumers, and such knowledge is essential as the basis for improvement in the grading program.

"QUARANTINE" literally means a period of 40 days. The term originated in the days when passengers arriving in a port and suspected of having been exposed to a contagious disease were interned for observation, to determine whether or not they had contracted such a disease. The meaning of the word has been expanded until it now signifies, as applied to agricultural products, a "restraint or interdiction placed upon the transportation of animals, plants, of goods" suspected of being carriers of some disease or pest.

As here used, then, a quarantine may be a set of regulations to be complied with before animals, goods, or occasionally even persons, will be permitted to leave a given area or to enter a given area, or it may be an absolute prohibition upon the movement of certain classes of livestock or certain kinds of agricultural products into or out of an area, or it may include both kinds of provisions. To fall under the definition of a quarantine, such restraints or interdictions must apply to persons or goods suspected of being carriers of some disease or pest.

Laws and regulations governing the transportation and sale of nursery stock are here discussed. For the most part, these regulations fall under the definition of quarantines, but there also exists a rather numerous group of requirements regarding license fees and inspection fees. Usually such requirements are adjuncts of the quarantine regulations: a fee may be required for the inspection of nursery stock incident to enforcement of the quarantine, nurserymen who

wish to ship into a State may be required to register every year, and so on. Because of the close relationship of the quarantine and nonquarantine features of most nursery-stock regulations, a brief discussion of nonquarantine features is included here. They are important from the general viewpoint of the study as a whole, and are most conveniently presented in their relation to quarantine regulations of nursery stock.

Because of their direct and often drastic effect upon trade, quarantines can do great harm to the exchange of products between different parts of the United States. On the other hand, because of their efficacy in preventing the spread of animal and plant diseases and of insect pests, quarantines can prevent, and have prevented, enormous losses to American agriculture. There can be no doubt that on the whole the good effects of quarantines far outweigh the bad ones, and that the great majority of quarantines are beneficial.

There is no thought, therefore, of condemning quarantines as a whole, nor of suggesting that most quarantines are harmful. But it has seemed important to call attention to ways in which some quarantines may hamper unnecessarily the movement of agricultural products, and to suggest ways in which the Nation-wide system of State and Federal quarantines might be better coordinated in order to reduce friction between the States and in order to give adequate protection against the spread of pests and diseases with as little interference as possible with the move

ment of agricultural products in interstate

commerce.

In the course of these pages much use is made of quotations. These quotations should not be taken as conclusive evidence either for or against any particular quarantines. In several instances there appears to be some disagreement among technical experts as to the biological necessity for some of the quarantines, and in such instances the authors of this publication do not feel qualified to take sides. The purpose of the quotations here given is simply to indicate the kinds of difficulties and the types of problems that need to be met in working out a sound quarantine program. However, the quotations used are all from responsible Federal or State officials who are well informed concerning problems of quarantines, or they are taken from resolutions and reports adopted by organizations of such officials. They do indicate that in spite of the great progress that has been made in this field there still are many difficulties and many problems that need careful study. Some of these problems are here pointed out with general indications as to how they may be attacked.

THE DIVISION OF QUARANTINE POWERS

Power to impose quarantines is shared by the Federal and State Governments. As early as 1796, legislation was passed by the Federal Congress to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of any goods shipped in violation of State quarantine and health laws.1 Thus Federal and State Governments have cooperated in quarantine measures almost since the establishment of the Union.

Federal quarantine powers are exercised at present under authority of the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 as amended and under the Cattle Contagious Diseases Acts of 1903 and 1905 as amended and the related act of 1884 as amended.2

11 Stat. 474.

The Plant Quarantine Act is found in 37 Stat. 315. There are several amendments, of which that of 1926, 44 Stat. 250, is the most important. (See below, footnote 4, this page.) The acts of 1884, 1903, and 1905, authorizing the Bureau of Animal Industry to prohibit or regulate the interstate movement of livestock from infected areas, are found in 23 Stat. 31, 32 Stat. 791, and 33 Stat. 1264, respectively. A 1928 amendment (45 Stat. 59) to the 1884, 1903, and 1905 acts brings poultry within the scope of these acts.

Under the Plant Quarantine Act, as amended,3 the Federal Government not only may establish Federal quarantines, but also may cooperate with the State governments in enforcing State quarantines. In a number of instances the Federal Government has acted under this authority to prevent interstate shipments in contravention of State regulations. Such action is usually taken in conjunction with cooperative Federal-State campaigns to eradicate certain plant diseases and insect pests. Then too, Federal officials, when under State appointment, cooperate in intrastate enforcement under special agreements with the State authorities. The act, as amended, expressly permits the States to establish quarantines against diseases and pests that are not the subject of a Federal quarantine; but according to a decision of the Supreme Court, State quarantines may not be directed against diseases and pests covered by existing Federal quarantines. Products being transported in violation of a Federal quarantine, however, are subject to State police powers.

