same agency that performs the service should also be the interstate policeman. 2. In 1906 Congress passed the Meat Inspection Act and established the Department of Agriculture as the service and inspecting agency. In this year of 1956 the Nation is celebrating the 50th anniversary of that act of Congress. In the 50 years of its effectiveness there has been but 1 major amendment to the act, which added horsemeat to the meat and meat food products covered. The Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service in the Department of Agriculture has made this act and the administration of its provisions a model that is the envy and admiration of most of the world. It is an agency in the Federal Government in which we all take great pride. It has created for half a century the greatest stability in the entire industry that it services, and its inspection legend on either the product or the package is accepted everywhere and by everyone as the Government's guaranty of wholesomeness and is never questioned. It is the United States Livestock Sanitary Association's position and hope that the Congress will not lightly discard this kind of experience, this kind of service, this kind of know-how and understanding by denying the poultry industry the services of the Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture. It is here that the public can get the confidence in the products of the poultry industry that it needs and must have for its own protection, and it is also here that the puoltry industry can get the understanding and the assistance that it must have if it is to continue to grow and prosper. We urge the committee to reject S. 3176 in its present form, and to seriously consider the substitution of a simple amendment to the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 which adds poultry and poultry products to the provisions of that act. 3. Our last reason is one of simple economics. The cost of mandatory inspection of poultry and poultry products offered in interstate and foreign commerce is no small item. Actually at the time I doubt if anyone could give a really accurate estimate of the annual cost of this service. Whatever it is, however, we cannot continue to ignore the necessity for the service and fail to provide it. It goes without saying, however, that to set up an entirely new organization including all the administrative functions and laboratory functions that go hand in hand with the actual inspection service is not in the interest of economy when there is such an agency already established and functioning that could take over this additional responsibility with a minimum of additional administrative cost. The United States Livestock Sanitary Association wishes to express its appreciation to the subcommittee for this opportunity to express its views. We strongly feel that our reasons are valid and worthy of the most serious consideration. The Honorable JAMES E. MURRAY, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, Washington, 6, D. C., May 9, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislation Affecting the Food and Drug Administration, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: In accordance with the invitation contained in your telegram of April 30 to Mr. William E. Hall, Association of American Railroads, I am taking the opportunity through this letter to submit for the consideration of your committee a brief statement regarding one aspect of S. 3176, the bill introduced by you to compel compulsory inspection of poultry moving in interstate commerce. This statement is presented on behalf of the railroad companies members of the Association of American Railroads, and I respectfully request that it be incorporated in the record of the hearings being conducted by your subcommittee on May 9 and 10. We have no comments to make regarding the merits of this bill but are concerned only with the fact that as the bill now stands railroad companies might be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine for what would be essentially the illegal acts of others over which the railroad companies would have no control and of which guilty acts the railroads would have no knowledge. Not only would they have no knowledge of such guilty acts but there would be no way in which they could reasonably be expected to obtain such knowledge. This comes about by reason of the wording of section 1002 (1), one of the listed "prohibited acts" which reads as follows: "SEC. 1002. On and after January 1, 1957, the following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited: "(1) Delivering or receiving for transportation or transporting in commerce any poultry or poultry products which have not been inspected, examined, and marked with an official inspection mark." Thus, a transportation agency might be guilty of a violation of the act if it transported poultry which had not been inspected regardless of whether or not it had knowledge of the failure of the processor to have the poultry inspected. Normally in the shipment of poultry or poultry products the movements will be in refrigerator cars which the railroads will have spotted on the shipper's siding and will have received back from the shipper only after the cars have been loaded, closed, or sealed. Thus, the railroad company would not have firsthand knowledge of whether the poultry or poultry products contained in a car delivered to it for transportation had been inspected and marked in accordance with the proposed law or not. The only way in which a railroad company could have such knowledge firsthand would be to assign an employee to check what went into each car as it was loaded. Such a requirement would be wholly impractical, wasteful, and unfair. The basic offenders would, of course, be those operating the poultry processing establishments where the inspection should take place. The sellers of such products at either wholesale or retail would be in very much the same position as the processors because they would necessarily know whether the poultry they were selling had been properly inspected and marked. The transportation agency, however, would normally not have any such relationship with the transaction, and certainly that would be so in the case of the common carrier railroad company. Thus the effect of imposing a duty upon the railroads to avoid the transportation of poultry products not inspected and marked would be to make the railroad companies