When there are complaints, if any, I get them first, right from the sales department, and while we occasionally get a complaint, I have had only one in the past 2 years that involved illness. That complaint came from a carton of shell eggs. We have never, in my experience, received a complaint directly on poultry that represented illness of a consumer.

Quite conceivably, a lot of our product loses our identity by the time it reaches the housewife. But our own branded product does not. When Mrs. Consumer opens her package, she knows who processed it, and she has never, and I repeat, "never," told me that made her ill.

For that reason, I personally deeply resent, and my company also resents, the allegations that the large group of processors are marketing an inferior product, one that cannot be purchased with complete confidence. We feel this attack to be completely unfair.

There has been testimony of this fact-we must note that this industry is presently marketing approximately 20 to 25 percent more commercially produced poultry so far this year than in 1955, and the consumer is buying this product.

We favor mandatory Federal inspection, but we feel that it should be nationwide, including every processor, no matter whether he buys or sells. For that reason, we lend our support 100 percent to S. 3588.

We feel that the Poultry Branch of the USDA is fully capable of carrying on a mandatory inspection program, using as a nucleus, their present organization. We believe that to place this responsibility in other branches or agencies would create confusion, inefficiency, and losses to the producer, processors and distributors, involving many thousands of dollars.

Lastly, it is our recommendation that sufficient time be provided for the present agency to hire and properly train the needed additional personnel and that until that time, the present voluntary program be continued without change in form. Improperly trained personnel and a loosely managed program can wreck a business of this type in just a very few weeks. May I thank you gentlemen for this opportunty to register our thoughts with you.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
We will next hear from Mr. Ted Ramsay.

STATEMENT OF TED RAMSAY, POULTRY DIVISION MANAGER, BIRDS EYE DIVISION OF GENERAL FOODS CORP., WHITE PLAINS, N. Y.

Mr. RAMSAY. I am Ted Ramsay, poultry division manager of the Birds Eye division of General Foods Corp., White Plains, N. Y. I have been associated with the poultry industry for 30 years.

Every pound of Birds Eye poultry or poultry products for more than 25 years has been packed under the supervision of the present voluntary inspection program. We believe that it has been ably administered and that great progress has been made over the years as a result of their work.

We favor mandatory inspection because we believe that it will result in a more uniform product and will be in the best interests of the consumer and the producer. It would result in standard identifi

cation of product at the consumer level and more importantly in uniform interpretation of rules and regulations in each city and State.

We believe that the present corps of well qualified veterinarians with 28 years of experience to guide them are the logical ones to carry on the enlarged program that would result with mandatory inspection. Because the number of animal units, the processing plants, and the product are so different from those in the red meat industry, it would seem logical that each should be served by separate departments designed to meet the specific needs of each. However, the Secretary of Agriculture has been designated in S. 3588 as the one to administer and regulate the Poultry Products Inspection Act. His equal concern for the interests of both the consumer and the producer make him best qualified to determine the best program for administrating the act.

We favor the enactment of S. 3588, and we appreciate the appearance here today.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

We will next hear from Mr. Joe Hatfield of the Georgia Broilers, Inc., Gainesville, Ga.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared brief. I would like to relinquish my time.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you.

Is Mr. Charles J. Thurmond here?

Mr. Charles J. Thurmond, Jesse Jewell, Inc., Gainesville, Ga.? (No response.)

Is Mr. Al Stevens, Fort Halifax Packing Co., Waterville, Maine, here?

(No response.)

Our next witness will be Kenneth C. Furnish, Sr.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH C. FURNISH, SR., MANAGER, CORDOVA POULTRY PLANT, SCHLUDERBERG-KURDLE, CO., CORDOVA, MD.

Mr. FURNISH. My name is Kenneth C. Furnish, Sr. I represent the Cordova Poultry Plant, at Cordova, Md.

The Federal meat inspection service this year is observing its 50th anniversary of service to the people of American by its assurance of the purity and wholesomeness of meat products that are produced under Federal inspection.

We believe that consumers are entitled to the same assurance that poultry has been processed under sanitary conditions, and that the chicken farmer and the processors of poultry also need the protection so that consumers will accept the product of our industry with the same confidence that they accept federally inspected meat products.

