Page images
PDF
EPUB

violated by Federal officials that they will feel the effects of the same statutes which they threaten to use against officials in Colorado.

Regarding the testimony by Mr. Landrum of Georgia, I am impressed by the fact that Mr. Landrum is strictly swimming upstream with his testimony before your committee. He says that he has been told by word of mouth what has been going on in the hearings here. I wonder if he has been told by word of mouth or otherwise that the Southeastern Poultry Association of which his State is a member, wants mandatory inspection, and that of course, is the industry speaking. Seemingly, he was speaking for the industry, and not only Georgia, he said, but he was speaking for the industry of the entire United States.

I hope that Mr. Landrum gets around to reading that portion of the record which points out the fact that his own poultry association wants mandatory inspection.

I might point out also that there are a couple of news items coming from trade journals within the last 60 days. One of them speaks of Newcastle disease, a very malignant sort of thing which affects the human eye, and the mucous glands of the eye, and may be controlled eventually in Georgia. There is an item from Gainesville, Ga., which says that the Georgia poultry authorities are optimistic that the Newcastle outbreaks have been checked.

Dr. Dank Morris, of the Georgia Poultry Laboratories in Gainesville and also at the laboratory at Canton, states that few reports of new outbreaks within the past week-that is the week of March 16 of this year, and said that:

We are hopeful we have halted the spread of the virus.

Vaccination programs have been stepped up according to figures released this week.

Dr. Morris points out that—

it is obvious that growers are paying more attention to sound management practices. Because growers have become conscious of the results of careless and indifferent management, and are now taking proper steps to correct the situation, we are therefore confident the worst is over.

Of course, the public never gets this kind of information, Mr. Chairman. They still have the delusion that everything is wholesome if it has a shield which appears to be the official stamp of the United States Government through the Department of Agriculture which in my opinion, is a gross misuse of an official emblem.

He adds:

With growers paying particular attention to adequate vaccination and resuming good management there is little likelihood that there will be any seasonal loss normally dut to parasites.

Of course, even that story, as factual as it is, is talking about the seasonal loss to growers and not the year around loss to consumers. Then, here is an item from the Poultry and Eggs Weekly, of April 28, 1956, speaking of chronic respiratory disease, and the article has a byline of Dr. Jack R. Palmer, Georgia extension veterinarian. This is in the same tenor. It is all about the welfare and the well-being of the industry. I would like to submit that as a little bit too long to impose upon your patience at this point.

(The article is as follows:)

[Poultry and Eggs Weekly, April 28, 1956]

CHRONIC RESPIRATORY DISEASE

By Dr. Jack R. Palmer, Georgia extension veterinarian

The cause of chronic respiratory disease, also called air sac colds, or chronic air sac infection, is unknown but is now thought to be caused by a pleuropneumonialike organism (PPLO), a virus, a bacterial organism, or by a combination of these agents.

It has been shown that the PPLO can be transmitted through the egg from infected breeders. The disease can be transmitted by direct contact with infected birds or by exposure to contaminated equipment, feed, water, droppings, dust, and other material capable of carrying the agent.

While most of the cases occur in birds between 1 and 4 months of age, the disease also has been observed in old birds. The highest incidence is in the spring. The mortality is about 10 percent, but in certain outbreaks in broiler flocks, it has reached as much as 30 to 50 percent. The initial respiratory symptoms are usually no different from those seen in Newcastle disease or in bronchitis. When these symptoms persist longer than they do in these two diseases, CRD should be suspected. Reduced feed consumption is one of the first symptoms. Feed conversion is below normal, egg production gradually decreases by 10 to 40 percent (unlike bronchitis, or Newcastle disease where there is a sudden decrease).

BY SUPPLEMENTS

In acute outbreaks it is advisable to try to maintain a constant feed intake which may be achieved by vitamin and protein supplements and by feeding condensed buttermilk with the mash or grain. None of the various antibiotics really destroys the CRD agent but, at best, reduces temporarily the severity of the disease and increases the appetite and improves the general condition of the flock. An antibiotic will not control the spread of the disease unless a high level of sanitation and management is maintained.

The most promising control measure is a blood-testing program similar to the pullorum typhoid program now in effect. Successful techniques have been developed and will be released for general field application as soon as the tests are completed.

