foreign commerce of any slaughtered poultry or uninspected poultry carcasses except for the purpose of further processing in an official establishment. 5. Page 13, section 15 (a) (3), lines 6 through 11: Change to:

"(3) for such period of time as the Secretary determines that it would be impracticable to provide inspection and the exemption will aid in the effective administration of this Act, any person engaged in the processing of poultry or poultry products for commerce and the poultry or poultry products processed by such person; Provided, however, that no such exemption shall continue in effect on and after July 1, 1960."

We prefer this language because it provides for exempting "persons" as well as poultry and poultry products. The exemption of "persons" conforms to other exemptions and would provide for consistent application of the penalties and other provisions of the act. This would provide for exemptions, if necessary, for a limited period after the effective date of the act, in case the Department is unable to provide inspection service to all applicants on or before the effective date because of unavailability of qualified inspectors.

6. Page 14, section 17 (a), line 7: We assume that the word "unhealthy" in line 7, page 14 is a misprint and was intended to read "unhealthful."

7. Page 17, section 22 (d), lines 7 and 8: Insert the word "bird" after the word "domesticated." This will clarify the language so that an interpretation might not be made to the effect that this definition applies only to game birds.

8. We would suggest some changes in the requirements concerning labeling which will also necessitate changes in the section on "Definitions" and in the section on "Prohibited Acts." These are as follows:

(a) Starting page 20, section 22, lines 4 to 7: Modify the definition of "label" to read:

"(n) The term label means any written, printed, or graphic material upon the shipping container, if any, or upon the immediate container, including but not limited to an individual consumer package, of the poultry product, or accompanying such product."

(b)

Add as subsection (o) of section 22 the definition for the term "shipping container" as follows:

"The term 'shipping container' means any container used or intended for use in packaging the product packed in an immediate container." (c) Add as subsection (p) of section 22 the definition for the term “immediate container" as follows:

"The term 'immediate container' includes any consumer package; or any carton, box, barrel or other receptacle in which poultry carcasses or poultry products, not consumer packaged, are packed."

(d) Starting page 5, section 7 (a), lines 12 to 21: Change the first sentence to read:

"Each shipping container of any poultry product inspected under the authority of this Act and found to be wholesome and not adulterated shall at the time such product leaves the official establishment bear, in distinctly legible form, the official inspection mark and the approved plant number of the official establishment in which the contents were processed."

(e) Also, delete the words "each individual consumer package, if any" on page 5, section 7 (a), lines 21 and 22, and substitute the words "each immediate container.". There will always be an immediate container and, therefore, the words "if any" need not be used in connection with that term. All of the information required by section 7 to be shown on each individual consumer package should, in our opinion, be shown on each immediate container regardless of whether it be an individual consumer package or some other kind of immediate container. On the other hand, there would not appear to be any need to require labeling information on a shipping container other than the official inspection mark and the approved plant number of the official establishment in which the contents were processed, since all of the other mandatory labeling information would be shown on the immediate container in which the product will be delivered to the consumer or user. The application of paragraph (b) of the section would include any additional labeling which the processor may desire to show on the shipping container. This would not be in conflict with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and would serve to minimize the labeling information required by law to be shown on shipping containers.

(f) Starting page 7, section 8 (a), line 23: Change section 8 (a) to read as follows:

"(a) The processing, sale or offering for sale, transportation, or delivery or receiving for transportation, in commerce or in a designated city or area, of any poultry product, unless such poultry product has been inspected for wholesomeness and unless the shipping container, if any, and the immediate container are marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

It is believed that the enactment of this proposed legislation would result in a need for $7,750,000 on an annual basis during the first year and an annual appropriation of approximately $10 million for each subsequent year. This amount would, of course, have to be increased to the extent that the act was applied to cities and areas as provided in section 5. A study would be made in the interim, before the legislation became fully effective, to serve as a basis for arriving at the cost of the program.

