CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, DEAR SENATOR: I am writing to you regarding S. 3176, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome or adulterated poultry or poultry products. We in the public health profession know and have known for many years that poultry has caused many diseases and that there has been little or no protection of the public. In Columbus, Ohio, we have two inspectors assigned to poultry inspection in slaughtering establishments operating in the city, but the majority of poultry sold here comes from many States other than Ohio. It is nearly impossible for us to check the flow of poultry and poultry products coming to this city and we know that much of it may be unfit for human consumption. In view of the above, I ask that you give all aid and assistance to the passage of S. 3176. Very truly yours, O. M. GOODLOE, M. D., M. P. H., STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, May 16, 1956. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HILL: It is my understanding that your committee has completed the hearings on the bill providing for the inspection of poultry and poultry products but that it will consider additional statements concerning this important piece of legislation. We have given very careful consideration to this proposed inspection program, especially as to what agency of Government should be responsible for the inspection service. We are very definite in our opinion, and believe that we express the views of everyone in North Carolina who has given serious thought to the matter, that the program of inspection of poultry and poultry products should be placed in the United States Department of Agriculture, subject to the wishes of the Secretary of Agriculture as to the branch or division of the department to which the work should be assigned. We do not believe that it should be assigned by Congress to any definite branch or division of the United States Department of Agriculture. It is entirely possible that the Secretary might assign this function to one division and later find that another division or branch of the Department could perform the functions of the program more effectively; and in such case, I think the Secretary should have full authority to make such changes in the assignment of the work as he might deem best for the program and the Department. The processing of poultry and poultry products on a large commercial scale is relatively new and represents many relatively small processing plants. The industry has made tremendous progress during the past few years and has continually improved the efficiency of its processing operations, resulting in a wholesome product available to consumers at reasonable prices. These advances are borne out by the fact that we consume approximately 12 billion broilers per year. Economic conditions and seasonal demands of consumers for varying weights and age classes and for the many types and sizes of consumer packages make it imperative that processing and distributing of poultry be on a flexible basis. Processing poultry is unlike the processing of red meat due to the sizes of the individual carcasses and due to the various means and methods of processing, packaging, and distributing as demanded by consumers. The fact that the inspecting of poultry and poultry products would involve a large number of relatively new and small processing plants not heretofore inspected and the further fact that the nature of the carcass and the method of processing is largely different from that of larger animals convinces us that the program of inspection of poultry and poultry products should be considered by the Secretary, entirely independent of the inspection of larger animals as presently carried out by the Department. It is possible that when the poultry industry has had additional years of experience and growth in processing and in marketing that consideration could be given to combining the inspection of poultry and larger animals, but for the present, we definitely believe that the best interest of the industry and the consumer would not be served by combining the two programs in the division now providing the red meat inspection service. I respectfully submit this brief statement in the hope that it may give your committee the benefit of our thinking here in North Carolina on the subject of poultry inspection. Sincerely yours, L.Y. BALLENTINE, Commissioner THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Comminttee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: As a member of the Committee on Poultry Inspection of the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, I wish to strongly urge you to continue your energetic and well-founded incentive in attempting to provide consumer protection by preventing the interstate shipment of diseased poultry. Massachusetts has been plagued by this problem for many years. Our lack of enforcement personnel has made it impossible for us to cope with this problem. The institution of a Federal Poultry Inspection Service under the Food and Drug Administration would be one of the most progressive actions taken by the Congress in the protection of the public health and welfare. I wish to compliment your colleagues and you on the recognition of this problem and for having the incentive to try to do something about it. I am writing to Senators Kennedy and Saltonstall asking them to support your legislation contained in Senate bill 3176. Yours very truly, GEORGE A. MICHAEL, Director, Division of Food and Drugs. CITY OF BINGHAMTON, N. Y., BUREAU OF HEALTH, April 2, 1956. