Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Department of Agriculture where the Poultry Inspection and Grading Section has trained men to enforce it and where the program can be instituted in shorter time than if it is transferred to another agency which will probably require up to 3 years to set up a program and train personnel to enforce it. It will be accomplished with more speed there and that is what is required-a mandatory program which will insure at once that only wholesome poultry reaches our dining tables.

We know this can be accomplished because we had a similar experience with meats and to correct that situation we set up meat inspection in the Agriculture Department. We are proud of the accomplishments of that agency for its work has assured that when our citizens purchase meat they get the highest quality sold anywhere in the world. There is no reason why poultry should not be just

as wholesome.

Mr. Chairman, another Washington State expert on poultry also has urged a program of mandatory Federal inspection of poultry. Mr. Charles J. Mentrin, president of the Northwest Poultry, Egg and Feed Council of Seattle, told me he believed it should remain under the supervision of the Agricultrue Department and agreed there was a pressing need for enactment of the program.

Mandatory Federal inspection, paid for by the Government, would put all poultry processors on an equal basis. The 75 percent not now under Federal inspection and the 25 percent who now pay the cost of inspecting their products would be on an equal footing. There would be one law for all processors to observe and

one agency to enforce that law.

We have had recent situations in which diseased poultry was found in Oregon, and other instances of diseased poultry, after having been condemned by the Army, being sold to consumers throughout the Country. In Oregon and in Texas it has been reported that poultry workers were striken with poultry disease after handling diseased fowl and that sort of danger should be forever banned.

I want to see a bill passed calling for mandatory Federal inspection. Both bills before you have definite merit. I assure you I will support either or a combination of both as long as the measure you report does the job.

What we need is mandatory Federal inspection of poultry. We need it now and it should be enacted by the present session of Congress.

Hon. EARLE CLEMENTS,

The United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

LOUISVILLE, KY., June 22, 1956.

DEAR SIR: The Senate bill 3983, introduced by Mr. Murphy to provide for compulory inspection of poultry and poultry products, has been discussed by the directors of the division of food and drug control and veterinary public health. We feel that this is an excellent bill. The adoption of such a measure would help a great deal in the elimination of hazards to public health that are now in existence due to the indiscriminate traffic in poultry.

As representatives of the Kentucky State Department of Health, we feel that this is a step in the right direction and would like to take this opportunity to urge the passage of Senate bill 3983.

Very truly yours,

RONALD L. HECTORNE, D. V. M., M. P. H.,
Director, Division of Veterinary Public Health,
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Health.

LOUISVILLE, KY., June 22, 1956.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: The Senate bill 3983, introduced by Mr. Murphy to provide for compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products, has been discussed by the directors of the divisions of food and drug control and veterinary public health. We feel that this is an excellent bill. The adoption of such a measure would help a great deal in the elimination of hazards to public health that are now in existence due to the indiscriminate traffic in poultry.

The State department of health feels that this is a step in the right direction and would like to take this opportunity to urge the passage of Senate bill 3983. Respectfully yours,

RUSSELL E. TEAGUE, M. D.,

Commissioner of Health,

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Health.

CLEVELAND, OHIO, June 28, 1956.

Senator EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: I am writing to you as chairman of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, to ask your help on S. 3983, the bill sponsored by Senators Murray, McNamara, and Bender, to provide mandatory inspection of poultry.

The board of directors of the National Consumers' League has endorsed this bill. We favor this legislation for several reasons. First, we consider that consumers have a right to expect as a matter of elementary public health to be protected from contaminated food. With the newer developments in processing, the markets for poultry are nationwide, and only a Federal agency can do the job. We find it shocking, in the extreme, that we do not now have such protection. In the second place, the facts brought out in the hearings showing the health hazards to the workers in the poultry-processing industry make even more necessary the need for compulsory inspection.

We fail to see any valid argument against this proposal. It is important that the inspection be compulsory-not voluntary and partial as in the present arrangement, through the Marketing Division of the Department of Agriculture, which patently is serving what is considered to be the interest of the industry, rather than the consumers or the workers.

We trust that your committee will do all in its power to secure speedy action on this measure.

Sincerely yours,

ELIZABETH S. MAGEE,

General Secretary, National Consumers League for Fair Labor Standards.

COMPULSORY INSPECTION OF POULTRY AND

POULTRY PRODUCTS

F

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1956

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

AND GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 324 Senate Office Building, Senator Earle C. Clements presiding. Present: Senators Clements, Hickenlooper, and Williams. Also present: Senator Fulbright and Representative Trimble. Senator CLEMENTS. The committee will come to order.

The committee is reconvened this morning to continue the hearings on S. 3983 and S. 3588.

We are honored this morning to have two distinguished gentlemen from Arkansas, Senator Fulbright and Representative Trimble.

We will hear from both of you in the order that you desire to be heard.

But before doing that I will hand to the reporter for incorporation in the record the following documents; a letter from the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, signed by Mr. John J. Riggle, secretary; also a statement from Mr. James F. Fort, assistant to the general counsel of American Trucking Associations; and excerpts from a letter to Representative Morano from Richard C. Muller, Greenwich, Conn.

(The letter and statements referred to are as follows:)

Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 18, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter relates to the current hearings before your subcommittee on S. 3588 and S. 3983, bills to provide for compulsory inspection of poultry.

The American Trucking Associations, Inc., takes no position on the merits of these two bills, but we do desire to call your attention to certain provisions which appear in S. 3983.

