Senator BENDER. That is all you have?

Mr. HARVEY. That is right.

Senator BENDER. Well, do you think that is an adequate force to protect that part of the country?

Mr. HARVEY. No, sir; I do not.

Senator BENDER. Have you been before us, your Department, to ask for additional protection?

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, sir.

Senator BENDER. And how recently?

Mr. HARVEY. In the current budget year and again right now for the succeeding budget year. Our budget is now pending before Senator Hill's committee, and it has been passed by the House.

Senator BENDER. I am concerned about this business of passing legislation which I agree with, by the way, but passing it without adequate enforcement or with enforcement that is rather sketchy. I do not want to belabor the issue or refer to horrible examples, but I have a brother who has been in the wholesale produce business and he is a very successful merchant in the Cleveland area, for the last 35 or 40 years.

He handles wholesale produce and he has colleges and many retail operations that he serves. I discussed this with him only last Sunday, and he says that the matter of inspections is wholly inadequate and practically nil.

Mr. HARVEY. I would not disagree with him on either count, Senator. I think it is going to be better, but let me say this: If the Food and Drug Administration had enough people to inspect all of this poultry and insure that no bad poultry got into the markets, there would not be any occasion for sitting here, and talking about the type of legislation that we are. However, whether that would be the correct approach to this particular problem is a question.

Now, we think not. We think that this situation that we have, bearing in mind that the poultry industry has sprung up like a mushroom in the last few years, away from the time that you bought them from your neighbor, and within just a few years we have a $2 billion poultry business.

We think that the conditions are analogous to the situation that we had with red meat back in 1906. Because of the public-health problems involved, as well as the other problems of fairness and decency in marketing that are involved, the type of inspection which passes all of the birds under individual scrutiny as contrasted with the type of inspection where our people get some information that things are not too good and go and inspect, the complete inspection is necessary in this commodity. I do not think it would be with respect to oranges, or thousands of other foods that I might name. Senator BENDER. You believe that the contention that is the reason for this bill is based on facts and not conjecture?

Mr. HARVEY. I am quite sure of that; yes, sir.

Senator BENDER. You think that there is a need for this, and these birds are carriers of diseases, and that the public health is menaced because of an inadequate inspection?

Mr. HARVEY. There is a definite public-health aspect to it; yes, sir. Senator BENDER. That is all.

Senator MURRAY. Are there any other questions?

The next witness will be Mr. Earl L. Butz.

STATEMENT OF EARL L. BUTZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY ROY W. LENNARTSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MARKETING SERVICES, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE; NATHAN KOENIG, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE; HERMON I. MILLER, DIRECTOR OF THE POULTRY DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE; DR. ROY E. WILLIE, CHIEF OF THE INSPECTION BRANCH OF THE POULTRY DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE; AND DAVID L. HUME, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE PAULTRY DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. BUTZ. My name is Earl Butz, and I am Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in charge of marketing and foreign agriculture. I have a brief prepared statement which I would like to present at this time, if I may.

Senator MURRAY. You may proceed.

Mr. Butz. We in the Department of Agriculture appreciate this opportunity to take part in your hearing on S. 3176.

This bill provides for amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the movement in interstate commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome, or adulterated poultry or poultry products. It makes provision for the establishment of a poultry-inspection service as a division of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Department of Agriculture is sympathetic to the general objective of mandatory poultry inspection, but recommends against enactment of this particular bill. We feel that such an activity should be administered by the Department of Agriculture under legislation specifically designed for the purpose and to fit the needs of our modern-day poultry industry.

This committee is aware, I am sure, that there have been bills introduced in both Houses of Congress which have been referred to the respective committees on agriculture. These bills provide for the conduct of the poultry-inspection activity on a mandatory basis by the Department of Agriculture and vest the necessary authority in the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture conducts many Federal food inspection programs under various authorities provided by Congress. All red meat which enters interstate commerce is inspected for wholesomeness under the Federal Meat Inspection Act which was enacted in 1906. The Department also conducts an inspection service for processed fruits and vegetables and a comprehensive poultry-inspection service under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

The food inspection activities carried on under the Agricultural Marketing Act are of a service, nonmandatory nature. This law merely gives the Department of Agriculture the authority to conduct inspection programs on a service basis in the interest of producers, distributors, and consumers.

I am sure that all of us recognize that any food-inspection program must be conducted in a practical manner and should not be of such a nature as to hamper orderly and efficient marketing. The Department of Agriculture regulations established for the conduct of the foodinspection programs under the Agricultural Marketing Act are just as strict as they would be if the law were mandatory in order to provide for the maximum consumer protection.

Legislation providing for mandatory poultry inspection should, we believe, be considered against the background of changes that have taken place in the poultry industry and the broad experience which the Department of Agriculture has had in the operation of its poultryinspection service over the last 28 years. It perhaps will be helpful to you if I reviewed some of this background at this time.

The Department of Agriculture's poultry-inspection service is made available through application. Persons using the service enter into a contract with the Department in which they agree to comply with the regulations governing requirements for plant facilities, equipment and operating procedures, and also agree to pay a specified amount to defray the costs of providing the service.

At present there are 290 poultry processing plants under contract for this inspection service on a continuous basis. In addition, there are applications pending at various stages of clearance involving an additional 128 processing plants.

The demand for this poultry-inspection service has expanded rapidly over the last 5 years. In 1951, only 145 processors were using this service in contrast with the 290 presently under it. This growth is indicative of the general interest of poultry processors in assuring the consumer a wholesome product.

Under this program the Department of Agriculture presently inspects for wholesomeness over 1 billion pounds of poultry per year, or about 25 percent of all poultry sold off farms. Since substantial quantities of poultry sold off farms are consumed locally, the percentage of federally inspected poultry moving in interstate commerce from the large commercial producing areas of the country is much greater than represented by this 25-percent figure.