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am very much interested in Senate bill 3176 which I understand has been introduced by you. I have been engaged in full-time public health work for several years and have attempted to set up local programs and to have local laws enacted to control the sanitation of poultry. While Commissioner of Health of Syracuse, N. Y., I was able to have a section of our sanitary code approved which prohibited the sale of New York-dressed poultry in that city. I hope it will be possible to place the regulations pertaining to poultry inspection in the hands of consumer protective organizations. Not infrequently the statement is made that the sanitary inspection program would add materially to the cost of dressed poultry. For a period of more than 1 year we kept a card record of the cost of lay inspection of poultry with veterinary supervision and found that the actual cost did not exceed two-tenths of 1 cent per pound of inspected poultry. You are to be congratulated upon your interest in this bill and on your efforts to have it passed. Sincerely yours, C. A. SARGENT, M. D., Health Officer Hon. ALLEN ELLENDER, Sr., OREGON STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, Chairman of Committeee on Agriculture, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: It has been brought to our attention that a substitute bill for national poultry inspection, S. 3588, has been submitted to take the place of the original Senate bill 3176, and that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has withdrawn as the agency primarily responsible for the protection of the consuming public. This action by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare disregards the recommendation of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers and various medical and veterinary medical associations, as well as other organizations. We feel that the administration of poultry inspection should be under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as this organization has a moral and legal obligation to the poultry-consuming public in respect to its health and welfare. The Senate bill 3588 and companion bill H. R. 10514 have the following disadvantages: (1) It placed inspection in the Department of Agriculture, but does not specify where it should be administered. (2) It does not indicate whether it should be administered by the Federal Meat Inspection Branch. (3) It emphasizes the aid to commerce and sale of poultry products with little reference to actual inspection for wholesomeness. (4) It conflicts with State rights and local jurisdiction in health matters by indicating that the Secretary of Agriculture may determine the necessity for inspection if the volume of products consumed is great enough for Federal inspection, interfering with the movement of State-inspected poultry into cities or areas of a State by necessitating Federal inspection of such products. (5) It does not provide for compulsory inspection, but only permissive inspection as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. (6) Enforcement is limited when information is received through the records of a company, as such information may not be used in prosecution of the firm in question (sec. 10). (7) Section 18 conflicts with provisions of the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040, ch. 675), Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, by providing exclusive jurisdiction in the field of poultry and poultry products inspection; thus exempting such products from the provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Difficulty would be encountered in preventing the sale of poultry and poultry products by local authorities, or the Federal Food and Drug Administration, if such products have deteriorated or have been contaminated after the original inspection. (8) In section 21, definition of the term "commerce" would be all inclusive and could necessitate the compliance with all requirements of commerce, by designating area or city, again taking away States rights and local jurisdiction of health matters. It is felt that additional consideration should be given the matter of national poultry inspection so as to produce an adequate and enforcible law for protecting the health of the consuming public. Respectfully yours, RICHARD H. WILCOX, M. D., Acting State Health Officer. YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The Young Women's Christian Association, a membership organization of women and girls who are housewives and mothers, business girls, schoolgirls, and workers in industry, has long had an interest in the protection of consumers. At its triennial national convention in 1955 the YWCA voted to continue to support "the protection of consumers through such measures as food and drug regulation and inspection and measures to maintain quality standards." We have been shocked to learn of conditions that prevail in some parts of the poultry industry. We have read with alarm that the Public Health Service reports that an average of one-third of the reported cases of food poisoning are traced to poultry or poultry dishes; that some 26 diseases have been found transmissible from poultry to man; and that fatalities have actually occurred due to diseased poultry. Considering the phenomenal growth of the poultry industry in the past 20 years, selling as it did in 1954 1,050 million broilers alone; considering also that the poultry and egg industry is now the third largest source of agricultural income, the national board of the YWCA urges your committee to recommend legislation to provide adequate inspection for wholesomeness and sanitation in the poultry industry. The poultry industry stands alone among the major producers of food in not being properly regulated. The voluntary program of inspection has obviously failed and, though unsafe and unfit poultry is processed by a minority of the industry, we do not feel that they should be allowed to sell diseased or unwholesome products. We specifically support S. 3176 to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome, or adulterated poultry or poultry products. Sincerely yours, LILACE REID BARNES, President, National Board. STATE OF NEBRASKA, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Lincoln, April 11, 1956. Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: You are to be commended for the speech that was made in the Senate of the United States Friday, February 10, 1956, urging the need of compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products as described in the Senate bill 3176. We take this means of endorsing your bill and urging that you do all in your power to see that this bill is activated into law. In the promotion of public health, we are finding that agencies other than those responsible for human health do not grasp the full significance of the effect that various programs and activities have on human health. Far too often the industrial and economic aspects are taken into consideration at the expense of the human beings that are depending upon someone else's services in safeguarding them. This is especially true in some of the food areas where dirty and filthy products are processed for human consumption under the assumption that processing will destroy the harmful organisms. Even though this might be true, we still believe that the human being is entitled to a better product than is now supplied to them in many areas. It is well known that many of the diseases of animals and fowls are transmissible to man. This makes the program of even greater public-health significance. Therefore, persons who are inspecting, grading, and certifying poultry and poultry products should have the background of public health as it applies to the protection of the human being. The bill you proposed indicates that this will be done. We, therefore, endorse the bill and hope that it may be passed. Yours very truly, E. A. ROGERS, M. D., M. P. H., CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, DEAR SENATOR: I am writing to you regarding S. 3176, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome or adulterated poultry or poultry products. We in the public health profession know and have known for many years that poultry has caused many diseases and that there has been little or no protection of the public. In Columbus, Ohio, we have two inspectors assigned to poultry inspection in slaughtering establishments operating in the city, but the majority of poultry sold here comes from many States other than Ohio. It is nearly impossible for us to check the flow of poultry and poultry products coming to this city and we know that much of it may be unfit for human consumption. In view of the above, I ask that you give all aid and assistance to the passage of S. 3176. Very truly yours, O. M. GOODLOE, M. D., M. P. H., STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, May 16, 1956. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HILL: It is my understanding that your committee has completed the hearings on the bill providing for the inspection of poultry and poultry products but that it will consider additional statements concerning this important piece of legislation. We have given very careful consideration to this proposed inspection program, especially as to what agency of Government should be responsible for the inspection service. We are very definite in our opinion, and believe that we express the views of everyone in North Carolina who has given serious thought to the matter, that the program of inspection of poultry and poultry products should be placed in the United States Department of Agriculture, subject to the wishes of the Secretary of Agriculture as to the branch or division of the department to which the work should be assigned. We do not believe that it should be assigned by Congress to any definite branch or division of the United States Department of Agriculture. It is entirely possible that the Secretary might assign this function to one division and later find that another division or branch of the Department could perform the functions of the program more effectively; and in such case, I think the Secretary should have full authority to make such changes in the assignment of the work as he might deem best for the program and the Department. The processing of poultry and poultry products on a large commercial scale is relatively new and represents many relatively small processing plants. The industry has made tremendous progress during the past few years and has continually improved the efficiency of its processing operations, resulting in a wholesome product available to consumers at reasonable prices. These advances are borne out by the fact that we consume approximately 12 billion broilers per year. Economic conditions and seasonal demands of consumers for varying weights and age classes and for the many types and sizes of consumer packages make it imperative that processing and distributing of poultry be on a flexible basis. Processing poultry is unlike the processing of red meat due to the sizes of the individual carcasses and due to the various means and methods of processing, packaging, and distributing as demanded by consumers. The fact that the inspecting of poultry and poultry products would involve a large number of relatively new and small processing plants not heretofore inspected and the further fact that the nature of the carcass and the method of processing is largely different from that of larger animals convinces us that the program of inspection of poultry and poultry products should be considered by the Secretary, entirely |