value of about 6.6 1/min to about 80 1/min the CO, apparently reached toxic levels and the ventilation declined slightly. At about this point objects were not seen clearly and thought was increasingly obscure. This condition rapidly progressed over the course of about 1 minute, and merged into a dream of an unspecified nature. Observers discontinued the experiment when the subject appeared to be unconscious and his legs were jactitating. The alveolar CO2 was about 86 mm. Hg at its height. (Normal 40-45 mm. Hg). At no time was there any unpleasant sensation in the respiratory passages. A more acute experiment was also made, but being unintentional is less well documented. It may, however, more closely represent what happens to the pigs. When the breathing apparatus was being tried out it was thought that they were filled with air, but, in fact, they had a very considerable (but unknown), proportion of CO2 in them. The subject immediately noticed a distinct metallic taste, his breathing became deeper (though never very deep) for a few breaths and then vision and thought became rapidly affected, though the subject was capable of discontinuing the experiment himself. This was probably the result of much more rapid CO, poisoning, the principle difference noted being the metallic taste, and the rapid impairment of consciousness. The level of arterial CO, apparently rose through the stimulatory range into the toxic within a few breaths. Conclusion: Pigs can be rendered unconscious humanely by carbon dioxide. J. SPALDING, D. M., M. A., M. R. C. P. MARCH 23, 1957. Mr. POAGE. Now, Mr. Kearney, and following Mr. Kearney the National Community Relations and Advisory Council. Rabbi LEWIN. It was one of those covered by us. Mr. POAGE. Thank you. Now Mr. Kearney. STATEMENT OF PAUL W. KEARNEY, BROOKLYN, N. Y. Mr. KEARNEY. The value of my testimony, if any, is that I am neither a meatpacker nor a humane society worker-but just a man in the middle, here at my own expense. I am a free-lance reporter of over 25 years' standing, contributing to such magazines as the Saturday Evening Post, Reader's Digest, Better Homes and Gardens, and others. This experience has brought me in contact with many different types of business, industrial, and governmental enterprises. On the strength of it, I would like to offer a practical and unemotional explanation of the packing industry's resistance to progress. This explanation, which goes behind their crocodile tears for the little packer, is very simple. It is inertia. Despite our justifiable admiration of American business initiative, it is a historic fact that business has always been allergic to change for the better. Back in 1906 these same packers fought Federal meat inspection tooth and nail. Now they like it. Likewise, in the early days the bitterest opponents of the pure food and drug laws were the giant pharmaceutical houses-who brought up the same platitudinous objections you hear in this meeting. Today those same pharmaceutical houses are the stanchest supporters of the Food and Drug Administration. · By the same token, our American ships are the safest ships afloat. Today the worst of them are better than the finest under any foreign flag from the standpoint of fire safety and seaworthiness. But this has not always been true. For years shipowners "endorsed in principle" a rigid safety code. But they did nothing about adopt ing that code until a Morro Castle disaster provoked Congress to enforce its adoption by law. It wasn't pigs we were coddling then, but people. Yet it was just as hard to sell the maritime interests on safety to life at sea as it is to sell humane slaughter to the packing industry, despite its proven merits. This idea of endorsing compulsory humane slaughter "in principle" is a time-honored stall. May I remind you that the entire automobile industry endorsed the four-wheel brake "in principle" as the greatest safety advance of the centry. But not one manufacturer put it on a car until the Bendix people embarked on a national advertising campaign to force it down their throats. Such is the inertia of big business. You will hear much about the advantages of humane slaughter because the leading trade papers in the packing field have carried many articles showing that the Hormel system as a case in point, had doubled production with half the manpower, and has virtually eliminated employee accidents on the hazardous killing floor. It has also entirely eliminated from the killing floor the barbarity which has been inherent to this complacent industry for 150 years. The result has been marked benefits to the workers, the management. the stockholders, the consumers and the animals. Isn't it pertinent to mention that this same progressive attitude in all of its activities has given Hormel the highest profit ratio in the business? While its competitors are still so retarded that they profess