full-time inspector. Pennsylvania ranks first of all States in poultry income in the United States and it is because of the many smaller dressing plants that we have attained this position and we do not in any manner wish to have them eliminated. Hearings will be held on these bills this week. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: WALTER S. SHEARER, HARRISBURG, PA., May 8, 1956. Following consultation with Pennsylvania poultrymen, we urge passage of S. 3588, H. R. 10514, and H. R. 10527, covering inspection of poultry and poultry products. This department has cooperated with the United States Department of Agriculture in poultry inspections and our industry prefers to participate in compulsory inspections with that experienced agency. W. L. HENNING, Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. FITCHBURG, MASS. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: United Cooperative Farmers, including branches in Maine and Connecticut, is opposed to starting new poultry inspection service as proposed in S. 3176. We are in favor of poultry inspection by the Department of Agriculture as proposed by S. 3588. ENSIO NUPPOLA, General Manager. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 7, 1956. SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Senate bill S. 3176 opposed by National Association of Refrigerated Warehouses. Transfer of poultry inspection from Agriculture Department to Food and Drug impractical; more reasonable approach contained in S. 3588 calling for expansion of present program in Department. J. P. JOHNSON, Chairman, NARW Legislation Committee, National Association of Refrigerated Warehouses. Senator LISTER HILL, TRENTON, N. J., May 5, 1956. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: The Northeastern Poultry Producers Council is strongly in favor of poultry inspection under supervision of the Department of Agriculture which has had long experience in food inspection service and established facilities for operation as embodied in S. 3588. We are opposed to starting new service as indicated in S. 3176. ALFRED VAN WAGONEN, Managing Director, Northeastern Poultry Producers Council. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Food and Drug Legislation, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: There are 11 different regional poultry associations who are members of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives which are marketing and/or processing poultry, including turkeys and chickens. While they are not opposing legislation providing for inspection of poultry moving in interstate commerce, they believe that the function should be authorized in the United States Department of Agriculture, with the scope and procedure in line with other livestock and meat inspection already administered there. They endorse the principles and purposes set out in the current draft of S. 3588. Sincerely yours, JOHN J. RIGGLE, Secretary. VANCREST FARM, Hyde Park, N. Y., May 9, 1956. DEAR SENATOR HILL: The Dutchess County Poultry Association members areTM greatly concerned with the new service S. 3176 would provide. We feel that the Department of Agriculture is capable of carrying on the efficient program necessary in such an extensive field. Also it has built up this service over many years of experience which could not be duplicated in the short period required. Sincerely, DEAN TUTTLE, President. Hon. LISTER HILL, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Chairman, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR HILL: We desire to be on record with your committee in opposition to S. 3176, relative to mandatory inspection of poultry. We believe in inspection of poultry. As a matter of fact, the California Farm Bureau Federation has sponsored laws which have been enacted in California providing for the inspection of poultry on an intrastate basis. We are convinced that this problem can best be handled by the Department of Agriculture, where trained inspectors are now at work on the red-meat program. We sincerely hope that your committee in its wisdom will refuse to recommend the adoption of S. 3176 in favor of other legislation. We have in mind S. 3588, which we understand will provide for a poultry-inspection program by the Department of Agriculture. Sincerely, Senator LISTER HILL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: RICHARD W. OWENS, ELKTON, VA., May 22, 1956. The National Poultry Producers Association urges that mandatory inspection of poultry be administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has done a wonderful job in protecting the interest of our people. The success in safeguarding our people against the hordes of insects, blights, pests, and disease is well known. The Department is in close touch with all phases of agriculture and the processing of all meat, including poultry, and it would be unfortunate not to take advantage of the personnel and long experience of this Department. CHESTER C. HOUSH, President, National Poultry Producers Association. THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE GRANGE, Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HILL: I understand that your committee is considering legislation which will require inspection of all