If Congress should fail to provide adequate appropriations to fully man the program at every plant, any inability to provide inspection service would be disruptive to poultry marketing in the area.

There is also the ever-present possibility of illness or accident to an inspector serving an area with no available replacements. It would appear advisable to provide for temporary exemption to take care of such contingencies.

We particularly favor the provisions of section 18 (b) of the bill providing for cooperation with State agencies in the administration of the program. We believe it is important that the Secretary avoid bypassing State agencies, and the every feasible effort should be made to enter into cooperative agreements with State agencies relating to the conduct of inspection work.

For example, the State of California has provided for State inspection of intrastate shipments of poultry. We do not believe it would be desirable for the Secretary to disrupt this arrangement-but rather should endeavor to enter into a cooperative arrangement with the California State Department of Agriculture providing for dovetailing of the inspection work so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of organization and personnel.

We urge that the committee report set forth such policy for guidance of the Secretary in the administration of the program.

The introduction of legislation to provide for poultry inspection has stirred up an unusual amount of interest at the local level. Our office has received numerous telephone calls and letters either requesting information or protesting some aspect of the bill.

One of the most frequent complaints received relates to a situation in which a poultryman sells a few birds each day or week to a small retailer, just across a State line. In many such instances the volume is too small to warrant detailing an inspector to handle such commerce.

Many small slaughterers have indicated concern that the bill would handicap their operations as compared with large slaugthering establishments. Others have suggested that the standards for extension of inspections to intrastate commerce should be made more restrictive, or that strictly intrastate commerce should not be covered by Federal inspection.

In view of the importance of this program to poultry farmers we believe it would be advisable to defer action on this question until January. Poultry groups all over the United States would therefore have an opportunity this fall to review the issues involved and to subject them to discussion and debate.

We believe that this process is desirable and that as a result of such consideration the Congress will be aided in writing better legislation. We are aware, Mr. Chairman, that the suggestion that legislation be delayed is often interpreted as being opposition. We do not approach the issue in this light. We are for a program of poultry inspection as quickly as it may be feasibly established.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Triggs, I am sure there is no one in here that is more interested than you are in seeing a good sound program in operation.

that

If a bill that meets the approval of the consumer groups, groups have testified here this morning and will testify this morning, were perfected, I take it you would feel it is wise to enact legislation at this :session.

Mr. TRIGGS. I would certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will proceed as rapidly as possible to perfect a bill.

Now, there have been suggestions made for amendments here by the Department of Agriculture and by other witnesses, and there will probably be suggestions for amendments tomorrow, and at the hearing on the 26th.

We would really welcome the opportunity of having a perfected bill which the committee has worked on adopting the things it believes should be in the bill which we could send out to our State poultry departments and they in turn could pass on the country poultry departments for a review.

These amendments of the Department, I think, for example, raise many issues on which I as a staff member could not endeavor to express the views of the poultry people.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Triggs, in previous years has this been a topic of the Farm Bureau nationally, or certainly in those States where it is a sizable portion of their economy, and discussed in their district and State meetings?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. This is correct, as Mr. Alp can testify: Poultrymen have considered this, I think, in most States. What we do find is that poultrymen in all States have not gone into the thing in great detail, and some have been quite surprised at the legislative development.

More than that, however, while people are in general accord with the idea of a mandatory poultry inspection, when they see the legislation, the specific language that is developed often raises in their minds a great many issues that they hadn't encountered before.

Senator CLEMENTS. You mean that when they go to look at the finished document, the first thing that comes into their minds is, "How does this affect me?"

Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct. And I think that is a legitimate concern that they have. This is why we feel that some review of the committee's perfected draft would be desirable.

Now, we don't believe that this would actually delay accomplishing the objectives of the program. I think that this is a matter that the Congress could very rapidly dispose of in January.

Senator CLEMENTS. Do I understand from that statement that you would change that January 1958 date

Mr. TRIGGS. July, 1958 you mean.

Senator CLEMENTS. Yes. Even though we did not enact the bill until next year?

Mr. TRIGGS. I am not suggesting that. You mean shove it back a few months?

Senator CLEMENTS. It will delay it unless you keep that date firm. Mr. TRIGGS. I think this is the situation, as I understand it, that the Department of Agriculture is receiving large numbers of applications for inspection, the poultry industry knows that mandatory inspection is coming. They are making their plans, adjusting their operations, applying for inspection, so that in any event during the next 6 months there is going to be a very active movement toward preparing the industry for a mandatory inspection program.

Senator CLEMENTS. As well as training personnel to take it over as the increasing number of units comes under the program?

