taminating products, lining not completely removed from gizzards, lungs left in body cavity, parts of trachea left on products, pericardical sacs not removed-and don't forget, this is ready-to-cook food-testicles left in body cavities, oil sacs not cut or partially cut out, vents left on some of the chickens, fecal matter contaminating products, poultry not completely and cleanly defeathered and pinned in all instances, evidence of poultry diseases on some of the carcasses proving lack of inspection at the source of slaughter.

Mr. REIDY. May I interrupt there to ask are these conditions health hazards or are some of these just hazards to one's aesthetic sense? Dr. HASKIN. I would say 90 percent are health hazards, and not just merely a matter of esthetics.

With these flagrant violations present on the part of the shipments shipped into Newark, N. J., we began to wonder as to the condition of the places where this poultry was being processed.

About this time, most of the larger food chains were no longer offering New York dressed poultry but were selling eviscerated ready-to-cook poultry exclusively, thereby increasing the volume of sales in this area by hundreds of tons.

Some meat inspectors were then sent out to the three major poultry producing areas that were then shipping in to the city of Newark, that is, New England States, New York, Pennsylvania and the Eastern Shore, which comprises Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. They were then sending much of their product into the city of Newark.

Of a total of 15 plants visited, only 2 were found to be free from pertinent violations of the Newark ordinance. Some of the conditions observed at these plants were as follows: No evidence of qualified ante mortem or post mortem inspection of poultry, poultry not chilled for proper length of time before shipment, internal temperature taken at some establishments were as high as 60 degrees Fahrenheit, no hot water or live steam available, hoods over moving chain throughout line containing much rust flakes, dirt and dust, ceilings and walls throughout plants containing peeling paint and condensate over product, sparrows and other small birds observed nesting in plants and flying over some of the operations, and broken window panes present.

As to the hood over the scalding tank, it was rusty and dirty. This was found in many of these plants and not just in one. No screens present on any doors or windows throughout the plant, overhead pipes, beams, ceiling and upper sidewalls covered with dust, dirt and cobwebs. That means that they haven't been cleaned for a long, long time. Broken window panes were present in this area, too, and the plant doors left open and not self-closing.

There was no hot water or live steam available to wash and clean equipment. As to the holding station for live poultry, the floors and ceiling had accumulations of dirt, trash and other unused equipment.

Feed troughs and chicken batteries rusty, corroded and very dirty. The conveyor belt was very dirty and large accumulations of dust; second-hand containers were used to pack poultry parts, wooden crates were assembled in an unclean room.

In the light of these findings, I could take no other action but to exclude these establishments from offering their products for sale within the city of Newark. While this affected not only the city of

Newark, but the entire area that gets its supply of chickens from the city of Newark, it is all north New Jersey and the Jersey coast, and parts in New York State.

Many of the above-mentioned poultry processing plants which were excluded from sale, wishing to regain the Newark marketing area, have promptly and evidently corrected the violations. They were observed by our meat inspectors, under our direction. This proved conclusively to us that competent inspection and strict adherence to the terms of the ordinances would insure to the consumers in our marketing area clean, wholesome poultry and poultry products free from contamination and disease.

All of these plants visited bore the inspection legend of a State, city or USDA inspectional service. This included the USDA-type of inspection which is for sanitation and given to plants processing undrawn poultry and the legend of inspection for wholesomeness which is performed at plants that are eviscerating and producing ready-to-cook poultry.

As recent as last week, a poultry processing plant in the State of Virginia, which operates under USDA inspection for wholesomeness, shipped into the city of Newark poultry which was in violation of our ordinance. The product was unclean and testicles were observed left in the body cavities of many of the chickens.

I wanted to add this comment: While I am not involved in the program as to industry, or the problems of industry, and I am chiefly confining myself entirely to the problems of public health, our association with both parts of the family, the United States Department of Agriculture and their red meat service, the United States Food and Drug Administration, we are involved in constant more or less experiences with both, we found that as far as poultry inspection service was concerned, there was a tremendous laxness.