This poultry-inspection activity of the Department of Agriculture is carried on by approximately 425 Federal civil-service employees. This staff includes about 300 veterinarians. The work is carried on in almost every State. In the fiscal year 1956, the processors using the Federal poultry-inspection service are paying fees which are expected to total about $2.4 million, which represents 94 percent of the total cost of rendering the service. The remainder of $153,000 is being paid from appropriated funds.

Acceptance of the Department of Agriculture's poultry-inspection service is at the discretion of the processors who use it. However, once under this program, each processor subjects his operations to rigid regulations which are as strict as any that exist in any foodinspection field. These regulations, promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture, make provision for minimum standards so far as facilities, operating procedures, and sanitation are concerned, as well as for a bird-by-bird inspection for wholesomeness. Before service can be rendered in any plant, the plant must meet in every respect the

minimum standards set forth in the regulations so as to insure the production of wholesome poultry.

After detailed requirements are met, the plant is approved for the introduction of the inspection service. When the inspection service is finally inaugurated, each bird is inspected by a qualified, licensed inspector. The licensed inspector makes sure that the killing operation, processing, packaging, freezing, and other operations are carried on in compliance with the regulations to insure that the product is wholesome when it leaves the processing establishment. The Department's program also protects consumers against being offered products which are improperly labeled. This is accomplished through control of labeling procedures. Through a label-approval procedure, consumers are protected against fraud and misrepresentation, thus augmenting the activities of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Department's poultry-inspection service maintains a pathological laboratory to make studies of various conditions found in poultry as a basis for condemnation procedures. Determinations with regard to condemnations are reviewed periodically by recognized authorities from land-grant colleges and veterinary schools, members of the staffs of the United States Public Health Service and the Food and Drug Administration, and representatives of the State livestock sanitation boards. In this manner the Department's program is kept current with regard to developments in this field resulting from research by many qualified research agencies.

The Department of Agriculture continually has been aware of the need for keeping its program abreast of developments in the production and marketing of poultry in order to meet the needs of this rapidly growing and changing industry. The type of inspection service which has evolved has contributed greatly to the tremendous expansion in poultry-meat consumption and to the improvements in marketing techniques which have taken place.

During the last 20 years, poultry-meat production from both chickens and turkeys has increased from 2.9 billion pounds live weight in the 1935-39 period to 6.6 billion pounds in 1955. The per capita production of poultry meats has also increased. Despite a growing population, consumers have been provided with about 80 percent more chicken meat and 120 percent more turkey meat in recent years than was true in the period of the late thirties.

Both the type of poultry being produced and the areas of production have changed very materially. In the early thirties, practically all of the poultry meat came from the general-type farm and chicken meat produced was largely a byproduct of egg production. Today the great bulk of all poultry meat marketed comes from commercial-type operations. You are undoubtedly familiar with the phenomenal growth of the commercial broiler industry. Commercial broiler production was hardly recognized as an industry in the late thirties. In recent years the number of broilers produced has exceeded 1 billion head per year. The production of turkeys likewise has become highly commercialized with general recognition that turkey production is becoming concentrated in specific geographical areas.

The centralization of poultry-meat production developed in recent years has brought into being mass movements of poultry products in

interstate commerce. As a result of this great change to commercial production units substantial advances have been brought about in poultry processing and marketing methods. Today the industry is well equipped with modern sanitary processing facilities and the skills needed to produce high-quality products.

The retail merchandising of poultry has changed rapidly, too. Today the housewife is offered poultry as a convenience-food item at least to the same extent as most other foods, and this trend is increasing. During the past 20 years the poultry offered for sale has moved through the phases from live to dressed or "New York dressed," to birds which are ready to cook, and more recently to such convenience-food items as fully prepared dinners, boned chicken, and poultry-meat pies which require no preparation by the housewife other than heating. This trend is undoubtedly the cause of the tremendous expansion in the use of the Department of Agriculture's inspection program and, also, the reason why there is increasing in making poultry inspection mandatory by law. Should Congress see fit to enace such a law, the Department of Agriculture is well prepared to assume responsibility for its proper administration.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Secretary, I gather from the third paragraph of your testimony that the Department of Agriculture is in favor of compulsory inspection of poultry if it is placed in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. BUTZ. That is correct.

Senator MURRAY. Does the Department have any reservations of any kind about the desirability of instituting compulsory inspection?

Mr. BUTZ. We think that it should not come too suddenly so as to unduly disrupt the industry, but it should come as rapidly as is practicable.

Senator MURRAY. Is it the Department's view that the protection of the public health and welfare is the fundamental purpose of the poultry inspection?

Mr. BUTZ. It is a fundamental purpose. I think it is the Departments' view that there are two purposes. One is the protection of the public health and welfare, and the other, of course, is the promotion of consumer acceptance of this very fine agricultural product.

Senator MURRAY. In the fourth paragraph of your testimony, on page 1, you refer to bills on this same subject which are before the Agriculture Committees. You state, and I quote:

That these bills provide for the conduct of poultry inspection on a mandatory basis.

That is in the Department of Agriculture; is that true?
Mr. BUTZ. Yes.

Senator MURRAY. Section 5 (a) of Senate bill 3588 provides that the Secretary shall make such examination, inspection, ante mortem or post mortem or both, and reinspection, as he determines necessary. Does this not amount to an authorization rather than a legislative mandate that there be compulsory inspection?

Mr. Butz. We interpret the word "shall" to provide a legislative mandate but not to spell out the administrative details under which the program will be administered. The determination of operational procedures obviously must rest with the head of the agency adminis-tering the program.