Page images
PDF
EPUB

Violations by exempted persons should be placed on the same basis as violations by persons under inspection.

Section 17: We recommend there be inserted, after the word "food" in line 1, page 17, the words "and not adulterated or misbranded."

Since the further provisions of this bill would bring the imported poultry products directly within the jurisdiction of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as soon as entered in this country the conditions of entry should be such as to comply with that act.

Section 18 (a): We recommend that this section be deleted and that there be inserted in place of it that portion of S. 3983, designated in that bill as section 18, which begins on page 14, line 9, and runs through line 17 in the print of S. 3983. This obviates conflict with existing law and does not impair the free functioning of poultry inspection service. The exclusive jurisdiction principle as set forth in section 18 of the Committee print, S. 3588, may be interpreted to adversely conflict with existing Federal laws designed to add to consumer protection and the public health as well as to run in conflict with State laws.

Section 22, page 20, line 12: We recommend striking the word "wholesome" and substituting the word "clean." We dislike defining "wholesome" by using the term "wholesome" and we believe that "clean" is included as part of the proper definition of "wholesomeness."

We recommend striking the period at the end of the sentence in line 23, page 20, and substituting a comma and inserting "or if it is in whole or in part the product of a diseased animal." We feel that this is quite important since it is manifest that any poultry carcass showing evidence of an existing state of disease should be discarded in its entirety. This need not preclude utilization of entirely sound undiseased carcasses which may show evidence of a former diseased condition from which the bird has entirely recovered when such bird is not in any other way adulterated.

We recommend that the words occurring in lines 1 and 2 on page 22 be deleted and that there be substituted the following:

"(1) If any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom; or (2) if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part therefor; or (3) if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner; or (4) if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater value than it is."

This would include the quoted provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. There is no reason why poultry should be excused from adulterations of this nature where all other foods are not.

Most of the comments contained herein have been discussed with representatives of the Department of Agriculture and we hope and believe that there is now no significant differences of opinion by the writer hereof and that Department. An opportunity has not been had to secure the concurrence of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare or of the Bureau of the Budget on the comments contained herein. The comments in our view are consistent with the general position that we have been authorized to express.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN L. HARVEY,

Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE NATIONAL GRANGE

Page 4, section 5: The amendments recommended by the Department of Agriculture to this section appear to be merely clarifying amendments, and make no change in the substantive meaning of the section, with the exception of the addition of the word "adulterated."

It is our understanding that the addition of the word "adulterated," which is defined on page 21, is to make it clear that poultry which is adulterated within the meaning of the Food and Drug Act could not pass inspection. We, therefore, have no objection to this amendment but would have preferred to have the definition of "unwholesome" broadened to include the provisions which appear in the committee print under the definition of "adulterated" so that the bill would refer to wholesome and unwholesome poultry, and not to adulterated poultry.

Page 5, section 6: The amendment merely adds the word "adulterated" and our comments in respect to section 5 apply equally to this amendment.

Page 6, section 7 (b): We have no objection to the proposed amendment which would prohibit inspected poultry products from being sold under any false or deceptive name, but we suggest that the words, "and which shall be approved by the Secretary," in lines 23 and 24, be deleted in order to avoid the unnecessary expense which would be required if a person would have to obtain the approval of the Secretary before he could use the trade name or the usual name of the product on the label.

Page 7, section 8: These appear to be merely clarifying amendments, to which we have no objection. Our comments with respect to section 5 will also apply to paragraph (b) of this section, where the word "adulterated" is used.

Page 10, section 10: We do not believe the amendment proposed by the Department to be desirable. There would not appear to be any useful purpose to be served by eliminating the exemptions which the bill as originally drafted provided for carriers. The amendment could not but unduly burden carriers and increase their cost of operation at the expense of producers.

The provision in the bill as originally drafted appears preferable and, since it is substantially the same provision which is in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and which has proven adequate for the enforcement of that act, should be adequate for the purposes of a poultry inspection program.