We believe that S. 3588 is far the better of the two bills that have been proposed to provide for a system of compulsory inspection, and that it is more desirable from the standpoint both of the consuming public and of the producers of poultry.

This bill gives full assurance to the consuming public that only poultry food products which have been inspected for wholesomeness can be marketed in interstate commerce, and it recognizes that it will not be feasible to embark on a program of compulsory inspection without providing reasonable time to organize and train the enlarged

staff which will be required, promulgate the necessary regulations and afford plants the opportunity to qualify.

Under S. 3588 the Secretary of Agriculture would have certain jurisdiction relating to inspection at the processing level and the Food and Drug Administration would have jurisdiction and responsibility for the product after processing operations have been completed, thus preventing overlapping and dual functions between the two agencies, in the same manner in which it is prevented by the Federal Food and Drug Acts and the Meat Inspection Acts.

We feel that poultry industry is an important part of the economy of our country, that mandatory Federal inspection of poultry is justífied and necessary for the protection of both the producer and the consumer, and that the funds for this service should be provided by Federal appropriation.

Therefore, your favorable consideration of S. 3588 is earnestly solicited.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Furnish.

Our next witness will be Mr. Wallace Jerome.

STATEMENT OF WALLACE H. JEROME, WISCONSIN TURKEY FEDERATION, AND WISCONSIN TURKEY MARKETING COOPERATIVE, BARRON, WIS.

Mr. JEROME. Senator Williams, I am Wallace Jerome of Barron, Wis.; director of the Wisconsin Turkey Federation and director of the Wisconsin Turkey Marketing Cooperative.

This statement, regarding the very important bills relating to compulsory poultry inspection, comprises the thinking and recommendations of the Wisconsin Turkey Federation, a turkey growers' organization, and the Wisconsin Turkey Marketing Cooperative, a cooperative marketing organization. It also includes my thinking as a turkey grower and processor.

We appreciate very much the opportunity of presenting the turkey producer's views on the bills now pending.

Wisconsin is a great dairy State, as all of vou know. However, it is fast becoming a great poultry State also. We in the turkey business naturally are very much concerned about its future. Any action to aid in the production and marketing of turkeys in a more acceptable manner to the consumer is welcome indeed. All turkey growers are anxious to expand consumption and we realize one of the best ways to do it is to give the consumer a fine, wholesome, and delicious turkey that has been prepared in a very sanitary plant. The consumer of poultry products are entitled to the assurance that the poultry they buy is not only healthy and nutritious, but that it has been prepared in a sanitary way.

We, as farmer producers, including the above-mentioned segments of industry, are all in favor of compulsory Federal inspection of poultry, believing that it will be very beneficial to producers and consumers alike.

However, of the two bills the committee has before it, one of them, or the proponents of it, apparently are seeking to do untold harm to our poultry industry. In fact, a great deal of harm has already been

service. It is claimed that 22 to 24 percent of the poultry marketings are under this voluntary program. After 50 years of mandatory Federal Government inspection of red meats, only 78 percent of that product is federally inspected. In our Fort Wayne area today, about 60 percent of the fresh carcass meat is federally inspected and only about 20 percent of the luncheon meats and sausage are federally inspected. Surely an economically sound, useful Federal program, if it were completely free to industry and flexible enough for small operations, would be in universal use. If we could have a complete Federal inspection service, with 100 percent coverage within the industry, if the cost was reasonable, and there was a real incentive to continue progress to reduce that cost, and if a continued vigilance was possible by the public demanding justification of that service both from the cost and the effectiveness of the program, we would favor it.

What has happened to sausage and luncheon meats in Fort Wayne under Federal inspection might happen to poultry. We find in our industry a reluctance to be heard on the part of a good share of the people opposed to this compulsory legislation-simply because they are afraid of the political and economic pressure which they feel might be exerted against them, should they testify. We are not taking sides on this issue except for the basic issues we have outlined we are not against any group of private or public agencies.