to lose money on every pound of meat sold. Others will give you ample details of the calloused brutality of our antiquated slaughtering methods-which even the Fiji Islanders have banned by law. Suffice it to say that I saw them within the year in every packinghouse in Omaha, as some of your Members subsequently did. I feel just as well qualified to evaluate those methods from a humane, Christian viewpoint as is any member of the American Meat Institute. And I say that they are not only shameful in this enlightened agebut they are the most persuasive arguments for vegetarianism that I have ever encountered. And I am not a vegetarian. So permit me to urge you to end this evil-not by "study" for another 29 years, but by the mandatory adoption of humane methods which pay dividends. Because when you strip this debate of its emotionalism, its slick evasion, even its medieval religious mumbo jumbo, the cold, hard fact remains that when animal slaughter is efficient, it is humane. And vice versa. Thank you for this privilege. Mr. POAGE. We are very much obliged to you. Mr. KEARNEY. Thank you. I do Mr. POAGE. Those were the bells for the rollcall in the House. not believe we will be able to proceed now. We will attempt to come back here at 2 o'clock this afternoon. There may be rollcalls on the floor of the House at that time. If there are, the committee will be on the floor and not in the committee room at the time of the rollcalls. But in the absence of a rollcall at that time, the committee will assemble at 2 o'clock. We have a request to show a film. Let us have the film set up, if possible, so that at 2 o'clock, unless we run into a conflict, we will run the film first. We will then remove that and proceed with the remaining witnesses. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. this day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. POAGE (presiding). The committee will please come to order. I believe that we had announced that Mr. Mayer would be the next witness. We will be delighted to hear from you. I believe that following Mr. Mayer that Colonel Anthony is present. Proceed, Mr. Mayer. STATEMENT OF ARNOLD MAYER, PUBLIC RELATIONS DIRECTOR AND WASHINGTON STAFF MEMBER OF THE AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; ACCOMPANIED BY LARKIN BIRMINGHAM, BUSINESS AGENT, LOCAL 149, BALTIMORE, MD. Mr. MAYER. May I introduce Mr. Birmingham, who is a business agent of our local 149 in Baltimore, which has a great number of packinghouses under contract. Mr. POAGE. We are delighted to have you here, Mr. Birmingham. You may proceed and we will be glad to hear from you. Mr. MAYER. Thank you, sir. My name is Arnold Mayer. I am the public relations director and a Washington staff member of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL-CIO). The AMCBW is a labor union with 350,000 members, organized in more than 500 local unions throughout the United States and Canada. The AMCBW and its locals have contracts with thousands of employers in the meat, retail, poultry, egg, canning, leather, fish processing and fur industries. Basically, it is the function of labor unions to fight cruelty of man against man, especially in the economic sphere. As organizations of workers, the unions' primary purpose is to protect wage earners. Thus, through unions, workers guard themselves against deprivation and poverty by bringing about an ever-increasing standard of living. Through their unions, workers provide a degree of job security and the machinery to handle on-the-job grievances, so that they will not be at the possibly capricious mercy of foremen and employers. Also, through their unions, workers protect themselves against poverty in old age, unemployment, and other eventualities which may occur through no fault of the individuals involved. But organized workers realize that they are not a group set off by themselves. They know they are part of the entire American community. Labor unions, therefore, seek to improve the conditions of other groups and the entire community, especially through the support of socially beneficial legislation and through community activities. The AMCBW takes part in all of the functions of labor unions. In collective bargaining, in legislative activities and in community work, our union and its local affiliates have sought to better the lives of our members; labor, in general, and the community and Nation, as a whole. We fully realize that bettering the lives of human beings and preventing cruelty of man against man, must have as a corollary the prevention of cruelty against animals. This is one reason why we appear before this committee today in favor of humane slaughtering legislation. Some of the processes in slaughtering cattle, hogs, and other livestock leave a great deal to be desired from the point of view of humaneness toward animals. Today, comparatively inexpensive means for