Now, at the time we developed this thought in connection with protection of consumer health, we were speaking or we were developing our support for S. 3176.

Senator CLEMENTS. I understand that.

Mr. BARKER. In order to permit a compromise, we change our position in this statement to have the poultry program go under the Agricultural Research Service, and specifically its Federal Meat Inspection

Branch.

Senator CLEMENTS. The next thing I would like to say to you, and of course it has been said to all people here, and you made some comment on it as well: We hope that when we have this reprint of S. 3588 with the amendments which were suggested by the representatives of the Department of Agriculture, that you will give to it the same careful, painstaking analysis that you gave to this original question in the hearings before the House, when you testified before the House committee, and in your briefer statement here today. I hope you will do that for us as soon as you have the opportunity to go over it.

Mr. BARKER. Mr. Chairman, additionally, leading figures of the poultry processing industry are tentatively scheduled to testify before this committee next week. They may make suggestions which would alter further our view of the legislative picture concerning mandatory inspection of poultry, and in order to keep our position up to date and be fully informed, we would like to present, as you have suggested, a supplementary statement in addition to the evidence we have offered here today.

Senator CLEMENT. Mr. Barker, the committee will be glad to receive it, and I hope we might get it as early as is convenient for you to give it to the committee.

Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. In line with what you have just said, the committee will be glad to receive any suggestions you have on the amendments proposed yesterday; and then if you want to file a second supplementary statement after the other phase of the industry has testified, we would appreciate having that also.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barker, in the interests of conserving time, has eliminated a good bit of his statement. I am wondering if it should not be printed in the record in its entirety so the committee will have the benefit of all of the recommendations.

Senator CLEMENTS. The entire statement will be inserted in the record.

Mr. BARKER. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I have here material, which I skipped in my very brief summary in picking out the highlights, two sets of affidavits which I would like to introduce for the record.

On one, the names are blocked out. In the second one, the names are left in for the committee's convenience in reading. I would hope that the names will be left out as far as the public record is concerned, but in the event the committee would like to verify the documents, the names are there for its convenience.

It is not our desire to crucify people.

The affidavits have to do with practices that we have found in the field. These affidavits are both from growers and people working in the plants under the conditions that have been touched upon.

Senator CLEMENTS. The committee at a later time, and in executive session, can make the determination on whether these should go in the record or whether they be retained for the committee's information.

Mr. BARKER. That is all we can ask.

Senator CLEMENTS. And certainly if they go into the record, your request with reference to the blocking out of the names will be followed.

Mr. BARKER. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

(Mr. Barker's prepared statement is as follows:)

My name is S. W. Barker. I am the director of the poultry department of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (AFLCIO), a labor union with 315,000 members and more than 500 locals in the 48 States, Alaska, and Canada.

I am grateful for this opportunity to express the views of our organization on mandatory poultry inspection. This topic of legislation has been of the deepest concern to us for more than 3 years. We consider mandatory inspection of poultry for sanitation and wholesomeness to be one of the greatest health needs of the American people today.

The AMCBW has more than 30,000 members working in the poultry processing industry throughout the Nation. As a result, we have firsthand knowledge of the problems confronting the poultry consumer, the poultry worker, and the poultry industry. That knowledge convinces us that immediate steps must be taken for the safety of all groups to stop the flow of filthy, adulterated, and diseased poultry through processing plants to market.

Today, the consumer is endangered by unfit poultry which he may unwittingly buy. The seriousness of this hazard is demonstrated by official data of the United States Public Health Service which holds poultry and poultry products responsible for an average of one-third of the food poisoning cases reported each year.

The poultry worker in many plants is the prey of rashes, infections, severe illness, and death as a result of insanitary plant conditions and the processing of diseased poultry. Only 3 months ago the Portland, Oreg., area was in the throes of a severe psittacosis, or parrot fever, epidemic caused by turkeys. Two persons died and 62 became extremely ill. Many of these men and women were members of the AMCBW, who work in poultry plants.

The entire poultry industry suffers because of the lack of regulatory standards of sanitation and wholesomeness. The abuses in both product wholesomeness and plant sanitation do serious harm to those plant owners who maintain high standards. All processors are given a bad name and consumer confidence in their product suffers.

