Mr. MILLER. We have two types. We use some company employed licensees, and some federally-employed personnel.

Mr. REIDY. Are they sanitary engineers?

Mr. MILLER. They are not trained as sanitation engineers, they are practical people that we have secured and trained.

Mr. REIDY. And what authority do they have?

Mr. MILLER. They have all of the authority vested in a civil servant. Mr. REIDY. Suppose they find unsanitary conditions in a particular plant?

Mr. MILLER. Under the supervision system we have that could not exist very long, because the people that come by to supervise such operations would see that operations are immediately brought into compliance with the regulations.

Mr. REIDY. What does your man do, whom you assign to this plant, when he finds that something has happened that has made it an unsanitary plant?

Mr. MILLER. He jerks the service, and we have done it many times. We deny the service to any establishment that does not maintain these standards.

Mr. REIDY. His sole responsibility is the plant itself, and the machinery that is involved, and he has no responsibility or does he have a responsibility for the wholesomeness of the bird?

Mr. MILLER. Not the health condition of the bird, because you cannot determine the health condition of birds until you get to the viscera.

Mr. REIDY. The product can come out of the plant which has been inspected for sanitation and it could be diseased, and your sanitary personnel could know it, but that is not his responsibility.

Mr. MILLER. That is right..

Mr. REIDY. Now, Mr. Butz, on page 1 of your testimony

Mr. BUTZ. Would it not be true in that case that the sanitary supervisor would call attention to what was taking place, if the diseased birds were going through the plant?

Mr. MILLER. Yes; the instructions do not permit the packing of poultry which would contaminate other poultry in the same package. But you cannot determine the health condition of poultry with any degree of definiteness until you get into the visceral organs. Therefore, we have debated whether we ought to make any determination in dressed form or assume that responsibility when it gets into eviscerating establishments.

Mr. REIDY. The answer to my question is that in a plant in which your only function is to testify as to the sanitary quality of the plant itself, your sanitarian can attest that this chicken has come from a plant approved in terms of sanitation, and that is all.

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. REIDY. Mr. Butz, on page 1 of your testimony you state that S. 3176 is a bill which has a good objective, and you think we should have compulsory mandatory inspection of poultry. Now, on page 2 you say that any program to accomplish this should be conducted in a practical manner. You say it should not be of such a nature as to hamper orderly and efficient marketing.

What does your Department regard as most important, the orderly and most efficient marketing of a product, or the safety? Mr. BUTZ. They are not incompatible.

Mr. REIDY. If there is conflict?

Mr. BUTZ. They are not necessarily in conflict. We regard this partly as a matter of timing, that any substantial thing like this must be made on a reasonable and gradual basis, you understand.

Mr. REIDY. Was that the point of your comment, just the introducing of such a program; that it should be done so as not to hamper the industry?

Mr. BUTZ. Not to interfere unduly with the processing plant itself. Mr. REIDY. Should there be a conflict between the orderly marketing of a product and the safety of a product, should it occur, and should, in the course of operating this program, we find a good many diseased poultry of one sort or another going into the markets, obviously the purpose of this program is to stop that, is it not? Mr. BUTZ. And the industry would support that, too.

Mr. REIDY. And you believe that would be the overriding objective of whoever was in charge of the program?

Mr. BUTZ. Yes.

Mr. REIDY. I was thinking of that because the Food and Drug Administration which, of course, would administer the act if this bill is passed, had quite a problem on its hands about some polio vaccine last year, and I think that they disrupted the orderly marketing of a lot of vaccine that the consumers wanted, but we think, and the committee has said, that you did a good job, Mr. Harvey.

Now, you said, on page 2, that the Department is sympathetic to the general objectives of mandatory poultry inspection. Senator Murray has said that the specific and the only objective of the authors of S. 3176 was to protect the health of the public. That is by using the power of the Federal Government to prevent the movement in interstate commerce of diseased, unwholesome, filthy, or otherwise disease-producing poultry. That is a very specific objective of the bill. I presume that the Department is sympathetic to that objective. Mr. BUTZ. Yes.

