mittee. Inasmuch as Mr. Anfuso also requested our views with reference to H. R. 5403, we have appended comments with reference to his bill where points are applicable.

On page 2, line 13 and throughout the bill-the words "designate (or designated) cities or areas" appear here and throughout the bill. We believe that these are better described as "major consuming areas" and suggest that this wording be substituted wherever the reference is made. The same suggestion applies to H. R. 5403.

On pages 2 and 3, section 4, designation: We believe that the initiation of the Secretary's action with respect to "designated major consuming areas" should come from appropriate State or local officials or local industry group. Other than this we agree with the Department's amendments.

H. R. 5403 requires the consent of the local government involved. We see no objection to this being added.

On page 3, lines 19, 20, 21: We prefer the language "The Secretary shallmake [or "cause to be made by inspectors" (as in H. R. 5403-provided "inspectors" are defined to include State employees under direction of the Secretary by Federal-State agreement)] such examination, inspections (antemortem, postmortem, or both).

This point of antemortem inspection appears to be a "bone of contention." Let me make clear here that we do not object to antemortem inspection. We do believe that the above wording gives the Secretary all the power and instruction necessary to accomplish it. Many producers have feared that a more specific direction would find legal or quasi-legal interpretation that would bring inspectors even back to the farm-a condition that would be strongly resisted. Many producers today will not permit anyone who has been on other farms, or particularly at a processing plant, to enter their premises as a health precaution. Possibly what is needed is a clarification of what is meant by antemortem inspection.

On page 3 line 26: The amendment suggested is acceptable since we believe the reprocessing of "an adulterated" carcass to make it wholesome and unadulterated should be permitted. As we read this language, this could be done. If we are wrong in interpretation then some language that will permit the correction of minor faults should be incorporated in the section.

On page 5, lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: These suggestions are entirely acceptable— in fact they improve the workability of the act. The same change should be made in H. R. 5403 in section 7 (p. 5).

On page 7, lines 5 and 6: Carries forward the suggestions above, and we agree. On page 7, line 11 (also lines 16, 18 and 25 and p. 8, line 2): The use of the word "knowingly" is apparently another "bone of contention." Congress in 1955, chapter 632, Public Law 272, incorporated this word in connection with penalties with respect to violations of official inspection certificates. We believe it should be used here. Perhaps, if certain violations were defined punishable less severely, and felony penalties remained for knowing or major willful violations, this would be cleaned up, and put the teeth in the law that is desired. We appreciate the eagerness of enforcing agents to simplify their responsibility for proof of violation, but at the same time the individual needs protection too against malicious violations by competitors, employees or others.

On page 10, line 11: No provision is made either here or in 5403 for exempiton of common carriers similar to those found in H. R. 514, H. R. 767, or H. R. 5463. The omission of this exemption would have a drastic effect upon rates, if carriers must protect themselves by incurring the expense of inspection or other assurance that no violations were present.

On page 12, "Exemptions," section 15, (a) (3): The suggested change is satisfactory provided that product produced under such exemption shall continue exempt even though the expiration date for such exemption shall be passed. In other words, legally processed inspected birds may be in storage at the expiration date (July 1, 1960) and the processor or owner should have the opportunity to sell them.

On page 15, section 19: We prefer the language set forth in section 20 of H. R. 514 767 or 5463. If that in 5403 were amended on line 12 (p. 15) to add-"at the request of the processor," this would also be acceptable. We feel that the discretion as to overtime work must remain with the operator.

On page 19, line 3: This definition should be clarified to provide for the omission of a wing, or part of the giblets, etc., that may have been removed by an inspector. On page 19, lines 5 to 8, also page 20, lines 4 to 16: We believe this is necessary to carry out improvements previously approved.

On page 20: Effective date. This should clearly state that: The Department should be provided with funds to set up the service, train inspectors, etc., on enactment. The first date on which anyone could become subject to the act should be January 1, 1958. The act should become fully effective and compulsory July 1, 1958.

H. R. 5403 limits the definition of inspector to a Federal employee although it authorizes cooperation with other governmental agencies. We firmly believe that a State or other governmental employee should be available for use under the supervision of the Secretary by suitable cooperative agreement.

H. R. 5403 also prohibits the movement of so-called New York dressed poultry. We believe that such movement between inspected plants under suitable regulations should be permitted.

May I say that most of these recommendations have been discussed with representatives of our industry throughout the Northeast and we present them for your earnest consideration. Once again I emphasize that our council desires this legislation and calls particular attention to the need for special emphasis to guard the interests of the small processor and farm plant. State lines in much of the Northeast are close together and markets often so located that "interstate commerce" is almost the rule rather than the exception. The service must be available and practical to these operations. Thank you for this opportunity to extend our views.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED VAN WAGENEN, SECRETARY OF THE
NATIONAL POULTRY PRODUCERS FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Alfred Van Wagenen. I am secretary of the National Poultry Producers Federation,' an organization which represents all the national and regional poultry producer organizations of the United States. The combined poultry production of members of our association represents the vast majority of poultry production of the United States.

