Page images
PDF
EPUB

I will follow through in our statement. I think we have prepared a very conprehensive statement for presentation to the committee dealing with all phases of the problem pertinent to the passage of 3176. We have recorded our findings and substantiated them in every case where we could with the views of experts and authorities in various pertinent fields.

On pages 1 and 2, we have shown the conditions in the poultry processing plants as our people found them in the processing plants. Starting on page 3, under subtitle "Affidavits," we have quoted from a few of the affidavits that we have collected in our survey of the various plants. I have for the record a number of affidavits which are not quoted in the statement which I would like to submit. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present one copy of each complete affidavit with all names, for the private use of the committee. We will submit for the record, a second copy with the names of the companies blacked out. With the permission of the chairman, I would like to introduce these at this time. May I hold this one just a little longer?

Senator MURRAY. They will be inserted in the record at the appropriate place.

Mr. BARKER. It is not our intent to crucify an individual company. We wish to show by these affidavits the things that need to be corrected. Therefore, we ask the privilege of introducing into the record those affidavits with the company names blacked out.

Starting on page 5 of our report we have touched upon Food and Drug Administration activities in this field and the findings that they have brought to light as a result of seizure of shipments and prosecutions, many of these coming from plants which operate under the Department of Agriculture permissive type of regulations now in effect. These seizures are illustrative of the great need for an adequate, comprehensive, and mandatory inspection regulations.

Starting on page 7 we touch upon the health dangers. On pages 7, 8, 9, and 10, we present writings and statements of some of the best authorities on poultry and poultry diseases in the land, recognized experts in this field. This section tells of the many poultry diseases to which man is susceptible. Also, the opinions of experts are quoted for the record on the need for ante mortem and post mortem inspection.

On page 10 under the heading of "One-fourth to one-third of food poisoning cases," we then come back to the United States Public Health Service and we report to you the findings of this division of the Government that from one-fourth to one-third of the foodpoisoning cases each year are directly traceable to poultry and poultry products.

On page 11, under "typical outbreaks among consumers," we have gone into illustrative cases of the poultry-caused food poisoning outbreaks which are mentioned in the reports published by the United States Public Health Service.

Starting on page 14, under "industrial health hazards," are facts which we particularly want to bring to the committee's attention because it is a very important problem for us. It deals with the many cases of illness, and sometimes death, which occur among the commercial poultry workers in processing plants. They are subject

[ocr errors]

to many diseases which they cannot avoid by personal actions. Nor can they refuse to handle the diseased poultry because they are generally unaware of the existence of the health dangers. We have given to the committee here a very tragic instance of poultry disease causing not only illness among the workers, but also chaotic conditions in the industry itself. Poultry diseases are a twofold thorn in the workers' sides because as the public becomes panicked over outbreaks of this kind, it resists the purchase of the product and we lose man-hours of work. So not only do we suffer the illness and sometimes, as already reported here, death-in this, the Oregon case, there were two-we also lose employment from the failure of the people to buy the product.

It is most interesting that it was not the Agriculture Department that resolved the problems of the Oregon epidemic. It was the public health authorities. The United States Public Health Service was called in to investigate and to determine what steps should be taken to protect the workers, what steps were needed to cure the birds, what guidance should be given the industry to see that the outbreak did not occur again. These were public health people of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Agriculture Department was at a loss to determine what should be done. That is one of the reasons why we think S. 3176 provides the proper agency for inspection work regardless of the position the Food and Drug Administration or HEW desire to take on it.

If these are hazards to the general public, then it is our belief that the Department of Government best qualified to protect the consumer and the workmen, when it has the ability to carry on the operation, should control and administer the mandatory inspection as prescribed in S. 3176.

On page 16, under the heading of "Lack of Effective Inspection," we go into a very brief history of the red-meat inspection, the occasion which brought about mandatory Federal meat inspection nationally, and we go into the growth of the poultry industry, starting on page 17. There already has been mentioned during these hearings the fantastic growth of this industry from one which was selling only the surplus and/or cull products from the egg industry a few short years ago to a large commercial operation today. Last year more than a billion broilers were raised. We touch upon this growth at some length. This growth is probably the cause of some of the problems that the industry faces.

