Senator MURRAY. Certainly conditions have changed in this country over the years. You mentioned how you used to get your food in your days. You are a young woman. I remember when we used to have market day every Wednesday and Saturday, and the farmers would come from around the country and bring in their dressed turkeys and chickens, butter, eggs, and everything else. I regret the passing of that period, but we are living in a new era, and we have to try to do the best we can to protect the health of the consumers and that is what we are trying to do here. Thank you very much for your statement. Is there any other person here who would like to make a statement in connection with this matter? We have heard everyone that has requested to appear, and if there are no other people here wishing to make statements, the proceedings will be terminated at this point. The hearing will be adjourned. Thank you very much for your presence here. And I am sure that the results of the hearing will be beneficial. (By direction of the chairman, the following is made a part of the record :) Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: This department wishes to express its full approval of bill S. 3176, "compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products," and urges that the bill be enacted. It is estimated that approximately 5 million pounds of poultry are sold each week in New York City. Of this, the largest percentage is New York dressed poultry which has been defeathered but in which the viscera has not been removed. Ante-mortem inspection of such poultry is not performed and postmortem inspection can only be done on a spot-check basis with our very limited personnel of sanitarians. However, eviscerated poultry is receiving increasing consumer acceptance and all eviscerated or processed poultry that is shipped to this city for sale must have ante- and post-mortem inspection in conformity with section 163 of our sanitary code. This section requires that all eviscerated or processed poultry that is shipped to this city "shall have been inspected and passed as fit for consumption as human food by a duly authorized inspector of the United States Department of Agriculture or of any foreign or other domestic inspection service approved by the Board of Health of the City of New York, and shall have been marked, stamped, or labeled as having been so inspected or passed." Most of the eviscerated or processed poultry shipped to this city emanates from federally inspected establishments. However, a considerable percentage originates in communities throughout the United States in which the local inspection service has been approved by our board of health after correspondence indicates that the service appears to be satisfactory. It is not practical for this Department to regularly supervise such "approved" inspection services in towns and cities scattered all over the country. However, spot checks have disclosed that the sanitary conditions of these plants are often quite deplorable and we suspect that in many cases, despite the certification by the local agency, a veterinarian is not always on the premises to inspect all of the poultry being slaughtered and eviscerated. Furthermore, it is obvious that there is a complete lack of uniformity in the standards maintained by these various community services. If this bill were passed, all poultry entering the city of New York would be eviscerated and would have received both ante- and post-mortem inspections in plants operated and maintained in a sanitary manner. We feel that poultry should receive inspection on a national scale similar to the mandatory Federal inspection services now provided for meat and meat products. Enactment of this bill would enable the citizens of this city, as well as other communities, to receive poultry that has been processed in a sanitary manner and is free of disease. We strongly recommend that this bill be enacted into law. Very truly yours, LEONA BAUMGARTNER, M. D., Commissioner of Health. STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Denver, May 4, 1956. STATEMENT OF ROY L. CLEERE, M. D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH I, Roy L. Cleere, M. D., am and have been for the past 20 years the executive director of the Colorado State Department of Public Health. During my tenure of office I have become familiar with the poultry industry and the public's need for a sound inspection program designed for the protection of the public health and welfare. I sincerely regret my inability to appear personally before the subcommittee of the Senate's Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to express my views in support of S. 3176. In lieu thereof, I respectfully transmit, herewith, the official opinions and recommendations of the Colorado State Department of Public Health in relation to this proposed legislation. Colorado is predominantly a poultry-importing State, and, therefore, we are vitally concerned with legislation affecting the interstate movement of products of this class, especially if the acceptance of such products becomes obligatory. It is most gratifying to know that efforts are being made to place the authority for poultry inspection under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. Such designation appears most feasible inasmuch as the Food and Drug Administration, having been established for the express purpose of protecting consumer interests and public health and being in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, is eminently qualified to administer such a program. The food and drug services in most States are a responsibility of the State departments of public health and there exists a most congenial and harmonious working relationship and liaison between these State services and the Food and Drug Administration. It must be emphsized that if Federal poultry inspection is placed under the administration of the Department of Agriculture by statutory authority, that the Food and Drug Administration will be denied by law from cooperating with State and local health agencies in the seizure of filthy, putrid, diseased, or otherwise unwholesome poultry which has been in interstate commerce. It is recognized that the authority for poultry inspection, in the past, has been vested in the Department of Agriculture. This administrative location has been based on the fallacious premise that all products produced on farms naturally become the responsibility of Agriculture. It must be further recognized that the basic law creating the Department of