The members of this organization have been vitally interested in the inspection of poutry from its inception. The leaders in our industry have for some years believed that some form of compulsory inspection was feasible and in fact necessary for the welfare of all phases of our industry as well as the consuming public. The National Poultry Producers Federation will welcome mandatory inspection. We believe it is high time to quit quibbling about words. We, as producers, have the utmost faith in our Government and particularly in the ability of the United States Department of Agriculture to administer the mandate that should be given to it by this legislation.

The protection that has been given to consumers by the United States Department of Agriculture is too well known to be questioned or need to be praised. Occasionally we have people in all walks of life who disregard public welfare but those who refuse to abide by public law eventually pay the penalty for wrongdoing.

The only question before us today is what bill will be most practical in operation. No longer is it necessary to talk about the misconduct of individuals or firms. We are all agreed. Harmony should be easy to achieve.

We who produce poultry feel that we are producing the best meat available for human consumption. We want to tell consumers everywhere of the research work that establishes our products as important in today's diet. We want them to know that our product is highest in protein, low in fat. It means much to us when we are told that our product meets hospital requirements and is recommended for convalescent and athlete alike.

We especially want to emphasize to this committee that our industry accounts for a large percentage of farm income, in fact the third most important producer of farm income today. We believe that our industry is so necessary to the consumers that the most practical method of mandatory inspection should be adopted. We believe that poultry inspection is so important that it must not be subordinated to a competing industry.

1 Members: American Poultry Hatchery Federation; Northeastern Poultry Producers Council; National Turkey Federation; Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association; U. S. R. O. P. Federation; and Utah Egg and Poultry Growers Cooperative.

The National Poultry Producers Federation endorses the principles of H. R. 514, 767, 1964, 3052, and 5463, with the recommendation that the committee resolve any minor improvements needed to accomplish the end that we have a sound and practical program to provide protection and assurance that the consumer can have the poultry they want with assurance, and the producer, the worker, and the industry can profit from providing it.

(The statement of the American Veterinary Medical Association is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Harry E. Kingman, Jr., a doctor of veterinary medicine. I am appearing on behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA, representing the profession of veterinary medicine in the United States, appreciates being afforded the opportunity to have a representative appear before this committee concerning poultry-inspection bills pending before the House Committee on Agriculture, 85th Congress.

The American Veterinary Medical Association favors and endorses legislation which would prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome, or adulterated poultry or poultry products.

As background material, permit me to review the policy determinations of the American Veterinary Medical Association insofar as poultry inspection for wholesomeness is concerned.

First of all, the AVMA favors the enactment of proper legislation to provide for the compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products.

In 1951, the association adopted the report of the committee on food and milk hygiene which contained this statement of policy:

"If poultry is to bear a State grade designation, it should have the background of adequate inspection by State or Federal employees, and if poultry is to bear a USDA seal of any kind, the program should have Federal veterinary supervision at every level."

The association has continued to support its view that grading, which is essentially a marketing requirement, and inspection for wholesomeness, which is a consumer protection procedure, should be separately administered.

In 1954, the association adopted a resolution urging that the poultry-inspection service be combined with Federal meat inspection service.

Separating grading and inspection would either require the establishment of a new agency to perform the inspection services, or would require the transferring of the existing inspection program to an agency presently performing inspection work.

It is the view of our association that for reasons of economy, efficiency, and administrative experience, the poultry-inspection program could be best served by having it located in a division of the Government whose immediate responsibility is inspection for wholesomeness.

The association supported this at its annual meeting last October by endorsing legislation that would amend the Meat Inspection Act to include poultry and poultry products.

This is the basis of testimony given before the Subcommittee on Poultry and Eggs of the Committee on Agriculture, 84th Congress, July 18, 1956. The statement of the American Veterinary Medical Association appears on pages 201-210 of the report of these hearings.

Nearly all of the bills in their present form provide some of the basic features necessary for an adequately safeguarded inspection system.

Certain changes in the language of each, or a combination of the best features of all, should result in legislation that would merit the full support of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

At this time, we wish to express our confidence in the integrity and purposefulness of our administrative branches of government which will be called on to develop and administer the regulations which can not be written into the law but must be done through authorization of law.

Some of the bills provide for the creation of a Poultry Products Inspection Service rather than amending the Meat Inspection Act.

As an association, we would not oppose this method of establishing a poultry inspection service provided the same objectives can be achieved and if, in the

wisdom of the Congress, it is decided that this is the best procedure to follow. Therefore, we will confine our remaining comments to a number of basic considerations we feel are necessary to provide suitable legislation.

1. The definition of the term "inspector" should provide that the inspector shall be an employee of the Federal Government. We would urge the inclusion of suitable language in the bill reported out of this committee, to provide that inspectors be employees of the Federal Government.

2. The definition of the term "inspection service" should place the inspection responsibility within the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture. Should it be considered impractical to designate, as a part of this legislation, the specific agency within the Department of Agriculture to be charged with the responsibility of administering this act, we would urge that the committee call attention in their report accompanying the bill, to the economic, administrative, and public confidence advantages inherent in a coordinated foodcontrol program under an inspection agency that is primarily responsible to the consumer.