Mr. RILEY. We still want clean, disease-free poultry or we do not want any poultry. We think a great deal of the human stomach, and a lot more than the dollar sign which has been paraded up and down by those who are bleeding hearts for the industry. We do not like this public-be-damned attitude of the Department of Agriculture which was demonstrated before your committee yesterday.

I never heard the word "consumer" used at any time by the official witnesses, and it was all about being friendly with industry. Without the consumer, there would not be any industry, and we think this thing is turned around, and it ought to be directed down the one-way street in the other direction.

We are particularly alarmed, and I might even use the word "concerned" about provisions in the administration bill, S. 3588. The three points of that I sum up as follows: It is that the Secretary of Agriculture may make such inspections as he determines necessary. It provides that the Secretary may not prosecute, if he does not see fit to prosecute. The Secretary may exempt regions of the United States from all forms of inspection if in his wisdom that is the way to do it. We are in a head-on collision here between the interest of what we claim to be representing in my statement to you of 64 million consumers, and the industry at large.

Something has to give. That, Mr. Chairman, is it, as far as I am concerned.

Senator MURRAY. Your statement is very important to us, and we recognize that you do represent a large segment of our population, and, as usual, you are out in front to protect the welfare of the people, and of the country.

Thank you very much for your statement.

Senator MCNAMARA. I have no questions.

Mr. REIDY. I think the record should show, Senator, that with respect to the situation in Colorado that Mr. Riley referred to, our records do not show what kind of reprocessing the Production and Marketing Administration had in mind with respect to those three carloads of condemned poultry, nor what they intended to do with the reprocessed article. We have asked the Department for a full statement which they will provide.

Senator MURRAY. We will proceed.

Dr. Oscar Sussman is the next witness.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF DR. OSCAR SUSSMAN, D. V. M., REPRESENTING THE NEW JERSEY HEALTH OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Dr. SUSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am Oscar Sussman, and I am a graduate veterinarian, and I have a masters degree in public health (M. P. H.) from Yale University, School of Medicine, and I am here representing the New Jersey Health Officers Association at this time.

I would like to put in the record that I am not just authorized but I have actually been directed by the New Jersey Health Officers Association to point out what it considers some very flagrant abuses of Federal intervention in local health department problems that will actually be invoked if 3588, which has been discussed so liberally here, becomes law. I recognize this is a hearing on 3176. Our group last night, when I contacted them, felt it was very urgent, when I told them what happened yesterday, that these things be pointed out so that it should be in the record in the event there is any change made in 3176 which may, perhaps, accidentally take some of the provisions of 3588.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to go through this very quickly and just point out what we think is wrong with it.

Senator MURRAY. We are very glad to have you do that.

Dr. SUSSMAN. In the first place, 3588 purports to be a compulsory poultry-inspection measure. That is what it actually purports to be. The bill does not provide for any compulsory inspection. The bill actually provides for permissive legislation or permissive regulation on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture, should he deem it necessary in his estimation to make such regulations.

The bill 3176, on the other hand, does not leave that leeway to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The bill 3176 actually commands the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to have performed a compulsory inspection on each and every bird by a competent professional person. S. 3588 does not do that, and it leaves it up to the discretion of the Secretary.

Our association feels that this may, in the event it is left up to him, be determined in accordance with the wishes of the industry and not according to the wishes of the consumer or public health agencies who

are actually attempting to have a good type of inspection, which will provide for adequate inspection.

So, that is one of the points that we think should very clearly be borne in mind by the committee if they start to consider some changes in 3176.

The next thing I think that is important is that the bill puts the inspection, and I am speaking of 3588, in the Department of Agriculture, but it does not specify to the Secretary of Agriculture that it shall be placed in the Red Meat Inspection Division, or Branch, as it is now called. It merely states that he may place it where he wants it. Our association in looking at this bill finds there are many references to commerce and the bill is just inundated merely with the idea of being able to sell poultry, to be able to market the poultry, and to be able to push the poultry.

Now, our health officers association is not against selling poultry. I am a licensed health officer, and so are all of the licensed health officers in this association. We do not feel that we are against industry or against eating chicken. We have chicken fries and everything. But this is not what should be purported to be in a legislative measure which has to do with protection of public health. One is one, and the other is the other.

