is had to Federal legislation and the creating of another agency to do a job now being done by the National Livestock and Meat Board and by many other agncies in the livestock and meat industry; i. e., packers, retailers, etc.

"(5) We need further information about the possibilities of actually increasing meat consumption by the expenditure of enormous funds in doubling or trebling the advertising campaign.

"(6) We are convinced that much more can and should be done in the field of research and marketing and in the improvement of the types of hogs, cattle, and sheep which will better meet consumer demands. We have serious doubts that by merely expanding our advertising campaign we can best meet the marketing problems confronting livestock producers.

"For these reasons we feel that final action on the proposed Federal legislation should be deferred pending more careful study of the entire program in general and the accumulation of more information about practical means of collecting the proposed checkoff and the use of funds to be derived from that source."

During late February and early March this matter was called to the attention of livestock producers throughout the State at a series of eight regional meetings. The action of the board of directors in drawing up the resolution and the policy stated in the resolution was approved practically unanimously at these regional meetings.

The Missouri Livestock Association is opposed to the legislation proposed in H. R. 5244 and S. 646. Even though the checkoff proposals have been modified to a permissive basis rather than a mandatory one so far as marketing agencies are concerned, we still feel that the amendment to the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 to authorize deductions from proceeds of sales of livestock on posted markets for the purposes as stated in the bills is unwise.

We believe that the promotional plans suggested in the legislation (1) will result in much duplication of effort, in unnecessary administration expense and confusion, in the waste of money; (2) will create undesirable rivalries among different segments of the livestock and meat industry and among different State groups of livestock producers; and (3) will impede the program of the National Livestock and Meat Board which is now doing a splendid job in the promotional and educational field on a very economical basis.

For these reasons and for those stated in the resolution adopted by the board of directors, we respectfully urge that this committee not approve the proposed legislation.

Mr. POAGE. If there are no other opponents, I understand we have representatives of the Meat Board here, and I confess that it leaves us in a rather embarrassing position.

It is now a quarter after five. I do not want to embarrass the Meat Board, but I have been a little bit familiar with livestock during these last 40 years, and I never knew anything more about that organization than the name in all those years. I just have not been familiar with what they have done.

It is my fault. I am not criticizing them. It is something I want to know more about, and I think the members of the subcommittee want to know more about it, not that we condemn anything.

The reports I have had have been fine, but I do think we want to go into that. I wonder if the representatives of the Meat Board could be here tomorrow.

I wonder if you could be here tomorrow and let us

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing tomorrow, but it so happens that the National Livestock and Meat Board has a live animal evaluation clinic for undergraduate college students scheduled to begin in Oklahoma City tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock which does require my presence down there.

However, if it is your wish that we remain until then, we would like to enter this statement.

Mr. POAGE. Well, who else is there-you are not the only one of the Meat Board, are you?

Mr. NEUMANN. Yes; I am the only one here prepared to present the testimony.

Mr. POAGE. I wonder

Mr. NEUMANN. We can get it over with in 20 minutes.

Mr. POAGE. We have to get some relief for the stenographer.

All right, we will go ahead. Mr. Neumann, we will be glad to hear

you.

STATEMENT OF CARL F. NEUMANN, SECRETARY-GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL LIVESTOCK AND MEAT BOARD; ACCOMPANIED BY MAX O. CULLEN, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to use this set of charts and set them up here.

At the outset, I would like to say this is a rather unusual experience for a staff member or an officer or director of the National Livestock and Meat Board, inasmuch as in its 34-year history, the National Livestock and Meat Board has not engaged in legislative activity and, as such, is not engaging in legislative activity here, but is appearing at the request of the committee to explain the nationwide program of meat research.

Mr. POAGE. Yes; I wanted to make clear that the committee wants the information.

Mr. NEUMANN. This is for the purpose of education and information.

Mr. Chairman, if I may identify myself further, I am the secretarygeneral manager of the National Livestock and Meat Board. I have held that position with the Board since the first of August 1954, having succeeded Mr. R. C. Polack, who held that office for some 31 years.

I am a native Oklahoman; came up through this via extension work, and worked on the Nation's livestock markets.

