There is no doubt but what this bill, if it becomes law, will cause some revamping of existing plants, especially those of small operators and will also entail some outlay of money in order to comply with the sanitary requirements. If there are such unsanitary plants in operation now, then naturally the new sanitary supervision will be desirable, not only for the consuming public, but for the farmer-producer as well, in that it will guarantee a desirable and wholesome product, thus creating more demand.

This sanitary inspection service should not create any great hardship on any processor, even the so-called small operator. It is our desire, and I know it is yours also, to not put any one out of business and thus deprive him of his livelihood. On the other hand, it is our desire to protect the interests of all processors, both large and small alike. It has been demonstrated recently, in the State of North Dakota, where new inspection services have been enacted and established, that the so-called small operator has been able to comply.

I thank you for the opportunity of expressing the views of this Minnesota Association on this very important industry bill.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Heinze. I gather that your organization is wholeheartedly in support of S. 3588? Mr. HEINZE. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you.

The next witness is Mr. Robert Parks.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. PARKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN POULTRY AND HATCHERY FEDERATION, ALTOONA, PA.

Mr. PARKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert R. Parks. I am a poultry breeder, operating Parks Barred Rock Farm in Altoona, Pa. I am immediate past president of the American Poultry and Hatchery Federation and currently an executive director of that organization. It has a membership of approximately 4,000 poultry hatcherymen and poultry breeders throughout the Nation.

We have a deep concern in both S. 3983 and S. 3588, legislation which is designed to provide compulsory Federal inspection of poultry and poultry products.

Our organization first took official note of the desirability of Federal inspections at its annual meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, on July of 1954. The board of directors at this session instructed its officers to confer with the industry's trade association for processors to determine whether such an undertaking could be feasibly launched. It can be said that this matter has been a matter of concern for all segments of the industry for some time-not because we believe that an excessive volume of unwholesome poultry is sold but because we believe we should check the sale of all unfit poultry if that is possible. Poultry hatcherymen and breeders are well aware of the importance of tremendous faith the consumer has in the purple stamp of approval, "U. S. Inspected and Passed" which appears on red meat and poultry. It is an assurance of wholesomeness, something which all segments of the food trade strive to achieve. Few there are who would deliberately offer for sale a product known to be unfit for human consumption.

I believe every hatcheryman and breeder will join me in endorsing the ultimate goal sought in both these bills, which is to assure the consumer of wholesome poultry.

S. 3588, it appears to me, is the more rigid of the two since it would require Federal inspections of all poultry offered for sale in certain areas, even though some poultry sold therein would actually be offered in intrastate commerce. The reason should not be lightly treated.

As members of this committee well know, the poultry industry on innumerable occasions has demonstrated its desire to stand on its own feet as much as possible. We know that only those processors offering such a product can long remain in business in this highly competitive field. Because it is competitive, the Federal-inspections-byareas clause is desirable.

A uniform policy with respect to the application of compulsory inspection must be considered.

Next, while a large portion of the industry could quickly meet the sanitary conditions laid down under both of these bills, there are questions as to whether this could be accomplished between now and January 1, 1957, without serious economic repercussions. The committee must recognize that the heaviest movement of fryer chickens is now in full sway. That will be followed in September by the seasonal marketing of hens as farm flocks are trimmed prior to receiving the oncoming crop of new pullets just entering egg production. No sooner is that heavy rush over than we get into the holiday processing activity. This year the largest turkey crop in history must be moved

to market.

Thus, it is not time to force immediate changes in processing plant facilities and equipment which might retard processing lines.

I am sure the committee fully appreciates the time which would be needed to train personnel to handle the inspection work and do it adequately and in keeping with the high standards the consumers have a right to expect.

This Nation processed over 800 million broilers last year. It will have to process roughly 78 million turkeys in the next 12 months. Add to this the untold millions of hens removed from flocks to make room for 300 million new pullets coming into production. This is quite a contrast to the mere 100 million meat animals annually inspected.

Remember that the present staff in USDA now inspects between 20 and 25 percent of all the above poultry processed in interstate

commerce.

We believe any effort to adopt the early effective date of compulsory Federal inspections embodied in S. 3983 would bring about the worst days the industry has seen in its history. The confusion would be of catastrophic proportions--and for no valid reason. It would be quite a task to do it by January 1, 1957. That is only 6 months away. Finally, we favor S. 3588 over S. 3983 because we are taxpayers who want to see this task done as painlessly as possible on the pocketbook. We have now in the Poultry Branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service a unit already set up around which to build an expanded program. It would certainly be a waste to change the structure and build anew.

The figures I have cited above indicate the need for a unit entirely separate from the Meat Inspections Service because the job is greater. Poultry and red meat are competitors. It has been pointed out earlier in these hearings that the poultry industry accounts for 11 percent of the national cash farm income-representing between 3 and 4 billion dollars annually. This is something that cannot be considered as a mere "branch" of any other segment of agriculture because it is a distinct branch of agriculture in itself. Our industry production cycle is much shorter than that of the red-meat industry and moves more rapidly.

Finally, provision must be made for flexibility in regulations and provision must be made for close cooperation between Federal and State inspections services. Our industry is moving so rapidly, growing at a terrific rate and introducing innovations one right after another-all designed to provide the consumer with a better product at a lower cost.

In establishing a compulsory inspections program, everything should be done that can be done to allow the industry room to grow. The provisions of S. 3588 more nearly approach this accomplishment. Thank you for hearing our statement.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Parks. The committee certainly appreciates your coming down.

The next witness will be Mr. Andrew E. Danish.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW E. DANISH, PRESIDENT, NORTHEASTERN POULTRY PRODUCERS COUNCIL, TROY, N. Y.