It is pretty nearly a black and white issue actually, except for one standpoint, and that is the consumers. We feel that when you get into a milk problem, when the consumers have confidence in the product and, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there is no poison in the product, it is not adulterated, the consumers will buy it. So, the actual man who is trying to sell it will be in a better position to sell, if the consumer has confidence in the inspection agency.

Now, one thing that our association is very clearly against in S. 3588 is authorization of the Secretary of Agriculture to ascertain from time to time cities or areas where poultry or poultry products are handled or consumed in such volume as to affect, burden, or obstruct the movement of inspected poultry products. He then is authorized to hold a hearing and he determines after that hearing whether this city or area shall come under the provisions of this act. He then publishes it in the Federal Register, and after the effective date of this designation of the area by him, the city of Newark, for example, would come under the provisos of the Federal Government. A man producing poultry in Vineland, N. J., selling it in Newark, if the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States deems it important to protect the sales of out-of-State competitors may have to come under Federal regulation and inspection. This is a health measure supposedly. To prevent competition of poultry sold in New Jersey, though poultry is produced in Vineland, N. J., and is sold in Newark, N. J., the United States Secretary of Agriculture can come in and determine that that poultry has to be under the Federal regulation. The health officers in New Jersey, and I who work for the State department of health, are very concerned with local prerogatives. You probably realize all people are concerned about that. We do not even in the State department of health in New Jersey-and we are right close to them-try to take the prerogatives away from the municipalities.

This is a reaching down by the Federal Government, right down to the local level of two separate municipalities, and telling the little

farmer-and everyone has been talking about the little farmer, and this is actually the poor little farmer down in Vineland, in New Jersey-that he cannot sell his product within his own State in Newark, N. J., unless he kowtows, to the United States Department and Agriculture and comes under their regulations.

We just feel in New Jersey, and I think this applies to a number of other States, that we can handle the health problems within our State if they will just prevent all of the bad, unwholesome, diseased poultry which goes into the channels of interstate trade when they do not want to sell it locally. That is all we want, the protection across the State line.

Now, S. 3176 does that. S. 3588 has been touted up to farm organizations as the bill that does not interfere with intrastate business. On the contrary, 3588 interferes most liberally with intrastate business, and whether the farm organizations object or not, the health officials in New Jersey, whom I represent, most violently object to that particular proviso.

I will now reply to section 5, of 3588. The Secretary, as I indicated before, shall, whenever processing operations are being conducted, make such examination, ante mortem, post mortem, or both, and reinspection as he determines necessary.

[ocr errors]

This sounds very good, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like you are getting ante- and post-mortem inspections or both or at least one. However, it is underlined in my copy here, which I have worked with my group on, "as he determines necessary.' If he does not determine it necessary, and you heard this gentleman from Georgia, I am afraid if some of the industry people have as much pressure ability as they have had in the past, maybe there will not be very much inspection if that particular type of thing comes in.

Again, in the bill that your committee proposes, S. 3176, this is not left up to any pressure tactics. The Secretary or whoever gets it, whether it is Agriculture or Health, must make an inspection post mortem, and he may make an inspection ante mortem. This does not apply with regard to 3588.

In section 10, there is a proviso in there that is disturbing if this bill S. 3588 becomes law. This is something that seemed astounding to all health officials I have spoken to, and particularly to the New Jersey Health Officers Association. It gives authority for the inspector to go in and look at the records. Say we have a truckload of poultry, and we do not know who owns it, and it is diseased, and we ask for the records. It says that you can ask for the records, and you can get the records, and he has got to give them to you or he is in violation, but if he gives you the records this is the proviso:

Provided that evidence obtained under this section shall not be used in a criminal prosecution of the person from whom it is obtained.

This is rather an astounding thing, you know. You ask for the records but as soon as you ask for the records, you cannot prosecute him. This is a sleeper, in the language we use in my association. This is what we call a real sleeper. The bill says on the top, "Compulsory inspection," and the consumer thinks he is getting something, and some of the Senators who may have voted for it think that they are getting something and when you look in the cover it is like looking

« PreviousContinue »