Mr. OSGOOD. I would absolutely agree with that, because we did have State inspection and we found that when we went out in the markets with a product with the State inspection it did not mean sufficient to the trade, the consumers; that some States had one system and some another system. We did work and get our State inspection regulations and rules as near as we could to comply with the Federal. There were different things which we did not have. But in every sense of the word we try to copy after them and put them into effect. But I do believe that it is very essential to have this supervision come from here and be all over the country, because the uniformity in my opinion is the keynote to any successful program. Mr. JOHNSON. You can imagine the situation where you did not have that where one State would be very lax and another one would in effect be very strict and you would not be getting the same kind of product from one State as you would from another State. Mr. OSGOOD. That is what we have here. It is that we have these men come from Washington and they just simply are overseeing our work. We do this with the Public Health Service. We have a program with them on sanitation which is practically the same thing as this. We worked that successfully for years. They certify through their organization and publish a monthly list showing, shocking houses, and the different officials can see that the food is inspected. We are familiar with this program. Mr. WATTS. As I understand your position then, the Department of Agriculture could set the rules of the game and the States should be permitted to help them out? Mr. OSGOOD. That is right. Mr. WATTS. Thank you, sir. We certainly like your paper. Mr. WATTS. We will next call Mr. Harold Klahold. Mr. Klahold is with the Northern Poultry Producers Council. STATEMENT OF HAROLD P. KLAHOLD, PRESIDENT, NORTHEASTERN POULTRY PRODUCERS COUNCIL, TRENTON, N. J.; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ALFRED VAN WAGENEN Mr. KLAHOLD. I have Dr. Wagenen with me who is our managing director. Mr. WATTS. Do you have a prepared statement, sir? Mr. KLAHOLD. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harold P. Klahold. I am president of the Northeastern Poultry Producers Council with headquarters at 10 Rutgers Place, Trenton, N. J. My own business is the production of broilers and general farming at Preston, Md., on the Del-Mar-Va Peninsula. We normally have approximately 200,000 birds growing at any one time, mostly on our own 3 farms, with some contracted. The farms produce chiefly corn, soybeans, and barley in addition to broilers. We do not hatch our own chicks, nor process the finished birds, but do have a small feed mill. The council, of which I am currently president, known as NEPPCO. has been instrumental in furthering the interests and representing the opinions of the approximately 40,000 poultrymen and allied poultry industrymen of the 14 Northeastern States, from Maine to and including Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia, since 1931. This council and its membership have been and are firmly on record in favor of mandatory Federal inspection of poultry in interstate commerce. At the present time, practical legislation to accomplish this would be beneficial to all segments of the people of the country. Confidence in the wholesomeness of our products would be of benefit to consumers, producers, and the industry. Legislation to accomplish this end should be enacted immediately. We believe such legislation should provide: 1. An adequate inspection service under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, with sufficient flexibility that the service can be readily adapted to the wide variety of operations now in existence or which may be developed in the future within the industry. It should permit the immediate application of qualified research results on the control of health influencing factors as well as operating procedures. 2. Recognition of the rights of the small-business man and producer. There are many producers and small processing plants, particularly in the Northeast, who do an adequate job of sanitation and production of a wholesome product who must not be forced out of business by cumbersome rules and costs that would be economical only to a large mechanized operation. Provision to adequately service this group must be provided. 3. A service integrated into the present services to the poultry industry by the United States Department of Agriculture. The size of the industry and the complexity of its problems are distinct and often unique. The service must not be administratively subordinated to any similar services now offered for other products. 