the purity and safety of poultry, which has in recent years become a major item in the American diet. The General Federation does not believe that voluntary inspection can assure the consumer of healthy and clean poultry. We are aware that the Production and Marketing Division of the United States Department of Agriculture maintains an inspection service which is voluntary and for which the processor must pay. It is estimated that only 21 percent of the poultry in interstate commerce is inspected for wholesomeness and sanitation, but even in this low percentage, relatively large numbers of carcasses have been condemned as unfit. We also know that the Food and Drug Administration has the right to seize adulterated food including poultry, but due to limitation of staff and funds the average rate of inspection coverage of the poultry processing plants amounts to a spot check once every 3 or 4 years. Veterinary investigations have concluded there are over 25 diseases of poultry to which man is susceptible. The present Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration states that not only afterslaughter inspection is needed to protect the consumer, but beforeslaughter inspection as well. In earlier days, when life in our country was less complex, the canny eye of the housewife could tell by looking at the color of the comb, the condition of the feet and feathers, whether the bird was healthy. Today, the busy housewife is glad to find her poultry already killed and dressed, but her clues for wholesomeness have been eliminated. Therefore, we believe that in order to insure that there is clean, uncontaminated and healthy poultry in our markets, new legislation is needed to provide for the compulsory inspection both before and after slaughter. We commend the majority of the poultry industry, which has maintained good standards of sanitation. The phenomenal growth of the industry since 1940 is in a large part responsible for our predicament. The poultry industry is the third largest source of gross farm income of the Nation, while the per capita consumption has risen to 35 pounds per person. Under these circumstances we can no longer rely on voluntary inspection to protect the consumer against dirty, diseased, or otherwise unwholesome poultry. As yet only a few States have compulsory poultry and sanitation programs. The General Federation of Women's Clubs urges favorable consideration of S. 3176, an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the movement in interstate and foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome, or adulterated poultry or poultry products. Senator MCNAMARA. I have no questions. Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman and Senator McNamara, my name is George D. Riley. I am legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations supports the provisions of S. 3176. As the largest group of consumers, in excess of 60 million, we have a tremendous equity in this legislation. To us, it is incredible that anyone willingly would be so bold as to oppose this bill, directly or by indirection. There can be no equivocation over safety of the human stomach, no compromises between filth and cleanliness. To be told that a processing plant is inspected but the product is not inspected for complete safety and wholesomeness before and after slaughtering, is simply something we cannot understand. Or that the product is fully inspected all along the line but that the plant is plainly filthy, that, too, we cannot understand. How can a product be wholesome in itself and at the same time emanate from an unwholesome establishment? Such tolerance is not allowable for red meat. Yet what is good for red meat is too good for poultry. For 50 years, there has been a law upon which consumers have relied for protection against contamination, disease, general filth in the redmeat traffic. That law was passed only a few years after the scandals arising from supplying embalmed meat to our men in the Cuban campaign and elsewhere in the Spanish-American War. Senator MURRAY. I remember that very well. Mr. RILEY. They used formaldehyde, as you will remember, Senator. That was but a part of the antics of the "fast-buck" gentry of those days enriching themselves while draping the flag around their foul shoulders. Our members have the right to demand as strict protection in these three categories as poultry consumers as they receive under the redmeat law: (1) General health promotion. (2) Assurances against industrial hazards for those employed in the industry. (3) Processing conditions free from slightest suspicion. This is a moderate program for the consumer. components, this is exactly what we want: (1) Ante mortem inspection. (2) Post mortem inspection. Broken down by (3) Sanitation of plant, facilities, and equipment. (5) Enforcement of this act by the Food and Drug Adminis tration. The American consumer has believed for years he was protected from filth and now finds he has been let down. A good job is done by some portions of the industry but we find it necessary to indict those in the industry who prefer to do things to their own liking— those who use the same slimy, nasty water over and over for one batch after another of carcasses and who engage in all the rest of the decadent practices which prevail in those segments of the industry to which reference is made here. At present, some 35-five pounds of poultry are consumed per capita. Poultry is a major part of the food industry. Twelve cents of the food dollar goes for poultry and poultry products. Yet, as widespread as is poultry buying, our members report shocking conditions in the poultry processing plants. Expressions of astonishment have come from our members and their families who likewise wish to be poultry consumers. They have thought all along they have been safeguarded by their Uncle Sam. Sure, one can cook the filth and germs, but if that is what they want they should not have to pay poultry prices to get such fare. We are concerned not only about disease and the other situations, but we ask ourselves why somewhere in this Government officials have not called upon the Congress for the same law we seek here today to protect consumers. We do not need George Gobel to tell us anything about a "dirty bird." Maybe we can tell him. It is time for a real change in a new age. Too much profit has been made at the expense of the unsuspecting. We ask for early report on S. 3176 essentially in its present structural form. If I may offer some informal observations, based upon my attendance here at these most important hearings, I think that these hearings are vital, and sufficiently so that it seems to me that the TV camera men have overlooked an important bet by passing up the proceedings which you are conducting here today. There has been reference made in these hearings as of yesterday to the importuning by the Department of Agriculture into the seizure of three carloads of poultry in the State of Colorado. We have also heard the threats of legal action against individuals who raised their hands in order to try to attempt to protect the public health. We were told that the turkeys involved were designed to go into the stomachs of young Americans in the form of the school-lunch program. We are very jealous of that school-lunch program. I suppose we have given as much attention to the promotion of that program as perhaps all of the other forces combined in America, outside of the Government. That