Hon. KARL E. MUNDT, United States Senate, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MUNDT: Information regarding the hearings on S. 3176 and S. 3588 has recently been brought to my attention. Although it must be pointed out that the United States Department of Agriculture has consistently done a very commendable job in the inspection and control of red meats, it would appear obvious that all meat-inspection procedures are performed for the benefit of the consuming public rather than for the agricultural industry of the United States. Consequently it is my expressed opinion that the inspection of all food products at all stages of processing and distribution, should be the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Please consider the writer's views as being definitely in favor of S. 3176 and definitely opposed to S. 3588. Thank you very much. Yours very truly, DONALD G. DE VALOIS, D. V. M., M. P. H., Submitted with the approval of: Director, Division_of_Sanitary Engineering. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF S. 3176, SUBMITTED BY DR. JANET L. MACDONALD, CHAIRMAN, SOCIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE, AND MRS. JAMES W. KIDENEY. CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM COMMITTEE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, WASHINGTON, D. C. On behalf of the social studies and the legislative program committees of the American Association of University Women, we urge the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee to report favorably S. 3176 to establish a Federal poultryinspection system. Such legislation, we believe, is long overdue. The American Association of University Women is composed of over 139,000 women college graduates organized into 1,339 branches in the 48 States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam. For many years, the AAUW has maintained an active interest in consumer problems and in Federal legislation designed to protect the consumer. The association maintains study programs in various fields, including social studies, from which informed opinion is developed which is then translated by convention vote into resolutions pertaining to Federal legislation. At its most recent convention held in June 1955, in Los Angeles, the association reaffirmed its long-standing interest in and support of legislation to protect the consumer by resolving in favor of: "measures in the interest of the consumer; *** (b) Protection against injurious products." We believe that Federal legislation which would prohibit the movement in interstate and foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseases, unwholesome, or adulterated poultry clearly falls within this mandate from our convention. In supporting this legislation we believe that inspection of poultry is just as essential to consumer protection as meat inspection. Inspection provided for in this bill should operate to protect the buyer of poultry against diseases common to man and poultry and diseases due to unsanitary handling. To assure such safeguards we are in favor also of both ante mortem and post mortem inspection. The association does not take any stand as to which agency of Government should be charged with authority to carry out and enforce the law. But as part of our continuing interest in effective Government and in economy in Government, we favor having inspection carried out by the agency whose personnel and experience together would provide the most efficient administration. As chairman of the AAUW social studies and legislative committees, we earnestly urge favorable committee action on this legislation to establish a Federal poultry-inspection system. We also urge speedy Senate approval of this bill, which would bring new and much-needed protection to both the workers who handle poultry and to the citizens who consume it. STATEMENT BY C. A. BRANDLY, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON, REGARDING THE NEED FOR COMPULSORY INSPECTION OF POULTRY MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE The need of mandatory inspection of poultry for wholesomeness and of adequate inspection of poultry plants as a means of establishing and maintaining proper sanitation in the handling and processing of poultry and poultry products is widely recognized. Many organizations and individuals are concerned over lack of a satisfactory program. Obviously, the need for inspection for poultry is as great as it is for the so-called red meats for which the Meat Inspection Act 'was enacted 50 years ago. The present voluntary program of poultry inspection by a branch of the Production and Marketing Administration is inadequate and misleading, in that it purports to protect the health and interests of the public which it palpably does not do. Because of its organization and support by the poultry processor, the PMA's poultry-inspection program is subject to various abuses. Its most glaring defect is that inspection for wholesomeness may be discontinued from day to day or during the day's operation as the processor desires. The objectives of a marketing organization are obviously inconsistent with those of an inspection or regulatory agency in that the former is concerned with distribution and the wholesomeness of the product is frequently a secondary consideration. Proper and adequate inspection for wholesomeness under veterinary supervision is indispensable to protect human health against a number of diseases common to poultry and man. In addition, proper inspection service serves to prevent contamination of poultry as well as other meats, physically, chemically, and microbiologically. This inspection service can be effective only under a compulsory program properly supervised and manned by professionally trained personnel. Proper sanitary inspection of the plant where poultry is processed is also essential to prevent contamination by infectious agents including those disseminated through and by rodents and other animals. Proper inspection reduces the hazards of chemical contamination of poultry products. In recognizing the urgency of proper compulsory poultry inspection, both ante mortem and post mortem, the means of accomplishing such inspection demand careful consideration and judgment. The development of a sound and effective meat-inspection service by the United States Department of Agriculture within its current meat-inspection branch make it logical that a mandatory poultry-inspection service be set up within the structure and framework of this organization. The inadequacies and shortcomings of the current P. and