mum of about 350 cases of human illness and 12 deaths. The actual toll is believed to be much higher.

Here is the breakdown of the confirmed cases:

Other recent psittacosis outbreaks have been confirmed in Nebraska, New Jersey, Virginia, and Iowa.

Data, especially statistics, concerning these outbreaks is difficult to obtain. Psittacosis or ornithosis is frequently mistaken for influenza and pneumonia. Also, in some of the Texas cases, many of the persons contracting the illness were migrants who did not report their sickness. As a result, probably many more persons were taken ill, and perhaps died, than is recorded here.

Psittacosis or ornithosis is a highly serious illness. The following is a description of patients' condition during the various stages of the illness:

"The onset usually was characterized by fever, anorexia, chilly sensations, severe headache, and nausea or vomiting. Unless prompt and vigorous antibiotic treatment was instituted the disease was slowly progressive and after a few days most patients felt much worse. At the height of the illness the most common complaints were feverishness, headache, cough, weakness, nausea, and loss of appetite. Several patients complained of chills, drenching sweat, and pain or soreness in the chest. Abnormal findings on physical examination usually were negligible at the time of hospitalization, even though the patients were quite toxic, usually with high fever. During the height of illness the patients frequently were delirious or disoriented. The most seriously ill became lethargic or stuporous; this frequently was a cause for comment. ***

"The duration of illness varied from a few days to several weeks. More than half of the patients were ill 2 or 3 weeks. Several patients had relapses; relapses occurred both in treated and untreated cases. Those more seriously ill convalesced slowly but, excepting the fatal cases, recovery generally was complete and uneventful except for prolonged weakness." (From ch. 6: Psittacosis in Turkeys and Fowls as a Source of Human Infection, by J. Vernal Irons, Sc. D.; Malcolm L. Denley, M. C., and Thelma D. Sullivan, M. S., in Psittacosis, edited by F. R. Beaudette, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N. J., 1955.)

Poultry can, and does, offer serious health dangers to both consumers and poultry workers. This is true of both diseased poultry which may transmit organism to humans and contaminated and adulterated poultry which has picked up germs during unsanitary processing. Human beings must be protected against either case.

III. LACK OF EFFECTIVE INSPECTION

Fifty years ago, Congress enacted the Meat Inspection Act and the law establishing the Food and Drug Administration. This legislation grew out of the horror of a shocked nation which gasped at the revelations of the muckrakers. Reading the Jungle and other exposés of the conditions of filth and unwholesomeness then existing in the meatpacking industry, America demanded protection. And Congress provided it.

The means which Congress took to assure the public clean and healthful foods was through effective inspection at the processing stage and through seizure power of contaminated and adulterated products at later stages of commerce. Poultry was not included in this inspection either in the original acts or the refinements and amendments which have come during the past half century. Frankly, until 15 to 20 years ago, the inspection of poultry was not a matter of national urgency.

A. Growth and change of industry

The sale of commercially processed poultry was generally negligible a generation or two ago. It was a Sunday or holiday meal. And very often the fowl for the dinner table those days came from the consumer's own backyard. The

housewife raised the poultry herself, she slaughtered it herself, and she cleaned it herself.

As raising poultry became less widespread, the housewife bought it alive, either from a farmer or a poultry market. She saw the bird before it was slaughtered. Although she had no guaranty against its being diseased, she had some inkling from the fowl's appearance. She could assure herself of its clean processing, because she generally either watched while the chicken, turkey, or duck was cleaned in the market or she performed this work herself in her own home.

During the past two decades, the poultry industry has grown fantastically. Since 1940 annual poultry consumpton in the United States has increased from 22 pounds per person to 35-50.9 percent. Poultry production rose from 3.1 billions of pounds to 6.6 billions-112.9 percent. And gross farm income from poultry and poultry products went up from 1 to 3.5 billion dollars-250 percent. A further indication of the importance of poultry is the percentage it takes from the average family food budget. Today, the American housewife spends 12 cents of her food dollar on poultry. It is, therefore, a major and vital item in the diet of the American family.

Poultry production, per capita consumption of poultry meat, and gross farm income from poultry, 1940-541

1 Based on reports from the Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2 To nearest 10th of a billion.

Accompanying this fantastic rise of the industy was a revolution in marketing techniques by processors and retailers and a resultant revolution in the buying habits of the consumer. No longer does the housewife select her poultry alive and watch it cleaned and processed. Today, she buys her chickens, turkey, or duck supposedly ready for the oven. The fowl is completely processed and perhaps even cut up.

She now has little idea whether the poultry is diseased or healthy, whether or not it is really clean. The fowl may look satisfactory on the surface, but danger may nevertheless lurk. Inspection which may have been unnecessary in the past

is, therefore, in great need today.

B. Inspection-AMS program

The current state of inspection legislation is truly shocking. Poultry, unlike most major foods, may be sold filthy and diseased with only a few exceptions. On a Federal, State, and municipal level, virtually no effective inspection for wholesomeness exists.