Agriculture does not confer upon it the responsibility for the protection of consumer interests and health, but rather, the promotion of agriculture and agricultural products. Public health benefits, therefore, accruing to the consumer are of secondary concern. We fully agree that the Department of Agriculture should serve to promote the interests of agriculture, but the combination of promotion and health protection appear incompatible. This concept has been amply demonstrated by the current poultry inspection program operated by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture. In 1950 the Food and Drug Administration seized a shipment of poultry on the eastern seaboard which was processed in a Federal establishment in Colorado. This seizure was made on the basis that the birds were diseased and emaciated. Investigation revealed that the establishment which processed this poultry was operating under Federal approval for grading only but that there was no actual line inspection of the products to determine their freedom from disease. During March of 1951 a representative of the Inspection Service of the Production and Marketing Administration made an inspection of a poultry establishment located in the city of Denver. This establishment had been closed by the local authorities for noncompliance with municipal statutes and State regu lations. Without knowledge of local authorities, this plant was approved for Federal poultry inspection. In January 1953 this department, in cooperation with the local health departments in the State, impounded approximately three carloads of frozen turkeys distributed by the Production and Marketing Administration to the State welfare department consigned for use in school-lunch programs and charitable institutions. The turkeys were declared as unfit for human consumption because of a high percentage of spoilage and contamination. This matter was brought to the attention of Production and Marketing Administration officials in Washington, D. C., with no direct action. It was not until a second shipment was received in February 1953, and which again was declared as unfit for food because of a high percentage of spoilage and contamination, that the Production and Marketing Administration dispatched personnel to investigate the circumstances. The matter of disposition of these turkeys was a matter of concern to this department inasmuch as we are charged with the protection of the health of the food of the consumers of this State. We objected to the proposals of the Production and Marketing Administration that this poultry be consigned to a plant for further processing and canning. It must be agreed that the poultry industry is in a position to influence the policies of the Department of Agriculture to a far greater extent than they could the Food and Drug Administration. In many instances these policies do not necessarily reflect the best interests of the consuming public. The efforts and funds being expended by the industry to direct this program into Agriculture rather than Health is testimony support of this statement. As an example of this fact I quote, herewith, from a newsletter issued by the Institute of American Poultry Industries under date of November 4, 1955. In an address by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture John Davis to representatives of the Associated Egg & Poultry Industries, Secretary Davis stated in reference to the Agricultural Reorganization Act, "We're more interested in getting industry cooperation to improve the poultry inspection service than we are in where this function is carried out. We'll leave it with the Poultry Division in AMS or transfer it to the Meat Inspection Division-as you recommend." The conduct of poultry inspection by an agency in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would enable that agency to engage in investigations of absenteeism among plant employees to determine if the products processed may be the cause of illness, such as psittacosis. This would combine programs of product wholesomeness with the investigation of human illness and improve occupational health conditions. Such programs would be conducted in cooperation with the State and local health departments which are already integrated with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in united effort for the control of infectious and contagious disease. This committee, of its own knowledge and by testimony, is well aware of the problems and undesirable features of the existing poultry-inspection program now administered by the Department of Agriculture, and it would appear, therefore, to serve no constructive purpose to review in retrospect our experiences. It seems desirable to project into the future objectively in anticipation of a more acceptable program administered by an agency which will function in the best interests of consumer health. For the information of this committee, I am enclosing, herewith, a copy of a letter which was addressed to the Honorable Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture, on the date of March 10, 1953. It is believed that this letter will express the official attitudes of the Colorado State Department of Public Health as it relates to the current program. In view of the statements contained herein, the Colorado State Department of Public Health urges that this committee give favorable consideration to S. 3176. MARCH 10,1953. The Honorable EZRA TAFT BENSON, Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. DEAR SECRETARY BENSON: For several years the Colorado State Department of Public Health has not been in accord with the policies and practices of the Production and Marketing Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture. On several occasions we have communicated with representatives of that agency pointing out our dissatisfaction with the poultry grading and inspection program and especially the lack of consideration shown for local and State laws and regulations. The grading and inspection service of the Production and Marketing Administration operates in Colorado in disregard for the responsibilities vested in State and local programs where joint jurisdictions exist, and functions as an autonomous Federal agency within the State. Experiences herewith related have motivated this communication and merely emphasize the problems which arise in our relationship with the Production and Marketing Administration : 1. In 1950 the Federal Food and Drug Administration seized one carload of turkeys originating from a processing plant in Colorado. It was determined that a few of these turkeys were affected with fowl cholera, and upon investigation it was learned that the processing was accomplished in an establishment operating under Production and Marketing Administration grading service. This matter never was brought to our attention by the grading service of the Production and Marketing Administration. 