interstate commerce. As a result of this great change to commercial production units substantial advances have been brought about in poultry processing and marketing methods. Today the industry is well equipped with modern sanitary processing facilities and the skills needed to produce high-quality products.

The retail merchandising of poultry has changed rapidly, too. Today the housewife is offered poultry as a convenience-food item at least to the same extent as most other foods, and this trend is increasing. During the past 20 years the poultry offered for sale has moved through the phases from live to dressed or "New York dressed," to birds which are ready to cook, and more recently to such convenience-food items as fully prepared dinners, boned chicken, and poultry-meat pies which require no preparation by the housewife other than heating. This trend is undoubtedly the cause of the tremendous expansion in the use of the Department of Agriculture's inspection program and, also, the reason why there is increasing in making poultry inspection mandatory by law. Should Congress see fit to enace such a law, the Department of Agriculture is well prepared to assume responsibility for its proper administration.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Secretary, I gather from the third paragraph of your testimony that the Department of Agriculture is in favor of compulsory inspection of poultry if it is placed in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. BUTZ. That is correct.

Senator MURRAY. Does the Department have any reservations of any kind about the desirability of instituting compulsory inspection?

Mr. BUTZ. We think that it should not come too suddenly so as to unduly disrupt the industry, but it should come as rapidly as is. practicable.

Senator MURRAY. Is it the Department's view that the protection of the public health and welfare is the fundamental purpose of the poultry inspection?

Mr. BUTZ. It is a fundamental purpose. I think it is the Departments' view that there are two purposes. One is the protection of the public health and welfare, and the other, of course, is the promotion of consumer acceptance of this very fine agricultural product.

Senator MURRAY. In the fourth paragraph of your testimony, on page 1, you refer to bills on this same subject which are before the Agriculture Committees. You state, and I quote:

That these bills provide for the conduct of poultry inspection on a mandatory basis.

That is in the Department of Agriculture; is that true?
Mr. BUTZ. Yes.

Senator MURRAY. Section 5 (a) of Senate bill 3588 provides that the Secretary shall make such examination, inspection, ante mortem or post mortem or both, and reinspection, as he determines necessary. Does this not amount to an authorization rather than a legislative mandate that there be compulsory inspection?

Mr. BUTZ. We interpret the word "shall" to provide a legislative mandate but not to spell out the administrative details under which the program will be administered. The determination of operational procedures obviously must rest with the head of the agency administering the program.

Senator MURRAY. The bill says "as he determines necessary." That is the language of the bill.

Mr. BUTZ. The bill also says that he shall provide for it. The "shall" infers a mandatory provision.

Senator MURRAY. Is there any provision in S. 3588 which establishes real compulsory poultry inspection more positively and clearly than

section 5?

Mr. BUTZ. Mr. Chairman, we are just now in the process of analyzing and reporting on that bill and that will be before the Senate in the course of time.

Senator MURRAY. So that we will have that report?

Mr. BUTZ. Yes.

Senator MURRAY. Is there any question in your mind that this bill, S. 3176, will make inspection compulsory?

Mr. BUTZ. I did not get that question.

Senator MURRAY. Is there any question that this bill, S. 3176, will make inspection compulsory?

Mr. BUTZ. No, sir.

Senator MURRAY. Those are all of the questions I have.

Senator MCNAMARA. Well, I do not have this other bill before me and I do not know that I have seen it, this one that you are just referring to. I am interested in section 5 since there was some discussion of it. I do not have any questions at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BENDER. Mr. Chairman, I had an experience the other day. I was in a restaurant, and a very expensive restaurant in Washington, and at least all restaurants in Washington are expensive, but I had some guests and we ordered chicken. One person was eating the chicken and found underneath it was all green, and all of the other persons found their chicken green. I think it is a horrible thing that the public is subjected to that kind of thing. Now, that might have been a retailer's or restaurant man's own violation. However, it seems to me that since the increase in production has been so phenomenal since 1951-and it has practically tripled, I think, or quadrupledunder the circumstances you can appreciate why people are apprehensive since they read the testimony of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare experts who write articles for magazines and indicate what dire and horrible conditions or situations might develop as a result of having this item marketed and not properly inspected. Now, I was just reading from expert testimony of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and men like Dr. Raymond L. Helvi. I am sure you are acquainted with him. He had an article in the American Journal of Public Health, and another one was also listed. A number of experts have offered testimony here and that is why I am tremendously concerned as a consumer.