An agency of the Federal Government does currently conduct a nonregulatory form of poultry inspection service. That is the Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture. Its program is a voluntary one, hired and paid for by the processor.

The processor is under no obligation whatsoever to use this service. In fact, if he does use it, he must pay the full cost and is thereby monetarily penalized. As a result, only 20 percent of the plants shipping in interstate commerce employ the Agricultural Marketing Service's inspection program-some 205 plants out of the estimated 1,357.

However, even if its services were in more widespread use, the Agricultural Marketing Service's program would not give adequate protection to the consumer. Its operation has at best been slipshod. It is ridden with conflicts of interests and has, on numerous occasions, been criticized as toadying to the industry instead of having the interests of the consumer uppermost as an objective.

Later in this statement I shall cover in some detail our reasons for not having confidence in the poultry program of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

C. Food and Drug Administration activity

The Food and Drug Administration is held responsible by law for dealing with adulterated and contaminated foods. However, it currently has neither the authority nor the funds to give the consumer true protection as far as poultry is concerned.

As previously stated, the consumer can be assured of clean and healthy poultry at the processing stage only if an inspector can check each fowl. That is done in meat inspection and must be done in any poultry inspection. However, the Food and Drug Administration cannot currently do that.

Allow me to quote a former and the present FDA Commissioner on this point. Former Commissioner C. W. Crawford wrote to Congresswoman Leonor K. Sullivan, of Missouri, in September 1954:

"We estimate that there are approximately 1,300 interstate poultry dressing, freezing, or canning establishments in the United States. For the past 2 years we have made about 400 poultry establishment inspections each year, of which we estimate that perhaps one-fourth represent reinspection of the same firms. Thus, our program contemplates complete coverage of this industry about once every 3 or 4 years." [Italic added.]

His successor, the present Commissioner George P. Larrick, went even further in a letter to me of April 21, 1955. He wrote:

"Your assumption is correct that our average rate of inspection coverage of the poultry processing plants amounts to a spot check once every 3 or 4 years. One such inspection of 1 plant at 1 time requires, on the average, 5 or 6 hours of an inspector's time. It is also true, as you suggest, that such a spot check cannot guarantee the wholesomeness or the legality of products prepared at other times.. However, lest this be misleading to you, we must point out that in many instances reasonably valid conclusions with respect to the probability of diseased or otherwise illegal poultry being shipped from a plant can be drawn from the observation made during an inspection of this type, and conversations with employees.

"*** Although some lots of cull poultry are recognized as obviously diseased from the external appearance of the carcass, it is our view that not only postmortem but also ante-mortem examination is essential to a full program of protection of the consumer from diseased poultry." [Italic added.]

In other words, the Food and Drug Administration cannot, under present circumstances, guarantee protection against disease for the poultry consumer. New legislation providing the mandatory inspection of poultry is needed for that.

D. State inspection programs

As far as we

Adequate State poultry inspection is virtually nonexistent. know, no State has a law embodying the recommended standards of the United States Public Health Service for inspection, sanitation, and sanitary practices. Some attempt to safeguard consumers by having a health department inspector (1) make occasional checks and (2) keep an eye on processors who have a record of selling diseased birds or of maintaining unsanitary plants. This is the same type of limited activity the Food and Drug Administration can currently undertake. Unfortunately, this activity cannot give the consumer the protection he needs.

A number of States have been or currently are, working on poultry inspection legislation. A few other States are said to be interested. However, the overwhelming majority are reportedly planning to follow the usual pattern in food legislation. That is, they will wait for the Federal Government to act and then consider parallel legislation.

78733-56- -8

IV. DEMAND FOR MANDATORY INSPECTION

Clearly, the present need for inspection, sanitation, and sanitary practices legislation must be filled. On a local, State, and Federal level, the executive and legislative branches must enact laws to protect the consumer against the hazards which poultry now holds.

Inspection brought a healthy and prospering industry, offering a clean and safe product, out of the jungle which once characterized the meatpacking industry. Today, all commercially shipped meat in interstate traffic is inspected and further, meatpacker, meatpacking employees, and consumer benefit. The same can come true for the various groups concerned with poultry.

Mandatory inspection of poultry for wholesomeness has long been demanded by many and varying groups. Public-health organizations, women's clubs, labor unions, industry groups, consumer organizations, medical associations, veterinary groups, have all asked that the consumer be protected by an inspection system.

We shall offer for the record, Mr. Chairman, many resolutions, statements, and endorsements of the principle of mandatory inspection. Here, however, I should like to quote parts of just a few resolutions to demonstrate the widespread demand for such legislation.

The Conference of State and Territorial Health Officers recommended at its November 1955 meeting:

"That the Federal Government establish the following:

"(a) Requirement that all poultry shipped interstate be eviscerated.

"(b) Requirement that all poultry shipped interstate be inspected before and after slaughter for wholesomeness.'

The executive council of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, meeting in Miami, February 9, 1956, urged that:

“*** a strict compulsary and effective poultry regulation and inspection program be enacted to guarantee the American consumer that all poultry shipped in interstate commerce will be processed under sanitary conditions and will be free from disease."

