In section 18, the Secretary is given exclusive jurisdiction in the field of poultry and poultry products inspection and the products are exempted from the provisions of the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040 ch. 675), which is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This may mean difficulty in preventing the sale of poultry and poultry products by either Federal Food and Drug authorities or local authorities if it has gone bad after the inspection provided. Under the question of definitions, section 21, the term "commerce" fails to actually include the fact that a designated area or city within a State, in accordance with section 3, would also be under the provisions referring to commerce, namely, poultry, as for example, produced in South Jersey, shipped to Newark, a designated city, would have to comply with all requirements of commerce. This certainly would take away States rights and local jurisdiction of health matters, and would be a terific burden on locally produced poultry sold locally. It appears to us that this bill is a really bad one from the standpoint of consumers, local health authorities, and local producers of poultry. It will vest tremendous power in the Federal agency concerned, not only over interstate commerce which should properly vest with the Federal agency, but also with respect to the intrastate problems of both the producer and State and local health authorities. It provides for a wonderful bat to be held over the head of any groups, persons, or others who may in any way incur the wrath of the powers that be. It will mislead, deceive, and lull the public into a false sense of security. is Senator CLEMENTS. Doctor, since I take it that the last page somewhat of a summary, would you not do a little further summarizing on it? It will go in the record as it appears there. I thought maybe you might give it to us in a little shorter form. Dr. SUSSMAN. All right, sir. I would just like to read this one paragraph. Senator CLEMENTS. All right, sir. Dr. SUSSMAN. We feel 4 years is a long time to wait for compulsory inspection, and in this respect S. 3588, as amended, would actually provide for inspection to go in in 1960. We feel that you should know that this action of trying to get compulsory inspection has been going on for 10 years, and the industry has been aware of it for 10 years, and that actually you won't be putting people out of business unless, and this is a statement I think should get in, and I don't want it to be hard, but I do want you to understand that health authorities sometimes, as in the case of milk, we don't allow a man to take a can of milk and put it on a stove and warm it up and then pour it into bottles, and then put a cap on it and say it is pasteurized, because the consumers, nor even the milk producer, would want to have that. So perhaps it might be considered the wrong thing to point out, but our groups feel it necessary to statae that those poultry processors with improper sanitary facilities, dirty equipment, bad handling practices, a tendency to purchase diseased birds, must be retrained or eliminated from interstate business, and we don't think it should wait 4 years to do it. In this S. 3983, it was pointed out yesterday that it would go into effect in 1957, and there was no reference made to the fact that there is a possibility in S. 3983 for the Secretary of Agriculture to give exemptions where he deemed it expedient for the benefit of the service, so that actually it would not necessarily have to go into effect until 1959, because of the 2-year exemption. Mr. Chairman, if you don't wish me to read this other stataement, I can just turn it in, although I was requested to do so. Senator CLEMENTS. Doctor, will you identify the statement, and it will appear in the record. Dr. SUSSMAN. My statement, he has already. (The balance of Dr. Sussman's prepared statement is as follows:) STATE GROUPS WANT ACTUAL FEDERAL INSPECTION OF INTERSTATE SHIPPED POULTRY There has recently been much concern shown by the Poultry Branch for cooperation with State agencies in an attempt to induce support. It should be noted that no major health or food and drug group has suggested or desires that a program for interstate movement of food be inspected by State agencies. It should not be hard to visualize the tremendous pressures that would build up in an exporting State to get approval of the State system-one more sensitive, perhaps, to local pressures than the Federal system. State health groups and the Food and Drug officials have previously testified that they are not in accord with section 18b of S. 3588, which allows the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with other branches of Government and with State agencies. This proviso is nice sounding but tears down the type of inspection desired. For 50 years the Meat Inspection Act has been administered well and soundly without such "cooperation" in the act. Many have praised the Meat Inspection Branch and with good reason. We have failed to understand why the poultry industry if sincere, the farmers group representative, if truly desirous of disease control, can fail to support S. 3983 or a simple amendment of the Meat Inspection Act with proviso that red meats and poultry be inspected by the same service and not merely be in the same Department. Only by such definite placement can duplication be avoided. To continue to subject the public to a deluge of words of indefinite meaning in order to delay the eventual compulsory inspection of poultry is a continuing perpetration of a fraud on the public. We feel 4 years is a long time to wait for compulsory poultry inspection. Perhaps it may be considered the wrong thing to point out, but our groups feel it necessary to state that those poultry processors with improper sanitary facilities, dirty equipment, bad handling practices, tendency to purchase diseased birds, must be retrained or eliminated from interstate business. Local health authorities can then handle their local problem operators. We