Because poultry inspection is not compulsory, these companies are, unfortunately, in competition and at a disadvantage with pie manufacturers who choose to operate without Government inspection.

The consumer who buys an inferior product and is disappointed in its quality and content is not likely to continue exploring other brands of the same product in search of a satisfactory purchase. The present situation is that purchases of uninspected, inferior chicken pies are disappointing consumers and are resulting in injury to the entire chicken pie producing industry and to its parent, the poultry-growing industry.

Fortunately, a yardstick exists which gives an indication of the salutary effect compulsory inspection might have on our segment of the poultry industry: Beef pies are produced under compulsory inspection. During the past year, beef pie consumption has continued its established upward trend and, for the past quarter, stood nearly 23 percent higher than in the first quarter of 1955. Chicken pie usage, however, has departed from the upward trend that long prevailed and, during the first quarter of 1956, has dropped 6 percent beneath the first quarter of 1955. We think there is little doubt that, if legislation is enacted causing the quality of chicken pies to equal that of beef pies, the usage rate of these two similar products will follow more closely the higher figure.

We do strongly urge the adoption of an addition to S. 3983 which we believe is vital to the protection of the consumer and which will also have the effect of increasing poultry usage. This amendment is as follows:

PROHIBITED ACTS

SEC. 3. (7) Selling or offering for sale of any poultry or poultry food products by any person, firm or corporation in interstate or foreign commerce under any false or deceptive name; although selling and offering to sell of such products under established trade names or under names which are usual to such products and which are not false and deceptive and which shall be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, shall be permitted.

This amendment conforms to a provision of the Meat Inspection Act under which the Department of Agriculture now has the authority to require labels on red meat products which are neither false nor deceptive.

The further changes we would suggest are as follows:

Section 2 (8) (i) line 21: We wish to point out that this definition of processing will, in our opinion, require inspection in practically all butcher shops and grocery stores, as it is a common and necessary. practice of stores to cut up chickens for retail sale. It does not seem to us that this will prove economically feasible.

Section 2 (8) (k) line 9: Delete the words "the Meat Inspection Branch." Because the poultry industry is a major source of income (approximately $6 billion annually), constituting approximately 11 percent of the agricultural income, and because poultry inspection and most inspection are dissimilar operations, it is our feeling that the poultry inspection function should not be included in the Meat Inspection Branch.

Section 6, line 21: Delete "pursuant to rules and regulations hereunder prescribed" and insert "under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture."

In our opinion, the bill does not sufficiently delineate such rules and regulations, and by this change this section on ante mortem inspection will conform with the following section which states the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe rules and regulations for post mortem examinations.

Section 15 (a): We do not feel that the poultry processing industry should be in competition with the farmer, and we suggest this section be amended to eliminate the requirement for certificates of exception under the conditions described by this section.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Kline, you say that a fifth of the United States chicken production is consumed in potpies?

Mr. KLINE. Fowl. The hens that are worn out from egg laying. Senator CLEMENTS. That is a far greater percentage than I had any idea might be moved. Do you have any questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Kline, I gather that you have endorsed S. 3983 as preferable to S. 3588?

Mr. KLINE. I haven't stated it that way.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is what I would like to get clear.

Mr. KLINE. I am not arguing with S. 3588 at all.

Senator WILLIAMS. The reason I raise the question is that I noticed that 2 or 3 of the amendments that you propose to S. 3983 would make it pretty much in accord with S. 3588; therefore, I am wondering how you feel about S. 3588.

Mr. KLINE. I have no criticism of 3588 at all.

Senator WILLIAMS. Would you care to state whether in your opinion S. 3588 as written would do the job?

Mr. KLINE. I haven't seen the amendments as proposed by the Department of Agriculture.

Senator WILLIAMS. We would appreciate the benefit of your opinion.

Mr. KLINE. After I get hold of the amendments I will be glad to tell

you.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Kline, I will give you a copy right now.

Senator WILLIAMS. Most of the industry has been pretty much unanimous on the proposal that it should be left under the Department of Agriculture and that it should be at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture as to which division should handle it. That is the major difference between the two bills. I notice you propose this other bill be amended to that form. Therefore, I am wondering how you feel about S. 3588.