policing agencies for the enforcement of this law against the processors It is recognized that in some cases carriers have been called upon to assist the Federal Government in the enforcement of criminal statutes, but generally such cases should be limited to those in which the offense is a serious one and in which the carriers through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence could avoid violation of the law. Congress has quite generally recognized this principle, and, where it has banned the sale or movement of articles in interstate commerce, frequently it has specifically provided that the provisions of the act shall not be applicable to carriers transporting such articles in the usual course of their business as carriers, or, as a minimum, has specified that the prohibited act of transportation must have been "knowingly" committed. Both means of protection are to be found in the food and drug laws. For instance in the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938, after declaring certain practices unlawful and after requiring the carriers to give access at reasonable times to their records respecting the movement of food and drugs, Congress added a clause reading: "*** Provided further, That carriers shall not be subject to the other provisions of this chapter by reason of their receipt, carriage, holding, or delivery of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics in the usual course of business as carriers." An example of limiting the offense by the use of the word "knowing" or "knowingly" is to be found in the statutory provision dealing with narcotic drugs. There, the offense is for "knowingly" importing or bringing any narcotic drug in the United States or buying, selling, or facilitating the transportation of any such narcotic drug "knowing" the same to have been imported contrary to law (21 U. S. C. 174). In this instance we respectfully submit that in view of the nature of the offense and the unlikelihood that an ordinary common or contract carrier would have any knowledge that the goods it was transporting were being shipped in violation of the law, such transaction should be entirely exempted from the operation of the law. This could be accomplished in a number of ways. As one suggestion it might be done by adding at the end of section 1002 (1) the following: "Provided, however, This section shall not apply to a common or contract carrier by reason of the delivery, receipt, or transportation of such poultry or poultry products in the usual course of its business as such a carrier." Respectfully yours, GREGORY S. PRINCE, General Solicitor. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, DEAR SENATOR: I am writing to you regarding S. 3176, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome or adulterated poultry or poultry products. We in the public health profession know and have known for many years that poultry has caused many diseases and that there has been little or no protection of the public. In Columbus, Ohio, we have two inspectors assigned to poultry inspection in slaughtering establishments operating in the city, but the majority of poultry sold here comes from many States other than Ohio. It is nearly impossible for us to check the flow of poultry and poultry products coming to this city and we know that much of it may be unfit for human consumption. In view of the above, I ask that you give all aid and assistance to the passage of S. 3176. Very truly yours, O. M. GOODLOE, M. D., M. P. H., STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, May 16, 1956. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HILL: It is my understanding that your committee has completed the hearings on the bill providing for the inspection of poultry and poultry products but that it will consider additional statements concerning this important piece of legislation. We have given very careful consideration to this proposed inspection program, especially as to what agency of Government should be responsible for the inspection service. We are very definite in our opinion, and believe that we express the views of everyone in North Carolina who has given serious thought to the matter, that the program of inspection of poultry and poultry products should be placed in the United States Department of Agriculture, subject to the wishes of the Secretary of Agriculture as to the branch or division of the department to which the work should be assigned. We do not believe that it should be assigned by Congress to any definite branch or division of the United States Department of Agriculture. It is entirely possible that the Secretary might assign this function to one division and later find that another division or branch of the Department could perform the functions of the program more effectively; and in such case, I think the Secretary should have full authority to make such changes in the assignment of the work as he might deem best for the program and the Department. The processing of poultry and poultry products on a large commercial scale is relatively new and represents many relatively small processing plants. The industry has made tremendous progress during the past few years and has continually improved the efficiency of its processing operations, resulting in a wholesome product available to consumers at reasonable prices. These advances are borne out by the fact that we consume approximately 12 billion broilers per year. Economic conditions and seasonal demands of consumers for varying weights and age classes and for the many types and sizes of consumer packages make it imperative that processing and distributing of poultry be on a flexible basis. Processing poultry is unlike the processing of red meat due to the sizes of the individual carcasses and due to the various means and methods of processing, packaging, and distributing as demanded by consumers. The fact that the inspecting of poultry and poultry products would involve a large number of relatively new and small processing plants not heretofore inspected and the further fact that the nature of the carcass and the method of processing is largely different from that of larger animals convinces us that the program of inspection of poultry and poultry products should be considered by the Secretary, entirely independent of the inspection of larger animals as presently carried out by the Department. It is possible that when the poultry industry