feel that no one today would want to prolong by 4 years the elimination of a disease hazard to the consumer; we can comprehend a legitimate delay, but feel the committee should know that agitation for adequate legislation has been in the offing for better than 10 years. I have been authorized to state that the New Jersey Health Officer Association and the Veterinary Medical Association of New Jersey concur in the remarks attributed to the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians. Both of these groups feel there is a need for compulory poultry inspection, that there is a need for keeping the Federal Government out of intrastate business, and that in that connection S. 3588 puts the Federal Government into the most intimate type of administrative procedures within a State, and that this bill not only falsely misleads the public into thinking that an adequate compulsory system of inspection would exist, but, where the administrator might desire to put extra pressures on an area, he might conceivably control such areas as designated and make the movement of poultry into such an area more difficult and competitively bad for the local small poultry processor and packer. They, therefore, feel that this bill should be reported unfavorably (S. 3588), if at all, and wish to record their approval of Senator Murray's S. 3983, with suggested correction of definition of inspector, and to ask for the immediate passage of this bill. Public Health and Food and Drug officials feel the poultry processor and the poultry producer have been placed in a most unfair public relations situation. We feel until such date as an adequate bill is enacted into law, the poultry industry will continue 80695-567 to be hazarded by bad public relations possibilities in the continued attempts by health officers to justifiably get good legislation enacted on this subject. We ask for the passage of S. 3983 with suggested minor amendment. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Dr. SUSSMAN. You don't want me to read this two-page letter? Senator CLEMENTS. I would suggest that you identify it and we will place it in the record, and we will have the opportunity of reviewing it. Dr. SUSSMAN. This is a letter from the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians, and it is addressed to you, and it is written by Dr. Price, and the ending statement is: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians is irrevocably opposed to S. 3588, and most seriously commends S. 3983 as deserving the complete support of the committee. Thank you very much. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Poultry Inspection Legislation, JUNE 13, 1956. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been instructed by the executive committee of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians to submit this statement to the subcommittee of which you are chairman. I have requested Dr. Oscar Sussman, a member of the conference, to read this statement. The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians strongly supports Senate bill 3983, and urges that the committee support and encourage enactment of this vitally needed public health measure. The conference does not support S. 3588, which is essentially a marketing measure, and most urgently recommends against its favorable consideration by the committee. The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians was founded in 1946 to provide leadership for promoting the quality and effectiveness of veterinary public health activities conducted by official and nonofficial agencies and organizations. It has active members from Federal, State, and local health and agricultural agencies, the veterinary disciplines of the uniformed services, national and international health organizations, educational institutions, and livestock disease control agencies. The conference is in complete accord with the intent of S. 3983. Adequate official inspection of poultry has long been recognized by the veterinary profession as being essential if the consuming public is to be assured of wholesome, unadulterated poultry and poultry products. The public health needs for such inspection have become increasingly apparent in recent years. S. 3983 would provide for such inspection of poultry and poultry products involved in interstate commerce, by the Meat Inspection Branch, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, an agency which has a 50-year record of effective protection of health, consumer, farmer, and industry interests, through inspection of red meats and participation in national research and livestock disease control activities. S. 3983 embodies the basic principles which will result in comparable effective inspection of poultry, and comparable benefits to all concerned, including health and consumer protection against diseased or unfit poultry in interstate commerce. Conversely, S. 3588 is not specific in its requirements. It does not actually require either ante mortem or post mortem inspection of poultry, but leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture as to what inspection, if any, will be required in any particular instance. S. 3588 would permit exemptions to be granted at any time during a 2-year period, but makes no time limit on such exemptions once granted, except that the Secretary may terminate them when and if he should so desire. S. 3588 does not state that the inspection of poultry would be carried out by the Meat Inspection Branch, but gives the definite inipression that this would be carried out as a marketing service activity, with health, consumer, and poultry disease control considerations entirely secondary. S. 3588 would give the Secretary of Agriculture sole jurisdiction over all poultry and products coming under the scope of the act. This would take from the Food and Drug Administration its role in assuring protection of the product from mishandling, contamination, decomposition, and mislabeling, after the product leaves the processing plant. This is a role which