M. voluntary poultry-inspection service further emphasize the desirability of organizing poultry inspection for wholesomeness as a component of the meatinspection service. To delegate this responsibility to the Food and Drug Administration which is not organized, manned, or equipped to provide such a service would be not only unrealistic but would be extremely costly and wasteful. Certainly, the interests of economy and efficiency would best be served by establishing a mandatory poultry-inspection service as a part of the meat-inspection branch, not as a new activity and service by the Food and Drug Administration. A compulsory inspection service for poultry should be initiated with caution and judgment. Obviously, inspection cannot be imposed immediately on all plants, large or small. The inspection service should be established with the interests of the public and of the poultry plant operation in proper balance and perspective. I firmly believe that a satisfactory service can be established within a reasonable period of time without greatly disarranging or discommoding those firms and individuals engaged in the processing of poultry or in 'causing them undue financial problems. In conclusion, it may be emphasized that the interests of the public demand a compulsory poultry-inspection service comparable to that provided for red meats under the Meat Inspection Act. The establishment of a satisfactory poultry-inspection service apparently could best be accomplished as a component of the current meat-inspection service and, while directed at poultry and poultry products processed for interstate shipment, it would serve as a satisfactory and desirable pattern for regulation of poultry and poultry products not subject to interstate regulations. An adequate compulsory poultry-inspection service will encourage compliance by poultry-inspection programs for products distributed intrastate and discourage inspection arrangements within the States which service is often inadequate and entirely unsatisfactory. 78733-56-17 THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY SCIENCE, Madison, Wis., May 7, 1956. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I regret my inability, as indicated by the telegram which my secretary sent you on May 1, to be available for the hearings on S. 3176 on May 10 because of other prior commitments that could not be changed. I am, however, enclosing a statement which I trust will be useful and which can be presented to the subcommittee. Sincerely yours, C. A. BRANDLY, Chairman. RESOUTION No. 2, OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BY PACIFIC DAIRY AND POULTRY ASSOCIATION AT ITS 32D ANNUAL CONVENTION Be it resolved, That the Pacific Dairy and Poultry Association go on record favoring the administration of a compulsory wholesomeness inspection program, for poultry moving interstate, by the United States Department of Agriculture Poultry Division, and that the cost for administering the program be by appropriation from public funds. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. CHET'S FAMOUS FOODS, Eugene, Oreg., March 6, 1956. DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: We understand that there has been introduced into the Senate by Senator Murray of Montana, a bill, S. 3176, calling for mandatory inspection legislation covering Federal Government inspection of poultry marketed in interstate commerce. We are in the cooked frozen food business in Eugene and ship cooked frozen food products throughout the West. We are one of the pioneers in this growing industry and our plant in Eugene employs approximately 160 people and uses chicken, turkey, beef, cherries, boysenberries, apples, and other raw materials from the Williamette Valley that run into millions of pounds annually. We have United States Department of Agriculture Federal meat inspection and have a representative of the meat inspection service in our plant at all times when we are operating. All of our meats come from United States inspected plants and our meat products bear the seal of the United States Department of Agriculture. Our poultry products do not bear the seal of PMA, the agency now handling this service, because in order to use this stamp we must use poultry entirely from PMA inspected eviscerating plants. All of our turkey is from PMA-inspected plants but our chicken is not. At the present time there is only one PMA-inspected chicken plant in Oregon and western Washington which produces chicken. This is brought about by the fact that many of the plants do not handle sufficient volume to write off the cost of the PMA veterinary inspector, which will run as much as $800 to $1,000 a month. Actually, the plants where we get a lot of our chickens are outstanding poultry plants and produce a product which in many cases is far superior to that produced in some of the PMA plants. Still and all these smaller plants, many of which are small because of geographic and other limitations of the area, are penalized simply because they are not as large as some of their Middlewest competitors who can write off PMA inspection against millions of pounds per week. As you know, poultry products can move interstate without PMA inspection but where we find we are penalized is that we cannot sell to Army commissary posts without a PMA-inspection insignia on our label. We are enclosing samples of labels of 4 of our precooked frozen dinners to illustrate the point that on the 2 dinners containing meat we have a Department of Agriculture inspection insignia and on the 2 including poultry we do not. We certainly feel that this whole operation of meat and poultry inspection should be combined under one agency because they are certainly aiming at the same goal. Possibly the United States Meat Inspection Service is the best organized and equipped at the present time to handle such a task. There has been some talk about Pure Food and Drug handling such a job; possibly they could do it. We feel, however, the operations of the Pure Food and Drug should be changed slightly from what they have been, in that they should have a department to work with the packers in solving their problems. Pure Food and Drug has taken the attitude in many cases in the past that they set up technical requirements and then leave it up to the packer to interpret them. If the packer happened to interpret the Pure Food and Drug law wrong, his product or label was subject to suspension, whereas this certainly could have been avoided with a little cooperation on the part of representatives of the department. We certainly believe that a poultry-inspection service should be provided if there are going to be any requirements for poultry inspection insignia on pack.ages such as that required by the United States Army and Air Force at the present time in their commissary areas. In this connection we would appreciate if it you would do everything within your power to urge making this poultry-inspection law, if we are going to have -one, one that is fair to all segments of the industry and does not work only to the advantage of the very large poultry and poultry products producers who, because of their volume, are in a better position to pay for the PMA inspection service as is the case at the present time. We are enclosing, in addition to the labels mentioned above, a small brochure which will give you a little information about our plant, organization, and products. Yours truly, F. W. BRUNNER. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., Re S. 3176 Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter relates to the above-mentioned bill which would prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, etc., poultry or poultry products on which your committee has been holding hearings. The American Trucking Associations, Inc., while taking no position on the bill as a whole, desires to call to your attention one provision of the bill which is of interest to the trucking industry of the United States which this association represents. This is subsection (1) of section 1002 appearing at line 18 through 21, page 5 of the bill. This subsection of the bill prohibits: "(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." It is suggested that the inclusion of this section may place upon common and -contract motor carriers the burden of proving that poultry or poultry products moved by them in their regular course of business have been properly processed by inspectors of the new Poultry Inspection Service. We do not feel that it is the intent of this bill to place upon trucking companies the burden of determining whether or not the contents of freight received for transportation has been properly processed in a shippers plant over which the carrier has absolutely no control. We suggest that the committee may wish to give consideration to (1) the elimination of the subsection or (2) the inclusion of language similar to the following: "Section 1002 shall not apply to any common carrier, contract carrier, or freight forwarder, with respect to poultry or poultry products introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce in the ordinary course of its business." We invite the committee's attention to the fact that several of the bills now pending before other committees of the Congress relating to this same subject do not contain language similar to that to which we have raised objection. It is respectfully requested that this letter be made a part of the record relat ing to S. 3176. Very truly yours, JAMES F. PINKNEY, General Counsel. Hon. LISTER HILL, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: MOUNT MORRIS, ILL., May 22, 1956. The National Turkey Federation, which is the largest poultry organization in the world, respectfully requests that in pending legislation, provisions be made for administration of compulsory inspection of poultry for wholesomeness by the United States Department of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture has a wonderful record of safeguarding the health of the American public. United States Department of Agriculture has close contact with poultry producers: and processors and has had many years of experience in administering our present program of voluntary inspection. It would be a serious mistake and a waste of taxpayers' money to disregard all these facts and place authority for compulsory inspection in the hands of Government agencies that are totally unprepared to do an effective job. M. C. SMALL, Executive Secretary, National Turkey Federation. SKINNER POULTRY CO., Carrollton, Ga., April 5, 1956. Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: In the last several months there have been several bills introduced in Congress requiring compulsory inspection of poultry. These bills are in the House of Representatives, H. R. 8599, and in the Senate, S. 3176; also, there are two other bills which have not been given a number as of yet. The introduction of these bills resulted in confusion and apprehension in the entire poultry industry in Georgia as to what effect it would have on producers. Our primary aim is, we think it should be paid for by the Government and not slow down the processors' production. It is essential that only exact wording be drafted. The approximate cost of these bills would be $15 million a year for administration and the cost to the producers would consume another $80 million to $90 million a year. This could result in tremendous injury to our industry. As you know, Georgia produces one-fifth of the Nation's poultry, and we in Georgia would like to have adequate representation in drafting the bill, if a bill is necessary. We would like to ask you to slow these bills down, if possible, until we of Georgia and the Georgia Poultry Federation have time to study and take what action necessary to get the correct bill that is best for all people. Any legislation enacted before such a study is made could wreck the complete industry of Georgia. It is my opinion that Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and 2 or 3 other Southeastern States are of the same opinion. I would appreciate any action that you can take to hold these bills for the present until a more complete study is made. I am also contacting Senator George and Congressman Flynt. I am looking forward to a better relationship and personal acquaintance. Any time that I can return the favor, please call on me. Best regards. Very truly yours, Q. P. SKINNER. READING, PA., May 8, 1956. As president of the Pennsylvania State Poultry Federation, I wish to express to you the sentiment of the people interested in the poultry industry in Pennsylvania in regard to poultry meat inspection. Because of the long experience which the Department has had in inspecting red meats, we want poultry inspection to be handled through the United States Department of Agriculture as it is outlined in bill S. 3588. The people in our industry are very much opposed to bill S. 3176, which bill wants to transfer poultry meat inspection to the Food and Drug Administration. Our poultry people are also interested in having some sort of spot inspection for the smaller dressing plants who are not able to afford a |