Section 3 (1) of S. 3983 prohibits "*** receiving for transportation or transporting in commerce any poultry or poultry products which have not been inspected, examined, and marked with an official inspection mark."

It is suggested that the inclusion of this section may place upon common and contract motor carriers the burden of proving that poultry or poultry products moved by them in their regular course of business have been properly processed by inspectors of the new Poultry Inspection Service. We do not feel that it is the intent of this bill to place upon trucking companies the burden of determining whether or not the contents of freight received for transportation

117

has been properly processed in a shipper's plant over which the carrier has absolutely no control.

We suggest that the committee give consideration to (1) the elimination of this section, or (2) the inclusion of language similar to that in S. 3588. S. 3588, at page 10, lines 18 through 21, provides "that carriers shall not be subject to the other provisions of this act by reason of their receipt, carriage, holding, or delivery of poultry products in the usual course of business as carriers."

It is further suggested that should language similar to that appearing in S. 3588 be incorporated into any bill, it should more properly read "common carriers, contract carriers, or freight forwarders," rather than simply "carrier." Otherwise it might be argued that the bill also excludes private carriage, that is, movement of poulty products in trucks owned by a poultry processing establishment.

It is respectfully requested that this letter be made a part of the hearing on S. 3588 and S. 3983.

Very truly yours,

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.,
JAMES F. FORT,

Assistant to the General Counsel.

GREENWICH, CONN., June 10, 1956.

Hon. ALBERT P. MORANO,

House of Representatives.

DEAR AL: If you remember, when I told you of the horrible conditions that existed in the processed-chicken industry and the filth that existed therein you said you did not believe it and that I should not believe in everything I read. I investigated it and found out that it was worse than what found its way into print. The condition was so bad that the men that processed the products moved to stop such abuses, and this must be pretty bad. ***

Al, there are now bills entered in our Congress which are numbered in this circular I think introduced by Senator James E. Murray, of Montana, to correct this situation that has long gone unattended in this modern day and age of sanitation.

Now what I am getting at, Al, is just how long are we going to allow a staff of only 200 inspectors to police a Nation of 150 million people, food processors which must run into the millions; why we have in the town of Greenwich a police force of half of that amount in number-what goes? This is foolish economy when its dealing with the American people's health, especially when we are spending billions for the rest of the world and can't spend a few million for our own backyard.

I would suggest you use your power of duty as an elected Representative to see that proper methods are taken to see that the Pure Food and Drug Administration has the proper amount of personnel to do the job that the act was created for. I was amazed at the condition that turned up in that letter from the head of that department which I have since had photostatic copies made for future

use.

*

*

*

*

I would appreciate your views on this whole matter as to how you feel in regards to what should be done if something should be done, or is my whole way of thinking and interest in this matter entirely wrong?

Yours truly,

RICHARD C. MULLER.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 13, 1956.

Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and General Legislation,

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives supports the principles and purposes of S. 3588, the bill to provide for the compulsory inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture of poultry and poultry products.

This bill sets up a broad base under which the Secretary of Agriculture can develop and administer inspection of poultry and poultry products along the

lines of red-meat inspection which has been effectively administered by the United States Department of Agriculture for 50 years.

This bill will protect the integrity of the poultry industry against the irresponsible processors who destroy legitimate business unless zealously dogged and restrained by an adequate enforcement program.

It is called to attention that there has been on the statute books the act of June 25, 1938 (title 29, sec. 342, U. S. C.) which apparently has not been thoroughly enforced, but whose language is largely duplicated in proposed alternative legislation on this subject.

Placing the broad authority outlined in S. 3588 in the Department of Agriculture, we believe, will draw on meat-inspection experience there to get the type of inspection for poultry which is effective and at the same time practical and satisfactory to consumers and to the industry alike at nominal cost per capita and per unit of product.

We will appreciate it if this letter can be included in the record of the hearings of June 18, 1956, before your subcommittee.

Sincerely yours,

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES,
JOHN J. RIGGLE, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. W. FULBRIGHT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, if I may, my principal function is to introduce to you and the committee three gentlemen who really know about this industry, although I know a little about it.

Mr. Charles D. Hawks, of Little Rock, is here and he is going to testify. He is the

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Hawks, come around here and take a seat. Senator FULBRIGHT. He is the general manager of the Arkansas Poultry Federation, and he is going to be the first witness.

Then there is Mr. John O. Kumpe from Bentonville, which is in Congressman Trimble's district, and Mr. Kumpe is president of the Southwestern Association, which includes several States, and is a very large part of this industry.

Then there is Mr. J. K. Southerland, of Batesville, who is also an official in the industry.

Batesville is one of the major producing areas in my State. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to undertake to give you the technical aspects of the problem.

I do want to emphasize and impress upon the committee the importance of this industry to my State, which I believe in my State is third in production. It produces up between 80 million and 90 million broilers a year.

It is, I believe, about the third most important crop after cotton and livestock in my State.

So that anything that would injure this industry in my State is an extremely serious matter for us, and I know they will give you the details for many of the areas.

Of course, we have great confidence in this committee, not only as to its general understanding, but particularly because Senator Williams of Delaware is an expert in this field also.

Senator CLEMENTS. Along with you he can also qualify as an expert. Senator FULBRIGHT. He is a better one than I am.

But my hometown is in one of the two principal counties that produce broilers in my State, those are Washington and Benton Counties.

« PreviousContinue »