supporting funds in the College Park Technological Laboratory base budget are absolutely necessary (on the annual basis). These funds would support the following four critical activities: (1) pilot plant operating cost, (2) FPC engineering activities, (3) FPC quality control and (4) FPC product development and evaluation. In addition, we would recommend highly the support of already planned feasibility studies envisaged for conduct under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. Finally, knowing the interest of AID, Food for Peace, the White House, and others to utilize PFC in select areas as rapidly as possible (for instance, India) some mechanism should be available for the purchase of product produced from the demonstration-pilot plant. Pilot Plant Operating Cost, $285,000 The operating cost to handle one plant, including such items as labor, maintenance materials, fish, and the like would be $284,320. A detailed breakdown of this cost is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 1). This cost includes 9 plant workers plus one Supervisory (foreman) Engineer for each plant. Conceivably, if these plants are constructed in cooperation with Industry, these workers could be supplied under contract by Industry. FPC Engineering Activities, $125,000 An in-house team of 5 engineers of varying grade levels would be needed to design and oversee the construction of the plant during early stages of the program. Later these engineers would comprise an in-house team to routinely check on the operating plant (or plants). Still later, having gained knowledge in the design and construction of plants, these engineers would comprise a team for possible consultation services wherever requested (for instance, India) for the design, construction, erection, and operation of plants in varying global locations. This latter task is one we anticipate will be in great demand in the years to come. In fact, staff of the Policy Planning Council, AID, and Food for Peace, have already made initial contacts with us in reference to this matter. FPC Quality Control, $160,000 At the early stages in the production of FPC, it is absolutely necessary that overattention be given to the value and quality of the product being produced. Nothing, of course, ruins the potential of a food product as much as inadequate quality during early development stages. Attachment No. 2 to this memorandum gives the cost estimates for the establishment and operation of a quality control laboratory. These quality control activities and all personnel would function at the plant site. FPC Product Evaluation, $250,000 An area where we would be severely criticized would be, of course, if the product is produced and there is not the sufficient knowledgeability of how it should be used owing to inadequate knowledge of the product capacity for use in new food forms or in existing food forms. Therefore, a minimum food research activity, as indicated, is absolutely necessary. In addition, this in-house group at College Park would be needed to support additional plant control work, such as routinely conducting more sophisticated analyses, such as the characterization of lipids residual in the FPC or as a byproduct of the FPC manufacture. This group would do routine animal-feeding studies of random batches of the FPC produced. Other activities would include such investigations as the grittiness of FPC, the capacity to make gel structures of the FPC protein, and the like. Attachment No. 3 is a breakdown of the cost involved for this activity. Feasibility Studies, $300,000 Although the feasibility studies may not be absolutely essential to the utilization of FPC from one pilot plant, the final success of any commercial FPC endeavor will depend on adequate markets. The feasibility studies might include and possibly be supported by other groups although prospects at this time remain somewhat poor. Ideally, support of these feasibility studies in such a manner that we would have control would result in activities focused toward the use of fish rather than a variety of other foods. To continue the careful development program that resulted in FPC, to ensure that FPC receives proper use, to develop the necessary market data for eventual commercial production and to avoid stockpiling, further application and effectiveness studies must be conducted. These studies will include investigations on the technology involved in incorporating FPC into a variety of foods. consumer acceptability studies, evaluation of nutritional results, determination of how FPC can most effectively fit into various social structures both in the U.S. and abroad and marketing trials based on the studies made. The studies would be conducted both in the U.S. and abroad. These studies would be conducted under the guidance of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Marine Protein Resource Development. It is visualized that this Committee would arrange and have general supervision over the acceptability and effectiveness studies undertaken abroad. The program envisages an expenditure of $300,000 a year for a period of 5 years. Purchase of FPC, $1,500,000 AID, Food for Peace, White House, and other interests have indicated the desire to obtain FPC for the respective programs. No mechanism now exists in the Bill (we don't think) to purchase the FPC once produced. Therefore, some mechanism should be found to effect purchase. At an output of 10 tons per day for 250 working days per year at a cost of $450 per ton, the total cost of the product would be $1,125,000. The extra money is added in case the working days extend past the 250 days indicated. In summary then, absolutely necessary funds to support the FPC pilot plants, as well as personnel, are as follows: Total operating costs per plant per year (250 working days, 8-hour day) Electric power, 1¢/KWH (200 KW). Steam, 30g/100# (4.1# steam/# fish). Inventory, 5,000 gal. (50¢/gal.). Make-up (75 gal./day). Supplies and maintenance materials, 0.5% FI__ Operating labor (8 men at $2.50/hour, 1 man at $3.50/hour). Maintenance labor, 0.5% FI. Payroll extras, 15% of 6 & 7. General overhead, 30% of 7, 8, & 9_ Fish-free operating cost.. Fish, $40/ton x 16 tons/day x 250 days---. Total______ $4,000 10, 200 2, 080 2,500 10, 000 7,570 47,000 7,570 8, 200 18, 550 117, 670 166, 650 284, 320 ATTACHMENT 2 laboratory Cost estimates for the establishment and operation of a quality control Personnel Director (food technologist). Microbiologist Chemist Technicians-2 Dishwasher-1 Construction Equipment Laboratory furniture. Expendables (glassware, chemicals, etc.) Small equipment (pH meters, colony counters, colorimeters, $65,000 25, 000 50,000 20,000 160, 000 ATTACHMENT 3 Cost estimates for the conduct of studies on product evaluation Large specialized items such as presses, grinders, animal cages, TABLE I.