Women, AFL-CIO, Association of State and Territorial Health Offices, Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, American Nurses Association, National Board YWCA, Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, etc. Other bills, purporting to be mandatory poultry inspection legislation, have been introduced in the form of H. R. 10514, H. R. 10527, H. R. 10807, and H. R. 11245. We should like to call to your attention the testimony of health officers and other experts during the Senate hearings that these measures (1) do not provide compulsory inspection, since inspection will only be as the Secretary of Agriculture "determines necessary"; (2) make prosecutions for violations virtually impossible because of the wording of the "prohibited acts" section; (3) arrogate to the United States Department of Agriculture a great deal of the jurisdiction of State health authorities and Food and Drug Administration concerning poultry. We are enclosing an on-the-spot account of the first Oregon psittacosis outbreak. We hope you give the article careful consideration because it provides a dramatic example of the extreme urgency to enact true and effective mandatory poultry inspection legislation. And that is H. R. 8599 and H. R. 9006. Very truly yours, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF AMERICA, Mr. CARBAUGH. Now, sir, we can realize the interest of the meatcutters union in protecting the health of their workers, and we fully understand that, so we hope that when this matter is clarified, it is one that has to be solved on the farm and not in the processing plant; that they will endorse a proposal which I will make later on in this testimony, because certainly this problem is one for the farm and not for the processing plant and a means to detect it on the farm must be found. 2. Qualified authorities have told us that there is only slight protection for the public in post mortem inspection. It has been specifically stated that if 100,000 birds were sold from an inspected line as against 100,000 birds being sold from an uninspected line, that the difference would be very little so far as protection of the public health is concerned. We are told that the average condemnation in plants now having the voluntary inspection plan is one-half of 1 percent. Of this small percentage, we could assume that any plant would throw out at least one-half of this amount because of visible evidence of emaciation and deformity. In other words, the housewife would not take this type of bird, even if the processors wanted to put them off on her. This would leave, therefore, about one-fourth of 1 percent which could be detected only by an inspector. Now add to this the fact that a high percentage of germs are killed in cooking, you wind up with only a minute risk to the public, indeed, if there is a risk at all. 3. No scientific testimony has yet been submitted to Congress by competent scientists as to what poultry diseases can be actually transmitted to humans. If this proposition has been contended by others at these hearings, then it is their duty to submit scientific proof. I would like to call attention to some part of Dr. Carpenter's testimony, in which he mentioned the fact that Congressman Fogarty, of Rhode Island, asked Mr. Larrick, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, about this talk of outbreaks of disease in people from eating chicken, in which Mr. Larrick replied, "We have not been able to establish any firm cases where a person contracted a contagious disease from the consumption of poultry." 4. Most cases of food poisoning from poultry stems from insanitary equipment, either in plants, retail stores, or kitchens, rather than from any poultry diseases. We gained this information from an interview with the United States Public Health Service. In fact, we wish to submit a copy of a letter as evidence, which we have received from W. N. Gilbertson, Assistant Chief, Division of Sanitary Engineering Services, United States Department of Health. Specifically, we quote this excerpt: Obviously, more specific information is needed on the role of poultry as a source or vehicle of infection to man, and such information can be obtained only through continuing research and investigation. Here is proof that we do not yet know the scientific answers to poultry disease problems. Now, we admit that post mortem and ante mortem inspection is desirable as a general principle; but in view of the immense cost, such a burden should not be placed upon the Government, public, and industry, without scientific information as to what is necessary for the protection of the public health. We also know-if we may testify categorically-that "murder" is just as evil or worse than an illness or death from poultry, but the Government and the public could in nowise inspect all individuals for firearms or put a continuous watch upon them. The use of narcotics is probably the most vicious evil we have in the Nation, but it would not be feasible for the Government to furnish sufficient personnel to continuously inspect every known source of its entry, sale or use in the United States. We do have strict laws against crime; and we feel that there should be-if we do not already have them-laws prohibiting the sale of unsound, unhealthy, and unclean poultry, and violators should be subject to prosecution. But to undertake to personally inspect all chickens is indeed quite an undertaking. We must bear in mind that the inspection of cattle and hogs and sheep is an entirely different proposition from the inspection of chickens. There we are dealing with 300 to 1,000 pounds per carcass. With 180 million head of livestock produced in this Nation, and 212 billion chickens, the enormity of the problem becomes apparent. We therefore, feel that any decision upon mandatory poultry inspection must be determined upon absolute need and we reiterate that the situation must be so bad that this type of inspection is necessary for the protection of public health. Let us suggest the following: 1. Legislation for compulsory plant sanitation inspection which includes a Government inspector to oversee the operations of a plant including dressing, chilling, packaging, and so on. 2. Legislation requiring an immediate report by producers to field supervisors of outbreaks of infection upon farms so that veterinarians can then control the movement of such poultry and turkey flocks, and also quarantine when necessary. 