4. Public appropriation for its support, since this service is for the protection of the public; consumer, worker, producer, and other poultry industry men. 5. Provision for the recognition of, and participation by, State authorities in rendering this service so that a complete and uniform program can be rendered throughout the country. This industry has experienced the trials and frustrations of having its governmental relations tied administratively to the coattails of another. It has only been in the recent memory of many here that the Poultry Division of the United States Department of Agriculture has been separated from the Dairy Division. We have no criticism of the dairy or any other group, but there have been many times when it was apparent that our industry problems were subordinated through lack of knowledge and understanding of the poultry industry itself. It is this experience that strengthens our opposition to a move to once again create a subordinated poultry program such as would be the case if this program were to be directed by legislation into the Agricultural Research Service. The poultry industry is one of the few that has battled i's way to importance, and to keep itself as free as possible from controls and subsidy. It is the third most important producer of agricultural income, totaling an annual $3 billion. 89831-57-7 It is the most widespread agricultural enterprise. It deserves to be allowed to stand on its own feet, Government administration wise as well as industry wise. The Secretary of Agriculture should be allowed administrative flexibility with respect to designating the particular agency within the Department which will be responsible for the operation of the Poultry Inspection Service. Such flexibility is prerequisite to the maintenance of a continuous and exemplary program and in accord with the reorganization plan approved by Congress wherein the powers and authorities of the Department of Agriculture were vested in the Secretary. Peculiar, perhaps, to our industry when compared with other industries, is the fact that the majority of plants have a "line" operation wherein the product moves continuously from the live state to the finished, graded, and packaged commodity. The introduction of 2 regulatory agencies under separate administration, 1 for inspection and 1 for grading, makes for inefficiency in administration and operation. Most of the criticisms that have been directed at the present voluntary poultry inspection service of the Department of Agriculture are directly due to the fact that it is voluntary, permissive, and at processor expense. The Department can only encourage industry to use the service. Processors may move into and away from the service at will. In spite of this, the service has grown and the regulations provide a service that assures the public of a wholesome product as well as any provided by any State or local government or the United States Public Health Service recommendations. Other specific points we favor and consider important are: 1. The Secretary should be free to appoint any qualified Government employee (not only a Federal employee) as an inspector. There are many smaller plants and plants with seasonal operations, of 3 months or so, where adequate service could be rendered by a State employee, for example, and fully protecting the consumer. the worker, the producer, and the industryman. Such men might not be willing to give up the benefits of their regular employment to participate under Federal employment for short or part-time service. The use of these qualified State, county, or municipal employees could be more practical and economical than the specification that only Federal employees are qualified or trustworthy to perform this service. 2. The power, by the Secretary, to designate consuming areas when the regulations would apply must include the power to grant certain exemptions under specified conditions and should be subject to the application by local authority or industry group and public hearing. 3. Both ante and post mortem inspection procedures and requirements must be kept flexible to permit the Secretary to prescribe quickly according to necessity and the application of new developments. 4. The interapproved plant movement of so-called New York dressed poultry must be provided for under suitable regulations. The economical production of poultry products often requires interplant movement for concentration or further processing. 3. Certain violations must be punishable only if knowingly committed. Flagrant violations should, of course, be punishable, but adequate warning by inspectors can easily assure that continuation of violations are "knowingly." 6. The effective date must provide for adequate time for the administration and the industry to be ready for the application of the service. It must not penalize the volume of product that is in refrigeration in the normal operation. The Northeastern Poultry Producers Council strongly recommends the adoption of mandatory poultry inspection under the provisions of H. R. 767, H. R. 514, H. R. 5463, H. R. 1964, or H. R. 3052. These bills are in substantial agreement needing only minor adjustments to be in full agreement. Mr. WATTS. We thank you very much for your fine statement. The bells have rung. So it will be necessary for the committee to adjourn today's session to meet again tomorrow morning at 9:30 and to go as long as we are permitted. There is one thing I would like for you to do. I do not know whether you received H. R. 377 as amended by the Department. You heard the testimony yesterday. Mr. KLAHOLD. We have not had a chance to study it. Mr. WATTS. I will appreciate it very much if you would get the chance and make your comments with reference to