correcting this situation are available. And, we understand, that these means are completely practical. Our other reason for supporting the humane slaughtering legislation is our concern for the welfare of the workers in the packinghouse industry. More than 100,000 packinghouse workers are members of our union. Many of the jobs involved in the current process of killing hogs and cattle are dangerous, dirty, and nauseating. The workers do not like these jobs and generally want to be moved to other work in the packinghouse. Probably the most heartily disliked job is the shackling of hogs. Workers must go into a small pen crowded with emotionally disturbed hogs. They must reach down among the animals to put a small shackle chain around one the hog's hind legs. The chain is attached to a rail and the hog is yanked up into the air, and is pulled to the hog kill. This operation is not only extremely painful for the hog; it also provides considerable danger to the worker. The hogs generally thrash around. Their hoofs are sharp. Workers are often gouged. Although the men wear protective equipment, it is not completely satisfactory and injuries are common. A further danger comes from the great deal of dust which the terrified hogs kick up. As a result, pulmonary diseases, such as tuberculosis and silicosis, are a definite health hazard to packinghouse workers on the shackling job. The cattle-killing operation is not as dangerous, but it is still nauseating work which is not generally desired. The so-called "knocking" of cattle, whereby a man hits the animal on the forehead with a hammer, is a physically demanding job. Great effort is involved. The pressure of an 8-hour day of this work is tremendous. Both the shackling and the knocking job would be ended by this legislation. And packinghouse workers will be happy to see them go. Our members have had experience with the captive bolt gun on cattle and the carbon dioxide tunnel for hogs. They have found them both to be effective and to make for far better working conditions. In the poultry industry, humane slaughtering legislation will not have much effect on the industrial hazards. However, the legislation will make for some improved working conditions. Our members have found the electric knife, which is already in use in many plants, to be a practical and humane means of killing poultry. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we urge the enactment of mandatory humane slaughtering legislation. We oppose the sections of any bill which allow the interpretation that kosher slaughter is inhumane. Such a conclusion about the slaughter of cattle carried out in accordance with the ritual of the Jewish faith is false. The ritual provides for the cutting of veins with an extra-sharp knife-a process, which, according to scientific writings, immediately renders the animal insensible. Because kosher slaughter accomplishes the same purpose as is sought in these bills, that is, rendering the animal immediately insensible, it should be listed as a humane means of slaughter. Mr. POAGE. We are very glad to have had you, Mr. Mayer. Mr. BIRMINGHAM. No, sir; unless the committee would care to ask me some questions about the slaughtering end because I have had 16 years of actual experience in cattle and hog slaughtering. Mr. POAGE. I feel the committee has seen slaughtering at firsthand. It has probably formed its own opinions, as I have, as to the present methods, but we are delighted to have any opinions from anyone else that wants to express them. We are delighted to have you with us and appreciate your presenta tion. Mr. BIRMINGHAM. Thank you, sir. Mr. POAGE. Now we will hear from Lt. Col. David J. Anthony. STATEMENT OF D. J. ANTHONY, MRCVS, DVSM, FRSH, CHIEF, VETERINARY OFFICER, BRIERLEY HILL, AT THE MARSH & BAXTER HEADQUARTERS PLANT, STAFFORDSHIRE, ENGLAND Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is David J. Anthony, chief veterinary officer at Marsh & Baxter headquarters plant, Staffordshire, England. In Britain up to the year 1930, humane slaughter methods were only carried out in some of the smaller abattoirs, when speed of killing was not a prime consideration. The weapon used was the captive-bolt pistol, which is a mechanical poleax. The larger meat producers were opposed to the use of the pistol for the stunning of hogs in their plants, and the reasons they gave for not using it were that it would slow up production and leave more blood in the meat and so tend to encourage the growth of spoilage bacteria. One of the more progressive bacon curers first had the German electric stunning method tried out in 1929. It was then in a very crude and inefficient state. A year later a new version was tested, and found to be clean, swift, silent, and most efficient. Various tests were made by many eminent scientists, medical and veterinary, and the humane societies approved 91249-57- -5 |