Maintenance of the high public confidence which has been established in Government inspection service requires that such should never be put in an agency where other objectives may result in compromising the consumer interest.

Our subcommittee feels that the voluntary poultry inspection of the Poultry Branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service has demonstrated the dangers of permitting inspection by such agencies.

A second matter of basic importance, in addition to who does the work, is the establishment of inspection standards compatible with those of the pure food and meat inspection standards.

It would be unfortunate if Food and Drug Administration, which has jurisdiction over meat and poultry products after they leave processing plants, and the new poultry inspection service have different standards.

S. 3983 has been carefully drafted to include the inspection standards in S. 3176 which were approved by the Food and Drug Administration as compatible.

Mr. Chairman, with your admission I shall file for your record and consideration a copy of the report of the Subcommittee on Legislation Affecting the Food and Drug Administration which deals with this subject and states our views in considerable detail.

Senator CLEMENTS. That is Document No. 129?

Senator MURRAY. Yes, Senate Document 129, 84th Congress, 2d session.

Senator CLEMENTS. It will be accepted and noted at this point, and will be on file for use by the committee.

Senator MURRAY. We are convinced that poultry producers, processors, and consumers will all be benefited by compulsory poultry inspection and that it should be instituted without delay.

I think that is in line with the views expressed by the distinguished Senator just a few moments ago, Mr. Williams. I appreciate your hearing me here this morning. I believe that this legislation can be put through without any undue haste.

I think our committee-I know-is in full agreement on the kind of a program that we should have.

I am sure that we will cooperate with your committee.

Senator CLEMENTS. Senator Murray, the committee has been glad to hear you this morning.

And I want to express my personal appreciation to you and to your committee for the understanding way that you approached this problem when you realized that this was a matter that should come before the Committee and Agriculture and Forestry, after the testimony was heard in your committee.

You introduced the bill that we are considering here this morning, S. 3983, along with the one introduced by Senator Aiken, S. 3588, and there is no question in my mind but what your hearings will provide much worthwhile information for this committee in making their determination on what I deem a very important matter for the committee to take action on this year.

Are there any questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. No; I do not have any questions, except that I do want to join you in thanking his committee for the study that it has given to this problem. I join you in the hope that it can be enacted this year and that we can keep the control of this inspection

under the Department of Agriculture. I think we are in unanimous agreement that it belongs there. I agree with you that the enactment of some type of legislation such as this would be in the best. interests of all concerned, not only the consumer but also the poultrymen themselves, because there is nothing in the world that would help them better than guaranteeing to the consumer that it is a good product when they buy it.

Senator MURRAY. You have expressed my views completely. I thoroughly agree with you.

Senator WILLIAMS. I am sure we can get the appropriate language in the bill.

Senator MURRAY. I think you will have no difficulty in doing that. Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator CLEMENTS. The next witness is our distinguished friend from Utah, Senator Bennett. We will be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLACE F. BENNETT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Senator BENNETT. I have a very brief statement.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief statement on S. 3588 which I am cosponsoring.

I became interested in it fundamentally because we have in Utah a substantial poultry industry, the products of which are shipped all the way to the east coast. And I am anxious to protect the standards, the high standards, that our Utah industry holds up.

Two or three weeks ago I was privileged to go with a group of my colleagues to the little village of Gainesville, Ga., where our Senator colleague, Senator George, was honored on the occasion of his retirement. And I was surprised to be told in that little village they now have a poultry industry approximately $200 million a year.

The birds that are processed in Gainesville are shipped all the way to the west coast, as well as to the northern markets.

And the poultry industry which once was based on local distribution has certainly become based on a pattern of national distribution. And with meat as perishable as this, it becomes increasingly more important that high standards be set and inspection be carefully controlled.

The main question which Congress is being asked to resolve with regard to the inspection of poultry and poultry products is the question of how the Federal Government shall administer the program of inspection.

I think the legislative findings as to the necessity for inspection and regulation are not in serious dispute. The poultry industry is asking for compulsory inspection. They realize the nature of the problem and the genuine public interest which is involved. They realize also that their markets will not expand unless customers feel a sense of security with regard to the condition of the meat at the time of purchase.

The problem, therefore, when reduced to its essentials is like so many problems which Congress must resolve; we must protect the public interest and yet at the same time not abuse the industry which is the object of control.

I believe S. 3588 meets this challenge more adequately than does the other bill dealing with this problem. Of course, there may be provisions of that bill which could in the committee's judgment be included in S. 3588.

With the development of refrigerated foods consumption of poultry has risen from 3.1 billion pounds or $1 billion worth of farm business in 1940 to 6.6 billion pounds worth $3.5 billion at the farm in 1954.

Per capita consumption of poultry meat has risen from 22 pounds to 35 for the same period. In the midst of this sharp rise in the consumption of poultry meats there has also been a rise in food poisoning attributable to poultry or poultry products.

Much of this contamination occurs after the poultry products leave the processing plants, as Senator Aiken has pointed out to us. Just how much is, of course, difficult to determine. The record with reference to the 26 diseases common to poultry and to man also points up the need for an inspection system.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe passage of this legislation would benefit the consumers, the processors, and the producers. Public confidence will undoubtedly reflect itself in additional purchasing of poultry and poultry products and the segments of the industry which need to raise their standards will be required to do so.

I have full confidence in the Secretary of Agriculture. I am certain he will be able to develop an inspection program which will satisfy Congress, consumers, processors, and producers. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to report S. 3538.

Senator CLEMENTS. The Senator from Utah believes that the cost of the compulsory system to the taxpayers of this country is fully justified in that it gives protection to the consumers of this country of a very important part of their diet?

