Mr. WEDDIG. More than $19 million in flounder and scallops are landed in this city and processed at 13 fresh fish handling plants. More than 112 million pounds are involved. In addition, the city is the site of a major processor of frozen imported fish blocks. A total of 1,500 are employed in the plants during peak season.

The New Bedford industry operates through an auction. As the vessels come in, their cargo is auctioned to the various processors. The boats are unloaded at one of the plants located directly on a wharf where the fish is re-iced prior to transport by truck to the various cutting houses.

Notice the new seafood processing area which eventually will be a concentration of almost all new Bedford plants. Even now the concentration is rather apparent. See map 2.

The entire area extends about 1 mile. On Homer's Wharf itself are located seven plants. I believe that a staff of two or three inspectors rather than 13 could very thoroughly keep intensive watch on all operations in this center.

Moving now to Gloucester, Mass., the Nation's ninth port in landings, with more than 90 million pounds, we have a total of 31 facilities in a circle of approximately 3 miles in diameter. (The map follows:)

Mr. WEDDIG. The city is a major landing port and processor of U.S.-caught fish and northern shrimp, and is also extremely significant as a landing port of frozen, foreign-produced fish blocks and fillets. More than 300 million pounds are landed annually, and stored in Gloucester.

About 30 percent of this, or 90 million pounds, are converted to fish sticks, portions, dinners, and other prepared foods in the major processing plants in the city.

The balance of this imported product is transshipped to other areas of the country for processing. Employment related to the industry is approximately 4,000.

Once again, the map, number 3, illustrates the concentration of facilities. Certainly, with 31 operations handling such tremendous volume of product, we would expect a sizable force of inspectors. However, we do not believe 31 would be required, but that six or eight would reflect an almost constant presence in the various operations.

Thus far we have illustrated three typical seafood processing communities. There are many others just like this throughout the country.

We would like now to show a somewhat different enforcement problem-a more extended area with many very small plants.

The illustration is of the section of the Eastern Shore of Maryland from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to the Maryland line, a distance of about 70 miles. We located 45 plants in this area with employment averaging about 40 persons. There are two very large processors in the area, but most plants would be classified as small and seasonal.

(The map follows:)

In Grasonville we found nine plants. The largest of these employs 110 people. The average is around 40 to 50 people.

Their peak season runs for 10 months, generally split between clams and oysters. The plants usually consist of one room with long-15 foot by 25 foot tables, and people on both sides shucking. It will also have another room where the shucked food is washed and canned, or put into packages for sale on a fresh basis.

Of the nine plants, six are all on one road, spread out for about one-half mile; the other three are within 3 minutes' driving time of the first six.

Next, on one peninsula of the Shore area from Easton to Tilghman, there are six plants all within 4 or 5 miles of each other on the same road. Four of the six employ under 50 people, while two have under 140 during their peak season. These plants are, in description, almost carbon copies of those in Grasonville.

The next leg of the Shore, Cambridge to Fishing Creek, has six plants. With the exception of two plants in Cambridge, all these plants had under 30 people employed during their peak season. Again, the operations were very similar to those described earlier. The area between Salisbury and Crisfield comprised the last and southernmost leg of the shore. Here there were 24 plants, 19 of which are in Crisfield, Md. The setup here is somewhat different because there is quite a bit of crabbing done where there is none in the north.

In Crisfield, of the 19 plants, 17 have under 50 people employed. The plants are, as in Grasonville, clustered in groups of five or six. In plants of this nature the workweek is most erratic, going from 20 to more than 50 hours.

Total catch in Maryland is about 72 million pounds.

Since we know there is other production on the Atlantic coast and on the western side of the bay, we feel the total production is about 40 million pounds a year.

All of these, I might add, ship from State so these are all the responsibility of the Federal Government for inspection.

I think you can see how several inspectors based strategically in the various communities could effectively cover the area. We cannot see how value to the Nation would be provided by a requirement that the town of Grasonville, population 1,183, with nine small plants, working seasonally, be staffed with nine Federal inspectors. Similarly, we cannot find any justification for placing 19 inspectors in the town of Crisfield, as S. 1528 would mandate.

We would hope that these illustrations of actual conditions in the industry would show that comprehensive inspection to assure compliance can be accomplished through a flexible system of surveillance, and that the total cost would be beneficial to the taxpayer.

In practice, the attention applied by an inspector to any given plant, as in the Agriculture system, should be related to the size of the plant, the complexity, variety and nature of the operation, and to the continuing quality of the operation.

Obvoiusly, the plant under inspection would not be aware when the inspector would visit-thus nearly eliminating any possibility of inferior practices.

One final point on this issue is the concern, by some, of which I am personally aware, that poor quality fish may be processed in a situation which does not embrace a full-time inspector on board.

Dr. Snyder advises me that precise programing the processing of poor quality fish is nearly impossible. Plants generally receive fish as it comes. Of course, any poor lot of fish could be stored to process at a particular time, but the inspector would be aware of the lot and act accordingly.

The task of instituting an equitable inspection system in the United States would be different. Expense in these days of tight Federal budget and mounting national needs in many critical areas will depend in part on the type of inspection finally determined by the Congress.

The matter is, of course, complicated by the well-known fact that the U.S. fish and seafood market is served by more than 100 nations, which supply 60 percent of the total requirements.

The proposed legislation, both S. 1528 and S. 700, require that overseas nations desirous of shipping to the United States, legislate and establish inspection systems equal to that determined for the United States. This is a copy of the requirements in the meat and poultry inspection legislation.

We cannot stress too strongly that the legislation being enacted is worldwide in impact. What is designed here must be just as workable in Guyana, Venezuela, Pakistan and scores of other nations, as it is in Massachusetts or Georgia.

Contrary to statements in the record of the last inspection bill hearing, there is no country in the world that operates a continuous inspection system as defined in S. 1528.

The Canadian and several Scandinavian fish inspection systems are highly developed, but do not meet the criteria of an inspector in each plant on a full-time basis.

The Icelandic system has an inspector in the plant on a full-time basis, but this man also serves in other duties as an employee of the processing plant.

The importance of avoiding the establishment of an artificial trade barrier in the guise of consumer protection is paramount. Should unrealistic, unworkable requirements for inspection systems, rather than inspection results be imposed, we can expect that the fishing nations of the world will choose to sell their products elsewhere. The result would be detrimental rather than beneficial to the consumer, who would then expect to pay inordinately higher prices for the product.

Earlier in this statement I cited several statistics which showed that over a 4-year period the volume of fish and seafood used increased by 27 percent, but that its value increased 45 percent. Inflation, of course, had a hand in this, but the major reason for the more rapid increase in price is the overall, worldwide shortage of fish and seafood. The law of supply and demand exercises its influence in the fish commodities very strongly.

For example, a worldwide shortage of cod fish blocks developed during the second half of 1970 continues at present. Inventory at the end of the year was only 30 million pounds, 29 percent lower than a year previously. The shortage drove block prices from 25 or 26 cents per pound to 40 or 41 cents in a period of 6 months.