3. The bill should give proper emphasis to the prohibition of adulteration of poultry products.

4. The bill should clearly define "poultry" to include domestic birds; some of the proposed legislation might be interpreted to apply only to domesticated or commercially produced game birds.

5. The bill should define the term "wholesome" to include the necessary designation of "clean."

6. The bill should define a product as adulterated, if any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted, and prohibit the increasing bulk or weight to make it appear of greater value than it is.

7. The bill should require that the name and address of the processor, in addition to the approved plant number of the official establishment, be included in the labeling of products.

CONCLUSION

We recognize the tremendous problems faced by those who are charged with the responsibility of framing legislation so as to insure insofar as possible that the administration of the law will be consistent with its full intent. Our association has had intimate contact with food-inspection programs for many, many years. We are confident that the deliberations of this committee will result in legislation having far-reaching, beneficial effects to the Nation.

I wish to thank you in behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association for having had this opportunity to be heard.

(The statement of Dr. Aaron H. Haskin, health officer, city of Newark, N. J., is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. AARON H. HASKIN, HEALTH OFFICER, CITY OF NEWARK, N. J. The city of Newark has had inspection for poultry since 1954 and under this code all poultry coming into the city of Newark would have to come from approved sources following a thorough inspection to determine whether this source complies with all the regulations of our poultry inspection code. As a result of the experience gained thereby, we have found that in order to have good poultry inspection and prevent contaminated poultry from being consumed, it becomes evident that certain principles or criteria should be present in any bill that would give this protection to our citizens.

1. The bill should provide for inspection of interstate shipped poultry and not allow for the Federal Government to enter into the jurisdiction of local health authorities on purely intrastate shipped poultry. It is important that all employees doing this inspection work shall be Federal civil service employees only. Too often, many bills provide for the appointment of employees or owners of poultry processing establishments to be their own poultry inspectors thereby creating a serious conflict of interests. In our experience, such a situation has been present on a number of occasions and, in one particular case, we were compelled to exclude a plant under the Agricultural Marketing Service because conditions were very unsatisfactory, to say the least, and one of the owners was the officially appointed inspector.

2. In any bill, ante mortem and post mortem examination of poultry should be spelled out specifically and only the extent and type should be left to the Secretary of Agriculture. The ante mortem inspection is very vital, particularly with

respect to certain diseases in poultry which could not be detected on post mortem examination without extensive laboratory tests. The ante mortem examination would reveal this situation and prevent contact between such sick birds and those employees in the processing line. It is not necessary that ante mortem inspection be on a bird by bird inspection program, but that some type of ante mortem inspection for the detection of birds who are ill should be specifically spelled out and not left to the discretion of any one individual.

3. It is very important in any good bill for the protection of the consumer interest that knowledge and intent not be a requirement prior to conviction. This loophole has been used time and time again to circumvent the purposes of good inspection. This knowledge and intent clause would virtually make it impossible to get a conviction because to prove knowledge and intent is sometimes extremely difficult.

4. Many agencies of Government have different philosophies of administration. Some have, as a primary interest, marketing and production rather than consumer interest and it is significant that public health, food and drug, and consumer authorities feel it is essential that to have a proper adminstration, the particular administrative supervision must be delegated by Congress so that the Secretary of Agriculture would not follow his previous experience in keeping same in the administration of a marketing group that is primarily interested in sales appeal and not primarily interested in public health aspects.

The only bills of all those that I received which meet these principles to the greatest extent are H. R. 5403 and H. R. 5398. I admit I have not seen all the bills in view of the fact I was informed that some of them have not even been printed yet.

Before concluding, I would like to state some facts concerning the cost of inspections in the Newark program. The total proportional salary paid to poultry inspectors in the program for the city of Newark is $4,800. In addition, depending upon distance from the city of Newark, the average costs for travel, meals and lodging which are incurred during an inspectional tour of five processing plants in each area and the expenses prorated for each establishment are as follows:

In my opinion, the cost for this type of inspection is significantly low compared to the value derived by the public in feeling certain that the poultry consumer is safe.

(A telegram from R. L. Cleere, executive director, Colorado State Department of Public Health, is as follows:)

MABEL C. DOWNEY,

Clerk, House Committee on Agriculture,

DENVER, COLO.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Colorado State Department of Public Health favors adoption of H. R. 899 by Representative Price. This bill embraces all of the components of a sound poultry inspection program, and represents the best interests of the consumer and industry without usurping States rights.

R. L. CLEERE, M. D.,

Executive Director, Colorado State Department of Public Health. (A telegram from Benjamin Young, secretary, Meat and Poultry Purveyors Association, Inc., New York, is as follows:)

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

NEW YORK, N. Y., March 6, 1957.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

Well over 100 million pounds annually of poultry consumed in New York metropolitan area is New York dressed type positive preference by institutions,