2. In March 1951, a representative of the inspection service of the Production and Marketing Administration made an inspection of a poultry establishment located in the city of Denver. This establishment had been closed by the local authorities for noncompliance with municipal statutes and State regulations. Without knowledge of local authorities, this plant was approved for Federal poultry inspection. 3. On January 28, 1953, we again addressed a communication to the grading service of the Production and Market Administration further requesting that they discontinue the practice of making direct inspections without our knowledge in establishments operating under the jurisdiction of this department. Under date of March 5, we received a reply to this communication advising that it would not be acceptable to the Production and Marketing Administration to inform this State when personnel from that agency conduct inspections in Colorado, and that they reserved the right to visit any plant in Colorado without our knowledge and consent. 4. In January 1953, this department in cooperation with the local health departments in the State impounded approximately three carloads of frozen turkeys distributed by the Production and Marketing Administration to the State welfare department consigned for use in school-lunch programs and charitable institutions. The turkeys were declared as unfit for human consumption because of a high percentage of spoilage. This was brought to the attention of Production and Marketing Administration officials in Washington, D. C., with no direct action. It was not until a second shipment was received in February 1953, and which again was declared as unfit for food, because of a high percentage of spoilage, that the Production and Marketing Administration dispatched personnel to investigate the circumstances. The matter of disposition of these turkeys is still in litigation, and this Department, charged with the protection of the health of the food consumers of this State, objects to the proposals of the Production and Marketing Administration that such poultry be consigned to a plant for further processing and canning. We are not unaware of your Department's responsibilities to the economic interests of agriculture, but by the same token we believe that your agency has a basic obligation for the protection of the consumers as it is charged with the inspection and grading of many perishable food commodities. The interests of the poultry industry of Colorado have been severely injured by the publicity resulting from the spoiled frozen turkeys which were distributed in the State by the Production and Marketing Administration. In fairness to a group which is cooperating with State and local authorities, it is believed that measures should be instituted by your Department, in order that a recurrence of this situation, with further damage to the poultry industry be avoided. It is my considered opinion that you, as Secretary of Agriculture, evaluate the services and responsibilities of the Production and Marketing Administration, especially as they relate to the safety and protection of food supplies, and the relationship of that agency to the States and municipalities with the objective of establishing closer and more harmonious States relations. Very truly yours, R. L. CLEERE, M. D., M. P. H., Executive Director. Hon. LISTER HILL, UNITED STATES SENATE, Chairman, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. May 22, 1956. DEAR SENATOR HILL: Along with many of our colleagues, I have been interested in the inauguration of a compulsory inspection program for the poultry industry. With that in mind, I have cosponsored S. 3588 which would establish such a program in the Department of Agriculture and have requested the opportunity to be listed as cosponsor of S. 3176, introduced by Senator Murray for himself and others, which would establish such a programi in the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. After studying the matter further, it is my conviction that the program should be in the Department of Agriculture, preferably under the Agricultural Research Service which administers the red meat inspection program. Toward that end, it is my hope that a bill will not be reported out of the Labor Committee so that the Agriculture Committee may report S. 3588 in one form or another. Thank you. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It has come to my attention that a Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is beginning hearings on S. 3176, a bill to provide compulsory poultry inspection under the Food and Drug Administration. As you know, the poultry industry is one of the largest agricultural industries in Maine today. In the past few weeks, I have had a number of letters and telegrams from representatives of the poultry industry in Maine expressing opposition to S. 3176. It is the feeling of the poultry raisers that poultry inspection should be administered by the Department of Agriculture rather than by the Food and Drug Administration. It is my hope that the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare will take the objections of the poultry industry into full account in their consideration of S. 3176. As a cosponsor of S. 3588, which would provide for compulsory poultry inspection to be administered by the Department of Agriculture on much the same basis as present inspection of cattle, hogs, lambs, etc., I am very much opposed to the alternate proposal contained in S. 3176. With very best wishes. Sincerely yours, Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor, FREDERICK G. PAYNE, United States Senator. UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., May 18, 1956. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Vigorous protests are coming to me from the poultry industry of Iowa against S. 3176 and I have been asked to urge you to transfer this question of mandatory inspection of poultry to the Senate Committee on Agriculture without reporting a bill from the Committee on Labor. Your action in this respect will be greatly appreciated by an overwhelming majority of the poultry industry. Sincerely yours, THOS. E. MARTIN. |