In spite of that growth, we do not believe that the industry can shirk or should try to set aside its responsibilities to the general consuming public, and, therefore, we again refer back to the need for mandatory inspection.

We provide on page 19 the per capita poultry-meat consumption for the years 1940 through 1954.

Starting on page 20, we touch upon and try to describe the AMS programs or inspection service, as we frequently refer to it. This service is nonregulatory and is in an agency whose basic job is the promotion of farm commodities. We are in favor of the promotional activities, but we do not feel that the same agency which performs them can properly regulate the health and sanitation factors of the poultry industry to protect the consumer.

The inspection services which AMS does have are not too widely used, and it has fallen upon the Food and Drug Administration to carry and give the public the little protection that it has had in this field.

You will find our comments on the Food and Drug Administration activities starting on page 21. Also reported there are results of inquiries by various Congressmen to the Food and Drug Administration to determine the extent and ability of FDA to police under the present regulations the sale of unwholesome and diseased poultry.

Starting on page 22, we touch on the State inspection program. We have made an extensive survey of the State inspection programs over a long period of time. There are many States contemplating work on different types of poultry programs, but no State at this particular time has an effective ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection law. So we cannot fall back upon the States. They are waiting for the national pattern to be set, and then they can complete their own plans and regulate that part of the industry which is not covered by national legislation.

Staring on page 23, we describe the demand for mandatory inspection. It is very enlightening to find that so many organizations, and particularly virtually every public health organization, have long been aware of these problems. They have been advocating what we have been advocating, in some cases even longer than we have. I think it is noteworthy to mention the Conference of State and Territorial Health Officers, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, because of their consumer interests, the National Grange, which has taken quite an interest in this and has passed resolutions dealing with this subject, and the American Institute for Poultry Industries.

The Hoover Commission task force, I think, took a very forthright position on the need for poultry inspection.

Senator MURRAY. Has the National Government ever taken any steps to try to cure this condition?

Mr. BARKER. To my knowledge, as of this time, it has not. The only form of inspection whatsoever in existence is that nonregulatory inspection administered under the AMS program.

Senator MURRAY. There is always a great hesitancy to interfere with private enterprise.

In

Mr. BARKER. It would seem that there is some hesitancy. I think I express the views not only of my own organization, but of many other organizations that in that hesitancy the Government has failed to provide the health protection which the people are entitled to have. Some functions the individual and private enterprise can do. some fields self-regulation is the answer, but not when it involves the health of the general public. No man is so high that he can set the standards to regulate himself in this field. The people expect the maintenance of basic health standards by the Government. The sad part of it is that they think that they have this protection. It has only been through our own complaints and investigations that the public has been made aware that poultry was sold without inspection. Senator MURRAY. I must say you are rendering a great service to the country in pursuing this study and providing this evidence for us. You are entitled to our compliments for having been of such great assistance to us.

Mr. BARKER. Thank you, sir.

On page 26 we touch upon the inspection and how and by whom it should be carried on. Again I think it is worth repeating, because we feel very strongly about this matter, who is best qualified to administer an inspection program and what type of inspection we believe should be carried on. I think it is very noteworthy that we were not hesitant when Senate bill 3176 was introduced. We indicated our support publicly, and we have encouraged our friends to support this bill, because here was mechanism for a good consumer-protective organization to carry on a function for the protection of consumers. We can find no reason for the present position of the Food and Drug Administration or HEW, as we heard it expressed here today. It seems strange to many of us, I am sure. If the division of the Government known as Health, Education, and Welfare is going to determine the pattern that the Congress of the United States is going to. follow in adopting legislation, I am sure that the consumers are going to be a little muddled as to why this thing comes about. I touch upon this point because it is very important and, I think, a very definite issue must be made of it. The people have the right to know whether or not they are getting full inspection. After all, they, the consumers and the workers, are the ones who are going to pay the final bill, regardless of how the appropriations are made.

We touch very briefly on page 26 also on ante-mortem and postmortem inspection. Speaking of ante-mortem inspection we quote Commissioner Larrick of the Food and Drug Administration on the subject. He takes the position that ante-mortem inspection is very essential. A very notable authority, Dr. Brandly, is also quoted. I would like to go a little further than that and read two affidavits to show why the position of these people is not only justified, but antemortem inspection is a very definite "must."