-Cost per gram of protein from animal protein concentrates, 60,000 250,000 1 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (price f.o.b. processor). 2 Source: "Composition of Foods," Agricultural Handbook No. 8, ERS, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 3 At 80 percent protein. TABLE II.-Retail cost per gram of animal protein from selected foods, 1 Source: "Estimated Retail Prices by Cities." Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1966. Source: "Composition of Foods," Agriculture Handbook No. 8, ERS, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Price per dozen. Price of unfortified product. The wholesale price of dry milk solids and estimated manufacturing cost of FPC were doubled to take into account the cost of adding the ingredient as well as the costs of performing the wholesaling and retailing functions. 1 Source: "The World Food Budget, 1970," Foreign Agricultural Economic Rept. No. 19 ERS, USDA, October 1964. 2 With 10 grams per person per day standard. 3 The required pounds of animal products to fill this would be greater because protein content is considerably less than 100 percent. Mr. DINGELL. The next witness will be Dr. Ben Buchanan, of the General Foods Corp. Dr. Buchanan, we are happy to hear whatever statement you choose to present. Would you give us your name for the record? STATEMENT OF BEN BUCHANAN, GENERAL FOODS CORP. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. I am Ben F. Buchanan, manager of the technical applications research department for General Foods. My name is spelled B-u-c-h-a-n-a-n, and I am a Ph. D., and not an M.D. Mr. DINGELL. The record will be so corrected. Mr. BUCHANAN. I would like to read our statement for the record, which essentially is the statement we entered into the Senate committee record. This is a statement of General Foods Corp. to the House of Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on Senate bill S. 2720, passed by the Senate on June 27, 1966. General Foods Corp. supports the objectives of this legislation, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to develop, through use of experimental and demonstration plants, practicable and economic means of production of fish protein concentrate for human consumption. We believe that some minor amendments, which are included in this statement, will help eliminate any possibilities of ambiguity regarding the purposes of this bill. Enactment of this proposal into law will be a major step forward in the struggle to establish and maintain adequate nutrition for the rapidly expanding world population—a struggle in which our Nation is already taking a leading role. This proposed legislation provides for a realistic cooperation between Government and private industry. This is a combination which many times has demonstrated its effectiveness as an efficient and economic method of achieving long-range humanitarian objectives. We support this proposal for three major reasons: First. General Foods Corp., as one of the Nation's leading food companies, has a major interest in world nutrition and health. We presently are cooperating with a number of governmental agencies Seeking ways and means to feed the rapidly expanding world population. We are actively supporting the food-for-peace program. Our president is a member of the National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber. For a number of years, General Foods has actively participated in the Food Protection Committee of the National Academy of Science. This committee's objective is to evaluate food technologies as they relate to public health. We assist in the development of U.S. Department of Agriculture research programs by serving on the Utilization Research and Development Advisory Committee. We are presently engaged in research under contract with the National Institutes of Health on problems related to public health. We very actively support such nongovernmental bodies as the Nutrition Foundation and the Institute of Nutrition Science, and have made substantial contributions to several university nutrition study programs. Second. We are engaged in an intensive research and development program of our own. Our scientists are continually searching for new and different food supplies--for new sources of nutrition-for ways to supplement our existing food sources-for methods to help increase our own limited capacity to support a growing world population. This effort is compatible with our corporate goal: To furnish people with the best nutrition at the lowest price possible and a fair return to our stockholders. But at the same time, this effort reflects our sense of responsibility to aid in the solution of pressing human problems. Third. We possess a considerable body of technical information in the area of fish protein concentrate. We will be pleased to share this information with the Secretary of the Interior to help achieve the objectives of this proposed legislation. As we interpret the bill, it would permit the Secretary of the Interior to make a major advance in supplying an additional source of a highly nutritious and stable protein concentrate. The need for additional protein sources is well established. The presently available supply of both vegetable and animal protein, as well as correlations of this supply against future needs and future |