Of particular significance was the contribution of public health laboratory workers who established at least two significant points that would not have been clarified without their help. One was the usual winnowing out of unrelated cases with similar clinical syndromes, reported during the same interval, which would otherwise have confused the epidemiologic picture. There were 11 such cases, including several typhimurium and other strains unrelated to that causing the epidemic. And, second, through securing fecal specimens from sample population on the involved dairy route and on a distribution route from another dairy it was possible to demonstrate the very considerable number of missed cases and inapparent infections on the former with a complete absence of both on the latter. Perhaps the third lesson which might be learned from this episode is that the present trend toward "automation" does not necessarily entail the complete protection which it may seem to imply. The operation of this plant, like most other dairy plants, might seem on paper to be a "closed system." Yet on detailed review of actual operating practices it was amply evident that occasions not infrequently arose for manual adjustments, inspections, and so forth. To these human elements, which intrude themselves even into machine operation, must be added the additional hazard of a cross-connection with an unapproved water supply, failure to provide leakproof valves between the raw milk tank and the pasteurizing vat, and at least one instance just prior to the outbreak of apparent failure of normal operation of the temperature recording device. So much for the lamentable vulnerability of machines and systems. A fourth lesson highlights the difficulty of continuous milk sanitation and investigation of a milk-borne epidemic in the face of divided authority. In Pennsylvania, milk sanitation is a responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. Although the local (part-time) health officer and his staff in the city department of health have been securing satisfactory weekly samples from the plant, this was obviously inadequate protection. Furthermore, when the State departments of agriculture and health undertook to locate the source of the break in normal portective procedures, the dual authority made that investigation somewhat cumbersome. Also there was an impossible public-relations situation in that the public demanded and expected health department action after people got sick, yet the authority with regard to the point at which the break occurred (the pasteurizing and processing plant) belonged to another department. This occurrence must have a salutary effect on the attitude of many health officers toward the continuing need for the protection of milk supplies to safeguard the public health. This particular barrier against disease may have reached a maintenance level, but still requires our attention, our interest, and adequate legal authority to act before as well as after misfortune occurs. SUMMARY-FARM BUREAU POULTRY COMMITTEE, THE FARMHOUSE, TRENTON, N. J., MAY 4, 1956 In the absence of George R. Parker, chairman of New Jersey Farm Bureau Poultry Committee, the meeting was called to order by Wm. P. Watson, secretary of the Farm Bureau. Present, representing the Farm Bureau Poultry Committee, were: Russell McClure, of Gloucester County Bernie Struthoff, of Burlington County Samuel Crystal, of Salem County Herb Wegner, of Salem County Other invited guests representing various interests of the poultry industry : Walter E. Bacon, Marlton Mrs. Walter E. Bacon, Marlton Marvin W. Rode, Swedesboro Jay Moyer, Ashland Richard H. Lee, Highstown Kenneth E. Sponenbergh, Wrightstown Arley M. Hovland, Burlington County, assistant agricultural agent J. C. Lamber, Jr., State department of agriculture Dr. Oscar Sussman, State department of health Herbert W. Voorhees, New Jersey Farm Bureau The announced purpose of the meeting was to discuss the attitude of persons in New Jersey regarding several items of Federal legislation to provide mandatory inspection of poultry meat. The situation to date was outlined including the position of the American Farm Bureau (adopted December 1955), which reads as follows: "Mandatory inspection of red meat at livestock slaughtering establishments as presently financed and administered by the USDA has helped to assure the wholesomeness of meat sold in interstate commerce. We urge extension of this service to include poultry meat sold in interstate commerce, with provision, where necessary, for the use of lay inspectors under the supervisions of veterinarians." Dr. Oscar Sussman discussed the pending bills and answered questions on several angles. Principal bills discussed were S. 3176 and S. 3588. At his suggestion Dr. Sussman withdrew and the group reached agreement on the following: 1. Favor placement of mandatory poultry meat inspection in the same office as the present red meat inspection. 2. Favor that inspection apply to interstate, not intrastate. 3. Favor that it should not apply to producers selling directly to consumers. 