Page 12, section 12: We doubt the desirability of the provision making employers criminally responsible for the acts of their employees if they had no knowledge or did not participate in the violation. The Meat Inspection Act does not contain any similar provision.

The remaining amendments appear to be largely clarifying amendments, on which we have no comments to offer.

We do wish to again call the committee's attention to the proposed amendment recommended by the Grange which provides that, "Upon request of a State government, the Secretary may make available the provisions of this act to any establishment processing poultry or poultry products which may be engaged solely in intrastate commerce if such establishment meets the requirements of and is operated in accordance with the provisions of the act and the regulations thereunder." The adoption of this amendment as we have testified would greatly facilitate the operation of a compulsory inspection program.

Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 28, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: Reference is made to the committee print of S. 3588, containing the amendments proposed by the Department of Agriculture. The American Farm Bureau Federation respectfully recommends the following revisions of this bill :

1. Section 7 (b), page 6, lines 23 and 24: It is recommended that the words "and shall be approved by the Secretary are permitted" be deleted. We do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to the accomplishment of the purposes of the act to give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to require prior registration and approval of the use of brand names. It is sufficient to give the Secretary authority to prohibit the use of a brand name which is determined to be false or deceptive.

2. Section 12, page 12, lines 13 to 20: We recommend the elimination of this provision, which makes an employer criminally liable for any act or omission of an employee. Such provision may under some circumstances be appropriate in a civil suit. Where a criminal penalty is involved, however, we believe that it should be necessary to prove intent or knowledge or such gross negligence as to constitute intent or knowledge.

3. Section 15 (a) (3), page 15, lines 1 to 6: We recommend that this be amended to read "poultry processors where the Secretary determines that it would be impractical to provide inspection." We have no assurance that the Congress will necessarily always provide funds to assure that the Department may always be able to provide inspection at all times in all locations. We believe that provision should be made to insure that where it is impossible for the Department to provide inspection for any reason that the Department should be able to provide for a temporary exemption so as to avoid disruption of the operations of the individuals or concerns involved. The provisions of section 6

relating to sanitary facilities and practices would continue to be applicable in such instances.

There is always the further possibility that an inspector in an area will be ill or otherwise not available and for a short period it is impossible for the Department to assign another inspector to the area. In such instances a temporary certificate of exemption might well be utilized without impairing the objective of the act.

We believe this provision is essential if we are to avoid putting many small processors out of business. For example, a poultryman might slaughter 20 to 50 birds per day for a local restaurant or retailer. It might be wholly impractical for the Department to end an inspector out to inspect such slaughter each day. But if such poultryman must adhere to the sanitation provisions of section 6, an occasional spot inspection should be adequate to insure the objectives of the act without, in effect, prohibiting this type of operation.

We hope that the subcommittee may proceed to perfect a bill and that we may have an opportunity to distribute copies of such perfected bill to our State and county poultry committees for their study and consideration.

Very sincerely,

MATT TRIGGS,

Assistant Legislative Director, American Farm Bureau Federation."
INDIANAPOLIS, IND., June 29, 1956.

Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

Senate Office Building,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: I wish to thank you for the privilege of appearing before your subcommittee that heard testimony concerning S. 3983 and S. 3588. On June 19, 1956, you requested that those who testified on that date present their views respecting a revised S. 3588, headed “Committee Print." In accordance with that request, I am respectfully submitting the following comments: Section 4 of S. 3588, revised, states, "The Secretary is authorized to ascertain from time to time the cities or areas where poultry or poultry products are handled or consumed in such volume as to affect, burden, or obstruct the movement of inspected poultry products in commerce. * *" and require all poultry in that city or area to be subject to the act. This means that the Secretary, at his discretion, may bring all poultry processing establishments, regardless of size, in such designated cities or areas, under the jurisdiction of S. 3588.