Mr. REIDY. On page 6 you say

Mr. BUTZ. May I say that we feel that there is another objective from our point of view back of these programs. That is increased consumer acceptance of a wholesome product.

Mr. REIDY. You have found that compulsory inspection of meat has so reassured the public as to its quality that it increases consumer acceptance of the meat?

Mr. BUTZ. Definitely.

Mr. REIDY. The same situation has been true of poultry since 1906, too, has it not?

Mr. BUTZ. On a voluntary basis.

Mr. REIDY. As the Senator said, we are about 40 or 50 years too late getting around to that.

Mr. BUTZ. There has been a tremendous change in the poultry industry in the last 10 years. Ten years ago it was largely a byproduct operation and now it is a specialized operation, and it has quadrupled in the last 10 years.

Mr. REIDY. Now, on page 6 of your statement you say that recent changes in the retail merchandising of poultry has resulted in trends which provide the reason for increasing interest in making poultry inspection mandatory by law. I am sure that you are aware that we

have not only increasing interest, but a tremendous demand on the part of all public health officers throughout the country for mandatory inspection.

Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. REIDY. That is true of organized women and consumer groups, and the Farm Bureau has put itself on record in favor of mandatory inspection, and we assume that the Department of Agriculture does share this interest.

Mr. BUTz. Yes; I think that is quite apparent. You will note from the figures shown in my testimony here how rapidly the industry itself has voluntarily taken on this inspection service the last 5 years. I think that that is evidence that the leaders or many leaders in the industry feel that it was to their advantage likewise to assure the public that they were getting a nutritious and wholesome product.

Mr. REIDY. You say the Department of Agriculture does favor the manadatory inspection of poultry. Can I assume therefore that you do not see in it anything that would hurt the interests of the small farmer, the poultry producer?

Mr. BUTZ. I am very happy that you raised that point. I think it would not necessarily interfere with the interests of the small farmer. It could conceivably work to the competitive disadvantage of the small processor. It is possible that the cost of providing this service to a small plant would be such that public pressure and administrative pressure would tend to move the processing of birds into plants large enough to make the inspection service efficient.

Mr. REIDY. There is nothing in S. 3176 which would do that, is there?

Mr. BUTZ. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. REIDY. The bill calls for the Government to provide the service to all processing plants and there is no distinction made between large and small plants.

Mr. BUTZ. As you well know, if the Government starts providing a service to a small processing plant, where the cost per unit of operation runs high by virtue of the small volume of business, you subject yourself to public criticism and congressional criticism, too, for doing that.

Mr. REIDY. We have had letters sent to us through the Senators from Oregon and Washington to the effect that your present voluntary program places a great handicap on the small processor because he cannot afford to buy into the inspection service and consequently, in one specific instance, some processors of what we understand to be excellent poultry cannot sell their birds to the Army, although the Army would like to buy them because the Army was buying only from inspected processing plants.

Mr. BUTZ. That is true. I think one of the things that prevents that is the cost of equipping the plant with modern equipment to qualify for the inspection service. That requirement, of course, exists under the voluntary program just as it would under the compulsory program.

Mr. REIDY. That is one of the things that would take some time, and it requires a delay.

Mr. BUTZ. That is right.

Mr. REIDY. But coming back to my original question, the Department sees nothing in any of these bills to which you referred that would adversely affect the farmer, the poultry producer?

Mr. BUTZ. That is correct.

Senator MCNAMARA. Is this equipment largely the cost of refrigeration?

Mr. BUTZ. No; it is not refrigeration, it is highly specialized and quite expensive stainless-steel equipment that they use in the slaughtering process itself.

Senator MCNAMARA. Refrigeration is not required there in general? Mr. Butz. It is required but that is not the costly item. The costly item is the equipment itself.

Senator MCNAMARA. Refrigeration is not cheap. I cannot visualize it being anything but expensive.

Mr. BUTZ. I am talking about per unit.

Mr. REIDY. You say that you feel that mandatory poultry inspection should be administered by the Department of Agriculture. Now, the Food and Drug Administration, whose offices are celebrating their 50th anniversary, have done a pretty good job, have they not, in their field?