Mr. TRIGGS. That is right. And it may be that regardless of what happens, during the next 6 months the Department is going to have all that it can handle in expanding its organization and personnel to handle the new requests that they are receiving every day, as I understand it.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Triggs, you heard the observation earlier that there would be a committee print made available incorporating many of the suggestions made by the Department this morning.

I trust that the Farm Bureau will take advantage of the opportunity of written comment on those suggestions.

Mr. TRIGGS. I would appreciate the opportunity of doing so. It wouldn't be possible in the very near future for us to submit the matter to our Poultry Advisory Committee, which I would like to have the opportunity of doing, but we will do the best we can.

Senator CLEMENTS. The committee will endeavor to have the print as early as possible. I am advised that you may have a copy of it in the morning.

Any other questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. No questions.

Senator CLEMENTS. Do you have some statement to make in connection with the statement Mr. Triggs has made, Mr. Alp?

Mr. ALP. There is one point that I would like to make, and I think Mr. Triggs will agree, that we are not opposed to the fast enactment of this type of legislation which the industry wants and the con

sumers want.

Senator CLEMENTS. The chairman did not get the impression that Farm Bureau would be opposed to it. I gathered that there was a preference for sufficient time to circularize the proposed legislation to those in interest in the Farm Bureau.

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir.

Senator CLEMENTS. But in case it is a good sound bill, or a bill that could be enacted that met most of the needs and had a minimum number of objectionable features, that you would not oppose that it be enacted at this session of Congress?

Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct.

Our policy puts us clearly on record as to that.

Senator WILLIAMS. As I understand it, you recognize the need for such legislation, you just want us to proceed cautiously and make sure that we are on the right track?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir.

Senator CLEMENTS. The next witness is Mr. John A. Baker, coordinator of legislative services, National Farmers Union.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. BAKER, COORDINATOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Senator CLEMENTS. You may proceed, Mr. Baker.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of saving the time of the committee, if it meets with the approval of the committee, I think I can tie up my testimony in about two paragraphs, and insert the rest of this prepared statement for the record.

Senator CLEMENTS. The complete statement of Mr. Baker will be placed in the record.

(The complete prepared statement of Mr. Baker is as follows:)

For the record, I am John A. Baker, coordinator of legislative services, National Farmers Union.

On May 9, 1956, I testified for the National Farmers Union in support of S. 3176 before the subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. S. 3176 provided for compulsory poultry inspection to be carried on by the Food and Drug Administration. At that time we included in our statement a proposed amendment that poultry inspection should be made 100 percent compulsory with costs paid by the Federal Government and that the program should be transferred by law from the Agricultural Marketing Service to the Meat Inspection Service of the Agricultural Research Service and not to the Food and Drug Administration. We further suggested that farmers, who dress their own poultry and sell them directly to consumers, be exempted from the provisions of the law. S. 3983 includes these two proposals and National Farmers Union is in full accord with the bill as it is now written.

The Meat Inspection Service, over the years it has been functioning, has been of great benefit to all groups of the Nation by its insurance to consumers that they have available for their dinner tables only "red meats" which are palatable, wholesome, and free of disease. Poultry has had a rapid rise as one of our major food items and yet only a small percent of poultry products have been included in a voluntry poultry inspection program in the past. As a result of the lack of an effective inspection program many serious problems have arisen in the poultry industry. We believe that S. 3983 will minimize the shocking abuses found in some sections of the processing industry-abuses which harm the farmer, the consumer, the industry, and the poultry worker.

Farmers love the land on which they live; they like to produce food and produce it in abundance for the rapidly growing population and expanding economy we have today. Farmers must have that feeling for the soil and the things they raise, otherwise they wouldn't stay on the land year after year and continue to go down the sliding scale to bankruptcy. No one can believe that the incentive of good wages and decent incomes, with our present farm economy the way it is, can be a magnet to hold farmers on the land. Farmers know that they must produce quality products if they are to sell each year to a more and more demanding public. Inferior or diseased farm products cast a bad reflection on all farmers, and this is especially true in the poultry business where hundreds of thousands of family farmers have their farm poultry flocks, many of which go through the channels of commerce to reach the consumer. Farmers are always the first to be blamed for high prices or poor quality of food and fiber products. Through the example of the meat-inspection and other programs, farmers have learned that regulatory measures which provide effective and real consumer protection are good business. But today poultry is under a cloud of suspicion because of the activities of a few unscrupulous operators in the processing industry. This cloud affects the good as well as the bad sections of the industry, and it also affects the farmer who has a definite stake in wanting the market for poultry products to increase.