Senator BENNETT. It does. It is part of the diet that is becoming increasingly more important, as the means of distributing this meat in prime condition increases.

Senator CLEMENTS. I would not ask the Senator this, but I would later ask his colleague who sits by him-I will ask him now-he is not here to testify-but is it not your judgment that a sound compulsory inspection system will tend to increase rather than decrease the consumption of poultry?

Senator WILLIAMS. I think definitely it will. I think it would tend to increase. And as you said, I think the small amount involved in the cost of it would be insignificant in comparison to the benefits to be derived by all segments of the industry.

Senator CLEMENTS. You mean segments of the industry?

Senator WILLIAMS. You mean the consumer, the processor, and the farmer, and everybody that is in any way affected by it.

Senator BENNETT. If the Senator from Utah may interject an uninformed opinion, I agree with my colleague from Delaware. I think the use of poultry meat will increase substantially under this program.

Senator CLEMENTS. The Chairman of this subcommittee believes that, too, with his limited experience.

We are happy to have had you.

Senator BENNETT, I appreciate the opportunity.

80695-56—3

Senator CLEMENTS. The next witness is Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Earl L. Butz. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed..

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL L. BUTZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. BUTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement that I shall read. I have with me three gentlemen to assist me.

Senator CLEMENTS. Will you identify them for the record?

Mr. BUTZ. To my immediate right, Mr. Lennartson, who is Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

Next is Mr. Hermon Miller who is Chief of the Poultry Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

And Mr. Charles Bucy, who is Assistant General Counsel, handling our marketing work.

Senator CLEMENTS. As I understand, Mr. Miller desires to testify in his own right?

Mr. BUTZ. Yes. We have some specific recommendations for amendments to the bill which Mr. Miller will present.

We welcome the opportunity you have given us in the Department or Agriculture to take part in this hearing on S. 3588 and S. 3983. These bills provide for the compulsory inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture of poultry and poultry products.

While the Department favors the objective of compulsory poultry inspection sought by both these bills, it has concluded that S. 3588 would provide a better basis for the development of a good bill that would be desirable from the standpoint of both the industry and the need for providing adequate consumer protection.

Therefore, the Department recommends the enactment of S. 3588 with certain amendments which a Department staff member will discuss later. The amendments we are proposing are for the purpose of making the bill more effective and to clarify the language in certain respects.

The Department recommends S. 3588 as a basis for legislative action because, unlike S. 3983, it (1) provides for gradual application of the inspection activity so as to provide the time needed by both the administering agency and the industry to meet the demands of a compulsory inspection program, (2) does not specify the administering agency of the Department but leaves this decision to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture in keeping with the principle long recognized by Congress, (3) indicates (particularly as we would amend S. 3588) that both antemortem and postmortem inspections would be required but leaves the details of inspection procedures to be prescribed by regulation, and (4) provides, clearly, for authority to appropriate the necessary funds to carry out the purposes of the act. Thus we feel the generally S. 3588, as we recommend it be amended, will provide the Department with an act under which it can develop and administer a sound and effective poultry-inspection program.

The Department of Agriculture conducts many food-inspection programs under various authorities provided by Congress. All red meat which enters interstate commerce is inspected for wholesomeness under the Federal Meat Inspection Act passed in 1906.

The golden anniversary of this red meat inspection program is now being celebrated. The Department also conducts an inspection serv

ice for processed fruits and vegetables and a comprehensive poultry inspection service under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

The food inspection programs carried on under the Agricultural Marketing Act are of a service, nonmandatory nature, since this law does not give the Department authority to impose requirements for inspection of agricultural products moving in interstate commerce.

Therefore, these inspection programs are available on a voluntary basis, as a service that is helpful both to industry and consumer

groups.

In poultry marketing, the Department provides three different types of services. It may be helpful in your consideration of compulsory poultry inspection legislation to review briefly these three nonmandatory services.

(1) Inspection for wholesomeness: This service provides for detailed inspection of individual birds at the time of processing. The consumer can recognize when this inspection service has been performed by a distinguishing mark which is in the form of a circle, and contains within this circle, "U. S. Inspected for Wholesomeness."

This guarantees the consumer that the ready-to-cook poultry covered by this mark was processed in a plant which met the rigid sanitary facility and operating requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture, and, further, that at the time of evisceration every individual bird was examined by a qualified inspector, either a veterinarian or a lay inspector under the direct supervision of a veterinarian, to determine its fitness for human food.

Any bird which is not considered suitable for human food is condemned on the spot by the inspector and so treated as to preclude its use for human food.

The regulations under which inspection for wholesomeness is conducted represent the experience of a 28-year period during which this program has been in operation. They have been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act which permits the public to participate in the formulation of such regulations.

The standards set forth in these regulations are extremely high. They incorporate the views of many scientists and of public-health agencies. In fact, the sanitation requirements of these regulations provided the pattern for the suggested code for poultry plant sanitation which was published by the United States Public Health Service, and developed through the cooperation of public-health agencies and industry.

The poultry inspection for wholesomeness program has received wide acceptance. The use of this service has been expanding very rapidly in the last few years.

In 1951, for example, only 145 plants made use of this service; whereas today there are approximately 300. In addition, there are approximately 125 applications for this service in various stages of clearance.

In 1955, approximately 114 billion pounds of poultry were eviscerated under this program. This quantity represents about 25 percent of all poultry sold off farms that year. It represents approximately 50 percent of the poultry moving in interstate commerce.

The poultry inspection service is under the supervision of highly qualified veterinary personnel. The staff of 425 professional people