Now, the National Livestock and Meat Board, as already pointed out, is an organization of livestock growers and feeders, livestock marketing agencies, meat packers, meat retailers, and restaurateurs. The livestock growers and feeders put up their money, collected by livestock markets, and matched by the meat packers, and carried out in cooperation with meat retailers and restaurateurs.

At the close of this we will present a more complete financial picture. Now, as to the organizations represented on the board: Since its beginning in 1923, the National Livestock and Meat Board has always had a majority representation of livestock growers and feeders; and the 30-member board of directors at the present time has 16 livestock growers and feeders. Three represent the American Farm Bureau Federation, three the American National Cattlemen's Association, one the Kansas Livestock Association, one the Lamb Feeders Association, two the National Society of Livestock Record Associations, one the National Wool Growers Association, three representing the Swine Growers Associations; and one representing the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, all organizations national in character, with the exception of the Kansas and Texas group.

However, they were charter members of the board and, as such, maintain their membership on the Board under its constitution.

The marketing agencies who market the Livestock Growers and Feeders' livestock who are their representatives on the market have five; the Farmers Union has one; the American National Livestock Auction Association, one; the National Livestock Exchange, two; the National Livestock Producers Association, one.

Mr. POAGE. Let me ask why the Farmers Union is considered a marketing agency, and the Grange and Farm Bureau are livestock growers?

Mr. NEUMANN. The Farmers Union has a number of Farmers Union commission firms on the Nation's markets and, as such, they are represented through the cooperative marketing organizations or commission firms on the market.

There are four meat packers on the board. They are designated by the American Meat Institute.

Retailers and restaurateurs have five, each one of these organizations: The National Association of Food Chains, National Association of Retail Grocers, National Association of Retail Meat and Food Dealers, the National Restaurant Association, and Super Market Institute.

Mr. POAGE. Before you turn that, I want to invite all of our guests who can, to come up here where they can see this thing.

Mr. NEUMANN. Now, we have heard a lot of talk about meat consumption, per capita consumption, today. Perhaps we need to adjust our thinking, and take a look at the situation as it exists.

We produced in 1956 a record alltime high production of red meats in this country, almost 26 billion pounds.

That exceeded in total tonnage the tonnage of automobiles produced in the United States in 1955.

Broken down into per capita consumption, that totaled 164.7 pounds of red meat per person, and it was an alltime record high.

Let us look and see what has happened here since 1935 when we consumed approximately 115 pounds of red meat.

We have had our ups and downs until we had this record high last

year.

We have always, in this country, consumed what we have produced. We have exported a little, we have imported a little, but we have always produced-we have consumed what we have produced.

Now, in addition to that consumption of 164 pounds of red meat, which was broken down into 84.2 pounds of beef, 66.6 of pork, 4.4 pounds of lamb, and 9.3 pounds of veal, we consumed in addition 23.4 pounds of chicken and 511⁄2 pounds of turkey; that is not meat, that is fowl; 10.1 pounds of fish, 8 pounds of cheese, 45 pounds of eggs, and 48.9 pounds of nonfat solids in milk, for a total animal protein consumption of 305.6 pounds per person, which certainly compares favorably with any area in the world. When this National Livestock and Meat Board came into being in 1923, one of the first jobs was to accumulate a body of facts on the nutritive value of meat.

The early directors of the board set out on a policy of making grants-in-aid, financial aid, available to recognized colleges and universities to study specific research projects, and such has been its history since then.

One hundred eight research projects on protein, fat, minerals, vitamins, reproduction, lactation, longevity, blood regeneration, dental caries, human nutrition, meat cookery and special meat studies.

This year these are the grant projects provided for research study

this

year.

Certainly on this subject of cardio-vascular disease and the relation of diet to heart disease and the consumption of protein and the consumption of fat, it is but logical that industry funds be used in studying that problem.

Dr. Salmon of Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Dr. Fred Stare of Harvard University, working with monkeys and man; Dr. Kummerow of the University of Illinois, studying in the laboratory with chickens; Dr. Holman of the University of Minnesota, who is using laboratory animals and chemical techniques.

In the case of fat metabolism, Dr. Scrimshaw of the Pan-American Nutrition Institute, who is supplementing diets of natives in that Central American country with liberal amounts of animal fat to get a picture as to what happens under the low level nutrition conditions prevailing there.