the Food and Drug Administration has always carried out, even with respect to red meats and meat products which have been inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture. A defect in S. 3588 of equally serious import is the provisions which would permit the Secretary of Agriculture to designate cities or areas in which the United States Department of Agriculture could assume sole jurisdiction over poultry and poultry products involved only in intrastate commerce, thereby depriving the States and local jurisdictions of their traditional role and prerogatives in dealing with health problems where interstate or foreign commerce is not concerned. In like manner, with regard to the poultry and poultry products affected, S. 3588 would take from the United States Public Health Service and State and local health agencies, the traditional role of research, factfinding, advisory assistance, and development of the health standards required for adequate protection of the health of the people. In short, S. 3588 is essentially marketing legislation which would not only fail to provide the further health and consumer measures now needed, but would take away the protection which now exists through established Federal, State, and local public health programs. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians is irrevocably opposed to S. 3588, and most seriously commends S. 3983 as deserving the complete support of the committee. Sincerely yours, E. R. PRICE, D. V. M., Chairman, Committee on Legislation, Conference of Public Health Veterinarians. Senator CLEMENTS. Any questions? Senator WILLIAMS. No questions. Doctor, you understand you may file a supplementary written statement on this. Dr. SUSSMAN. Yes, sir. Senator CLEMENTS. Doctor, you heard the statement made with reference to the committee print which would be out, and we hope you will examine it, and we hope you will advise us by written statemeint of any of the objections that you have raised which may be met by any of the amendments, and also any objections you wish to express with reference to any of them that are in the bill. Dr. SUSSMAN. May I ask a question? Is this committee print a definite indication that Senate 3983 will not be considered? Senator CLEMENTS. It is not. Dr. SUSSMAN. I thank you. Senator CLEMENTS. The Department has had a great amount of experience in this field. It took that bill and they analyzed it, and they offered the benefit of the best judgment of the minds that had been studying it in the Department; and we felt that it justified the committee in getting that into one bill form, just as an advisory matter, so we might be advised by it, and that it would be in form where those who were interested in the promulgating of a sound compulsory inspection system would have an opportunity to see it and to analyze it, and then to express to the committee their views with reference to it. Senator WILLIAMS. Since there were so many proposed changes and amendments, we thought it would be easier for you and others in industry to examine it and give us your recommendations based upon the printed form of a bill, rather than your having to read the suggestions from the hearings and matching them to a bill. Senator CLEMENTS. It will just simplify the people's analyzing of the viewpoint of the Department. Dr. SUSSMAN. I think 3588 needed a lot of revision, but 3983 did not. Senator CLEMENTS. I can say to you, the Department recognized that, because I never heard so many amendments suggested to one bill since I have been a member of this committee. The next witness is Mr. Aaron H. Haskin, health officer of Newark, N. J. (Discussion off the record.) Senator CLEMENTS. You may proceed, Dr. Haskin. STATEMENT OF DR. AARON H. HASKIN, CITY HEALTH OFFICER, NEWARK, N. J. Dr. HASKIN. Prior to 1950, much of the poultry entering into the city of Newark was offered for sale as New York dressed-undrawn, head and feet on-and live poultry. This was the marketing habit for many years. At this time, that is, 1950, the eviscerated, ready-to-cook poultry began to show in volume in the Newark marketing area. Reports from meat inspectors under my direction, showed that some of this poultry was not being correctly processed, properly handled, and not always in a state of wholesomeness or fitness for food. As the Newark marketing area services not only this city, but all of the surrounding area within a 25-mile radius, over 5 million consumers are served from this area. Realizing that eviscerated poultry was increasing in volume, we decided that a strict patrolling and inspection of these products would be necessary. My first move was to promulgate and have passed city ordinances relating to sanitary environment, processing procedures, and inspectional services at all poultry processing plants sending in and offering their products for sale within the city of Newark, N. J. These ordinances were finally adopted and passed, and in the latter part of 1954 the present program was launched. The following situations have been revealed: Since that time a total of over a quarter of a million pounds of this poultry has been condemned for unfitness for food and many other shipments have been rejected because of careless and sloppy processing procedures. Some of the common conditions observed were bile sacs on the livers crops cut but not fully removed, undigested food particles contaminating products-lining not completely removed from gizzards-lungs left in body cavity-parts of trachea left on productspericardical sacs not removed-testicles left in body cavity-oil sacs not cut or partially cut out-vents left on some of the chickens, fecal matter contaminating products-poultry not completely and cleanly defeathered and pinned in all instances-evidence of poultry diseases on some of the carcasses proving lack of inspection at the source of slaughter. With these flagrant violations present on the products shipped into Newark, N. J., we began to wonder as to the condition of the places where this poultry was being processed. |