There wasn't the program that there should be. At one time we had-you see, they appoint inspectors, sanitary inspectors, more or less to examine establishments, and I am talking now about the poultry inspection services as presently constituted.

We discovered a plant in New Jersey in which the inspector, the officially appointed inspector, was the owner of the plant. The plant, of course, was so bad we had to reject the plant and exclude it from the area even though it was a New Jersey plant.

My feeling in this matter is this: I would like to see it in the Food and Drug Administration because our connection is with the Food and Drug Administration and it is more intimate from the public health point of view. Health officers are always in constant communication.

Mr. REIDY. You mean the Food and Drug Administration? Dr. HASKIN. Yes, the Food and Drug Service. I think it is in the same Department.

We have had good experiences with the Meat Division, with the red meat division of the Department of Agriculture, but even there we have had some very sad experiences. Our ruling in New Jersey for instance is that BAI-approved houses come into the State of New Jersey or into the city of Newark without any other inspection, as far as we are concerned, so we limit ourselves to intrastate operations. But our experiences have been very sad in some instances.

There is a federally inspected house right in our own community that had to be threatened with complete shutdown and tons of their processed meats had to be embargoed because it was manufactured. under the most unsanitary conditions.

It was a BAI inspection. Of course, the matter was corrected, because the city of Newark stepped into the picture. But I feel that we would have a greater enforcement capability of protecting the public health if it remains within the Food and Drug Service.

Senator MCNAMARA. I would like to ask a question.

Since you passed this ordinance and insisted on sanitary conditions,. did you find that as a result of your ordinance the price of the product was increased?

Dr. HASKIN. No, I have not observed that, although I have with: me my chief meat inspector who can possibly give a better answer on that.

Have you observed an increase in the price of fowl as a result of this?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH HEARL, CHIEF MEAT INSPECTOR, MEAT INSPECTION SERVICE, NEWARK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Mr. HEARL. My name is Mr. Joseph Hearl, the chief meat inspector of the meat inspection service of the Newark Department of Health. There was no increase. They have a regular market price which they must meet and there was no increase that we know of.

Senator MCNAMARA. The price in the Newark area appears to be the same as the New York area?

Mr. REIDY. Did I understand correctly, Doctor, that you say that in the 2 years from 1954 to date, in the Newark area, you have had to reject over a quarter of a million pounds of poultry?

Dr. HASKIN. That is the report I have received from Mr. Hearl, who is the meat inspection service head that that much has been condemned in the city of Newark.

Mr. REIDY. I don't know whether you can answer this or not, but do many communities in the United States have meat inspection services similar to yours in Newark?

Dr. HASKIN. I don't know. Perhaps Mr. Hearl can answer that.. Mr. HEARL. There are not too many communities that have meat inspection.

Mr. REIDY. Those that do not have it are getting poultry and accepting what you would reject, and consequently, the health of the people in those communities is being menaced through the absence of this service?

Dr. HASKIN. While we are involved in the city of Newark, we must not lose track of the fact that what happens in Newark affects all north Jersey and most of south Jersey and especially along the Jersey coast. That is true because it is the warehouses and the main distributing point for this area.

When we make rules and regulations for us, it is affecting a larger area than just the city of Newark.

Mr. REIDY. I understand that, but the question I was raising was that apparently on the basis of your experience, it would be fair to say

that the communities that do not have such inspection standards, and in the absence of a Federal inspection and compulsory service, the health of the people in the other communities would be considered as being menaced by our present poultry setup?

Dr. HASKIN. I most certainly think so, and it is a very just statement to make in view of the facts that we have.

Senator MCNAMARA. This quarter of a million pounds rejected, about what percentage would that be of your total supply?

Mr. HEARL. It is a very small percentage. It would be less than .5 percent.

Senator MCNAMARA. Would it be less than 1 percent?