This is the affidavit-I will leave the names blank-of Julia J.

Before me, the undersigned authority, a notary public is and for S county, on this day personally appeared Julia J. who, after being duly sworn by me, stated under oath that:

"I, Julia J., am a resident of S county. I am a chicken grower in S county and have been growing chickens for at least 2 years. On or about May 13, 1954, a Thursday, I sold my house of 3,000 chickens to the X firm in S county. At the time that X bought my chickens, they were all sick and were dying at a fast rate. I called the chicken doctor out to my place. He is a Mr. B. When the chicken doctor arrived he looked the chickens over and said that he didn't know what to do with them since he had prescribed all the medicine that he knew of for their colds. He said the only thing to do was to sell them before they all died. I had these chickens insured through the X feed company and would have been paid under this policy for all of them that died. Mr. C hauled these sick chickens to the processing plant at T, Tex. I insisted that these chickens could not be sold here in X town at either of the two processing plants, and I received a good deal of argument along these lines, but he finally relented and agreed not to carry them to either of these two plants. I personally followed the truck as far as X town to make sure that the feed company lived up to its agreement on where the chickens would be sold."

A second affidavit on this same subject I think is worthy of reading, if the Chair will bear with me.

My name is Johnny E. I am a chicken grower in X county and the chickens I grow are processed in the X plant. At one time I had about 1,500 chickens that were sick and I call the chicken doctor to come out and look at them. On his first trip he said he did not think they were sick, but on his third visit, and after the chickens had started dying, he said they were sick, but nothing could be done to cure them. He then told me to call Brown A, who inspects chickens at

the farm before they are loaded to be taken to the plant to be dressed. Brown A works for X company. I called Mr. A and asked him to come out and see about my chickens because I wanted to sell them. When he came out and looked at the chickens he told my wife he thought they had been sick all the time and that he would send a truck out for them that night. That night a truck came out, the chickens were loaded and taken away. The driver of the truck was an employee of X company. Three or 4 days later I went to the plant, collected 29 cents a pound for these chickens-29 cents a pound was the market price for broilers at that time. The check I received was on X company.

I think these are indicative of the reasons why ante-mortem inspection no longer can be considered unnecessary. I think these affidavits bring home to us very strongly the reasons why the processor and the consumer and the poultry worker must be protected with both antemortem and post-mortem inspections.

Our discussion of ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections continues through page 28 and we quote for the committee additional authorities on the subject. In addition to that, I would like to read a part of a regulation which comes out of the AMS now provided in the form of inspection. It states:

INSPECTION No. 918 (PY) ANTE-MORTEM-1

While it is not practicable to handle and examine each live bird prior to slaughter, it is entirely feasible to visibly examine daily each battery of birds in the plant.

The Agriculture Department says it has the experience with poultry. It seems to me if it has learned this is an entirely feasible procedure, there should be no further argument when the public health authority and others say that ante-mortem inspection is necessary.

On page 28 we go into the matter of sanitation standards and sanitary practices. Here again we have quoted for the committee, authorities in the poultry and public health fields. We have tried to give through direct quotes, body, strength, and authority to this entire presentation. Many other groups are quoted on this particular subject dealing with sanitary practices and sanitary installations.

Starting on page 32 we touch upon the possibility of poultry inspection under the Agricultural Marketing Service. We go into this subject to great length strating on page 33 when we touch upon the functions of AMS, which are not consumer protection or regulatory in nature.

On page 35 we quote attacks upon what was then known as PMA, now AMS, by the Budget Bureau in connection with the various poultry functions that it is carrying on. I think it is noteworthy, too, that in the same section we touch upon the distinction the Army makes between red-meat plants under the Federal Inspection Act and the poultry plants operating under AMS regulations.

The Bureau of the Budget reports says as follows:

The Army is especially careful in the inspection of poultry for disease, and so forth, because the various State, local, and private arrangements made by PMA for poultry inspection and grading have caused officials in the Veterinary Corps to question the adequacy of controls mainteined over sanitation and disease in poultry houses.

This contrasts with the Army's attitude toward red meat, a section of the Bureau of the Budget report which I would also like to read:

The Army purchases meat only from plants which are subjected to Federal inspection by BAI. The army does not duplicate the antemortem inspection

78733-56- -5

« PreviousContinue »