Mr. Butz. I think that you are quite right in being concerned about that. I would like to point out, however, that inspection of poultry products or red-meat products at point of slaughter will never insure proper conditions when it hits the plate in the restaurant. As you know, there is a long distribution and preparation channel between the point of slaughter and the time it hits the final consumer. That, I think, is one of the places where the regulatory activities and the inspection activities of the Food and Drug Administration comes in, to make sure that the food is not contaminated as it moves through the

distribution channels. There is nothing in either of these two current bills we discussed that would have gotten at the condition you describe. Senator BENDER. Your contention is that the responsibility is the Department of Agriculture's as far as where the product begins? Mr. BUTZ. That is right.

Senator BENDER. Where it is slaughtered?

Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir.

Senator BENDER. And then the Food and Drug Administration takes over from there.

Mr. BUTZ. I think so. That is what they do now. They look for contamination of foods and adulteration of foods. I do not know about the condition you describe about this chicken you had in the Washington restaurant, but it is something that I would assume developed after it left the slaughtering house.

Senator BENDER. I am very charitable about these things. I know how easy it is to be negligent and careless. However, when a product is as widely used and when the increase is as marked as it has been in this product, certainly I am sure everybody is concerned about being protected.

Mr. BUTZ. That is right, and, Senator, I would like to assure you that the Department of Agriculture and the entire poultry-processing industry has an interest in preventing what you just described, because I am sure the next time you get in a restaurant you may not order poultry because of the experience you had last time.

Senator BENDER. I am a little more careful than I used to be.
Mr. BUTZ. We want you to order poultry next time.

Senator MURRAY. They have developed a new thing in this country, "God give us this day our daily poison." I think that there is an awful lot of poison in foods. I find it right here in the Senate restaurant, and many Senators have had food poisoning since I have been here. I remember they used a lot of synthetics that are bad for your health. I like a cup custard once in a while, and instead of using vanilla now they are using some substitute that is made out of coal. It is yellow and it has a bad taste to it and it is indigestible, and I can taste it 2 hours after eating, and so I quit eating custard.

Mr. BUTZ. You should take that up with the Senator from West Virginia.

Senator MCNAMARA. There is some reference here to the cost of the program, and I am astonished to find 94 percent of the cost apparently is paid by the processors and the 6 percent is paid by appropriated funds and would apparently be the overhead. The actual cost is paid for by the producers.

Mr. Burz. That is the philosophy of this, that the overhead is borne by appropriated funds and the direct costs borne by the industry that is assessed for participating in the program.

Senator MCNAMARA. Now, does your red-meat department come out about this in that same fashion?

Mr. BUTZ. The red meat is supported entirely by appropriations. Senator MCNAMARA. The grading of all of it?

Mr. BUTZ. Not the grading; just the inspection. I notice in your comments a while ago with the previous witness

Senator MCNAMARA. I was talking about grading and not inspection.

Mr. Burz. You were talking about the grading and not the inspection?

Senator MCNAMARA. That is right. That is paid for totally by the industry?

Mr. BUTZ. Yes, but that is on a voluntary basis, and the processor can take it or leave it. The inspection is on a compulsory basis. Senator MCNAMARA. Is the grading not also on a compulsory basis, if you engage in interstate commerce?

Mr. BUTZ. No, just on two occasions during World War II and the Korean war it was made compulsory by the Federal Government. Senator MCNAMARA. I was employed by OPA at that time and it was compulsory in those days.

Mr. BUTZ. It had to be compulsory because of the price-ceiling regulations.

Senator MCNAMARA. And that is changed since that time?
Mr. BUTZ. Yes.