is to the point now, that I believe for the new fiscal year there will be some $60 million of Federal money spent on that program. We tink a great deal of the schoolchildren of Colorado, and we think a great deal of the schoolchildren of Nebraska and all of the other 46 States to the end that the Federal Government apparently through the Department of Agriculture is trying to salvage portions of these dirty birds, these contaminated birds and these filthy birds, and since Colorado did not want them they attempted to send them to the unsuspecting schoolchildren of Nebraska. Now, we think that that is a downright misuse of part of that $60 million and we hope that if there are such other cases, and the indications seem to point to the fact that there are, that they will be divulged in proper order and that if there are any statutes which are being 78733-56-15 violated by Federal officials that they will feel the effects of the same statutes which they threaten to use against officials in Colorado. Regarding the testimony by Mr. Landrum of Georgia, I am impressed by the fact that Mr. Landrum is strictly swimming upstream with his testimony before your committee. He says that he has been told by word of mouth what has been going on in the hearings here. I wonder if he has been told by word of mouth or otherwise that the Southeastern Poultry Association of which his State is a member, wants mandatory inspection, and that of course, is the industry speaking. Seemingly, he was speaking for the industry, and not only Georgia, he said, but he was speaking for the industry of the entire United States. I hope that Mr. Landrum gets around to reading that portion of the record which points out the fact that his own poultry association wants mandatory inspection. I might point out also that there are a couple of news items coming from trade journals within the last 60 days. One of them speaks of Newcastle disease, a very malignant sort of thing which affects the human eye, and the mucous glands of the eye, and may be controlled eventually in Georgia. There is an item from Gainesville, Ga., which says that the Georgia poultry authorities are optimistic that the Newcastle outbreaks have been checked. Dr. Dank Morris, of the Georgia Poultry Laboratories in Gainesville and also at the laboratory at Canton, states that few reports of new outbreaks within the past week-that is the week of March 16 of this year, and said that: We are hopeful we have halted the spread of the virus. Vaccination programs have been stepped up according to figures released this week. Dr. Morris points out that it is obvious that growers are paying more attention to sound management practices. Because growers have become conscious of the results of careless and indifferent management, and are now taking proper steps to correct the situation, we are therefore confident the worst is over. Of course, the public never gets this kind of information, Mr. Chairman. They still have the delusion that everything is wholesome if it has a shield which appears to be the official stamp of the United States Government through the Department of Agriculture which in my opinion, is a gross misuse of an official emblem. He adds: With growers paying particular attention to adequate vaccination and resuming good management there is little likelihood that there will be any seasonal loss normally dut to parasites. Of course, even that story, as factual as it is, is talking about the seasonal loss to growers and not the year around loss to consumers. Then, here is an item from the Poultry and Eggs Weekly, of April 28, 1956, speaking of chronic respiratory disease, and the article has a byline of Dr. Jack R. Palmer, Georgia extension veterinarian. This is in the same tenor. It is all about the welfare and the well-being of the industry. I would like to submit that as a little bit too long to impose upon your patience at this point. (The article is as follows:) [Poultry and Eggs Weekly, April 28, 1956] CHRONIC RESPIRATORY DISEASE By Dr. Jack R. Palmer, Georgia extension veterinarian The cause of chronic respiratory disease, also called air sac colds, or chronic air sac infection, is unknown but is now thought to be caused by a pleuropneumonialike organism (PPLO), a virus, a bacterial organism, or by a combination of these agents. It has been shown that the PPLO can be transmitted through the egg from infected breeders. The disease can be transmitted by direct contact with infected birds or by exposure to contaminated equipment, feed, water, droppings, dust, and other material capable of carrying the agent. While most of the cases occur in birds between 1 and 4 months of age, the disease also has been observed in old birds. The highest incidence is in the spring. The mortality is about 10 percent, but in certain outbreaks in broiler flocks, it has reached as much as 30 to 50 percent. The initial respiratory symptoms are usually no different from those seen in Newcastle disease or in bronchitis. When these symptoms persist longer than they do in these two diseases, CRD should be suspected. Reduced feed consumption is one of the first symptoms. Feed conversion is below normal, egg production gradually decreases by 10 to 40 percent (unlike bronchitis, or Newcastle disease where there is a sudden decrease). BY SUPPLEMENTS In acute outbreaks it is advisable to try to maintain a constant feed intake which may be achieved by vitamin and protein supplements and by feeding condensed buttermilk with the mash or grain. None of the various antibiotics really destroys the CRD agent but, at best, reduces temporarily the severity of the disease and increases the appetite and improves the general condition of the flock. An antibiotic will not control the spread of the disease unless a high level of sanitation and management is maintained. The most promising control measure is a blood-testing program similar to the pullorum typhoid program now in effect. Successful techniques have been developed and will be released for general field application as soon as the tests are completed. Mr. RILEY. We still want clean, disease-free poultry or we do not want any poultry. We think a great deal of the human stomach, and a lot more than the dollar sign which has been paraded up and down by those who are bleeding hearts for the industry. We do not like this public-be-damned attitude of the Department of Agriculture which was demonstrated before your committee yesterday. I never heard the word "consumer" used at any time by the official witnesses, and it was all about being friendly with industry. Without the consumer, there would not be any industry, and we think this thing is turned around, and it ought to be directed down the one-way street in the other direction. We are particularly alarmed, and I might even use the word "concerned" about provisions in the administration bill, S. 3588. The three points of that I sum up as follows: It is that the Secretary of Agriculture may make such inspections as he determines necessary. It provides that the Secretary may not prosecute, if he does not see fit to prosecute. The Secretary may exempt regions of the United States from all forms of inspection if in his wisdom that is the way to do it. We are in a head-on collision here between the interest of what we claim to be representing in my statement to you of 64 million consumers, and the industry at large. Something has to give. That, Mr. Chairman, is it, as far as I am concerned. |