Mr. KLINE. Well, I haven't anything to say about it other than the fact it looks good, if the amendments carry everything.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, I think most of the proposals you suggested that should be incorporated in the other bill were incorporated in S. 3588, but after further study we would appreciate the benefit of your opinion.

Mr. KLINE. I would be glad to give it to you.

Senator CLEMENTS. If I understand your position, you are very strong for compulsory system, whereby all who deal in the trade where you deal are on competitive basis from the standpoint of compulsory inspection?

Mr. KLINE. That is right.

Senator CLEMENTS. I take it that from your statement that you want the Inspection Service under the Department of Agriculture? Mr. KLINE. Yes, that's right.

Senator CLEMENTS. I take it from your statement that you want it to stand as an independent agency within the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. KLINE. I believe it can be serviced better by being an independent agency.

Senator CLEMENTS. From your testimony I did not get that you were endeavoring to pick out whether it was under the Marketing Division or whether it was under Research Division.

Mr. KLINE. That doesn't matter to me.

Senator CLEMENTS. As far as you are concerned, if it provides the values that can come through a well-regulated compulsory system you only ask that it stand on its own, as an independent agency within the Department?

Mr. KLINE. That is right.

Senator WILLIAMS. And be left pretty much at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture as to how it could best be done?

Mr. KLINE. I think it has all that is necessary, because rules and regulations are very important in carrying on this act.

Senator WILLIAMS. We are in agreement.

Senator CLEMENTS. I am very glad to have your statement. Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS. The next witness will be Mr. H. C. Carbaugh. STATEMENT OF HARRY C. CARBAUGH, PRESIDENT, TENNESSEE EGG CO., CHATTANOOGA, TENN., REPRESENTING THE SOUTHEASTERN POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION, THE GEORGIA POULTRY FEDERATION, AND THE ALABAMA POULTRY FEDERATION

Mr. CARBAUGH. I have at my right, Mr. Paul Williams, the executive director of the Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association.

My name is Harry C. Carbaugh, president of the Tennessee Egg Co., with headquarters at Chattanooga, Tenn., and I am representing the Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association, the Georgia Poultry Federation, and the Alabama Poultry Federation.

The States covered by membership in the Southeastern Poultry Association represent about 50 percent of this present great industry. The processing plants located in these Southeastern States are overwhelmingly what are called uninspected plants.

The above being true, our association is vitally interested in any proposed legislation having to do with the poultry industry. We are taking a position on proposed legislation for mandatory inspection after considerable study upon the subject.

We want to say at the outset that our association stands 100 percent for whatever legislation is best and necessary to protect the health of the consuming public. We do not believe, however, that legislation should be passed which would incur a financial burden upon the public, processors, and growers of poultry unless there is a definite overwhelming knowledge of the need for full inspection of poultry to protect the public health.

We further state that we are definitely in favor of legislation to bring about compulsory sanitation standards in poultry plants. We favor inspection to insure that these standards are adhered to.

When we come to the matter of bird by bird inspection, both ante mortem and post mortem, then we believe that these phases of poultry inspection should be given careful consideration before action is taken. During the hearing before the Senate Labor Committee on May 8 and 9, testimony was given to the effect that to protect the public health there must be both ante mortem and post mortem inspection. There was no testimony given, however, on the mechanics of this type of inspection, nor upon the magnitude of the task involved. We, therefore, wish to furnish information on this subject.

There are approximately 22 billion chickens of all kinds produced and sold annually in the United States at the present rate of production, and production is still growing by leaps and bounds. Post mortem and ante mortem inspection will require individual inspection of each chicken twice. It it is necessary, therefore, to inspect twice each and every chicken sold in the channels of trade throughout the Nation, then we must approach the problem from this premise. We are assuming here, of course, for the sake of argument, that this type of inspection is necessary for 100 percent protection to the consumer.

