law, an act that will provide adequate and effective inspection for wholesomeness (including ante mortem and post mortem inspection), plant and facilities sanitation and sanitary processing practices.

Early this year such a measure was introduced in the Senate by Senator James Murray. That is S. 3176. The AMCBW, which for 3 years has campaigned for paultry inspection and sanitation legislation, has strongly supported that

measure.

We believed then, and we believe today, that S. 3176 offers the maximum protection to consumers and poultry workers. It provides for effective inspection for wholesomeness and sanitation. It places the responsibility for this work in a truly consumer-protective and health-oriented agency (the Food and Drug Administration), which is part of a Department that has no conflicting functions (the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare).

Hearings were held last month on this measure. At that time I presented a 60-page statement which treats the topic of mandatory poultry inspection in a comprehensive, detailed, and thoroughly documented fashion. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a copy of this statement to each member of the committee and also have it placed in the record. Even though it was originally presented to another committee, I believe the statement will be of use to this committee in its deliberations. I should like to summarize it briefly in order to point out some of the very pertinent data it contains.

On page 1, we begin a study of the scandalous conditions existing in sections of the poultry processing industry. We review how diseased and sometimes dead birds are processed and sent to market like healthy, live ones; how processing is done amid filth, such as waste from the birds; how dust, dirt, and fecal matter are often insufficiently removed and allowed to contaminate cleaned poultry. We support these statements with quotes from (1) affidavits of poultry workers, (2) a report by the committee on poultry inspection and sanitation of the conference of State Public Health Veterinarians, and (3) reports of the Food and Drug Administration.

On page 7, we undertake a discussion of the health dangers. Since we are not medical experts, we have gathered information from eminent authorities in this field. You will find passages from the writings of Dr. W. L. Ingalls stating that 26 diseases are transmissible from poultry to man. These diseases are listed on page 8. Further data on the great importance of diseased poultry as a danger to consumers is contained here in quotes from other important scientists. On page 10 is a list of 8 more diseases which may be carried by poultry to infect man.

On page 10 is also an analysis of United States Public Health Service statistics showing consumer illness due to poultry. It demonstrates that in the 10-year period, 1945-54, between 16.5 and 47.3 percent of reported cases of food poisoning were attributed to poultry or poultry products each year. In only 2 of the 10 years poultry and poultry products were responsible for less than one-fourth of reported cases. In 4 of the 10 years they caused more than 40 percent.

On pages 11 through 12 we present typical examples of food-poisoning cases due to poultry. These descriptions come from official United States Public Health Service reports. On pages 13 and 14 are statements from pathologists demonstrating that some disease germs are not killed by cooking and that a diseased chicken, even though cooked, may still be a danger to the consumer. On page 14, we begin a discussion of the industrial health hazards. You will find a tabulation of the psittacosis outbreaks in Texas during 1948-54.

Six epidemics caused a total of 12 deaths and 350 cases of human illness in that 1 State during the 7-year period. Psittacosis outbreaks in other States are listed, including the recent Oregon one. A description of a psittacosis patient's suffering, written by an authority on the disease, is quoted.

On page 16, begins a review of the current state of poultry inspection. We show, through authoritative figures, how the poultry industry has mushroomed in the past 15 years until 35 pounds per person are consumed annually. This increase in consumption, together with changes in marketing, make inspection absolutely necessary. The only Federal inspection program available is a voluntary service of the Agricultural Marketing Service which is hired and paid for by the processor. It covers only 21 percent of the industry. The Food and Drug Administration has neither the funds nor authority to undertake the continuous supervision in each plant necessary to protect the consumer. As for State programs, no continuous bird-by-bird State inspection program is in effect today.

The demand for mandatory inspection is covered on pages 23 to 25. We quote from the resolutions of four major representative groups concerned with poultry, the Conference of State and Territorial Health Officers, the executive council of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the National Grange, the American Institute for Poultry Industries, and the Hoover Commission Task Force for Medical Services. All asked Congress to enact mandatory poultry inspection legislation.

On page 26, we begin a detailed discussion concerning the type of inspection and sanitation legislation we consider necessary. First of all we believe ante mortem, as well as post mortem, inspection to be absolutely vital. We quote public health and medical authorities on pages 27 and 28 that many poultry diseases, especially respiratory ones, are easily detected before slaughter, but are difficult to find after slaughter. These authorities, including the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, conclude that ante mortem inspection is essential to protect the consumer.

Secondly, we believe an inspection bill must provide for the formulation of plant sanitation and sanitary processing regulations. This is to safeguard against the contamination and adulteration of poultry during processing. Health authorities are quoted on the dangers of insanitary practices and on the basic sanitation needs which must be met.

