« 이전계속 »
Source of United States Supplies of Blue Mold Cheese - 1967 - 1954* -
Chart 5. Milk Equivalent of Imports and Exports of Dairy Products, 0.s..
1925 - 1951 Billion Pomads (n.3.)
Source: Dairy Statistice June 1951 - Table 82 and unpublished
data, B.A.E., U.S.D.A.
Chart 6 --Approximate. Degree of Subsidization of United States Exports
Z Department of Commerce value of exports plus U.S.D.A. losses
U.S.D.A. donations for export
APPENDIX A EXISTENCE OF TRADE BARRIERS OF PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES EXPORTING CHEESE
TO UNITED STATES BARRIERS OTHER THAN CURRENCY DEVALUATION 1 1. Argentina.-All imports require exchange licenses. Multiple currency practices result on the buying side from three buying rates, including the use of a free market rate.
Pesos for Exchange rates in selling:
dollar Preferred imports...
5. 00 Essential imports.
7. 50 Nonessential and buying items.
1 14. 60 1 Free market rate. Transfers of capital require approval and are effected at the free market rate.
2. Canada, September 30, 1950.-Imports of textiles, leather goods, prepared foodstuffs, and certain miscellaneous goods from Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama, U. S. S. R., United States and possessions, and Venezuela require import licenses.
3. Denmark.—Restrictions are exercised through licenses required for some imports from certain countries and for most imports from all other countries, and through licenses required for nontrade payments.
4. France.-Same as Denmark.
5. Netherlands.—The Netherlands, its overseas territories and the Republic of Indonesia constitute an exchange control territory the “Netherlands monetary area.”
Transfers on capital account are approved only in exceptional cases. 6. Italy.--Same as Denmark.
7. New Zealand.-Imports from "scheduled” countries, including the United States, require import licenses. Transfers of capital require approval and are very difficult to obtain by "nonresidents."
8. Norway.--Same as Denmark,
9. Switzerland.-Payments for imports from countries with which Switzerland has no payments agreement, including the United States, can be freely effected.
CURRENCY DEVALUATION 2 1. Denmark.-On September 18, 1949, the Danish krone was depreciated from 20.8376 to 14.4778 United States cents per krone or 30.5 percent.
2. Netherlands.—On September 21, 1949, the Netherlands guilder was changed from 37.6953 to 26.3158 United States cents per guilder, or 30.2 percent.
3. Norway.--On September 18, 1949, the Norwegian krone was depreciated from 20.15 to 14 United States cents per krone, or 30.5 percent.
4. United Kingdom.-On September 18, 1949, the United Kingdom pound sterling was changed from 403 to 280 United States cents per pound sterling, or 30.5 percent.
RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT ADOPTED BY THE
DELEGATES TO THE ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, ÎN DAYTON, OHIO, NOVEMBER 1951
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT When the Defense Production Act of 1950 was being considered, our Federation felt that with competent and sympathetic administration the act could be a constructive force in the protection of the national economy under the unsettled semiwartime conditions. But from the time of its passage to the present our experience with its administration has been one of disillusionment. Persons in the upper levels of the agency inexperienced with our problems got into control of the Office of Price Stabilization and renewed the tactics of the old Office of Price Administration. This led to a revulsion of feeling among our people and a strong desire that the act in its entirely be repealed. Our attitude was re1 Exchange restrictions, International Monetary Fund, April 1951. * Schedule of Par Values, International Monetary Fund, March 1, 1952.
flected by a resolution passed on May 9, 1951, by the executive committee of the federation. The text of this resolution stated:
"The National Milk Producers Federation opposes authority for price and wage controls as set forth in the present Defense Production Act and in amendments which have been proposed. It opposes subsidies on agricultural products as provided for in proposed legislation to extend and amend the present act, and in any other legislation.
The federation does not oppose proposed amendment of the Defense Production Act to extend authority for allocations, priorities, credit controls, and the requisitioning and condemning of property.”
Řecognizing that such action might be unattainable the federation also requested the Congress to include certain protective features with respect to the administration of producer prices and to entrust undivided power with respect to such administration to the Secretary of Agriculture.
These requests to convey these exclusive powers to the Secretary of Agriculture, all of which were embodied into law, were:
1. Exclusive administration of the Agricultural Act of 1949. 2. Exclusive administration of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended.
3. 'Exclusive administration of the Cole-Ives amendment to the Defense Production Act dealing with the prices of fluid milk in non-Federal orders markets.
4. Exclusive administration of the pricing of milk for manufacturing purposes.
5. Exclusive administration of the standards for import controls of dairy products.
The federation further favored allocations among industries of basic raw materials, including agricultural plant equipment and farm machinery and equipment.
As to further powers that may be considered by the Congress in connection with this act and other acts, we oppose any roll-backs of the prices of agricultural commodities or products processed from them. We oppose individual rationing. We will oppose with every force at our command subsidizing the food bill of the consumer by paying subsidies directly to the producer in lieu of prices.
As to essential foods, we favor the provisions of the act which authorize the President to channel materials and commodities into lines of production that are deemed critically necessary to the rearmament program and to civilian needs.
Should it become necessary to establish priority systems, we call attention to the fact that agriculture is most important to an adequate defense program. We therefore urge full recognition of the preeminent position of food products in the successful conduct of any rearmament program. With respect to both allocations and priorities we urge that greater recognition be given to the Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out his responsibilities as claimant agency for the needs of agriculture.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., May 6, 1952. Commissioner CHARLES W. CRAWFORD, Food and Drug Administration,
Federal Security Agency, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR, CRAWFORD: Recent outbreaks of hoof-and-mouth and other animal diseases in foreign countries have led to restrictions on the importation of fresh and frozen meats. This situation prompts me to raise a question both as to the standards and inspection procedures used by Food and Drug to prevent the spread of disease through imported dairy products. Therefore, I would appreciate your outlining
(1) Standards employed for butter and cheese, both of domestic and foreign origin, which are calculated to prevent the spread of human or animal communicable diseases; and
(2) The procedure which the Food and Drug Administration follows in making inspections to insure that both domestic and imported dairy products comply with established standards.
Specifically, I would appreciate your pointing out what procedures are employed to prevent the transmittal of hoof-and-mouth disease through dairy products from Canada, South America, Europe, or other places from which we import dairy products and which have current or recurrent outbreaks of this disease.