3. We further recommend, as an initial step, that scientific studies be carried out regarding poultry diseases and their effect upon humans. Right here, let us urge Congress to see the Public Health Service obtains additional funds with which to carry out the necessary research in order to solve this current problem in our industry. 80695-56-12 We further feel that the subject of mandatory poultry inspection is so huge and so far-reaching that no group of individuals, be it a Department of Government, labor, industry, or other groups, should influence Congress, but that the matter be based upon the findings of the health authorities who will rely upon scientific knowledge. This problem is so large and the cost would be so great that the public welfare requires this procedure. Listening to the testimony submitted on Senate bill S. 3176 on May 8 and May 9, one would gather that the poultry business is on the verge of collapse, that it is in disfavor with the public, that people by the wholesale are getting sick or dying, and that an emergency exists. The truth is that the poultry industry is more alert and vibrant than any other food industry in our Nation. More modern and sanitary machinery has been installed in the past 10 years than for the handling of any other food commodity. The poultry business has been taken out of the realm of the backroom scalding pot to modern and up-to-date streamlined methods of operation. More progress toward increasing the standard of living for our people has been accomplished by this industry than by any other food commodity because of the reasonable prices at which it sells. The farmers' percentage out of the consumers' dollar is larger in the poultry business than in any other food commodity. It is one industry that operates without Government aid or subsidy and is content to do so. With better machines, modern methods, better breeding, better management, and so on, the poultry industry today is offering the public a wonderful and delicious piece of meat at prices in line with economic conditions which existed 25 years ago. The public is getting the benefit of the progress in the poultry industry both pricewise and qualitywise. The margins of profits are the slimmest of any other food commodity, and yet it is profitable because of the huge volume handled. It is one industry that is doing a real job for the public. Congress cannot afford to tamper with an industry that is moving ever forward and upward for the benefit of both the farmer and consumer unless there is a real cause. Disruption might upset the applecart of progress. The fact that the consumption of poultry has been growing by leaps and bounds is definite proof that, on the whole, the public is getting wholesome meat. You cannot fool the public long, and that is not to say that we are 100 percent clean of unscrupulous operators; but it is to say that on the whole the poultry business deserves a great vote of commendation from the public. If medals are being passed out, Mr. Chairman, the poultry business should be decorated with the largest one that can be found. Therefore, in conclusion let us be sure that whatever is done is absolutely necessary for the protection of public health. Merely to have a Government stamp of approval-maybe as a sales gimmick or something like that—is not enough. That is not the problem. We should seek to protect the public without fanfare and frills. We should not incur 1 cent of expense, however, that does not actually protect the public health. We, the members of the Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, welcome study of our industry. We welcome reforms that are neces sary. We do not welcome tampering with an industry "on the march" simply because of its increased importance and size. Let Congress examine the facts and not give us unnecessary legislation, but give us only legislation that the public welfare requires. This committee, Mr. Chairman, has had very little concrete or practical evidence submitted. There has been no survey as to the actual number of plants involved; what effect it would have upon the little fellow in the poultry business, or whether or not it would put him out of business. No realistic figures have been submitted by the proponents of these bills. It has all been talked of in the most general terms, but more important than money, no scientists have testified on the effect of poultry diseases on humans or the scientific value of antemortem and post-mortem inspection. There is much talk about who shall do the inspecting, but very little evidence of what conditions exist that make it necessary. No one from the Public Health Service has given details of scientific findings on these matters. So, therefore, in order that factual witnesses and scientific experts can be called before this committee, we concur in the testimony given by the American Farm Bureau Federation, to the effect that legislation on this matter should be delayed until the January session of Congress and in the meantime, let us come to a conclusion as to what-just what-we need and what we can safely do without. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator WILLIAMS. Do you wish to incorporate this letter to Mr. J. Paul Williams, executive secretary of the Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, from Wesley E. Gilbertson, dated May 3, 1956, in the record? Mr. CARBAUGH. Yes, sir. Senator WILLIAMS. It will be incorporated at this point. (The letter is as follows:) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCation, and WELFARE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, Washington, D. C., May 3, 1956. Mr. J. PAUL WILLIAMS, Richmond, Va. DEAR MR. WILLIAMS: This refers to your letter of April 19, 1956, requesting information regarding the studies of poultry problems contemplated by the Public Health Service in fiscal year 1958, and on the areas of danger to human health originating with poultry. As we explained to you and Mr. Carbaugh during our conversation on April 18, our plans for studies on poultry problems are tentative, and the nature - of studies conducted will depend on the availability of funds and the nature of findings as work progresses. The concurrent research and findings of other agencies, of educational institutions, and of the poultry industry will, undoubtedly, affect the course of our activities. Broadly stated, the Division of Sanitary Engineering Services contemplates the initiation in fiscal year 1958 of a study of microbiological and chemical changes associated with the commercial processing of poultry. The goal of such a study would be (1) to develop and evaluate microbiological and chemical test procedures for determining the sanitary quality of poultry and poultry products, (2) to ascertain the effect of certain commercial practices on the sanitary quality of poultry and poultry products by correlating field observations with the results obtained from laboratory examinations of suitable samples, and (3) to obtain information which may serve as a basis for developing recommended standards of sanitary quality based on bacteriological and chemical analyses of processed poultry and poultry products. Obviously, more specific information is needed on the role of poultry as a source or vehicle of infection to man, and such information can be obtained only through continuing research and investigations. Reports of food-borne outbreaks frequently involve poultry or various poultry dishes. In some outbreaks poultry is a source of the causative organisms, while in other outbreaks the food has most probably been contaminated as a result of inadequate sanitary precautions during or after processing. Infection introduced into the kitchen on diseased or contaminated poultry may result in contamination of equipment surfaces, utensils and employees' hands, and ultimately of prepared poultry dishes or of other foods. Heating of poultry or of foods such as dressings, croquettes, gravies, piles, etc. during cooking maye be insufficient to destroy organisms or bacterial toxins present. Processed, cooked, or prepared foods (i. e. salads), even though contaminated with relatively few organisms, may be held at temperatures favoring bacterial growth and cause food-borne illness. Aside from infected birds, there are various sources of contamination from which the product should be protected through good sanitary practice and environment: Body discharges and dust from live poultry, rodents, insects, sewage, processing wastes, unsafe water or ice, infected or careless employees, contaminated equipment or utensils, pesticides, dust, and other extraneous materials. Employees in poultry-processing plants may contract infections such as psittacosis, Newcastle disease, and various dermatoses. We are forwarding your letter to the Communicable Disease Center, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Ga., for further reply with regard to the problems posed by these and other diseases of poultry transmissible to man, and the field studies are epidemiological investigations which are contemplated by the Service. Enclosed are four papers which may be of interest to you, and which list a number of references on various aspects of the poultry disease public health subject: (1) Poultry Sanitation Standards, (2) The United States Public Health Service Model Poultry Ordinance and Code," (3) Poultry Inspection and Sanitation, and (4) Discussion of the New Poultry Ordinance. We certainly appreciate your offer to work with the Service in solving these problems of mutual concern. Undoubtedly, we will be calling on your association and its members for cooperation and assistance as our field studies get under way. We would be pleased to receive from you, or from others within the poultry industry, any information on research or observations which will broaden our understanding of these problems and contribute to the solutions which we all desire. It was a pleasure meeting with you and Mr. Carlbaugh on your recent visit to Washington, and we are looking forward to seeing you again in the near future. In the meantime, we hope that the above information will be helpful to you. Sincerely yours, WESTLEY E. GILBERTSON, Assistant Chief Division of Sanitary Engineering Services. Senator WILLIAMS. Our next witness is Mr. Quillin. STATEMENT OF E. BOWEN QUILLIN, PRESIDENT, EASTERN SHORE POULTRY GROWERS' EXCHANGE, SELBYVILLE, DEL., ALSO REPRESENTING THE MARYLAND STATE POULTRY COUNCIL, THE DELAWARE POULTRY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, THE DELAWARE POULTRY INDUSTRY, INC., THE DELAWARE STATE POULTRY COMMISSION, AND THE EASTERN SHORE GRAIN & FEED DEALERS ASSOCIATION Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Quillin, Senator Butler and Senator Beall asked me to express their regrets that they have been unable to be at the committee meeting. However, they want to assure all the gentlement that they will read with interest the statements in support of the objectives upon which you are testifying to this morning. Mr. QUILLIN. Thank you, sir. |