it, as a supplement to your statement. Will you do that, sir? Mr. KLAHOLD. Yes, sir. Mr. WATTS. We are pleased now to hear from Congressman Thaddeus Machrowicz of Michigan. STATEMENT OF HON. THADDEUS M. MACHROWICZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Chairman, in supporting the bill, H. R. 12, I respectfully urge upon this committee to consider favorably an amendment which would also require inspection of weights on processed poultry at the same time that the inspection of wholesomeness of poultry is made. This amendment is urged by the Food Industry Committee of Detroit, Mich., which has complained to me that a serious situation exists there. At the present time there are received in the city of Detroit many thousands of pounds of processed chickens from other States that upon arrival have been found to be of short weight to a considerable degree. In some instances it was found that processors were even injecting water into the thighs of poultry before freezing to increase the weight. Both the merchants of Michigan and the State Department of Agriculture in Michigan are very much interested and concerned over this situation. I would, therefor, respect fully urge that in the consideration of the bill an amendment be adopted which would take care of this condition. Mr. WATTS. I have been requested to have inserted in the record at this point several statements and letters, and if there is no objection that will be done at this point in the record. (The statement of Mr. John J. Riggle, secretary, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives is as follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN J. RIGGLE, SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES On behalf of our member associations which are marketing farmers' poultry and poultry products, we favor legislation authorizing a practical and workable compulsory poultry inspection service in the Department of Agriculture. We believe the Secretary of Agriculture should be authorized and directed to make appropriate inspection of poultry and poultry products moving in interstate commerce both ante and post mortem; and of the facilities for processing and for handling in the markets. Metropolitan inspections where both intrastate and interstate shipments of poultry and poultry products are received, should be authorized based on a finding of the Secretary for necessity of such inspection. Discretion should be left with the Secretary as to which agency in the Department of Agriculture would have the responsibility, but the service should be separate from other meat inspection service in the Department. With the procedures especially adapted to the poultry industry, based on experience of both the Department and producers with the voluntary inspection service which has been carried out for a number of years, it is especially desirable that the grading and inspection services be carried out under closely associated supervision and direction. We believe the inspection should be wholly at public expense in order to completely protect the integrity of the inspection service in the public interest. The Secretary should be allowed to designate qualified public inspectors whether or not on the Federal payroll, such as State and local government inspectors. We believe that the act should be made effective January 1, 1958, in order to allow the Department time to expand and perfect the inspection service and to give the industry time to prepare for compulsory inspection which should be required as of July 1, 1958, providing this bill becomes a law at this session of Congress. In the meantime poultry processors already having inspection service and those becoming ready for inspection service should be allowed to participate in and utilize the inspection as fast as the expanding service can serve them. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES, 744 Jackson Place NW., Washington 6, D. C. Mr. McINTIRE. In line also with the supplemental statement, I would like to ask if you wish to add to your statement, to elaborate any further on your observations as to the Federal-State agreements or provisions in the bill allowing for that Mr. KLAHOLD. Yes, sir, we will do that. Mr. WATTS. Congressman Anfuso has requested if you would comment on his bill. Mr. KLAHOLD. Very well. (The statements of Mr. Klahold and Dr. Van Wagenen are as follows:) SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF HAROLD P. KLAHOLD, PRESIDENT, NORTHEASTERN POULTRY PRODUCERS COUNCIL This statement is in response to your request that we study and submit our views with respect to the proposed suggestions of the Department of Agriculture with reference to H. R. 377 by Mr. Polk. As you are aware, our testimony favored H. R. 514, 767 and 5463. We still believe these bills contain many desirable features. However, here are our comments with respect to H. R. 377 as revised by the Department. These revisions are, we believe, included in H. R. 5738 submitted by Mr. Dixon after the hearings began. For the sake of clarity we will make specific references by page and line to the mimeographed "Comparative print of H. R. 377 showing amendments recommended by the Department of Agriculture" as given to us by your com |