Mr. DANISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Andrew E. Danish. I am president of the Northeastern Poultry Producers Council with headquarters at 10 Rutgers Place, Trenton, N. J. I operate a poultry farm in Rennselaer County near Troy, N. Y.

The council of which I am president, known as NEPPCO, has represented the interests of the poultrymen and the poultry industry of the 14 Northeastern States for over 25 years. Through our membership, we represent approximately 30,000 poultrymen and allied poultry interests.

The council is on record by formal vote as favoring a poultry inspection service which includes at least these points.

1. It must provide an honestly adequate inspection service, not burdened with unnecessary, unproved detail; in other words, that it be simple, understandable, and practical.

2. Since the objective of a poultry inspection service is to protect both consumer and the industry, including the producer, it should be supplied at public expense.

3. Adequate recognition of the rights of the small businessman and producer should be included. In the Northeast, there are many producers and small processing plants who do an adequate job of sanitation who must not be forced out of business by cumbersome rules and costs that would be economical only to a large operation. Provisions to adequately service this group must be made.

4. From a practical and economical government administration viewpoint, we object to a new service being started, particularly in

view of the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture has been providing a similar service for meat products for over 50 years, and for poultry, on a voluntary basis, for over 28 years. Furthermore, we feel that the Food and Drug Administration should serve as a check and balance—a police officer, if you will-and as such, has no place in the service angle of inspection.

5. Provision for participation of State authorities in the service should be made in order that more complete and uniform service can be rendered to all in the industry.

We favor S. 3588 with some possible modifications. This bill covers most of the points that have been made. I shall take them up section by section.

Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 are policy matters with which we agree.

We favor the inspection section-section 5-since it leaves to the Secretary of Agriculture's discretion the actual techniques and application of inspection. We believe this is good and desirable since there is constant new knowledges and new developments which should be placed into practice as soon as possible. To rigidly incorporate in law the techniques involved makes such changes, however desirable, slow and cumbersome to accomplish.

Section 6: Sanitation, Facilities, and Practices, meets with our approval. We definitely are in favor of compulsory sanitation regulations.

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are technical sections providing for penalties, records, labeling, and so forth, which are necessary for the adequate enforcement of such a law. Our only plea is that they be kept as simple and understandable as possible, with no unnecessary requirements. If practical, we would favor inclusion of these under the regulations promulgated by the Secrtary so that they, too, may be subject to reasonably prompt change to meet new circumstances of the future.

Section 14 provides for regulations and we favor this section for the same reasons as above described.

Section 15 provides for certain exemptions, particularly of the producer, and for other special circumstances to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to provide this service effectively. This seems desirable. Section 16 is a penalty clause. We make no comment.

Section 17, with reference to imports, is definitely needed and we strongly favor the requirement that any imported poultry must be subject to the same provisions as is domestic poultry.

Section 19, providing for authority for appropriations is, we feel, an essential part of this act.

We have no quarrel with section 21: Definitions.

Section 22, providing the effective date of July 1, 1958, and permitting the Secretary to provide service in advance of that date, is desirable, and we favor it.

The adequate inspection of poultry will be a big job. Over 212 billion chickens are slaughtered anually. There are many problems to be worked out in adapting processing techniques and procedures and the time allowed is not too much to accomplish the smooth operation of the service. While we favor S. 3588 we stress this to point out the importance of having this service provided by an organization that is familiar with the industry and familiar with the service which is needed to give the consumer a wholesome product.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Danish. Have you reviewed the recommendations of the Department of Agriculture as to the series of amendments to S. 3588?

Mr. DANISH. I don't believe I have.

Senator WILLIAMS. The committee wishes that you would take a copy of these proposed amendments, which are in the committee print, and if you have any further comments on those, furnish them to us in a supplementary statement for our record. Some of them are technical amendments, and some are just proposed changes which they pointed out later, after the original bill was introduced.

Mr. DANISII. Very well. Thank you.

Senator WILLIAMS. Our next witness will be Chester C. Housh.

STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. HOUSH, NATIONAL TURKEY
FEDERATION, ELKTON, VA.

Mr. HOUSH. This is the statement of the National Turkey Federation, before the Senate Committee on Agriculture.

My name is Chester C. Housh. I am a farmer and poultry producer from Elkton, Va. As immediate past president of the National Turkey Federation and a current member of the board of directors of this organization, I am authorized to speak for the 10,000 turkey growers who live with their families on farms in the 48 States of the United States.

Our organization recognizes the importance of the subject upon which this committee is deliberating. We believe it is just as important to the poultry producer as to the consumer that the health and welfare of the consuming public be protected. It is for this reason that the National Turkey Federation has given the utmost support to the voluntary poultry inspection program and will give the same support to a mandatory inspection program.

The committee has before it two bills, S. 3588 and S. 3983. Both of these bills provide for compulsory inspection. Of these two bills, we oppose S. 3983 and favor S. 3588.

The National Turkey Federation has welcomed the aid and innova tions that have been developed by the Department of Agriculture. We have taken great pride in the achievements of this Department. We have enthusiastically applauded the great discoveries in the experimental and research field which have so successfully safeguarded our people and conserved to our economy uncounted billions of dollars.

The successful development of rust- and wilt-resistent varieties of grain, the control of hoof-and-mouth disease, tuberculosis, and Bang's disease in cattle, the fight against the many diseases of sheep and swine, the fight for human survival against the hordes of insects and pests which could easily destroy the human race if permitted to run rampant, the improvement in the status of the farmer by encouraging better farming methods, the conserving of the soil by strip and contour farming. Progress in these fields of combat did not just happen. They were the result of organized effort by a great Agricultural Department which has justified the faith we had in it.

The development of standards for inspections, grading, and classification of cotton, tobacco, hay and grains, meat and meat food products, poultry and poultry products, fresh and frozen fruits and vegeta