Mr. WATTS. If not, we thank you very much for your fine presentation. We are delighted to have had you with us.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Housh, I would like to ask about the matter of not having any trace or record of any disease or sickness from the product. That may well be. You are to be commended for having that kind of a plant and producing organization.

But poultry pathologists have found some 26 diseases to be transmissible from poultry to man.

The United States Public Health Service regularly reports on consumer illnesses due to diseased poultry. For example, the Communicable Disease Summary of January 17, 1957, reports food poisoning involving 600 out of 962 children who ate turkey in Kentucky. The positive organism was found to be carried in the raw frozen turkey.

If handling in the store and in the home are responsible for the cases of consumer food poisoning from poultry, then one would expect that the red meat and other perishables would have the same illness rating as poultry.

And yet poultry and poultry products were blamed for an average of one-third of all of the food-poisoning cases reported to the United States Public Health Service this year.

That is far higher than for any other food.

I just wanted to ask this. Do you not feel, in view of all of the evidence that has been presented in the hearing last year and that you will probably hear again this year, that it would be worthwhile to have compulsory inspection for all poultry?

Mr. HOUSH. I would like to make a reply in this way, that our organization was the first organization, not any other organization in the United States, which requested and asked for the voluntary inspection program.

We believe in it. We think it is good. We think that there is no need of going over things that are unnecessary and undesirable because those same things that you speak of, happened in the read meat industry.

All I have to mention to you is Bang's disease-all I have to mention to you is tuberculosis-all I have to mention to you are some other things that I could bring in which were factors in the transmission of disease. That thing is true in everything.

If you believe what you read in the papers-in This Week's magazine which was published some weeks ago which in a release said that the greatest menace to the human race was rats and mice, and rats and mice transmit disease to humans and that is caused largely through germs and so forth.

I mention this because all we can do in our line is to try to protect ourselves to the best of our ability. And when you mention these things, there is some question in my mind as to that statement about one-third.

I doubt very much whether that could be proved. I could make any kind of a statement in a general way and have it questioned.

We are not saying that it cannot be done in the way of transmission through contact or through any other source, but I quoted you here this morning from the Food and Drug Commissioner who is supposed to know, who said there never had been a case where they had established the fact of disease being transmitted through poultry.

I quoted that to you. I consider the fact that he was head of that organization that he certainly knew what he was talking about. Maybe he did not.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I know of such a letter that was put out. I think you read too much into it.

Mr. HOUSH. I would not say so. I think that is a matter of opinion. Mrs. SULLIVAN. In order to protect those who are doing it, that is, doing the right thing, and having their turkeys and chickens injected, do you not think that they should be protected by making the others conform to the same type of safety and put only good birds on the market?

Mr. HOUSH. We agree 100 percent.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. That is all.

Mr. WATTS. As I understand your position, you are in favor of the compulsory inspection of poultry?

Mr. HOUSH. One hundred percent.

Mr. WATTS. Thank you.

Mr. HOUSн. Thank you.

Mr. WATTS. The committee will next hear Mr. John A. Winfield, Department of Agriculture, State of North Carolina.

We are delighted to have you here this morning and to have you give your statement.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. WINFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RALEIGH, N. C.

Mr. WINFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am John A. Winfield, farmer and director of the division of markets, North Carolina Department of Agriculture. I am representing the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.

We work very closely with the poultry industry in inspection, grading, and other service programs relating to the movement of poultry from the farm or producing centers through processing facilities and

on to consumers.

Most of this work is done in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture under cooperative agreements.

The poultry industry in North Carolina is of great importance to the economy of our State-poultry production fits well on small farms. We are a State of small farms.

We were the country's fourth largest producer of broilers in 1956, with just over 94 million head; we also produced just over 1 million turkeys.

We have 146 poultry-processing plants, plus 3 under construction that will be in operation before the end of 1957. Many of these plants are small; however, 24 of the plants have sufficient facilities to process more than 50,000 birds weekly.

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture represents and works with all segments of the poultry industry through its division of markets and its veterinary division.

We also work closely with Food and Drug Administration through the chemistry division of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, headed by the State chemist.

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture supports H. R. 514, H. R. 767 and H. R. 5463.

We have had an opportunity to look through many of these bills that have been presented and we find from these three that our position is more clearly represented, perhaps, than in many of the others. We are also in general agreement with most of the provisions of H. R. 1964 and H. R. 3052.

We believe the Secretary of Agriculture should have the responsibility for administering the poultry inspection program. We would recommend to the Secretary that responsibility for administering the program be placed under the Agricultural Marketing Service, because we think this will be more practical and less expensive to the taxpayers of the Nation.

We make this statement because the Agricultural Marketing Service has had a long record of experience in conducting poultry inspection and grading programs, and because we believe the Agency will cooperate more fully because of this experience with industry groups, research extension, and other governmental agencies at local levels, that represent producers, consumers, and all segments interested in the poultry industry. We think this necessary for greater benefits to the general economy of the country.

Mr. WATTS. Are there any questions from any members of the committee?

Mr. JOHNSON. I see that the legislation that you have referred to uses the word "knowingly," in section 8. I don't know what section it is in the others.

The Department in their statement yesterday, if I understood them correctly, want to have the word "knowingly" taken out. There is some objection to that word being in. How do you feel?