The poultry farmer also is harmed by the unhindered flow of diseased and contaminated poultry. As one farm organization testified before a Senate committee, the farmer is often blamed by the consumer for deficiency in a food product even after it has been processed. He also suffers economically, for he depends on the continued consumer confidence to secure the increase in poultry markets, which he so desperately needs.

Clearly something must be done. The consumer must be protected against diseased and filthy poultry coming from rodent-infested, refuse-littered plants. The worker, laboring in an already hazardous industry, must be safeguarded against illness and death from poultry diseases. The honest, scrupulous processor must be protected against paying for the sins of shoddy operators. And the farmer must be safeguarded against loss of income.

We recall the history of health legislation in another of our union's industries, meatpacking, and we find a similar situation. The problems posed by parts of the poultry industry today existed in the meat industry 50 years ago. Mandatory inspection has virtually wiped out the health dangers and has proved a magnificent boon to the public, the packinghouse worker, packinghouse management, and the farmer.

Congress and at the moment specifically this subcommittee can meet the problem. You have the power to stop the health hazards and economic dangers. A cure is available in the form of enactment of a mandatory poultry inspection

law, an act that will provide adequate and effective inspection for wholesomeness (including ante mortem and post mortem inspection), plant and facilities sanitation and sanitary processing practices.

Early this year such a measure was introduced in the Senate by Senator James Murray. That is S. 3176. The AMCBW, which for 3 years has campaigned for paultry inspection and sanitation legislation, has strongly supported that

measure.

We believed then, and we believe today, that S. 3176 offers the maximum protection to consumers and poultry workers. It provides for effective inspection for wholesomeness and sanitation. It places the responsibility for this work in a truly consumer-protective and health-oriented agency (the Food and Drug Administration), which is part of a Department that has no conflicting functions (the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare).

Hearings were held last month on this measure. At that time I presented a 60-page statement which treats the topic of mandatory poultry inspection in a comprehensive, detailed, and thoroughly documented fashion. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a copy of this statement to each member of the committee and also have it placed in the record. Even though it was originally presented to another committee, I believe the statement will be of use to this committee in its deliberations. I should like to summarize it briefly in order to point out some of the very pertinent data it contains.

On page 1, we begin a study of the scandalous conditions existing in sections of the poultry processing industry. We review how diseased and sometimes dead birds are processed and sent to market like healthy, live ones; how processing is done amid filth, such as waste from the birds; how dust, dirt, and fecal matter are often insufficiently removed and allowed to contaminate cleaned poultry. We support these statements with quotes from (1) affidavits of poultry workers, (2) a report by the committee on poultry inspection and sanitation of the conference of State Public Health Veterinarians, and (3) reports of the Food and Drug Administration.

On page 7, we undertake a discussion of the health dangers. Since we are not medical experts, we have gathered information from eminent authorities in this field. You will find passages from the writings of Dr. W. L. Ingalls stating that 26 diseases are transmissible from poultry to man. These diseases are listed on page 8. Further data on the great importance of diseased poultry as a danger to consumers is contained here in quotes from other important scientists. On page 10 is a list of 8 more diseases which may be carried by poultry to infect man.

On page 10 is also an analysis of United States Public Health Service statistics showing consumer illness due to poultry. It demonstrates that in the 10-year period, 1945-54, between 16.5 and 47.3 percent of reported cases of food poisoning were attributed to poultry or poultry products each year. In only 2 of the 10 years poultry and poultry products were responsible for less than one-fourth of reported cases. In 4 of the 10 years they caused more than 40 percent.

On pages 11 through 12 we present typical examples of food-poisoning cases due to poultry. These descriptions come from official United States Public Health Service reports. On pages 13 and 14 are statements from pathologists demonstrating that some disease germs are not killed by cooking and that a diseased chicken, even though cooked, may still be a danger to the consumer. On page 14, we begin a discussion of the industrial health hazards. You will find a tabulation of the psittacosis outbreaks in Texas during 1948–54.

Six epidemics caused a total of 12 deaths and 350 cases of human illness in that 1 State during the 7-year period. Psittacosis outbreaks in other States are listed, including the recent Oregon one. A description of a psittacosis patient's suffering, written by an authority on the disease, is quoted.