The Department wishes to point out that the time schedule in the legislation as written and upon which the above estimates are based would require that all poultry-processing plants subject to the mandatory poultry inspection would be operating under the program by July 1, 1958. This period of time is, in our opinion, not sufficient to permit the industry and the Department of Agriculture to make the preparations and adjustments necessary to meet the mandatory requirements that would be imposed by this legislation. For this reason, the Department urges that consideration be given to extending the final effective date of this legislation to July 1, 1959. Should this modification be made, the estimated funds required for the first year would approximate $4,750,000 on an annual basis, $7,750,000 for the second year, and $10 million for the third year.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

E. T. BENSON,

Secretary.

Mr. DIXON. Will copies of this report be made available to the members, that is, of the report, be made available to the members of the committee?

Mrs. DOWNEY (the clerk). We will have additional copies made so all members may have one.

Mr. WATTS. You may go ahead.

Mr. BUTZ. The report was just filed and will be made available. Mr. DIXON. That is what I would like to get.

Mr. BUTZ. While H. R. 377 and H. R. 514 both provide for an effective inspection program, the Department prefers H. R. 377 with some modifications.

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 does not adequately recognize that the poultry and red-meat industries are to a great degree distinct in the overall agricultural economy and that the protection of consumer health involves the application of inspection procedures which necessarily must be different for each.

The Department recommends against H. R. 5398, H. R. 5403, and H. R. 5489, mainly for two particular reasons.

1. They designate the agency within the Department of Agriculture which would be responsible for administering compulsory poultry inspection.

We believe this is contrary to good administration and in conflict with the policy established by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, approved by Congress.

We believe the decision as to where any activity, including the compulsory inspection of poultry, is to be administered within the Department of Agriculture should be a responsibility of the Secretary.

2. These three bills specifically prohibit the interstate movement of so-called dressed or uneviscerated poultry.

We are sure that Congress would not intend to impose unnecessary and unwarranted restrictions upon trading so long as the objectiveadequate protection of consumers-can be accomplished otherwise. No constructive purpose would be served by prohibiting the interstate movement of dressed poultry so long as its movement can be controlled. Such control is provided in H. R. 377, for example, which would prohibit the movement of dressed poultry, except as between official establishments and then only when in accordance with rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Department also recommends against H. R. 899 and H. R. 4357 largely because (1) they do not provide for gradual application of inspection activity so as to furnish the time which would be needed by both the Department and the industry to meet the demands of a compulsory inspection program, (2) they designate a specific agency within the Department of Agriculture which would be responsible for the compulsory inspection of poultry instead of leaving this to the Secretary, and (3) they do not adequately recognize that the poultry and red-meat industries are to a great degree distinct in the overall agricultural economy and that the protection of consumer health involves the application of inspection procedures which necessarily must be different for each.

The Department of Agriculture has given continuing study to the bills which were introduced in the 2d session of the 84th Congress and also the bills introduced in this session of the 85th Congress.

H. R. 377 is a bill which incorporates all of the amendments suggested by this Department to a bill introduced in the 2d session of the 84th Congress.

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 which, if the committee so desires, will be discussed later by Mr. Hermon I. Miller, Director of our Poultry Division.

We in the Department of Agriculutre regard these bills for compulsory poultry inspection as important legislative proposals. They deal with a subject that is vital to the well-being of both poultry consumers and poultry producers.

The consumer must at all times be assured of a wholesome product. That is also important from the standpoint of the producer who is dependent upon the consumer for his market.

Thus, legislation providing for effective compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products necessarily serves the interests of both consumers and producers.

As background for the committee's consideration of this important. legislation, I would like to review some of the activities of the Department in the food-inspection field and some of the changes which have taken place in the poultry industry over recent years.

The Department conducts a number of food-inspection programs under various authorities provided by Congress. All red meat which

enters interstate commerce is required to be inspected under the Federal Meat Inspection Act passed in 1906.