Mr. WINFIELD. We feel that word should be left in this legislation. Mr. JOHNSON. Also, I believe that the Department yesterday stated they do not want to specify which department it is to go to. They want to leave that up to the Secretary to decide.

Mr. WINFIELD. That is true; that is our position, too.

Mr. JOHNSON. You do not want to say that it has to go to this department or that department?

Mr. WINFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. WATTS. Any further questions?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to ask the witnesswould you have any objection to this inspection being put under the Meat Inspection Act?

Mr. WINFIELD. I, too, have serious objection to this. My reason for it is that I think poultry inspection and red meat inspection are two different operations.

I believe that if the same principles were applied other than the health situation-I do not believe that a man who has inspected large animals, that the relationship between that inspection and the inspection of poultry is such as to make that advisable.

I think that a new arrangement or an arrangement where we have had some experience would be better for the consumer and for the trade.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Is it necessary that the inspector who inspects the red meat also inspect the poultry? That does not follow.

Mr. WINFIELD. It isn't particular necessary, but poultry and red meat, to be fair, is, of course, competing for the consumer's dollar in this country.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Would you agree with me that the regulations and the penalties are already set up in the Meat Inspections Act? Could not those regulations be used?

Mr. WINFIELD. I would think we would have no objection to the penalties but as to the regulation, we think that the Secretary will take a look at red-meat regulations and will, also, take into consideration any research in connection with poultry inspection and the movement of poultry.

And with this information and with this fast-changing situation that we have which you are familiar with, antibiotics that has been used in poultry processing, we think it would cause so many new things and questions, cost saving and of health arrangements, that it would be best to more or less take an approach different from the red meat approach.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Are not they using antibiotics in cattle, also? Mr. WINFIELD. Well, I do not think so in the preservation of red meats. I do not believe that has been used to any extent.

I do not know that it has been used enough, from the poultry standpoint, to say whether or not it is a good deal. I think more study is necessary. I am afraid of it getting grooved in a channel where changes cannot be made.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Do you feel that the Secretary of Agriculture would not be capable of hiring the right kind of veterinarians or inspectors to go out and inspect the poultry?

Mr. WINFIELD. Let me say this, if the Secretary of Agriculture decides to put poultry inspection under red meat after he reaches his decision, then the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, and industry in that State, will cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture. I think that is saying a lot, coming where we come from.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. At the present time are the inspectors who now inspect on a voluntary basis, as a rule, hired by the processing company? Mr. WINFIELD. No, not in North Carolina.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Who does hire them?

Mr. WINFIELD. They are hired by the Poultry Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Who pays their salary?

Mr. WINFIELD. The salary is paid indirectly by, of course, the poultry industry, but it is paid to us and in turn we pay these men. They are our employees, that is, of the office of the United States Department of Agriculture, or the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, the United States Department of Agriculture determining who, and actually handling the program.

We do some grading work. And we cooperate with them in connection with the inspection program from the standpoint of handling some administration.

But the plants have nothing to do with the individual who works in those plants in North Carolina.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. They work directly for that one processing plant? Mr. WINFIELD. Not necessarily. We interchange them in North Carolina at times, if it is necessary.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. What do you know about other States?

Mr. WINFIELD. I don't know about other States. I am familiar with the program we have. We have five plants under the cooperative in

spection program with the United States Department of Agriculture, and we have a special act, a local act in connection with poultry inspection.

There are six plants under that. I head the division of markets. And we cooperate under the five-plant act with the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Thank you.

Mr. WINFIELD. Thank you very much.

Mr. WATTS. Thank you.

Mr. WINFIELD. Thank you.

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Carpenter, of the Institute of American Poultry Industries, is our next witness.

We shall be glad to hear from you.

Mr. CARPENTER. I have with me our field service director, Mr. Frank Wollney.

Mr. WATTS. Will you give us your full name?

Mr. WOLLNEY. I am Frank T. Wollney, field service director, of the Institute of American Poultry Industries.

STATEMENT OF CLIFF D. CARPENTER, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN POULTRY INDUSTRIES, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK T. WOLLNEY, FIELD SERVICE DIRECTOR, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. CARPENTER. The institute is in full support of mandatory inspection of poultry and poultry products.

I am Cliff D. Carpenter, president of the Institute of American Poultry Industries, Chicago, Ill.

I am a graduate veterinarian, in fact, the first veterinarian in the United States to have a private practice exclusively limited to domestic poultry.

I have been associated with the poultry industry for 37 years. I have served as chairman of the poultry committee of the American Veterinary Medical Association and as chairman of the poultry disease committee of the United States Livestock Sanitary Association.

The Institute of American Poultry Industries is a nonprofit organization which was chartered by the State of Illinois nearly 32 years ago. Its membership includes processors and distributors of poultry products.

In addition, producers, breeders, hatcherymen, and other allied interests hold membership in the institute. More than 90 percent of our processor members are small-business men. Many of them are family operations which have developed through the years and grown up with the industry.

Several years ago, the institute established a study committee on mandatory inspection for wholesomeness. This study committee unanimously recommended to the institute's board of directors that we take a position in favor of mandatory inspection for wholesomeness.

The directors, adopted this recommendation unanimously, it was then referred to the entire membership, and at that time more than 95 percent of the votes from members supported the directors' recommendation. That resolution read as follows:

The Institute of American Poultry Industries continues to encourage and support one of its chief, original objectives, namely; the utilization of every sound