Additional data submitted to the subcommittee by-Continued Kideney, Isabel H., American Association of University Women, Knutson, Coya, Congresswoman, Washington, D. C., letter of Livney, Martin L., president, American Poultry Farmers Associa- Page 100 245 Ludwig, Edwin, Director, Bureau of Food and Drugs, New York, 102 Mack, Hon. Russell V., Member of Congress, Washington, D. C., 101 North American Game Breeders Association, Inc., Warrensburg, 61 Report from the Department of Agriculture, dated March 6, 1957- Teague, Russell, E., M. D., State Health Commissioner, Louis- 315 COMPULSORY INSPECTION OF POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1957 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMODITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON POULTRY AND EGGS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 o'clock a. m., in room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. John C. Watts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Watts (presiding), Thompson, Johnson, Anfuso, McIntire, and Dixon. Also present: Representatives Poage, Abernethy, Abbitt, Thompson, Hagen, Jennings, Krueger, Teague, and Landrum. Mr. WATTS (presiding). The committee will come to order. The subcommittee has before it Mr. Polk's H. R. 377 and H. R. 5489, Mr. Abernethy's H. R. 514, Mr. Anfuso's H. R. 4357 and H. R. 5403, Mr. Price's H. R. 899, Mr. Miller's H. R. 1964, Mr. Hoeven's H. R. 3052, Mrs. Sullivan's H. R. 12 and H. R. 5398, Mr. Elliott's H. R. 5463, and Mr. McIntire's H. R. 767. I do not believe I have overlooked any, but if I have I shall appreciate having it called to my attention. Mr. DIXON. May I interrupt? Mr. WATTS. Yes. Mr. DIXON. Mr. McIntire asked to be excused for a little while. He will be in later. Mr. WATTS. Very well. I hope that since there does not seem to be a great deal of controversy with reference to whether we have the inspection or not, we will confine ourselves as much as possible to the issues before us. The bills listed above all propose to initiate a program of compulsory poultry and poultry-products inspection. They vary in several particulars on such points as (1) the scope, area, and degree of inspection required; (2) the agency which will be charged with the responsibility of inspection, although all agree that inspection should be made by some agency within the Department of Agriculture; (3) when inspection and regulation should become effective; (4) what relationship the poultry-inspection program should have with existing consumerprotection programs, both Federal and State; (5) the nature and duration of exemptions from the act; and (6) the degree of culpability necessary to constitute a violation of the act. Some Congressmen have introduced a second bill containing modifications over their original proposals which is indicative of the fact that there is yet considerable uncertainty even in the minds of those most familiar with the subject as to what form the legislation should take to best serve the interests of the American people. Valuable hearings were conducted last session by this subcommittee under the able chairmanship of James Polk. The work of the subcommittee, under his guidance last session, has brought forth much information that will be helpful to the subcommittee this session. Since many witnesses who will testify at these sessions either testified last year or are representing organizations who provided the committee with information and testimony at last year's hearing, the subcommittee would appreciate the emphasis in the testimony to be placed on the major differences in the bills before the committee unless, of course, the witness is objecting to the enactment of any mandatory inspection plan. It would be further helpful to the subcommittee in its study of these legislative proposals, if witnesses would point up in their testimony any change of thinking or position they might have had with respect to any aspect of the subject since testifying last year. Before hearing from the first witness, I might add that I am, as I am sure are the other members, much interested in seeing adequate consumer safeguards in effect in the poultry producing and processing industry. We have with us this morning as our first witness, Mr. Earl Butz, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. And we will be glad to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. EARL L. BUTZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY HERMON I. MILLER, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DIVISION; ROY W. LENNARTSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; CHARLES W. BUCY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL; NATHAN KOENIG, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR; AND ROY E. WILLIE, CHIEF, INSPECTION BRANCH, POULTRY DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. Burz. Mr. Chairman and members, we in the Department of Agriculture are glad to participate in this committee's hearings on bills which would provide for the compulsory inspection by this Department of poultry and poultry products. As indicated in the position taken a year ago, the Department of Agriculture favors the enactment of legislation providing for the compulsory inspection of poultry. This committee has before it a dozen bills which would provide for the compulsory inspection of poultry by the Department of Agricul ture. In the opinion of this Department, six of these bills afford the legislative framework necessary for an effective compulsory inspection program. These bills are H. R. 377, H. R. 514, H. R. 767, H. R. 1964, H. R. 3052, and H. R. 5463. Although these particular bills are similar in many of their provisions, they differ in others. Since the Department has been formally requested by this committee to report on H. R. 377, H. R. 514, and H. R. 12, it has given detailed study to these three bills. The report has just been given to Mrs. Downey. Mr. WATTS. Permit me to interrupt. I have before me the report which I would like to make a part of the record at this point. It is rather lengthy, and I think the committee will probably read it at some other time rather than impose on the time of the witnesses that are before the committee at this time. (The report dated March 6, 1957, is as follows:) Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, House of Representatives. DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: This is in reply to your two requests of January 31 for reports on three bills, namely H. R. 12, H. R. 377, and H. R. 514, all of which provide for the compulsory Federal inspection of poultry and poultry products by this Department. While H. R. 377 and H. R. 514 both provide authority for an effective inspection program, the Department would prefer the enactment of H. R. 377 with some modifications as suggested hereinafter. The Department does not favor legislation such as H. R. 12, which would provide for poultry inspection by amending the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and