Mr. HEARL. Yes, it would be less than 1 percent. It is a large marketing area, but as this gentleman asked the question, we do know that the processors which are currently excluded are still in business, therefore, they are shipping into other marketing areas. They are not coming into our areas, and they are excluded from our area. They are still in business, however, and doing business in other areas.

Mr. REIDY. May I follow that remark by asking this: When you ban the product of a particular plant from going into the Newark area, do you advise the Federal officials of that fact?

Dr. HASKIN. Actually, not in most cases, but our banning of them has had cause for conferences, not directly, but the other way back. Suppose we banned a USDA house? That would go to the USDA, and then we would have a conference in our office, and that was the way they probably got wind of it, although we tried to make it as broad as possible, the notification as to the plant.

But we don't know in many cases whether it is the type of USDA service that requires us to report those things. We would be very happy to, and I think after the last conference-didn't we agree that we would notify them of every plant rejection regardless of whether it was USDA inspected or not?

Mr. REIDY. I should think that that would be a good thing.
Dr. HASKIN. At the last conference, that was decided.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much for your very valuable testimony here today, Dr. Haskin. It is very important that we should get a thorough understanding of the situation.

Dr. HASKIN. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this.

Senator MURRAY. The next witness is Dr. Raymond Helvig, president of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians.

STATEMENT OF R. J. HELVIG, PRESIDENT OF THE CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH VETERINARIANS, AS READ BY DR. OSCAR SUSSMAN

Dr. SUSSMAN. I have been asked to present the statement of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians in place of Dr. Helvig. I am Dr. Oscar Sussman, representing the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians.

The executive committee of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians has requested me as a member of the conference to read into

the record the following letter representing the views of its membership, and signed by its president, Dr. R. J. Helvig:

The Honorable JAMES E. MURRAY,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislation Affecting Food and Drug Act, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this letter is to voice the support of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians for the enactment of Senate bill 3176, presently under consideration by the subcommittee of which you are chairman. The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians commends the sponsors of S. 3176, and strongly urges that the committee support and encourage enactment of this vitally needed public health measure.

The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians was founded in 1946 to provide leadership for promoting the quality and effectiveness of veterinary public health activities conducted by official and nonofficial agencies and organizations. It has active members from Federal, State, and local health and agricultural agencies, the veterinary disciplines of the uniformed services, national and international health organizations, educational institutions, and livestock disease control agencies.

The conference is in complete accord with the intent of S. 3176. Adequate official inspection of poultry has long been recognized by the veterinary profession as being essential if the consuming public is to be assured of wholesome, unadulterated poultry and poultry products. The public health needs for such inspection have become increasingly apparent in recent years. S. 3176 would provide for such inspection of poultry and poultry products involved in interstate com

merce.

The conference appreciates the opportunity of testifying before this committee. Sincerely yours,

R. J. HELVIG,

President, Conference of Public Health Veterinarians. Senator MURRAY. If there are no questions, thank you very much. Dr. SUSSMAN. Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator MURRAY. The next witness is Mrs. Paul Hartz.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GENEVIVE OSLUND, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT OF THE GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. OSLUND. I am representing Mrs. A. Paul Hartz, chairman of legislation for the General Federation of Women's Clubs, who is unable to be here. I am Mrs. Genevive Oslund, legislative assistant to the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

Our organization has a direct membership of 875,000 women with an affiliated membership of 412 million women who are for the large part homemakers and who have a deep interest and concern in the proposed legislation now up for your consideration.

Since its organization in 1890, the General Federation of Women's Clubs has worked for legislation to insure a pure and safe food supply. Dr. Harvey Wiley, who is often referred to as the father of the Pure Food and Drug Act, credited our organization with sparking the educational program which resulted in the passage of the act, and the subsequent establishment of the Pure Food and Drug Administration.

It seems altogether fitting in this 50th anniversary year of the Food and Drug Administration that we should again come before a congressional committee to urge the passage of a bill which will insure