THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 11)7 



If, for instance, a Class A box of some sort oi' fruit is worth at the 

 retail store to the consumer $1.00 and some consumers can not afford the 

 Class A' price, why should they be prohibited from purchasing a second 

 or third rate article of the same character but inferior in some regard in 

 its quality or method of preparation, at 50 cents or 60 cents say, 

 which the producer might be glad to sell, if it shows him any profit at 

 all in the handling. I believe it is an economically unsound policy in 

 destroy anything, providing there is value in it, and the sale of any 

 fruit product which is wholesome and has sufficient value to any class 

 cf consumers to allow of its handling and transportation should not be 

 illegal. Otherwise there is destroyed a value both to the consumer and 

 producer. 



This question has come up in connection with the activity of son if 

 of our local officials in California recently, and a number of our horticul- 

 tural law administrators are. from their expressions, inclined to con- 

 sider the apparent theoretical good of the whole in their community 

 rather than the practical questions involved with the producer and 

 consumer. There is not opportunity to go into specific instances of 

 this disregard of what I consider the fundamental rights of buyer and 

 seller because it would lead into a lengthy discussion, but I plead for a 

 practical establishment of standards and encouragement of quality 

 through allowing the efficient to reap the reward of their efficiency, 

 while at the same time not destroying any values which exist where the 

 product is consumable. 



The remedy for a product of too low or inferior a grade easily works 

 itself out on economic lines as the cost of handling, transporting and 

 selling is largely the same with the low as the high grade and the 

 saving, wherever there is any, with the lower grade product is but small. 

 Therefore, there is no encouragement for the producer to purposely 

 and intentionally produce an inferior article, and where he is behind in 

 efficiency through lack of knowledge, I believe proper results will be 

 more easily effected through educational methods than the use of a 

 legal club, which, nine times out of ten, or oftener, is wielded with 

 injustice. 



The various organizations and associations of growers which are striv- 

 ing for improved quality in their fruit will do well to eliminate the lower 

 grades, while at the same time retaining the value inherent in this 

 product to such extent as it is, through the manufacture of by- 

 products of various sorts, and the obtaining of the Largest part of what- 

 ever value is present in any fruit through its use in manufacturing 

 and by-products channels should be a part, and a large part, of the 

 consideration of those of our institutions and associations that are work- 

 ing for standardized quality in our products, in place of, as is often the 

 case, merely turning such aside and thereby Losing to I lie community and 

 the owners whatever of value it may have. 



One specific example which conies to mind and makes a definite and 

 easily understood point in this case is contained in the remarks of a 

 grower of pears in the Sacramento River district, in addressing a 

 recent committee conference on our horticultural laws. It was being 

 proposed that our state fruit standardization law should be so amended 

 as to prohibit not only, as at present, the interstate shipment, but all 

 shipment of fruit not in accordance with the standard. This met with 



