at the cover of one book and getting another. It does not provide for anything but a protective shroud to forestall real inspection.

In the Army, there is an old saying, you just put the blanket over you and you are covered. That is what this bill does. It protects something and I do not know what they are trying to protect other than unscrupulous operators for no legitimate properly equipped food processor has ever been harmed by good inspection.

Under section 15 of 3588, there is a proviso which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, at the start of the hearings, which our group thinks should be included in 3176. That is the proviso which allows for the exemption for a poultry farmer to sell his own product to the consumer without having the necessity of going through an inspected plant. We would like to suggest that section 15 (a) be put in, in toto, in 3176, if that is possible within your estimation.

Now, 15 (b), I think, is rather interesting. In 15 (b) the bill states that for 2 years following the effective date of this act, and I think the effective date of the act is 1958 or prior to July 1, 1958, the Secretary of Agriculture can grant an exemption for 2 years after July 1, 1958.

Now, you would believe, if you read this as an ordinary person, not legally, and I have had this checked by a lawyer in my State, that this would allow only for an exemption up to 1960. We are now in 1956, and the proviso says that 2 years after July 1, 1958, you may grant an exemption for 2 years.

However, that is not what it says, Mr. Chairman. It says that for 2 years after July 1, 1958, the Secretary may grant an exemption. It is not for 2 years. He may grant an exemption. You go down to an entirely different section which pulls it out of context so that you cannot say that it applies, and you go to 15 (c), and it says, "The Secretary may terminate exemption certificates at any time."

He does not have to terminate in 2 years or 3 or 20 years. He may terminate it at any time. He may terminate it in 1 day, or he may never terminate it. It is at his discretion. So that that proviso, we think, will again provide for just a cover, and that you are never going to get real inspection.

There is another very important thing to our health officers, and that is section 18 (a). Everyone has known that the red-meat inspection service is a very good service. Everyone agrees it is a good service. Even Congressmen from Georgia agree that they have nothing against the red-meat thing. They are for compulsory inspection, and for everything that is good and none of us is for sin.

I am sure of that. That is usually true. But in section 18 (a), this provides something that is not provided in the Red Meat Inspection Act. This provides that the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture in the fields within the scope of this act shall be exclusive, and poultry products shall also be exempted from the provisions of the act of June 25, 1938.

They do not tell you what it is, but, if this bill goes through, it exempts poultry from the action of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and we think from the State Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and from the ordinances of local departments of health. It would prevent us from doing something, we feel, unless this is clarified. We may be wrong. We feel that it would prevent us from doing anything once poultry has gotten a United States shield on it and it has gone

bad-prevent us from doing anything about it, because of this exclusive exception which does not apply in the Red Meat Inspection Act. We do not thing that that should be in there. The one real sleeper, I think, that should be noticed by the committee is 18 (b), in case you intend to change 3176 as we may be doing. I am not trying to read 3588 for your benefit, but I am trying to say there have been changes suggested, and I do not want any of these changes to be thought of from our association's standpoint, unless you realize this point: That is section 18 (b). It says:

In carrying out the provisions of this act, the Secretary may cooperate with other branches of Government, and with State agencies and may conduct such examinations, investigations, and inspections as he determines practicable through any officer or employee of a State commissioned by the Secretary for such purpose.

This sounds like we are all friends, and we are fine companions. But the people in regulatory work feel it should be clearly understood that we do not want this type of a provision for the Red Meat Inspection Act, because I think you can see that in My State and in many other States we do not have the possibility of having a type of stringent regulations which we think are important, and which we are trying to get, within our red-meat inspection department.

We are looking up to the acme of the Red Meat Inspection Act. This provides that any State, regardless of State aid, may be authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect the poultry and place, if you please, and there may be a United States inspection shield. on it, and with all of these other exemptions in the State of New Jersey, as you heard Dr. Haskins state, he would not have been in a position, nor would the man in Colorado have been in a position, to stop that poultry. You cannot touch it, it is exempt because it is under this act, and the Secretary of Agriculture has authorized the State to use their plan to do it, and once it gets that on there, then we are excluded by Federal law from interfering with interstate commerce and specifically, by this act, from excluding it under any of our Federal food, drug, and cosmetics acts.