The National Grange, which includes poultry growers among its members, resolved at its annual convention in Cleveland, Ohio, November 1955:

“*** The National Grange, therefore, recommends that a Federal poultryinspection system comparable to Federal red-meat inspections should be established and that the Public Health Service work out minimum health and sanitation standards for poultry slaughtering plants for adoption by States." In December 1955, the American Institute for Poultry Industries, the trade association of some of the poultry processors, also called for mandatory poultry inspection. It declared:

“*** the institute, its board of directors and its members favor the development and adoption of sound, mandatory inspection for wholesomeness programs for all poultry and poultry products, provided such programs are paid for from Federal and State funds."

The Hoover Commission Task Force on Federal Medical Services also concluded in its report of February 1955, that the Federal Government would have to take action on the poultry problem. It said:

"Federal inspection of meat contrasts in form as well as in cost with its inspection of poultry. Whereas about four-fifths of the Nation's meat is slaughtered and packed under compulsory meat inspection, Federal poultry inspection not only is voluntary, but also is financed by fees from users of the service and covers less than one-fifth of the Nation's commercial poultry supply. * * * "Both the United States Livestock Sanitary Association and the Conference of State and Territorial Health Officers have recommended that State and local governments strengthen their poultry inspection and sanitation programs.

"But, as yet, only a few States have compulsory poultry inspection. Especially, in view of the recent growth of the poultry industry, we do not believe we can expect the States alone to provide the needed controls." [Italic added.]

V. INSPECTION-HOW AND BY WHOM

To decide that mandatory inspection of poultry for sanitation and wholesomeness is a good thing takes us only part way toward meeting current consumer need. Inspection for wholesomeness and cleanliness must be broken down for the three factors it is to provide: (1) the product's freedom from disease; (2) plant, facility, and equipment sanitation; and (3) sanitary processing practices.

Then further decisions must be made-what sort of inspection is desired, who will undertake it, and who will pay for it. These questions must be answered adequately or the mandatory inspection may be meaningless—an act on the statute books but no protection for the consumer.

A. Ante mortem and post mortem inspection

The AMCBW firmly and fully believes that ante mortem (before slaughter) inspection is needed as well as post mortem (after slaughter). The details of ante mortem inspection should, we believe, be determined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and established in regulations supplementing the law. But congressional action would be less than meaningless if it did not provide for ante mortem inspection. We are happy to see that S. 3176 makes such a specific provision. It is one of the reasons why we welcome and endorse this bill.

I have already quoted Food and Drug Commissioner Larrick and Dr. C. A. Brandly on the need for ante mortem inspection. Their words are worth repeating.

Commissioner Larrick wrote:

"*** it is our view that not only post mortem but also ante mortem examination is essential to a full program of protection of the consumer from diseased poultry."

Dr. Brandly wrote:

"Full-scale efforts to discourage the marketing of questionable or sick fowls by rigid ante mortem and post mortem inspection must precede and accompany well-planned and persistent programs to eradicate the avian reservoirs of infection."

A veterinary officer of the United States Public Health Service who played a major role in developing the suggested inspection ordinances for States, counties, and municipalities provides several specific reasons for ante mortem inspection. In a paper presented to the public health section program of the American Veterinary Medical Association's 92d Annual Meeting (Minneapolis, Minn., August 15-18, 1955), Dr. Joe W. Atkinson said:

"For purposes of assuring adequate official inspection, careful observation of poultry before slaughter (ante mortem inspection) is, perhaps, even more essential now than was the case a few years ago. The increased incidence of respiratory diseases, particularly in young poultry commercially produced, is an important factor. Upper respiratory infections may affect the bird sufficiently to make it appear sick and plainly unacceptable or suspect if observed before slaughter, yet may pass unnoticed on routine examination by the post mortem inspector. As a matter of fact, the upper respiratory tract may be examined very superficially, if at all, on post mortem inspection, unless the inspector knows the bird is suspect.

"Another factor contributing to the increased importance of ante mortem inspection is the use in recent years of high scalding temperatures, which result in removal of the epidermal layer of the skin and give an almost uniformly white appearance to the dressed carcasses. Thus the darkened appearance formerly associated with certain septicemias and the abnormally pale appearance caused by some disease processes, no longer serve the post mortem inspector, in many instances, as indications of generalized effects of disease."

The practicability of ante mortem inspection is attested by even the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Though AMS rarely uses this type of inspection in its voluntary program, its official instructions (Instruction No. 918 (PY) Ante Mortem-1) states:

"* * * While it is not practical to handle and examine each live bird prior to slaughter, it is entirely feasible to visibly examine daily each battery of birds in the plant *

*

B. Sanitation standards and sanitary practices

Ante mortem and post mortem inspection guarantees the poultry's freedom from disease as well as is practically possible, according to experts. However, safeguards must also be established against the contamination by poultry during processing. That involves premise, facilities and equipment sanitation standards, and sanitary processing practices.

The contamination and adulteration of poultry through insanitary processing is as responsible as the poultry diseases, transmissible to man, for the existing