We

From 1940 to 1955 the production of poultry doubled and in 1954 accounted for $4 billion of gross farm income, being the third largest source of income for farmers. In vew of the many problems encountered in the price and income situation today, it is especially desirable that the increase in production of poultry products continue as a major and as a supplemental source of income. realize, however, if this growth is to continue, the consumer must be assured when he goes to the market that he will purchase nothing but clean, wholesome, and free-of-disease products. We believe that the safeguards in S. 3983 will protect the consumer and will, at the same time, benefit the poultry producer. The antemortem inspection provided for in the bill may, in our opinion, save farmers millions of dollars each year. It will root out any diseased fowls at a time when they can be identified as to their production source. In this way the farmer producer can determine if the whole flock is diseased or weed out those which are and find the causes of such disease so they can be eliminated. Today the farmer has no such protection. It was pointed out in a January 4, 1956, news article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which quoted the Pennsylvania State poultry pathologist, that farmers in Pennsylvania alone are losing more than $4 million a year "because of the high mortality rate in chickens due to respiratory diseases and other ailments." The article stated further that poultry is subject to more diseases than any other animal.

Ante mortem inspection will undoubtedly lead to research of poultry diseases and their causes. At the present time, many of the diseases which endanger poultry are a mystery to scientists. Recent outbreaks in Oregon of psittacosis, or parrot fever, led scientists to throw up their hands and declare that they still know very little about the illness. The research and experience gained from such ante mortem inspection will help farmers in cutting losses due to poultry diseases. I should like to state at this point that it is our hope the Congress will turn its attention to further poultry legislation which will provide for eradication of poultry disease at the farm level.

Farmers are consumers as well as producers, so the National Farmers' Union in supporting S. 3983 is also representing more than a million consumers of poultry products. Also, we have always believed that it is vital in a democracy that organized groups be fully aware of the interests of the largest unorganized group in our Nation, the consumers.

According to reports of the Food and Drug Administration, State health departments and other health authorities, contaminated and diseased poultry constitute one of the most serious hazards to consumer health today. Public Health Service reports have indicated that from one-fourth to one-third of the annual cases of food poisoning are due to consumption of poultry products. But this is not the greatest danger. Poultry can readily transmit a number of diseases to humans.

Basically, poultry is a good, tasty, nourishing, and healthful food. It should have an important spot in every family's diet. What is needed is that the consumer be assured of the sale of only clean and wholesome fowls. However, shockingly unsanitary conditions found in some parts of the poultry processing industry are of great concern as a danger to the consuming public. We believe that the mandatory institution of a program of plant sanitation, sanitary processing practices and inspection for wholesomeness in the poultry processing industry will go a long way toward providing such assurance.

Unfortunately, the poultry consumer has not real and effective safeguards today. The voluntary inspection program carried on by Agricultural Marketing Service covers only 20 percent of poultry moving in interstate commerce and this inspection must be paid for by the processor. Health officers have stated that there is some doubt whether the AMS program is fully effective in protecting consumers for even the small part of poultry it inspects.

We should neither condone nor allow any practice to continue which impairs the health and strength of our people. With all commercially transported red meat in interstate commerce undergoing regulation to protect the consumer, it is entirely illogical not to include poultry in the same service which has become such an important part of our diet, under a similar program.

Most poultry producers are uniquely dependent for efficient service upon small processing plants rather than large packing establishments. These small businesses cannot afford to pay the costs of an inspection program such as is done in the voluntary plan of the Meat Inspection Service today. Therefore we strongly support the provisions of S. 3983 which provides for making poultry inspection 100-percent compliance by the processing industry and complete assurance to the consumer of a clean, wholesome product.

Under present conditions found in many parts of the poultry processing industry, the type of employment required should probably be classified as "hazardous." Of vital concern to us are the health risks and lack of adequate health standards which employees of processing plants often encounter.

I have already mentioned the recent psittacosis outbreak in Oregon. There have been numerous newspaper accounts of that situation which resulted in several deaths and many illnesses and hospital cases among poultry workers. To mention one other State, Texas-between 1948 and 1954, 12 deaths and 350 cases of illness among Texas poultry processing employees were reported due to psittacosis which is a pneumonia-like disease. In one turkey processing plant alone, the Texas State Health Department reported 3 deaths and 22 illnesses. Therefore, from the standpoint of the farmer, the consumer, the worker, and the poultry industry as a whole, current conditions in some sections of the poultry industry pose serious dangers. We believe that S. 3983, if enacted, will curtail to a minimum these hazards. The three-pronged attack on the problem, provided in this legislation by inspection for wholesomeness, plant sanitation standards and sanitary processing practice requirements is urgently needed.

The National Farmers Union approves and strongly advocates S. 3983. We hope the subcommittee will give it favorable consideration and will write a

80695-565