This provides for something which has been suggested for a number of years, and that is that the State of so-and-so shall have an inspection system under its control and then it shall pay 9.5 percent or some kind of tribute for overhead inspection that goes down to Washington, to supposedly supervise the inspection service of that locality.

This is a cumbersome, awkward way of handling it. If Congress desired to have an inspection service for poultry, which I feel they owe to the consumers, on an interstate basis, then they should have a compulsory poultry inspection law, such as the type you have prepared.

The New Jersey Health Officers Association feels that at the minimum-and I may state at this point that I have also been authorized to make this statement for the Veterinary Medical Association for the State of New Jersey, which are the veterinarians of the State of New Jersey, that at the minimum-although both of these organizations approve whole heartedly and without any compunction the action of 3176, of placing the inspection in the Federal Food and Drug Administration, we feel that is where it should be in spite of the fact that the Federal food and drug authorities do not want to take something new, on which they owe to the public and they are afraid that

they might not have the staff to do it-At the minimum, it should be placed in the Red Meat Inspection Branch by direction of Congress to the Secretary of Agriculture, and not leaving it up to him to decide, because we have had too many instances, and inferences whereby it will not be placed where it should be placed for the protection of the

consumer.

That is the analysis as far as those two groups are concerned. If I might just introduce one statement from the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians.

This is a letter which was sent from the State of Georgia. Our Association, I would like you to know, Mr. Chairman, of State Public Health Veterinarians, has not done this by hearsay, and we have not done it by indirection. We have done it by direct contact with our members. We sent a letter to the members of the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians. If I may, this is just a two-page thing, and may I read this at this time?

Senator MURRAY. It may be read.

Dr. SUSSMAN. I think it is important for it to be read, if I may. This is sent to the members of the Association of State Public Health Veterinarians from myself, as secretary-treasurer, at the direction of the executive board.

As you recall, there was a companion bill put into the Congress which has approximately the same wording as yours, and it was introduced by Congressman Priest, and at that time we were referring to that resolution, and that is H. R. 8599. The letter reads as follows:

This is to inform you that in the 84th Congress, 2d session, H. R. 8599 was introduced by Mr. Priest. This bill refers to the interstate movement of unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome poultry products. In line with previous discussions that we have had, therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon me as secretary to poll your votes for submission to the executive board and our president, Dr. Hines, for I believe that we will be asked, or, that we should offer, our views on this bill.

Briefly, the bill covers the requirement for the inspection of poultry going in interstate commerce. The bill places the responsibility for this inspection in the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

There is likely to be considerable discussion and opposition from the Department of Agriculture, for this poultry inspection service has, up until recently, been degenerating into a sales-promotion program and has not been under top administration of veterinarians but rather on the basis of graders and sanitarians. Undoubtedly, the question will be raised as to whether our organization and others like it feel that food inspection would be better maintained in a consumer protective agency such as Food and Drug Administration in comparison to the United States Department of Agriculture which is normally considered and has acted as a producer, processor, protective organization. With this in mind and knowing that this bill, H. R. 8599, will create

(1) The requirement for inspection of all interstate shipped slaughtered poultry;

(2) an inspection service in the Federal Food and Drug Administration, with top supervision by veterinarians—

will you, therefore, vote on these following questions:

"Question: If our organization makes a statement before the Congress committee, shall we approve (x), or disapprove ( ), the bill as it stands?

"Question: Shall we, if asked to qualify our statement, indicate our general agreement that consumer protective agencies should handle consumer protective problems (x), or, shall we make no statement to this effect? ().”

And he said: "It might be best to leave this question to the judgment of those in charge at the time statement is needed."

Question: Will you make any further comments on the bill and, if so, what would they be? Elaborate.

And he said: "With specific reference to poultry and poultry products the consumer has been the forgotten man.

"Most of this inspection heretofore provided has been slanted toward pulling the producers economic lot out of the fire rather than protecting the consuming public against a contaminated, unwholesome, or even dangerous product.

"Participation of health department personnel is vital, in my opinion, with top supervision by veterinarians. From an organization viewpoint this can be best provided within the existing framework of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and State health departments rather than the Department of Agriculture."

It is signed by the man from the State Department of Public Health of Georgia.