Please let us, therefore, visualize the magnitude of this task. Now it might be argued here that we are dealing only with interstate commerce and that there is a large amount of poultry sold in intrastate commerce. But let us remind you that if we propose to protect the health of our people, it is inconceivable that part of the Nation would receive this protection and part go unprotected. We must, therefore, assume that each State, county, and city would adopt a similar program, for undoubtedly officials would not be so cold as to knowingly endanger the health of people buying poultry sold in intrastate commerce. So let us look at the problem as a whole and visualize what inspecting 22 billion chickens-not once, but twice-means in money. At the present rate of speed, as allowed by the Poultry Branch of the USDA voluntary inspection program, an inspector is able to examine around 2,500 birds per hour on post mortem inspection. This being the criterion, then we must assume that inspection of poultry in the United States would require 2 million hours of work yearly for post mortem inspection and double that amount for the inclusion of ante mortem inspection. To put it in dollars and cents, assuming that an inspector worked 2,000 hours per year, we would need 2,000 inspectors. This would not include supervisory and other administrative officials. The cost, therefore, involved would run from 15 to 20 million dollars annually to the Government for poultry inspection.

There is, however, an even greater cost involved. Please also visualize the slowing down in the mechanical operation of processing chickens by making birds individually available for inspectors to examine. The loss of speed in a processing plant, the extra amount of labor, and the huge cost in buildings and equipment to prepare for this type of inspection must be borne either by the farmer and/or the consumer. Processing plants could not absorb any part of this cost because of the very small margin upon which they are operating. It would, therefore, be borne by the producers or consumers of poultry. It would lengthen the spread between the farmer and the consumera problem which is very much paramount in the Nation today.

Even now in post mortem inspection only, under the USDA voluntary plan, poultry must sell for from 1 to 2 cents per pound more than poultry processed in uninspected plants. In any event, one would not need to know too much about the poultry business to realize that the mechanics of individually inspecting 22 billion chickens twice would make for huge increased costs. We would estimate the cost to producers and/or consumers to be from $60 to $100 million annually. Yearly poultry production is running at the rate of well over 6 billion pounds per year and the figure of $60 to $100 million is not exaggerated.

Now our association makes this point-we want to be doubly sure that the proposed functions of inspection are absolutely necessary to protect the public health before we could endorse any such suggested procedure.

It is our considered opinion, also, that a decision made on this matter now, aside from mandatory sanitation practices, is premature.

In the territory covering our association is located the most concentrated broiler production area in the United States and, as we have said, most of the plants within this area are uninspected. To solve the current problem it is our purpose to seek the truth, and so far we have developed the following information:

1. There is only one poultry infection which we know about up to this time which has caused deaths. This is ornithosis (psittacosis) in turkeys and death occurred not through the eating of turkeys but through the handling of turkeys. No amount of post mortem inspection would have protected the worker from this infection.

I have, Mr. Chairman, a copy of a letter sent me by the meatcutters union to the Members of Congress urging legislation for mandatory inspection and the basis of this letter is principally upon this ornithosis, or psittacosis, problem, and that seems to be their main reason for wanting to have a mandatory inspection bill introduced.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you wish to incorporate that letter in the record?

Mr. CARBAUGH. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. That will be incorporated at this time. (The letter, dated May 25, 1956, is as follows:)

DEAR CONGRESSMAN

MAY 25, 1956.

: Diseased poultry has probably caused the second epidemic in 3 months in Oregon. Sixteen men and women are currently extremely ill with suspected psittacosis. Previously, two persons died and 61 became ill as a result of the poultry-caused disease.

The epidemic has consequences that reach beyond Oregon, according to scientists. The International News Service reported on April 2:

"Agriculture Department scientists have warned that the Nation's turkey industry is now threatened by an epidemic that has already led to 2 human deaths and sickness to 62 poultry workers *** according to one official, 'there is no doubt as to the potential danger to other turkey-producing States.' He emphasized that the deadly virus could now erupt in any State 'anywhere at any time.'"

Excellent legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives to minimize, if not prevent, such outbreaks in the future. These bills are H. R. 8599 by Representative J. Percy Priest and H. R. 9006 by Representative Don Hayworth.

A Senate subcommittee held hearings on a companion bill to these measures, S. 3176 or the Murray bill, on May 9-10. About two dozen major national consumer, women, health, labor, and farm organizations testified or presented statements in favor of the Murray bill. These groups included the General Federation of Women's Clubs, National Farmers Union, American Association of University