*

This designation would apply to poultry and poultry products that do not enter into interstate commerce. It would also conflict with State and local laws and ordinances dealing with poultry plants, and also remove the authority of State and local officials from seizing adulterated, misbranded, contaminated, decomposed, or otherwise unfit poultry designed for human consumption. If he can, at his discretion, designate certain cities or areas to be a burden to the movement of inspected poultry, he can force the small operator that does only intrastate business to come under the scope of S. 3588. This section is in direct conflict with the health and welfare clause of most State constitutions which delegates the responsibility of protecting the health and welfare of the citizenry to appropriate State health agencies.

Section 5 (a), lines 9 and 10, requires antemortem and postmortem inspection "as he (the Secretary) determines necessary" without either defining the terms or mandating the Secretary to require such inspection. As written, the Secretary may determine that either or both are unnecessary in a particular case. The law should require both without any exceptions. These words "antemortem" and "postmortem" must be defined so as to set out the exact duties of the inspectors.

Section 7 (a), page 6, lines 11 to 13, inclusive, grants the Secretary the authority to exempt any labeling requirement as he may deem practicable. If poultry or poultry products are granted exemptions to labeling requirements by the Secretary, such exemptions may be in conflict with existing labeling requirements of other Federal laws and of State laws, and subject poultry products to action by State or local authorities.

Section 7 (b), page 6, line 21, states, "under any false or deceptive name; The wording of this phrase would require the enforcement agency to prove that the label was both false and deceptive. This phrase should be reworded to prevent the label from being false, deceptive, or misleading to the consumer in all particulars.

Section 8 (c), page 8, line 12, states in part, "Knowingly and false making or issuing, * **" and line 17, "under this Act, or knowingly causing, procuring, aiding, * * *" release the Secretary from taking any punitive action against any person, firm, or corporation if such person, firm, or corporation did not know that such false making, issuing, causing, procuring was in violation of this act. The word "knowlingly" should be removed from this section in all places that it appears.

Section 12, S. 3588, revised, states in part, "Any person who willfully violates the provisions of section 8, 9, 10, or 17, ***" As written, this means that the owner or operator must know that he is violating the provisions of this proposed law. The word "willfully" should be removed from that part of the sentence in line 4, page 12 of S. 3588, revised. Line 4, page 12, should read in part "Any person who violates any provisions of this Act* * *”

The number 16 has been omitted in line 5, page 12, section 12.

Section 13, page 13, lines 2 to 7, inclusive, authorizes the Secretary to withhold prosecution of any violations of this act if he deems that the public interest would be served by a written notice or warning. It is believed that line 4, page 13 would clarify the authority of the Secretary by adding the word "minor." Therefore, this line would read, "for the institution of injunction proceedings of minor violations of this."

Section 17 (a), S. 3588, revised, limits the scope of the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040, ch. 675) as amended to the imports of poultry and poultry products. Section 18 (a), S. 3588, revised, exempts all provisions of the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040, ch. 675) as amended, except as provided by section 17 (a) of S. 3588, revised.

No exemption should be made to the act of June 1938 (52 Stat. 1040, ch. 675) as amended, commonly known as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

When products are inspected for wholesomeness and bear a stamp to that effect, that stamp means at that time and that time only. When inspected and passed poultry and poultry products are shipped from an official establishment, such poultry and poultry products divorce themselves from the inspecting agency. This poultry and poultry products then come under the jurisdiction of an agency of Government that is responsible for the sale to or purchase by the consumer of diseased, unwholesome, misbranded or adulterated food products, namely, the Federal Food and Drug Administration for interstate commerce and the corresponding enforcement agencies in the States for intrastate

commerce.

It is suggested that sections 17 (a) and 18 (a) of S. 3588, revised, be combined to read "This act shall not exclude any laws or amendments pertaining to the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040, ch. 675) or other laws pertaining to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or affecting or impairing any treaty of the United States."

Section 18 (b), S. 3588, revised, grants the Secretary permission to have examinations, investigations, or inspections conducted by any officer or employee of a State for such purpose as he deems practicable. It should be set out in this section that such officer or employee of a State must be employed by the consumer protective agency of that State.

It is felt that the act should become effective on July 1, 1957, if passed during the second session of the 84th Congress so that all poultry and poultry products entering interstate commerce be inspected for wholesomeness not later than July 1, 1958.