Another method of cooperation between State and Federal Governments for the enforcement of plant-quarantine laws and regulations is provided by the Terminal Inspection Act of 19155 as amended in 1936. In States that elect to take advantage of this act, postmasters at points of destination are required to forward any packages that contain any plants or plant products named on a list approved by the Federal Secretary of Agriculture to State terminal inspection stations for inspection. At these stations the material is inspected and-if found to be infected-is disinfected. If the shipment is not in violation of State or Federal quarantine laws or regulations, it will then be reforwarded to the addressee, upon payment of sufficient postage.

* See sec. 8. This section contains all the provisions described in this paragraph. In fact, it constitutes the entire body of Federal legislation defining Federal powers with respect to domestic plant quarantines.

4 In Oregon-Washington R. Navigation Co. v. Washington (270 U.S. 87) the Supreme Court interpreted the Plant Quarantine Act to mean that no State could impose a plant quarantine on products from another State. But shortly after this decision, the 1926 amendment was enacted by Congress, expressly permitting States to impose quarantines "with reference to any dangerous plant disease or insect infestation" not the subject of a Federal quarantine.

38 Stat. 1113. 49 Stat. 1461.

The initiative in establishing this arrangement in any State must be taken by the State authorities.

The division of powers between the Federal and State Governments with respect to animal quarantines is less sharply defined. The Secretary of Agriculture is "authorized and directed" to quarantine any State or portion of a State when he finds that the "cattle or other livestock in such State are affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease." 7 The Secretary of Agriculture is also authorized to cooperate with the States in the "suppression and extirpation" of dangerous livestock diseases, whether the plan of work be of Federal or State origin. The rigors of a complete embargo on the movement of livestock out of an area under Federal quarantine are avoided by providing that "when the public safety will permit" the Secretary may promulgate rules of inspection, disinfection, handling, and so forth, under which shipments out of the area will be permitted.

The States may not hamper shipments of livestock that are accompanied by a certificate issued by an inspector of the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry. These certificates are issued if, upon inspection of a lot of livestock to be shipped out of an area in which a contagious disease is believed to exist, the inspector finds that the animals in the lot are free from any contagious disease and have not been exposed to any such disease. The animals may then be moved "into and through any State . . without further inspection or the exaction of fees of any kind, except such as may . . . be ordered... by the Secretary of Agriculture."10 Aside from this limitation, the States retain the power to impose animal quarantines not in conflict with Federal animal quarantines. In a decision handed down in May 1933, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not the intent of Congress, in the acts of 1903 and 1905, to give the Federal Government a general authority over domestic animal quarantines. It seems to be clearly inferred in the decision that

721 U.S. C. 123.

21 U. S. C. 114.

21 U. S. C. 125.

10 21 U.S. C. 121.

11 Mintz et al. v. Baldwin, 289 U. S. 346.

shipments are subject to State livestock quarantine regulations unless they come from an area under a Federal quarantine or are accompanied by a Federal inspection certificate.

FEDERAL DOMESTIC QUARANTINES

12

Eleven plant diseases and insect pests are the subjects of Federal domestic plant quarantines. Where the boundaries of quarantined areas pass through a State, legislation has been enacted under which State authorities work in cooperation with the Federal officials in enforcement work. On the other hand, the Federal Government assists in some of the State programs. Active cooperation is given in the State control work for Phony peach disease in the Southeastern States and in the control work for peach mosaic in California and the Southwestern States. Where State quarantine regulations require a certificate of inspection to accompany incoming shipments, Federal officials cooperate in many cases by inspecting such shipments at the point of origin and issuing the required certificate on those found to be diseaseor pest-free. This is done, for example, in connection with State quarantines against the European corn borer.

Federal domestic animal quarantine regulations are specifically concerned with seven contagious diseases.13 The acts of 1903 and 1905 prohibit the interstate movement of any livestock having a contagious disease; the administrative regulations set up the conditions that must be met before an animal that has had such a disease or has been exposed to it may be shipped interstate.

Except for the regulation dealing with hog cholera, the Federal animal quarantine regulations are adjuncts of eradication programs, differing in this respect from the great majority of plant quarantines. These eradication programs are undertaken as cooperative projects with the States, in which the Federal Govern

12 As of January 15, 1939. The diseases and pests concerned are the Japanese beetle, the gypsy moth and the brown-tail moth, the Mexi can fruitfly, the pink bollworm, the Thurberia weevil, black stem rust, Woodgate rust, white-pine blister rust, Dutch elm disease, and the white-fringed beetle.

13 As of November 1, 1938. The diseases are: Tick fever, scabies (mange) in sheep and cattle, dourine, hog cholera, Bang's disease, and tuberculosis.