poultry and poultry products for commerce. Our State grange poultry committee has given considerable thought to this subject and they wonder if the sponsors of the legislation have given your committee a clear picture of the magnitude of the job of training and providing inspectors for the plants affected, and the possible cost to both Government and industry, together with an appraisal of the need for and the effectiveness of such an inspection program in protecting consumers. It is the opinion of our committee that a thorough study by the United States Department of Agriculture might reveal a more effective means of doing the job and at less cost to Government, industry, and consumers. Our first recommendation is that Congress present the problem to the Department of Agriculture and call for a comprehensive study and report before any legislation is adopted. Our organization recommends that the responsibility for administering any poultry inspection program be placed in the Department of Agriculture, with authority to determine how and by what agency in the Department the job is to be done after a thorough study has been made by the Secretary. We understand that certain groups are urging Congress to make these determinations now. Improper action can impair a comparatively new industry that has made rapid progress in processing methods, packaging, and marketing techniques for the benefit of both producers and consumers. We also recommend that any law enacted on this subject provide that the Secretary of Agriculture, upon request of any State government, shall make available the provisions of the act to any processor who may be engaged solely in the intrastate shipment and/or distribution of poultry products. Action of this kind is desirable if small businesses are to be given equal consideration with large interstate operators under the provisions of the act. We further recommend the inclusion of language which will provide that the Secretary of Agriculture shall, at the request of State governments, enter into cooperative agreements for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the law. This will provide the full use of State-Federal arrangements and assure the States of their rightful place in administering programs in which they have a dual responsibility with the Federal Government. With kindest personal regards and hoping that your committee will consider these recommendations before any final action is taken, I am Cordially, HARRY B. CALDWELL, Master. [The Washington Post and Times-Herald, Monday, July 26, 1954] THE WASHINGTON MERRY-GO-ROUND-TEXAS PARROT FEVER SCANDAL By Drew Pearson It has been carefully covered up, but a shocking scandal lies behind the outbreak of parrot fever in Texas. Inside story is that diseased turkeys, which caused the epidemic, have been dumped on the market, endangering those who handle them. One 60,000-pound shipment, rejected by the Army, was later sold for civilian consumption. Public health authorities have traced other shipments all the way to Boston, Philadelphia, and New Orleans. Though packed in ice, some of these turkeys were still found to be carrying live parrot fever virus-the same virus that has already caused one known death in Texas. While they constitute no danger once cooked, they are a danger to those who pluck or dress them. Meanwhile, when Dr. B. C. Pier, Chief of Poultry Inspection in the Agriculture Department, complained of lax inspection methods he was promptly removed from duty. On June 1, Pier wrote a confidential memo to his chief, W. D. Termohlen, Director of the Poultry Division: "We feel that during the past year the efficiency of the poultry-inspection service has deteriorated markedly," he said. "This is evidenced by reports from canners and others who purchase inspected eviscerated poultry that it has not been properly prepared as ready-to-cook poultry. There is a widespread feeling in the inspection service that efforts to carry out a sound program will not receive backing if the industry objects. Many supervisors and inspectors have become extremely discouraged in their efforts. ***" For his memo, Pier was summarily removed as Inspection Chief and replaced by Dr. Roy E. Willie, whose first act was to inform employees that he "wanted to be fair to the industry." Pier was given a fancy but meaningless assignment in charge of State inspection programs. Actually, the inspection of poultry is under both the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Strictly speaking, the Agriculture Department is supposed to grade poultry. However, since the funds of the Food and Drug Administration have been cut so low by GOP Congressmen John Taber, of New York, and Fred E. Busbey of Illinois, that they can inspect factories only once every 12 years, Agriculture inspects as well as grades. Only 20 percent of the Nation's poultry plants are Government inspected, and the companies, not the Government, pay inspectors' salaries. As a result of these lax methods and lack of funds, official reports received at the Agriculture Department reveal the following unpleasant, unpalatable, but unescapable facts: Diseased poultry, often covered with sores and swellings, are thrown indiseriminately on the market. The blemishes are