has had additional years of experience and growth in processing and in marketing that consideration could be given to combining the inspection of poultry and larger animals, but for the present, we definitely believe that the best interest of the industry and the consumer would not be served by combining the two programs in the division now providing the red meat inspection service. I respectfully submit this brief statement in the hope that it may give your committee the benefit of our thinking here in North Carolina on the subject of poultry inspection. Sincerely yours, L.Y. BALLENTINE, Commissioner THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Comminttee, DEAR SENATOR: As a member of the Committee on Poultry Inspection of the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, I wish to strongly urge you to continue your energetic and well-founded incentive in attempting to provide consumer protection by preventing the interstate shipment of diseased poultry. Massachusetts has been plagued by this problem for many years. Our lack of enforcement personnel has made it impossible for us to cope with this problem. The institution of a Federal Poultry Inspection Service under the Food and Drug Administration would be one of the most progressive actions taken by the Congress in the protection of the public health and welfare. I wish to compliment your colleagues and you on the recognition of this problem and for having the incentive to try to do something about it. I am writing to Senators Kennedy and Saltonstall asking them to support your legislation contained in Senate bill 3176. Yours very truly, GEORGE A. MICHAEL, Director, Division of Food and Drugs. CITY OF BINGHAMTON, N. Y., BUREAU OF HEALTH, April 2, 1956. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am very much interested in Senate bill 3176 which I understand has been introduced by you. I have been engaged in full-time public health work for several years and have attempted to set up local programs and to have local laws enacted to control the sanitation of poultry. While Commissioner of Health of Syracuse, N. Y., I was able to have a section of our sanitary code approved which prohibited the sale of New York-dressed poultry in that city. I hope it will be possible to place the regulations pertaining to poultry inspection in the hands of consumer protective organizations. Not infrequently the statement is made that the sanitary inspection program would add materially to the cost of dressed poultry. For a period of more than 1 year we kept a card record of the cost of lay inspection of poultry with veterinary supervision and found that the actual cost did not exceed two-tenths of 1 cent per pound of inspected poultry. You are to be congratulated upon your interest in this bill and on your efforts to have it passed. Sincerely yours, C. A. SARGENT, M. D., Health Officer. Hon. ALLEN ELLENDER, Sr., OREGON STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, Chairman of Committeee on Agriculture, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: It has been brought to our attention that a substitute bill for national poultry inspection, S. 3588, has been submitted to take the place of the original Senate bill 3176, and that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has withdrawn as the agency primarily responsible for the protection of the consuming public. This action by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare disregards the recommendation of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers and various medical and veterinary medical associations, as well as other organizations. We feel that the administration of poultry inspection should be under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as this organization has a moral and legal obligation to the poultry-consuming public in respect to its health and welfare. The Senate bill 3588 and companion bill H. R. 10514 have the following disadvantages: (1) It placed inspection in the Department of Agriculture, but does not specify where it should be administered. (2) It does not indicate whether it should be administered by the Federal Meat Inspection Branch. (3) It emphasizes the aid to commerce and sale of poultry products with little reference to actual inspection for wholesomeness. (4) It conflicts with State rights and local jurisdiction in health matters by indicating that the Secretary of Agriculture may determine the necessity for inspection if the volume of products consumed is great enough for Federal inspection, interfering with the movement of State-inspected poultry into cities or areas of a State by necessitating Federal inspection of such products. (5) It does not provide for compulsory inspection, but only permissive inspection as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. (6) Enforcement is limited when information is received through the records of a company, as such information may not be used in prosecution of the firm in question (sec. 10). (7) Section 18 conflicts with provisions of the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1040, ch. 675), Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, by providing exclusive jurisdiction in the field of poultry and poultry products inspection; thus exempting such products from the provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Difficulty would be encountered in preventing the sale of poultry and poultry products by local authorities, or the Federal Food and Drug Administration, if such products have deteriorated or have been contaminated after the original inspection. (8) In section 21, definition of the term "commerce" would be all inclusive and could necessitate the compliance with all requirements of commerce, by designating area or city, again taking away States rights and local jurisdiction of health matters. It is felt that additional consideration should be given the matter of national poultry inspection so as to produce an adequate and enforcible law for protecting the health of the consuming public. Respectfully yours, RICHARD H. WILCOX, M. D., Acting State Health Officer. YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Subcommittee, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The Young Women's Christian Association, a membership organization of women and girls who are housewives and mothers, business girls, schoolgirls, and workers in industry, has long had an interest in |