Government inspection for wholesomeness does not mean Government graded for quality and we do not like to see Federal inspection falsely used in advertising superior quality to the housewife. We suspect that intense retail competition in the food business today and the efforts of the advertising and merchandising segments of our industry would simply like to use Government inspection as a sales gimmick just as they are using trading stamps today. Without entering into the pros and cons of any merchandising policy, we still believe that a policy of inspection of poultry and poultry products should have an economic justification. Anyone, or any group, who attempts to tie in quality claims for Government inspection versus uninspection is actually an enemy of both programs. There will always be A, B, and C grades, poorer grades, or whatever you call them. No informed person in the Government inspection service or in our industry proposes inspection of only A grade products, and yet the connotation in some of the arguments for these bills leads the public to assume that.

We are not quarreling with inspection-we have it; we think industry has it; the cities, the States, and the various agencies of the Federal Government have it, and are doing a good job.

We do favor more uniform inspection laws and reciprocal inspection agreements between as many of the various local, State, and Federal agencies as possible to stimulate the free flow of poultry and poultry products throughout the United States and to eliminate trade barriers.

Thank you very much for the opportunity you have given us to present our feelings in this matter.

Senator WILLIAMS. We will next hear from Mr. Shaw.

STATEMENT OF SETH T. SHAW, VICE PRESIDENT, SAFEWAY

STORES, INC.

Mr. SHAW. My name is Seth T. Shaw. I am a vice president of Safeway Stores, Inc., in charge of our administrative branch office located at 1425 H Street NW., Washington, D. C. Our general offices are located at Fourth and Jackson Streets in Oakland, Calif. Safeway Stores, Inc., operates approximately 1,800 retail food stores in 25 States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

As a retail food company, we believe it is in our interest, as well as an obligation to our customers, to sell wholesome, quality products at the lowest possible profitable price. When it becomes a choice, however, between wholesomeness and price, price becomes secondary. The point I would like to make is that our company pays a premium for USDA

inspected and graded poultry, and poultry meat products, in order to assure our customers wholesome products of high quality. This additional premium cannot be passed on to our customers because of the highly competitive nature of the retail food business. So long as part of the poultry processors in the United States pay for inspection under the voluntary inspection program, and part of the poultry processors do not, the costs of inspection must be borne by the processor, retailer, or producer, either 1 or a combination of the 3, depending on the marketing conditions.

Inspection costs could hardly be expected to be passed on to consumers unless every plant and product were inspected. Since Federal legislation does not affect products in intrastate commerce it is fitting that the cost of this service, so important to the public health, be borne by the public.

Mr. Chairman, I have briefly stated that Safeway Stores, Inc., favors compulsory inspection of poultry. We believe that not only our customers, but that all of the consumers of this Nation are entitled to the same kind of inspection service they have received on the red meats for a good many years. I am told approximately 22 percent of all of the poultry sold off of farms in the United States receive such service from the voluntary inspection at the present time. We believe that the standards of the present voluntary program, which has proved so successful, should be extended on a mandatory basis for all poultry moving in interstate commerce. However, whether or not Congress passes a bill for mandatory inspection, and because of the reasons mentioned heretofore, Safeway Stores will continue to offer its customers poultry which has been inspected for wholesomeness so long as the voluntary program is available to us.

Wholesomeness means to us that the poultry was produced by healthy birds and processed under strict standards of sanitation. Inspection, however includes more than this. It requires that the body cavity of the dressed bird is clean-that all bits of viscera, lungs, crops, and feed are removed, and the legs cut uniformly at the hock joint. Some of the testimony presented to your committee indicates that there is a variety of views between experts on the matter of ante mortem and post mortem inspection. It is our view that the bill should include the authority to make ante mortem and post mortem inspections, yet we would disfavor the bill spelling out an inspection procedure. An ante mortem procedure which requires bird-by-bird inspection could be very costly and based on our experience, not necessary to insure wholesomeness.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Shaw.

The committee has before it for consideration, two bills, S. 3588 and S. 3983. I notice that you did not mention either of these bills by name. Do you have any preference in your recommendation, or are you just endorsing them?

Mr. SHAW. We are endorsing the principle of compulsory inspection of poultry.

Senator WILLIAMS I see.

We will next hear from Mr. Schluderberg.