4. Oppose any provisions where the Secretary designates any specific areas. [From the Institute Weekly Letter of the Institute of American Poultry Industries, November 4, 1953] DID YOU MAIL IT? You didn't forget to send in your hotel reservation for the Fact Finding Conference did you? The convention bureau in Kansas City is covered up with a big batch of requests for rooms and will be a little slow in confirming-but they'll handle each one in order, according to the date it's received. If your's isn't inbetter shoot it along today. POULTRY SHOULD FARE O. K. IN USDA REORGANIZATION Last Monday morning-just as representatives of the various groups who make up Associated Poultry and Egg Industries were beginning to arrive in Washington for yesterday's meeting-Secretary Benson announced he was putting his reorganization plan into effect immediately. Speedy action was important, apparently, because of the soil conservation issue. This doesn't mean, though, that the Department isn't willing to make some changes as the new plan takes over. This was made clear when Assistant Secretary John Davis met with Associated November 3 and pledged USDA would improve its services to the industry. Cliff Carpenter and Joe Parker report that Secretary Davis informed Associated: (1) There will be commodity setups under the Agricultural Marketing Service instead of functional as originally indicated; (2) under AMS there will be a separate poultry division, reporting directly to the deputy administrator and administrator (Oris Wells); (3) all functions formerly carried out by the PMA poultry branch will be kept in the new AMS poultry division, except for research-but some liaison will be maintained between the poultry division and poultry research in Agricultural Research Service. Secretary Davis said, "We're more interested in getting industry cooperation to improve the poultry inspection service, than we are in where this function is carried out. We'll leave it with the poultry division in AMS or transfer it to the meat inspection division—as you recommend." In an informal poll of those present, 5 voted to keep inspection in AMS, 1 voted for transferring it to the meat-inspection unit, and several did not vote. Institute representatives did not vote. Mr. REIDY. Mr. Robert Cameron? Mr. Cameron, you have come a long way to be with us from Denver, Colo. We appreciate it and are sorry to keep you waiting so long. As one of our distinguished Senators always says, the last shall be first, and the first shall be last. I hope that is some consolation. Will you identify yourself for the record first, and then proceed as you desire. 78733-56-7 STATEMENT OF J. ROBERT CAMERON, ASSISTANT MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLO. Mr. CAMERON. I am J. Robert Cameron, assistant manager of the Department of Health and Hospitals of the city and county of Denver, Colo. I am, and have been, for the past 7 years the assistant manager which is the title used in Denver for assistant commissioner, of the Department of Health and Hospitals of the city and county of Denver, Colo. Dr. Lloyd Florio, manager of the department of health and hospitals, conveys his regrets because of his inability to appear before this subcommittee to speak in support of S. 3176. He has requested that I appear in his behalf to represent the Department of Health and Hospitals of the city and county of Denver and to express our position in this matter. I have been employed continuously in the enforcement of public health laws for the past 16 years. During this time, I have become familiar with the poultry industry and the need for a sound poultryinspection program based on public-health principles and enforced by trained public-health administrators and inspectors. It is my sincere belief and that of the department which I represent, that such programs are necessary for the protection of the public's health. Based on this premise the Department of Health and Hospitals of the city and county of Denver, Colo., wishes to support Senate bill 3176, as presented. The State of Colorado and the city and county of Denver are predominantly poultry importing areas and we, who are charged by law with the responsibility for the protection of the consumers' health, are vitally concerned with legislation which will affect the poultry received in the commercial establishments of Denver. The city of Denver is the largest poultry-consuming area within the State of Colorado which increases the significance of such legislation. The Denver Department of Health and Hospitals has worked harmoniously with the Denver regional office of the Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Food and Drug Administration has shown repeatedly its concern for the protection of the consumers' health. This cooperative effort on the part of the Department of Health and Hospitals and the Food and Drug Administration have included industry cooperation in working out problems of mutual concern. The Food and Drug Administration is eminently qualified to administer a poultry-inspection program for consumer protection inasmuch as that agency has been constituted by law with this as its express objective. It has come to our attention that other bills have been introduced into the Senate of the United States which would place the responsibility for this vital health function under the administration of the United States Department of Agriculture. If this vital health function were to be placed in a nonhealth agency, such as the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration will undoubtedly be deprived by law from cooperating with State and local health agencies in the public health control of the sale and distribution of filthy, putrid, diseased, adulterated, or otherwise unwholesome poultry, which has been in interstate commerce. The United States Department of Agriculture is an agency primarily interested in the promotion of agricultural products and therefore, its fundamental concern is to expediate the marketing of poultry and poultry products. Based on my 16 years of experience in public health, I believe that by placing the responsibility of poultry inspection in the Federal Food and Drug Administration, the protection of the consumer's health will be of primary concern, whereas consumer interests will be secondary if the responsibility is placed with the Department of Agriculture. I am further convinced that the