that the communities that do not have such inspection standards, and in the absence of a Federal inspection and compulsory service, the health of the people in the other communities would be considered as being menaced by our present poultry setup? Dr. HASKIN. I most certainly think so, and it is a very just statement to make in view of the facts that we have. Senator MCNAMARA. This quarter of a million pounds rejected, about what percentage would that be of your total supply? Mr. HEARL. It is a very small percentage. It would be less than 5 percent. Senator MCNAMARA. Would it be less than 1 percent? Mr. HEARL. Yes, it would be less than 1 percent. It is a large marketing area, but as this gentleman asked the question, we do know that the processors which are currently excluded are still in business, therefore, they are shipping into other marketing areas. They are not coming into our areas, and they are excluded from our area. They are still in business, however, and doing business in other areas. Mr. REIDY. May I follow that remark by asking this: When you ban the product of a particular plant from going into the Newark area, do you advise the Federal officials of that fact? Dr. HASKIN. Actually, not in most cases, but our banning of them has had cause for conferences, not directly, but the other way back. Suppose we banned a USDA house? That would go to the USDA, and then we would have a conference in our office, and that was the way they probably got wind of it, although we tried to make it as broad as possible, the notification as to the plant. But we don't know in many cases whether it is the type of USDA service that requires us to report those things. We would be very happy to, and I think after the last conference didn't we agree that we would notify them of every plant rejection regardless of whether it was USDA inspected or not? Mr. REIDY. I should think that that would be a good thing. Dr. HASKIN. At the last conference, that was decided. Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much for your very valuable testimony here today, Dr. Haskin. It is very important that we should get a thorough understanding of the situation. Dr. HASKIN. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this. Senator MURRAY. The next witness is Dr. Raymond Helvig, president of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians. STATEMENT OF R. J. HELVIG, PRESIDENT OF THE CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH VETERINARIANS, AS READ BY DR. OSCAR SUSSMAN Dr. SUSSMAN. I have been asked to present the statement of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians in place of Dr. Helvig. I am Dr. Oscar Sussman, representing the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians. The executive committee of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians has requested me as a member of the conference to read into the record the following letter representing the views of its membership, and signed by its president, Dr. R. J. Helvig: The Honorable JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislation Affecting Food and Drug Act, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this letter is to voice the support of the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians for the enactment of Senate bill 3176, presently under consideration by the subcommittee of which you are chairman. The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians commends the sponsors of S. 3176, and strongly urges that the committee support and encourage enactment of this vitally needed public health measure. 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. 3176. 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. 3176 would provide for such inspection of poultry and poultry products involved in interstate com merce. The conference appreciates the opportunity of testifying before this committee. Sincerely yours, R. J. HELVIG, President, Conference of Public Health Veterinarians. Senator MURRAY. If there are no questions, thank you very much. Dr. SUSSMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. Senator MURRAY. The next witness is Mrs. Paul Hartz. STATEMENT OF MRS. GENEVIVE OSLUND, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT OF THE GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mrs. OSLUND. I am representing Mrs. A. Paul Hartz, chairman of legislation for the General Federation of Women's Clubs, who is unable to be here. I am Mrs. Genevive Oslund, legislative assistant to the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Our organization has a direct membership of 875,000 women with an affiliated membership of 42 million women who are for the large part homemakers and who have a deep interest and concern in the proposed legislation now up for your consideration. Since its organization in 1890, the General Federation of Women's Clubs has worked for legislation to insure a pure and safe food supply. Dr. Harvey Wiley, who is often referred to as the father of the Pure Food and Drug Act, credited our organization with sparking the educational program which resulted in the passage of the act, and the subsequent establishment of the Pure Food and Drug Administration. It seems altogether fitting in this 50th anniversary year of the Food and Drug Administration that we should again come before a congressional committee to urge the passage of a bill which will insure the purity and safety of poultry, which has in recent years become a major item in the American diet. The General Federation does not believe that voluntary inspection can assure the consumer of healthy and clean poultry. We are aware that the Production and Marketing Division of the United States Department of Agriculture maintains an inspection service which is voluntary and for which the processor must pay. It is estimated that only 21 percent of the poultry in interstate commerce is inspected for wholesomeness and sanitation, but even in this low percentage, relatively large numbers of carcasses have been condemned as unfit. We also know that the Food and Drug Administration has the right to seize adulterated food including poultry, but due to limitation of staff and funds the average rate of inspection coverage of the poultry processing plants amounts to a spot check once every 3 or 4 years. Veterinary investigations have concluded there are over 25 diseases of poultry to which man is susceptible. The present Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration states that not only afterslaughter inspection is needed to protect the consumer, but beforeslaughter inspection as well. In earlier days, when life in our country was less complex, the canny eye of the housewife could tell by looking at the color of the comb, the condition of the feet and feathers, whether the bird was healthy. Today, the busy housewife is glad to find her poultry