The Department also conducts voluntary inspection services for processed fruits and vegetables and for poultry under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

The food-inspection programs authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act are of a service, nonmandatory nature. These programs, therefore, are available on a voluntary basis, and provide a service both to industry and consumers.

The Department's voluntary poultry inspection program provides for detailed inspection of individual birds at the time of processing. The consumer can recognize when this inspection has been performed by a distinguishing mark which is in the form of a circle, and contains within this circle the words "United States Inspected for Wholesomeness."

This assures the consumer that the ready-to-cook poultry covered by this mark was processed in a plant which met the rigid sanitary facility and operating requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture.

It further assures that at the time of evisceration every individual bird was examined by a qualified inspector, either a veterinarian or a lay inspector under the direct supervision of a veterinarian, to determine its fitness for human food.

Any bird which is not considered suitable for human food is condemned on the spot by the inspector and so treated as to preclude its use for human food.

The regulations under which inspection for wholesomeness is conducted represent the experience of a 29-year period during which this inspection has been in operation.

These regulations have been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act which permits the public to participate in their formulation.

The high standards set forth in these regulations are designed to protect poultry consumers. The regulations embody the views of many scientists and of public-health agencies as well as the Food and Drug Administration.

In fact, 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.

The voluntary poultry inspection program has received wide acceptance. The use of this service has been expanding very rapidly in the last few years.

In 1951, for example, only 145 plants made use of this service; whereas today there are approximately 320.

In addition, there are approximately 150 applications for this service in various stages of clearance.

In 1956, approximately 12 billion pounds of poultry were inspected for wholesomeness under this program. This quantity represents about one-fourth of all poultry sold off farms last year. It represents approximately half of the poultry moving in interstate commerce.

The poultry inspection service is under the supervision of highly qualified veterinary personnel. The staff of 514 professional people includes 315 veterinarians.

There are some staff members who have been in this poultry inspection work since its inception 29 years ago. All those engaged in this inspection for wholesomeness work are employees of the Department, or are State employees licensed by this Department under a cooperative agreement with Federal supervision.

Under the poultry inspection program plants that process poultry in dressed (uneviscerated) form which is to be used in another plant for the production of ready-to-cook poultry and poultry products under inspection for wholesomeness, are also required to meet rigid sanitary standards and operate under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture.

This assures that poultry is processed in a sanitary manner so that it may be moved as dressed poultry into plants for further processing under official inspection into canned or ready-to-cook form.

Unlike red meat, poultry is not always eviscerated in the same establishment where slaughtered. The sanitation requirements for plants producing dressed poultry which may later move to a plant for further processing under official inspection were inaugurated in

1951.

Since it is not possible to determine with definiteness whether poultry is fit for human food until evisceration takes place, no certification is made regarding wholesomeness under this plant sanitation requirement which in effect is only a prerequisite to inspection for whole

someness.

The present interest in making poultry inspection compulsory under Federal law represents a logical outgrowth from the experience gained over the years under the Department's voluntary program.

During the last 3 or 4 years this interest has grown to the point where proposals for such legislation are being supported by most of the farm organizations as well as industry and consumer groups.

During the last 20 years, poultry meat production from both chickens and turkeys has increased from 2.9 billion pounds live weight in the 1935-39 period to about 7 billion pounds in 1956.

The per capita production of poultry meats has also increased despite a growing population, consumers have been provided with about 80 percent more chicken meat and 120 percent more turkey meat in recent years than was true in a period of late thirties.

The type of poultry being produced has also changed and areas of production likewise have changed. In the early thirties practically all of the poultry meat came from the general type of farm and chicken meat produced was largely a byproduct of egg production.

Today the great bulk of all poultry meat marketed comes from commercial-type operations.

Commercial broiler production was hardly recognized as an industry in the late thirties. In recent years the number of broilers produced has exceeded 1 billion head per year.

The production of turkeys likewise has become highly commercialized and turkey production is becoming concentrated in specific geographical areas.

This centralization of poultry meat production has brought into being mass movements of poultry products in interstate commerce.