promotion of the economics of industry and the public health protection of the products produced by that industry are incompatible. This fact has been amply demonstrated by the current voluntary poultry inspection program now operated by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture. The only justification that exists for any poultry inspection program is to afford adequate protection to the public by preventing the consumption of adulterated, filthy, and unwholesome products. Therefore, any proposal to use such legislation to expedite the marketing of these products does not appear to be sound legislation. For the last 4 years the Department of Health and Hospitals of the city and county of Denver, Colo., has participated at great expense of funds and manpower assisting in the development of a sound poultry sanitation and inspection code which is designed for adoption by States and municipalities to provide adequate inspection to encourage the free movement of poultry and poultry products in intrastate and interstate commerce. This nationally recommended ordinance was developed by representatives of the poultry industry and local, State, and national food and drug officials and public health officials. It is interesting to note that the Institute of American Poultry Industries, who are currently sponsoring S. 3588, placing mandatory poultry inspection in the Department of Agriculture, were active participants in the development of this code over a 4-year period and further, that Dr. Cliff Carpenter, president of the institute, was cochairman of the development committee. At this time I would like to point out that this recommended code which is the first step in promoting uniformity of inspections in municipal governmental agencies responsible for poultry inspection, bears the insignia of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This recommended code was developed with the full intent of all the groups including the Institute of American Poultry Industries of going ahead and developing another recommended ordinance which would require the inspection for wholesomeness and which would be used by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as a model ordinance. This concept was supported by the Institute of American Poultry Industries, and now they turn around and say poultry inspection should not be in Health, Education, and Welfare, but should be in the Department of Agriculture. To me that is a turnabout which cannot be tolerated and certainly places in the minds of we people in public health that the poultry industry is not interested in good poultry legislation. This recommended code was approved by all participants as providing a uniform standard for enforcement by State and local government under food and drug and public health laws. It appears inconceivable that after an expenditure of such a great amount of time and effort by both industry and local, State, and Federal agencies, that the institute and other poultry organizations should not be wholeheartedly in support of S. 3176, which contains the basic provisions of the code recommended by their own committee. In summary, it should be emphasized that the Denver Department of Health and Hospitals urges support of S. 3176, because our experience has shown that the Food and Drug Administration can be relied upon to administer a food-inspection program which has the same objectives as these of the Department of Health and Hospitals and the majority of other public health agencies. Further, giving such responsibility to the Food and Drug Administration is logical, since that agency was established for the express purpose of protecting consumer interests and public health. It must be repeated that the food and drug laws in most States are administered by State and local departments of public health, and their enforcement is coordinated with the programs of the Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Public Health Service. Because of the Department's experience with present programs administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture as compared with the Food and Drug Administration, and because of our vital interest in this matter as a poultry importing area; and because of our interest in protecting the consumer by preventing the consumption of adulterated, filthy, or otherwise unwholesome products, we respectfully urge this committee to give favorable consideration to S. 3176, which logically places the responsibility for administration of a compulsory poultry inspection program in the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Mr. REIDY. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. You say you support S. 3176 as presented. You have heard the representatives of several of the farm organizations and Senator Murray suggest an amendment to it which would exempt the producer who processes his own birds for direct sale to consumer locally. Are you willing to accept that? Mr. CAMERON. I think that is something which we have to accept. I believe however, that the health authority still cannot overlook the fact that even in this case he must exert some control. After all, his responsibilities are to the public. In our milk program and in our meat-inspection program which we conduct in Denver in those plants not under USDA inspection, we have always worked with the farm groups to work out their own particular problems, to help them market their product, but still protect the health of the people. Mr. REIDY. Your support of the bill would be maintained even if it were so amended? Mr. CAMERON. Yes, sir. Mr. REIDY. I believe you mentioned the fact that you have always enjoyed good working relationships with the representatives of the Food and Drug Administration. |