already killed and dressed, but her clues for wholesomeness have been eliminated. Therefore, we believe that in order to insure that there is clean, uncontaminated and healthy poultry in our markets, new legislation is needed to provide for the compulsory inspection both before and after slaughter. We commend the majority of the poultry industry, which has maintained good standards of sanitation. The phenomenal growth of the industry since 1940 is in a large part responsible for our predicament. The poultry industry is the third largest source of gross farm income of the Nation, while the per capita consumption has risen to 35 pounds per person. Under these circumstances we can no longer rely on voluntary inspection to protect the consumer against dirty, diseased, or otherwise unwholesome poultry. As yet only a few States have compulsory poultry and sanitation programs. The General Federation of Women's Clubs urges favorable consideration of S. 3176, an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the movement in interstate and foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome, or adulterated poultry or poultry products. Senator MCNAMARA. I have no questions. STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman and Senator McNamara, my name is George D. Riley. I am legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations supports the provisions of S. 3176. As the largest group of consumers, in excess of 60 million, we have a tremendous equity in this legislation. To us, it is incredible that anyone willingly would be so bold as to oppose this bill, directly or by indirection. There can be no equivocation over safety of the human stomach, no compromises between filth and cleanliness. To be told that a processing plant is inspected but the product is not inspected for complete safety and wholesomeness before and after slaughtering, is simply something we cannot understand. Or that the product is fully inspected all along the line but that the plant is plainly filthy, that, too, we cannot understand. How can a product be wholesome in itself and at the same time emanate from an unwholesome establishment? Such tolerance is not allowable for red meat. Yet what is good for red meat is too good for poultry. For 50 years, there has been a law upon which consumers have relied for protection against contamination, disease, general filth in the redmeat traffic. That law was passed only a few years after the scandals arising from supplying embalmed meat to our men in the Cuban campaign and elsewhere in the Spanish-American War. Senator MURRAY. I remember that very well. Mr. RILEY. They used formaldehyde, as you will remember, Senator. That was but a part of the antics of the "fast-buck" gentry of those days enriching themselves while draping the flag around their foul shoulders. Our members have the right to demand as strict protection in these three categories as poultry consumers as they receive under the redmeat law: (1) General health promotion. (2) Assurances against industrial hazards for those employed in the industry. (3) Processing conditions free from slightest suspicion. This is a moderate program for the consumer. components, this is exactly what we want: (1) Ánte mortem inspection. (2) Post mortem inspection. Broken down by (3) Sanitation of plant, facilities, and equipment. (5) Enforcement of this act by the Food and Drug Adminis tration. The American consumer has believed for years he was protected from filth and now finds he has been let down. A good job is done by some portions of the industry but we find it necessary to indict those in the industry who prefer to do things to their own liking those who use the same slimy, nasty water over and over for one batch after another of carcasses and who engage in all the rest of the decadent practices which prevail in those segments of the industry to which reference is made here. At present, some 35-five pounds of poultry are consumed per capita. Poultry is a major part of the food industry. Twelve cents of the food dollar goes for poultry and poultry products. Yet, as widespread as is poultry buying, our members report shocking conditions in the poultry processing plants. Expressions of astonishment have come from our members and their families who likewise wish to be poultry consumers. They have thought all along they have been safeguarded by their Uncle Sam. Sure, one can cook the filth and germs, but if that is what they want they should not have to pay poultry prices to get such fare. We are concerned not only about disease and the other situations, but we ask ourselves why somewhere in this Government officials have not called upon the Congress for the same law we seek here today to protect consumers. We do not need George Gobel to tell us anything about a "dirty bird." Maybe we can tell him. It is time for a real change in a new age. Too much profit has been made at the expense of the unsuspecting. We ask for early report on S. 3176 essentially in its present structural form. If I may offer some informal observations, based upon my attendance here at these most important hearings, I think that these hearings are vital, and sufficiently so that it seems to me that the TV camera men have overlooked an important bet by passing up the proceedings which you are conducting here today. There has been reference made in these hearings as of yesterday to the importuning by the Department of Agriculture into the seizure of three carloads of poultry in the State of Colorado. We have also heard the threats of legal action against individuals who raised their hands in order to try to attempt to protect the public health. We were told that the turkeys involved were designed to go into the stomachs of young Americans in the form of the school-lunch program. We are very jealous of that school-lunch program. I suppose we have given as much attention to the promotion of that program as perhaps all of the other forces combined in America, outside of the Government. That is to the point now, that I believe for the new fiscal year there will be some $60 million of Federal money spent on that program. We tink a great deal of the schoolchildren of Colorado, and we think a great deal of the schoolchildren of Nebraska and all of the other 46 States to the end that the Federal Government apparently through the Department of Agriculture is trying to salvage portions of these dirty birds, these contaminated birds and these filthy birds, and since Colorado did not want them they attempted to send them to the unsuspecting schoolchildren of Nebraska. Now, we think that that is a downright misuse of part of that $60 million and we hope that if there are such other cases, and the indications seem to point to the fact that there are, that they will be divulged in proper order and that if there are any statutes which are being 78733-56-15 |