I would like to point out

Senator MURRAY. Could we keep that copy?

Dr. SUSSMAN. If I may have a photostat back, you may keep the original. This is signed by the man, but I would like to have a photostat made.

Senator MURRAY. We can return the original to you.

Dr. SUSSMAN. One thing that came up yesterday was an inference that by placing the inspection service in the Department of Agriculture, there would be no duplication of service and that they have the personnel available in the Department of Agriculture to do it. I think it is important to point out that when the Food and Drug Administration was moved from the Department of Agriculture to get away from the pressures of the producer and the processor of the products which were supposed to be protected by the Food and Drug Administration for the protection of the consuming public, they took the Food and Drug Administration in toto and moved it into the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The brains, the personnel, and the know-how went with the move. There is no reason why, if your committee or Congress does shift the poultry inspection service as such, from the Department of Agriculture to an agency where it should be, that the whole poultry inspection corps of top brass and know-how, which are good know-how, should not be moved in toto over to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Minus those people who are charged only with, or primarily with the sales of the product, that could be done.

However, unless that is done, and the man from the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Butz, would not answer the question as to whether the Congress put it into the Department of Agriculture, whether it would go into the Red Meat Inspection Branch-I think it should be realized that although everyone has been worried about duplication of services, there will essentially be a continuation of duplication of services if the poultry inspection service remains in the Poultry Branch.

So that unless Congress actually enacts a bill which says that the poultry inspection service per se is moved into the red-meat inspection service as has been suggested by the American Veterinary Medical Association, I believe we are missing a bet and just swallowing something like a fish, and we are going to get hooked with a duplication of services when we do not really want it.

Thank you very much. I would be glad to answer questions. Senator MURRAY. It is fine to have that complete statement from you. Thank you very much.

Senator MURRAY. Mrs. Frances Wright.

STATEMENT OF FRANCES WRIGHT, PRESIDENT OF
HOUSEWIVES UNITED

Mrs. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Frances Wright, president of Housewives United, a small national club of women interested, first of all, in their homes and families. And certainly clean, wholesome food for our husbands and children is one of our major concerns.

We are therefore wholeheartedly in favor of the passage of S. 3176 to insure the proper inspection of poultry, before and after slaughter, that is sold in interstate commerce.

Although we have had tasteless fowls, the members of the national board here in Washington have had no personal experience with filthy or diseased birds, but that could be just our good luck.

After I wrote that I found out that one of our people did have, and was sick for several days. We have heard about them: A friend here told us about a large rotten spot she had found on her turkey last Thanksgiving. And in November 1954 a man in California who owned several meat markets wrote us that the filth and disease in the wholesale poultry industry were a serious hazard to the health of American families. I may say we have done all we could to help the Food and Drug Administration, and we are not big, and we have done what we could.

And I well remember some of the reports of the Food and Drug Administration that talked about filthy poultry, about poultry that had had water injected into them before freezing in order to increase the weight, and about poultry that as the report expressed it—“had died otherwise than by slaughter."

Progress does sometimes bring problems and curtail freedom. When I was a little girl my grandmother could go out in the backyard and choose from her own flock the chicken she would have for Sunday dinner. When I was older, my mother got her broilers from a nice farmer who came down our street every Tuesday and Saturday with chickens and butter and eggs and fresh vegetables. But today Mrs. Housewife will most probably get her chicken from a large store, which, in turn, has bought its poultry stock from perhaps several of the estimated 1,300 poultry establishments.

Thus, the blame for a bad one is frequently hidden in anonymity. And, as I understand it, one filthy and diseased fowl in a processing plant can contaminate many others.

Raising chickens has become big business. But compulsory inspection to guard against disease and filth would certainly be good for the business. Prompt inspection during an epidemic among fowls might serve a large part of a dealer's stock in trade. And with the passage of this bill, housewives will feel a confidence in the purity and wholesomeness of all the poultry they serve on their dinner tables. This feeling of confidence is certainly in the American tradition.

If red meat should be inspected, and we definitely believe that it should, then why in the world should poultry not be inspected?

In the opinion of members of Housewives United, this legislation is long overdue. And we are very grateful to you, Senator Murray, and to your colleagues for having introduced it.

I may say that I wish fish also were included in the bill.