On pages 32 through 49, we discuss the operations of the current voluntary program of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. The operations of this agency must be scrutinized because suggestions have been made that a mandatory inspection program be placed under it. We have found that: (1) AMS is a marketing agency whose concern is not with the consumer, (2) AMS has proved itself extremely susceptible to industry pressure, (3) AMS' inspection is sometimes thoroughly unsatisfactory to protect the consumer, as shown by the seizures made by the Food and Drug Administration and State and city health departments of products processed in its approved plants, (4) a definite conflict of interests exists in its grading and sanitation program and this conflict lowers the protection afforded consumers, (5) AMS inspection service and sanitation program are separate and sometimes in conflict with each other, and (6) attempts to improve the inspection system on all levels of the Poultry Inspection Service have been and are penalized. All of these points are supported by direct quotes from publications and reports from Government agencies, such as the Bureau of the Budget. This evidence leads us to believe that the Agricultural Marketing Service cannot be considered a proper home for a mandatory poultry inspection and sanitation program.

On pages 49 through 52 we discuss the Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, as the possible agency for a poultry program. Although we believe that Branch has done a good job on red-meat inspection, it is our view that it would be more proper for the Food and Drug Administration to undertake the poultry work. Our reasons for this stand are stated on pages 52-54 in a consideration of FDA.

On pages 54 and 55 we state that a poultry inspection and sanitation program should be paid for by the Federal Government out of appropriations. This means of meeting costs would prevent the small processor from being driven out of interstate commerce.

On pages 55 through 60, we discuss, in detail, the benefits an effective and adequate mandatory inspection and sanitation law will bring to consumers, poultry workers, the poultry processing industry, and poultry farmers.

As I said before beginning a summary of this additional statement, the AMCBW believes that S. 3176 will provide the maximum protection to consumers and poultry workers. Only last week, our 19th general convention reiterated this stand. It again endorsed S. 3176 and its companion bills in the House of Representatives.

However, we note, Mr. Chairman, that important public health groups and consumer organizations now support S. 3983, a new measure introduced by Senators James Murray, Pat McCarran, and George Bender. Because of the stand taken by the Food and Drug Administration against assuming the duties of an inspection and sanitation program, these organizations believe that S. 3983 is now a more realistic measure than S. 3176.

I must admit, Mr. Chairman, we are reluctant to make the change to S. 3983. We still believe that the Food and Drug Administration, because it and its Department's sole interest is health and consumer protection, is the best center for a mandatory poultry inspection and sanitation program. We believe the pro

visions of S. 3983 are only second best. However, we have great confidence in the judgment of the public health and consumer groups which have appeared before you. If they believe S. 3983 will provide a good program for the protection of the consumer and poultry worker, we will support the bill.

We make this change-and again I say, reluctantly-in the hopes that this is the measure around which all groups can gather. The major complaint of the opposition to S. 3176 has been that the poultry program should be placed in the Department of Agriculture. S. 3983 does provides for that and satisfies the complaint. We hope, therefore, that all groups will accept S. 3983, if not as the best measure, then as second-best, as we do, so that a mandatory poultryinspection law can be enacted in this session of Congress.

S. 3983 has four provisions different from S. 3176. Most important, it would place the inspection and sanitation program in the Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, rather than the Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

It also contains two exemptions, not in S. 3176. It would permit farmers to sell their own poultry directly to consumers without inspection. We approve this exemption as a proper safeguard against driving small farmers out of business who take their own products across State lines but who might not be offered inspection services.

The second exemption is for those processing plants where the Secretary of Agriculture cannot provide inspection immediately after the effective date of the act. This section will prevent hardships from being placed on either the Meat Inspection Branch or poultry processing plants in meeting requirements of the act. We are happy to see that the exemptions must be terminated as soon as possible and cannot go beyond 2 years following enactment of the act. For although the provision should prevent hardships, it should not become a loophole to push consumer protection into the distant future.

Section 16 states that only poultry which is healthful, wholesome, and fit for human consumption shall be imported. It makes imported poultry or poultry products subject to the act. This section is another good safeguard for the American poultry consumer.

The definition of an "inspector" in section 2 of S. 3983 should be amended. It names the inspector as "any person authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect poultry and poultry products under the authority of this act." We fear that this wording would permit the continuation of the very dangerous practice of the AMS voluntary inspection service in permitting plant employees to carry out some of the poultry program. We respectfully suggest that this definition be amended to make it clear that the inspector must be a qualified Government employee.

Another bill concerning poultry inspection is before this subcommittee. That is S. 3588, by Senator George Aiken. This measure was frequently referred to in the poultry bill hearings recently held before the subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. Public health officers, representatives from public health organizations, and other experts denounced this measure. They testified that many loopholes in the measure make it inadequate to safeguard the public.