Mr. BUTZ. A very fine job.

Mr. REIDY. They have people who know poultry, and poultryinspection methods.

Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir; they have well-qualified people.

Mr. REIDY. They could do the job if the Congress decided to give them that responsibility.

Mr. BUTZ. I have no doubt that they could do a very fine job.

Mr. REIDY. They have, at least on one occasion of which we know, and probably more, seized and condemned poultry which has been passed by what the Department of Agriculture calls a qualified licensed inspector.

Mr. BUTZ. I am not familiar with the incident, but I presume you will always find isolated instances where that can be true.

Mr. REIDY. At least it is an indication that they are competent in the field, and fairly alert. In view of that, why do you feel so strongly that this health operation, to protect the health of the people, should be placed in the Department of Agriculture whose primary function, I assume, is to promote the prosperity of farmers?

Mr. BUTZ. I think there are two answers to that question. First, of course, it is that we have a substantial volume of experience over the last 50 years in red meats, and over a shorter period of time in poultry meats where we now have these 425 inspectors working on the job so that we have the knowhow based on this, and we have the contacts with the industry to get the job done. The second reason, I think, is that as I indicated a while ago, we regard this inspection service as having a dual function. One is to protect the health of the population, and the second is to increase consumer acceptance of an important agricultural product through the provision of a guaranty that you are getting a wholesome and healthful product.

Mr. REIDY. That second role would be fulfilled automatically, would it not, if the first were taken care of? If the Food and Drug people were assuring the people that all of this poultry was pure, the second result would follow.

Mr. BUTZ. That fits in with a very substantial volume of activities we have in the Department of Agriculture, and it cuts clear across the field of food consumption and distribution.

Mr. REIDY. You spoke in terms of the fact that you have very experienced personnel in the red meat division of the Department of Agriculture. Is that where you believe this work would be done, if the Congress just authorized the Secretary to place it wherever he wanted it?

Mr. BUTZ. We have experienced people in the poultry inspection division which is in the Poultry Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

Mr. REIDY. They are quite limited in numbers.

Mr. BUTZ. We have 425 at the present time, so that we have a very experienced and well-qualified corps upon which to build.

Mr. REIDY. How many in the red meat division?

Mr. Butz. I am not prepared to say, but it runs substantially higher than that. They have a much larger volume of product, and it is mandatory for all red meats entering into interstate commerce, and it would run into the thousands.

Mr. REIDY. You speak of the other bills as being mandatory, and Senator Murray has asked you a question which I think you answered. It is your interpretation of section 5 of that bill that the Secretary would have to impose compulsory inspection, and that the phrase that Senator Murray questioned just gives him leeway as to what sort of inspection regulations would be set up.

Mr. BUTZ. That is our interpretation, and we interpret this section 5 to include both antemortem and postmortem inspection.

Mr. REIDY. You have mentioned that there ought to be a certain amount of leeway in time. How do you interpret Senator Aiken's bill as to when it would be operative?

Mr. MILLER. July 1, 1958.

Mr. REIDY. Does it not contain a provision that the Secretary may upon application of a processor then grant a waiver? For how long?

Mr. MILLER. There is a provision in the exemptions for 2 years' waiver where it seems to be to the best interests of the program.

Mr. REIDY. Does it mean that the Secretary can make a waiver for 2 years or that any time during those 2 years he could grant a waiver without any statement as to how long that waiver could be?

Mr. MILLER. It would be our interpretation that that exemption certificate would be one in which he would control the time and how long. However, such exemptions could not extend beyond July 1, 1960. This exemption is for the purpose of carrying through the purposes of the act. For instance, if a designated area is established and there are processing plants in this area that would come under the service, the Administration could bring those plants under control so far as sanitation is concerned and then there could be a waiver of the post mortem and ante mortem inspection by the exemption certificate.

Mr. REIDY. Would all poultry moving in interstate commerce, if that bill were enacted into law, have been inspected after 4 years had elapsed?

Mr. MILLER. I think the major part of it in 2 years.