Senator MCNAMARA. That is interesting. I think that is all.

Mr. REIDY. Mr. Butz, this committee is pretty familiar with the operations of the Public Health Service and the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies under our jurisdiction-but I am afraid we do not know too much about the workings of the Department of Agriculture-just so as to make sure that we talk the same language, would you please describe the type of people or the personnel that are employed in the poultry-processing plants that participate in any of the poultry inspection or grading or other programs?

Mr. BUTZ. Mr. Reidy, I would like to have that answered by Mr. Hermon Miller, who is the Director of our Poultry Division in the Agricultural Marketing Service, and supervises this inspection pro

gram.

Mr. MILLER. As indicated in Mr. Butz' statement, there are about 425 individuals that are employed in making inspections of poultry. That is in the 290 plants and include the supervising staff. 300 of these employees are veterinarians, and the other 125 are lay inspectors who are used in a very closely supervised manner. We use these lay people in poultry processing plants at the inspection station opposite the veterinarian so that the determinations the lay person makes are closely observed. Final determinations are the responsibility of the veterinarian in all cases.

Mr. REIDY. You are talking now about the inspection for wholesomeness, and when that is going on?

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. REIDY. Is the veterinarian an employee of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, there is no one used in the inspection service of the Department of Agriculture that is not a civil servant.

Mr. REIDY. The Inspection for Wholesomeness Service?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. REIDY. And they are the people who are the ones who decide when the product is entitled to bear the seal of the Department? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. REIDY. And you have a service for grading poultry, too, do you not? Will you describe the type of personnel employed in that?

78733-56-3

Mr. MILLER. In grading we use three different types of licensees, and all are licensed by the Secretary to indicate their qualifications for grading. One is the straight, federally controlled civil servant. Second would be a State employee, under the arrangements we have with the State departments of agriculture, to license their people and use their people, supervised federally. Thirdly, we do have some instances where we use company employed licensees. That is in grading of product, that is an economic consideration and not a wholesomeness or health consideration.

Mr. REIDY. Do these products after they have been graded, bear a seal indicating that the Department of Agriculture has graded them such and such a grade?

Mr. MILLER. There are two different kinds of labels used by the Department. One is round in shape, and says inside of it, "U. S. Inspected for wholesomeness." And that is a seal that is used as the product passes the veterinary inspection service. The other is in the form of a shield and says, "U. S. Grade A," if it is grade A, or “U. S. Grade B."

Mr. REIDY. How many grades do you have?

Mr. MILLER. We have 3 grades, A, B, and C.

Mr. REIDY. And the poultry that is inspected for grading purposes only would carry a seal of the United States Department of Agriculture?

Mr. MILLER. There is no grading of ready-to-cook poultry unless it has also been inspected for wholesomeness. That is not permitted under our regulations.

Mr. REIDY. Will you explain that?

Mr. MILLER. In 1951 our regulations forbid the grading of readyto-cook poultry that had not been inspected for wholesomeness. There was a very short time when the regulation did permit the grading of ready-to-cook poultry that was not inspected. I believe I am right in saying that only one plant ever operated under that provision, and very little product was produced under that provision.

Mr. REIDY. Can you tell us what proportion of all of the poultry plants do these inspected ones represent?

Mr. MILLER. The best information the Department has would indicate there are between 650 and 700 poultry processing plants, processing 30,000 pounds a week when they operate. That would represent, in our opinion, the major part of the large processing establishments.

Mr. REIDY. It is out of those plants that come the more than 5 billion pounds that Mr. Butz represented, or whatever the figure was.

Mr. BUTZ. Yes. That does not include a small processor in a terminal market, that may be processing a small volume for his own merchandising programs.

Mr. REIDY. You have a third program, do you not, involving just plant sanitation?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, there is a program that backs up the inspection program, where poultry that is sold in dressed form is labeled to permit it to move into plants where it is further processed. In other words, the regulation establishes standards for operation from the time the bird is killed until it is packaged.

Mr. REIDY. What type of personnel is employed in the plant sanitation program?