S. 3588, revised, still authorizes the Secretary to place mandatory poultry inspection into that branch of Agriculture that he deems practicable. This is in direct opposition to S. 3983 which mandates the Poultry Inspection Service to be integrated with the Meat Inspection Branch, Agricultural Research Service.

As chairman of the committee on meat and poultry inspection of the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, I wish to refer to my statement read before your Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and general legislation on June 19, 1956, which stated that the association had passed resolutions favoring Senate bill S. 3176. Senator Murray, since his committee hearings on S. 3176, has seen fit to introduce S. 3983, and I feel that S. 3983 meets the requirements as set out by the two resolutions passed by the members of the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States on May 7, 1956, at its 60th annual meeting at New York, N. Y.

I wish to further refer, in my statement, to the third paragraph in the second resolution, "Whereas, the holding or shipment of uneviscerated dressed poultry to

facilitate later evaluation for disease is repugnant and inconsistent with modern day sanitation concepts." Therefore, any act dealing with inspection of poultry for wholesomeness must provide for ante mortem and post mortem inspection. The act must also provide for evisceration of poultry immediately after slaughter. Dressed poultry must not be shipped to another plant for evisceration.

Even though I have given my views on S. 3588, committee revised print, as to the changes to make it a workable act and in conformity with other Federal and State food laws, I still feel that any act passed by the Congress of the United States concerning the health and welfare of the citizens of the United States must be placed under the jurisdiction of a consumer protective agency of the Federal Government, either the Meat Inspection Branch, Agricultural Research Service, or the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Sincerely yours,

D. B. SCHLOSSER, D. V. M.

Chairman, Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection,
Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 28, 1956.

Senator EARLE C. CLEMENTS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation,
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Wash-
ington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: Several days ago I called Mr. Kendall of the committee staff to talk to him regarding the wording of the further proviso in section 10 of S. 3588, the bill to provide for the compulsory inspection by the Department of Agriculture of poultry and poultry products.

The further proviso in section 10 of S. 3588 as originally introduced would have the effect of exempting carriers from the coverage of all provisions of the act except those relating to inspection of records insofar as the bill applies to poultry products. My inquiry to Mr. Kendall was as to why the term "poultry" should not have been used as well as the term "poultry products" in the proviso as it seemed to me the situation justifying the exemption of carriers from the coverage of all provisions of the act except those relating to inspection of records in the case of the carriage of poultry products was substantially the same in the case of the carriage of poultry.

Mr. Kendall informed me that the Department of Agriculture had recommended certain amendments to S. 3588, among them the elimination of the further proviso to section 10, which have been incorporated in a committee print and he suggested that I submit such comments as I might have regarding the bill, and in particular the amendments of the Department of Agriculture, to you in a letter.

As S. 3588 in its amended form would provide the transportation, or delivery, or receiving for transportation, of any poultry product unless it had been inspected for wholesomeness and unless the shipping container and the individual consumer package were marked in accordance with the provisions of this act would be a prohibited act (sec. 8 (a)). Also, the transporting of any poultry slaughtered for human food except between official establishments would be a prohibited act (sec. 8 (i)).

In the normal situation involving the carload shipment of poultry or poultry products by railroad the movements will be in refrigerator cars that the railroads will have spotted on the shipper's siding and will have received back from the shipper only after the cars have been loaded, closed, and sealed. Thus, the railroad company would not have firsthand knowledge of whether the poultry or poultry products contained in a car delivered to it for transportation had been inspected and marked in accordance with the proposed law or not. The only way in which a railroad company could have such knowledge firsthand would be to assign an employee to check what went into each car as it was loaded. Such a requirement would be wholly impractical, wasteful, and unfair. The basic offenders would, of course, be those operating the poultry processing establishments where the inspection should take place. The sellers of such products at either wholesale or retail would be in very much the same position as the processors because they would necessarily know whether the poultry they were selling had been properly inspected and marked. The transportation agency, however, would normally not have any such relationship with the transaction,

« PreviousContinue »