the Tariff Act of 1930. Providing for poultry inspection through such legislation adequately fits neither the needs for an effective poultry-inspection program nor the particular pattern of the poultry industry. The poultry and redmeat industries are to a great degree distinct in the overall agricultural economy, and the protection of consumer health involves the application of inspection procedures which necessarily must be different for each. Both H. R. 377 and H. R. 514 would provide for the compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products to prevent the entry into or flow or movement in commerce of any poultry product which is unwholesome or adulterated. These bills provide for antemortem inspections, postmortem inspections, reinspections, and the establishment of sanitary requirements, labeling, the maintenance of records, and would prescribe penalties for violations. The bills would also provide the Secretary of Agriculture with authority to grant certain exemptions and provide for the appropriation of funds necessary for carrying out the purposes of the legislation. There is presently no Federal law providing for the compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products such as is contemplated by these proposed bills, or is in effect under the Meat Inspection Act for beef and other red meats. Under the broad authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, and comparable authority with respect to inspection programs contained in previous legislation, this Department has for some years been actively conducting many food inspection programs on a voluntary basis. These include inspection of poultry designed to insure that the purchaser is receiving a product which is sound, healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food. The Department has been conducting this voluntary poultry inspection program for more than 25 years. At present there are about 320 poultry processing plants availing themselves of this service and paying about $3.2 million per year for its use. In addition, there is an appropriation of about $155,000 per year. Approximately 515 Department employees are engaged in the poultry inspection work. This personnel includes about 315 inspectors who are graduates of accredited veterinary schools. This Department's voluntary poultry inspection program presently covers a volume equal to about one quarter of all of the poultry sold off farms in the United States. It is estimated that this volume is equal to somewhat more than half of the poultry products moving in interstate commerce. The recent tremendous expansion in the use of the voluntary poultry inspection program by the industry, the changes in production patterns, and the prepackaging of poultry products, indicate a current activity in interstate commerce of the first magnitude that 10 years ago, by comparison, was of minor significance. The regulations under which inspection for wholesomeness is conducted in the voluntary program have been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The standards set forth are extremely high. They incorporate the views of many scientists and public health agencies. The sanitation requirements of these regulations provided the pattern for the suggested code for poultry plant sanitation which was published by the United States Public Health Service and developed through the cooperation of public health agencies and industry. This Department believes that the logical and sound way to furnish protection to consumers in the form of compulsory poultry inspection would be to build the compulsory program on the experience gained through the administration of the voluntary program. The Department believes that both H. R. 377 and H. R. 514, with some modifications, would provide ample authority for the Secretary to accomplish this. The Department has given continuining study to the bills which were introduced in the second session of the 84th Congress, and has studied the various bills which have been introduced in this session of the 85th Congress. H. R. 377 is a bill which incorporates all of the amendments recommended by this Department on a bill introduced in the Second Session of the 84th Congress and, therefore, the Department feels that H. R. 377 is a desirable bill for consideration by the 85th Congress. However, as a result of the Department's continuing study there are some additional modifications that we feel should be made in H. R. 377. These are as follows: 1. Page 3, section 4, lines 13 through 18: Change the sentence beginning on line 13 to two sentences reading as follows: "Whenever, after public hearing, he finds that the designation of such a city or area will tend to effectuate the purposes of this Act, he shall by order designate such city or area and prescribe the provisions of this Act which shall be applicabie thereto and grant such exemptions therefrom as he determines practicable. Such designation shall not become effective until six months after the notice thereof is published in the Federal Register." It is difficult to anticipate all of the problems with which the Department may be confronted in furnishing inspection service in a designated city or area, but it is our opinion that the authority to prescribe provisions of the act which will be applicable and to grant exemptions may prove to be beneficial in the effective administration of this section, particularly in avoiding the possibility of duplication of inspection as between that of the Federal Government and that of State and local governments. 2. Page 19, section 22 (h) following paragraph (4): It is recommended that two paragraphs be added to the definition of the term "adulterated" as follows: "(5) If any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom. "(6) If any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater value than it is." The Department feels that the authority in these two paragraphs, which are taken from the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, would be desirable in order to give added assurance that poultry products bearing the inspection mark will not be adulterated. 3. Page 4, section 5 (a), lines 8 through 12: Change the sentence beginning on line 8 to read: "All poultry carcasses and parts thereof and poultry products found to be unfit for human consumption shall be condemned and shall, if no appeal be taken from such determination of condemnation, be destroyed for human food purposes under the supervision of an inspector." The reason for this suggested change is that there may be instances where a poultry product which is adulterated but fit for human consumption may be salvaged or reprocessed. 4. Page 10, section 8 (i), line 3: Change by adding a comma after the word "commerce" and inserting thereafter the phrase "or from an official establishment,". This addition would make clear the intent of the paragraph, which appears to be that of providing the authority to prohibit the movement in interstate or |