What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
CHARLES H. BACON CO. v. HOWELL.
No. 11449.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 11, 1952.
Clyde W. Key, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.
J. H. Hodges, Knoxville, Tenn., for ap-pellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard on the record and on the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys for the parties;
And it appearing that the judgment for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Tennessee, Code, § 6851 et seq., awarded the appellee 'for her own use and benefit and for that of the children of her and her deceased husband, is grounded upon substantial evidence that the death of her husband was due to an accident which occurred while he was serving in the employ of appellant and aggravated a pre-existing condition of coronary sclerosis, thus hastening his death. See Storie v. Taylor Supply Co., 190 Tenn. 149, 228 S.W.2d 94;
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed for the reasons set forth by the District Judge in his original and supplemental memorandum opinions, 98 F.Supp. 567; and it is so ordered.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
auto
chemical
drug
food processing
oil refining
textile
electronic
alcohol or tobacco
other
unclear

Answer: 3