Then there is Dr. Hanson of the University of Texas, one of the Nation's leading pediatricians, who is studying the place of fat in the diet of infants.

He is the man who has done all this work on the relationship of fat in the diet and skin health.

Now, add to this list, to make it complete, Dr. Grace Goldsmith of Tulane University, who is studying cholesterol retention and excretion in relation to diet; Drs. Smith, Oreten, and Schroeder at Wayne University, in Michigan, studying meat digestability.

In the field of human nutrition studies, Dr. Steggerda of the University of Illinois; Dr. Washburn of the University of Colorado, studying long-time effects of meat in the diet, and its relation to the prevention of infectious diseases in children; Dr. Pearl Swanson at Iowa State College, who is studying the value of meat in the diet of those in advancing years; Judge Montague; Dr. Charlotte Young at Cornell University, who is studying the reducing diets for what she calls obese young women this year, obese young male subjects last year, and it is appropriate. She works with women because 90 percent of the women are concerned with fat. They are either taking it off, putting it on, or moving it around.

At any rate, Dr. Young's work is being done with meat, with moderate amounts of fat.

She is replacing in her reducing diets the calories ordinarily derived from starches with the calories coming from fat.

We want a reducing diet in which we can say "meat" instead of "lean meat," thereby jeapordizing all meat in the reducing diet, and her work most certainly has proven conclusively that it can be done.

Dr. Ruth Leverton of Oklahoma A. and M. College, in the past 2 years, just completed a complete analysis of the proteins, calories, minerals and vitamins of over 100 cuts of fresh meat, as the meat is produced, trimmed, sold, cooked and consumed and served today.

It goes without saying that the results of her work show higher in protein and higher in calories than the figures that have been in use for the past 20 years.

Dr. Schweigert of the American Meat Institute Foundation at the University of Chicago, studying the vitamin B, content of meat; Drs. Brady and Turner of the University of Missouri doing research on dark cutting beef; Dr. C. A. Elvehjem, Dean of the Graduate School and head of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin, and one of the top research men in the field, if you please, at the University of Wisconsin, completing 20 years of study on amino acids in meat; Dr. Harper, a protege of his just now starting on a long-time study of digestability.

Let me make one or two more comments on this research work. In the very second research project financed by the board, the one on the value of liver, and one on the treatment of pernicious anemia at the University of Rochester, proved conclusively the value of liver in the human diet, if that thing was worth only 10 cents per pound on the liver produced, on the meat slaughtered in the United States last year, it was worth $6 million to the industry.

This program this year is taking approximately $100,000.

Mr. ALBERT. May I ask one question here just to clear that up?
Mr. NEUMANN. Yes.

Mr. ALBERT. Is your organization financing that exclusively? Mr. NEUMANN. No, not exclusively. Some of these are exclusively, others are cooperative work.

Mr. ALBERT. But you are helping on all?

Mr. NEUMANN. Yes. In other words, to come down here to your State at Oklahoma A. and M. College, Dr. Leverton was the former assistant dean of the school of Home Economics, and has now come here into the Bureau of Human Nutrition and, incidentally, she did the research work that established the place of fat in the diet of infants, while at Nebraska.

Grants totalling a little over $18,000 were made out to Oklahoma A. and M. College, and the work was carried out under her supervision and her jurisdiction.

Mr. ALBERT. You paid all of that $18,000?

Mr. NEUMANN. Yes. Board funds went for that.

There is another byproduct of financing this research work. We look down here, and here are the names of Dr. Stare, Dr. Kummerow, Dr. Scrimshaw, Dr. Schweigert, Dr. Leverton, and Dr. Harper, the Nation's key scientists today, but there was a time when they were graduate students working under the supervision of these other key people. Who knows but what today there are budding scientists who, 10, 15, 20 years from now will be dictating our food habits that are being financed in part or totally with Meat Board funds.

Here is the gal we are trying to reach with information. She is the one to be reached with any information on meat. She spends the meat dollar, this housewife in the retail market.

Now, what are some of the methods used in reaching that housewife with information on meat? Reference has already been made to the fact that the mediums of mass information in this country have responsibilities of disseminating factual information, and that newspaper, radio and TV does.

Here is a map showing over 2,500 daily and weekly newspapers across the Nation supplied regularly with food copy for their food pages.