simply cut off and the diseased parts are often sold in fancy packages, offering ready-to-cook drumsticks, breasts, and other featured parts. The poultry companies that submit to inspection are constantly nagging the Agriculture Department to lower its standards. This industry pressure was what finally caused Chief Pier to complain that his poultry service had deteriorated markedly. But, instead of cracking down on the industry, the Agriculture Department cracked down on Pier. PARROT FEVER HITS The psittacosis, or parrot fever, epidemic struck Texas poultry plants in May, sweeping through the employees. More than 300 cases were reported, including 1 death. First hit were Corsicana Poultry, of Corsicana; Producers Produce, of Lampasas; Swift & Co., of Tyler; and Market Produce, of Brady. Veterinarians quickly traced the disease to sick turkeys. Most of the plants did not close down but continued to ship turkeys to market from the sick flocks. This has been proved by public health authorities who have found Texas turkeys, packed in ice but still infected with psittacosis, 2,000 miles away in Boston and Philadelphia. Another shipment has been traced to New Orleans. Here is one confidential report made by Field Inspector S. B. Donelson after checking on the Producers Produce plant at Lampasas, Tex.: "On or about May 4, 1954, a sick flock of turkeys was processed at the plant," Donelson informed Washington. "I started work there May 12, 1954, at which time some of the employees were ill. Others became ill within the next week or two until 26 of the 65 employees were affected. There have been 2 relapses among the 26. The plant did not close due to this outbreak." This column will publish more about the way in which the Agriculture Department has bowed to the industry. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., May 4, 1956. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Membership this association, representing estimated 80 percent total processing and distribution of poultry in 9 Western States, urges favorable consideration S. 3588 on poultry inspection. Further appeal made that program be retained under Department of Agriculture who, by reason of experience and understanding, have proved capacity to administer program. Further propose this industry request be made part of record this hearing. PACIFIC DAIRY AND POULTRY ASSOCIATION. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Washington, D. C.: LOS ANGELES, CALIF., May 4, 1956. Provisions S. 3176 poultry inspection strongly opposed by poultry processors and distributors for approximately 80 percent of industry in 9 Western States. Also suggest to obtain cooperation of industry that you consider placing this mandatory inspection program under the Department of Agriculture who have under a voluntary program developed an excellent inspection program. Further request this industry request be made official part of this hearing. PACIFIC DAIRY & POULTRY ASSOCIATION. Re Senate bill 3176. FLORIDA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, May 3, 1956. DEAR SIR: As Secretary of the Florida State Veterinary Medical Association and as president of the South Florida Veterinary Society, I have been requested to communicate to you the recommendation of both of these memberships of Senate bill 3176. The matter of inadequate poultry inspection has been discussed during the current business year by both of these organizations. Since our membership is composed of veterinarians from all branches of the profession including Federal, State, and municipal regulatory service, we feel we are in a position to honestly judge the merits of the present poultry inspection system. We feel that, compared to the uniformly good standard of meat inspection conducted by the Federal Government, the poultry-inspection program is wholly improper and inadequate. We would like to go on record as urging the establishment of adequate poultry standards and the transference of the regulation of this inspection service into the hands of a consumer protective organization. Respectfully yours, Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Washington, D. C.: ROBERT P. KNOWLES, D. V. M. CLINTON CORNERS, N. Y., May 22, 1956. Re bill S. 3176: Passage of this bill would drive all smaller poultry processing plants out of business. I favor plant and sanitary inspection to insure wholesomeness of poultry reaching the consumer, but without compulsory evisceration. LEESON POULTRY FARMS. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Washington, D. C.: LOS ANGELES, CALIF., May 22, 1956. Regarding bill S. 3176: A large proportion of the southern California consuming public uses fresh New York dressed poultry, the annual volume consumed here representing an important industry in this area. Compulsory evisceration would force many small plants out of business, representing considerable capital loss to the State and creating a serious unemployment problem. We strongly favor plant sanitary inspection and all necessary inspection to insure a wholesome product reaching the consuming public, but oppose the compulsory stipulations of bill S. 3176 and urge its defeat. POULTRY ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. E. J. GUND, Executive Director. |