Briefly, their reasons for this point of view were:

1. S. 3588 allows the Secretary of Agriculture tremendous leeway concerning inspection. Section 5 says that the Secretary shall make such examinations "as he determines necessary." This definitely means that he can avoid antemortem inspection at any time. Health officers further point out that the inspection provision of S. 3588 can also be interpreted to mean that there need not be any inspection at all if a Secretary of Agriculture wants to rule it out. In other words, it is questionable whether S. 3588 is a compulsory poultry-inspection bill. 2. Inspection under S. 3588 need not come about until July 1, 1960, because the effective date of the bill is July 1, 1958, and the Secretary of Agriculture may grant a 2-year exemption in addition.

3. The wording of the "prohibited acts" section-section 7-of S. 3588 makes it extremely difficult to prosecute violators. Use of the word "knowingly" in this section will make it possible for an owner of a plant to evade responsibility for violations.

4. The provisions of S. 3588 allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to intervene in designated areas of intrastate commerce (secs. 3 and 4) and providing the Secretary exclusive jurisdiction (sec. 18) seriously impair the jurisdiction of 80695-568

State health departments concerning poultry. Section 18 also impairs the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

5. S. 3588 makes no provision concerning what part of the Department of Agriculture would administer the poultry program, but the wording of the bill leads to the suspicion that the Agricultural Marketing Service, which currently handles the voluntary program, would get the job, rather than the Red Meat Inspection Branch.

6. The labeling section of S. 3588 (sec. 7) allows the Secretary of Agriculture such great leeway that all or few or no inspected birds need be labeled to show the consumer what he has bought.

In view of this judgment, made on S. 3588 by men charged with the responsibility of safeguarding public health, we believe S. 3588 would not meet the dangers posed by filthy and diseased poultry. We accept the view of these authorities that the measure would not provide adequate and effective protection for the consumer and poultry worker.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the AMCBW believes a mandatory poultry-inspection bill must have the following provisions:

1. Mandatory inspection for wholesomeness, both ante mortem and post mortem.

2. Mandatory plant and facilities sanitation requirements and sanitary processing requirements.

3. Administration by an agency which has proved its sole concern to be health protection and consumer protection.

4. Cost to be met by the Federal Government through appropriations. We believe S. 3176 best meets these points. However, in the hope that our stand will bring about the speedy enactment of a mandatory poultry-inspection bill during this session of Congress, we shall support S. 3983.

We urge that this subcommittee speedily approve that measure. Such action will quickly bring about the time when Mrs. Housewife can buy any and all poultry transported in interstate commerce without fear of bringing sickness to her family. And it will bring the day when psittacosis, Newcastle disease, and the other illnesses now preying on poultry workers will become only a bitter memory.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for the opportunity to present this testimony.

Senator CLEMENTS. The next witness will be Mrs. Oslund, of the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GENEVIEVE H. OSLUND, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. OSLUND. Mr. Chairman, I am Mrs. Genevieve Oslund, legislative assistant of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, speaking in behalf of Mrs. R. I. C. Prout, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator.

Senator CLEMENTS. You may proceed.

Mrs. OSLUND. I am speaking for Mrs. R. I. C. Prout, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Our organization has a direct membership of 875,000 women, with an affiliated membership of 42 million women, who are for the large part homemakers and who have a deep interest and concern in the proposed legislation now up for your consideration.

Since before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906, the General Federation of Women's Clubs has been vitally interested in legislation to insure a pure and safe food supply; in the intervening years we have consistently worked for amendatory legislation to further the health and welfare standards of our Nation.

Among other measures, we helped in the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and we now favor the mandatory inspection of poultry for added and necessary protection today.

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. We believe, therefore, that not only after-slaughter inspection is needed to protect the consumer, but before-slaughter 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 removed. New legislation is needed to provide for compulsory inspection, both before and after slaughter, in order to insure that we can purchase clean, uncontaminated, and healthy poultry in our markets for our families. 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 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 urgently requests that this committee consider favorably S. 3983, which will provide for the compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products.

Thank you.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mrs. Oslund, I noticed in your statement there that there was 21 percent of the poultry moving in interstate commerce which is inspected for wholesomeness, or do you say wholesomeness and sanitation.

The statement was made yesterday to the effect that approximately 50 percent of the poultry moving in interstate commerce was covered by the voluntary program.

Mrs. OSLUND. Yes. I accept your figures. Those are the ones that we were given.

Senator WILLIAMS. I think that 50 percent which the Department used is a more recent figure, and progress has been accelerated greatly