On page 16, begins a review of the current state of poultry inspection. We show, through authoritative figures, how the poultry industry has mushroomed in the past 15 years until 35 pounds per person are consumed annual y. This increase in consumption, together with changes in marketing, make inspection absolutely necessary. The only Federal inspection program available is a voluntary service of the Agricultural Marketing Service which is hired and paid for by the processor. It covers only 21 percent of the industry. The Food and Drug Administration has neither the funds nor authority to undertake the continuous supervision in each plant necessary to protect the consumer. As for State programs, no continuous bird-by-bird State inspection program is in effect today.

The demand for mandatory inspection is covered on pages 23 to 25. We quote from the resolutions of four major representative groups concerned with poultry, the Conference of State and Territorial Health Officers, the executive council of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the National Grange, the American Institute for Poultry Industries, and the Hoover Commission Task Force for Medical Services. All asked Congress to enact mandatory poultry inspection legislation.

On page 26, we begin a detailed discussion concerning the type of inspection and sanitation legislation we consider necessary. First of all we believe ante mortem, as well as post mortem, inspection to be absolutely vital. We quote public health and medical authorities on pages 27 and 28 that many poultry diseases, especially respiratory ones, are easily detected before slaughter, but are difficult to find after slaughter. These authorities, including the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, conclude that ante mortem inspection is essential to protect the consumer.

Secondly, we believe an inspection bill must provide for the formulation of plant sanitation and sanitary processing regulations. This is to safeguard against the contamination and adulteration of poultry during processing. Health authorities are quoted on the dangers of insanitary practices and on the basic sanitation needs which must be met.

On pages 32 through 49, we discuss the operations of the current voluntary program of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. The operations of this agency must be scrutinized because suggestions have been made that a mandatory inspection program be placed under it. We have found that: (1) AMS is a marketing agency whose concern is not with the consumer, (2) AMS has proved itself extremely susceptible to industry pressure, (3) AMS' inspection is sometimes thoroughly unsatisfactory to protect the consumer, as shown by the seizures made by the Food and Drug Administration and State and city health departments of products processed in its approved plants, (4) a definite conflict of interests exists in its grading and sanitation program and this conflict lowers the protection afforded consumers, (5) AMS inspection service and sanitation program are separate and sometimes in conflict with each other, and (6) attempts to improve the inspection system on all levels of the Poultry Inspection Service have been and are penalized. All of these points are supported by direct quotes from publications and reports from Government agencies, such as the Bureau of the Budget. This evidence leads us to believe that the Agricultural Marketing Service cannot be considered a proper home for a mandatory poultry inspection and sanitation program.

On pages 49 through 52 we discuss the Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, as the possible agency for a poultry program. Although we believe that Branch has done a good job on red-meat inspection, it is our view that it would be more proper for the Food and Drug Administration to undertake the poultry work. Our reasons for this stand are stated on pages 52-54 in a consideration of FDA.

On pages 54 and 55 we state that a poultry inspection and sanitation program should be paid for by the Federal Government out of appropriations. This means of meeting costs would prevent the small processor from being driven out of interstate commerce.

On pages 55 through 60, we discuss, in detail, the benefits an effective and adequate mandatory inspection and sanitation law will bring to consumers, poultry workers, the poultry processing industry, and poultry farmers.

As I said before beginning a summary of this additional statement, the AMCBW believes that S. 3176 will provide the maximum protection to consumers and poultry workers. Only last week, our 19th general convention reiterated this stand. It again endorsed S. 3176 and its companion bills in the House of Representatives.

However, we note, Mr. Chairman, that important public health groups and consumer organizations now support S. 3983, a new measure introduced by Senators James Murray, Pat McCarran, and George Bender. Because of the stand taken by the Food and Drug Administration against assuming the duties of an inspection and sanitation program, these organizations believe that S. 3983 is now a more realistic measure than S. 3176.

I must admit, Mr. Chairman, we are reluctant to make the change to S. 3983. We still believe that the Food and Drug Administration, because it and its Department's sole interest is health and consumer protection, is the best center for a mandatory poultry inspection and sanitation program. We believe the pro

visions of S. 3983 are only second best. However, we have great confidence in the judgment of the public health and consumer groups which have appeared before you. If they believe S. 3983 will provide a good program for the protection of the consumer and poultry worker, we will support the bill.

We make this change and again I say, reluctantly--in the hopes that this is the measure around which all groups can gather. The major complaint of the opposition to S. 3176 has been that the poultry program should be placed in the Department of Agriculture. S. 3983 does provides for that and satisfies the complaint. We hope, therefore, that all groups will accept S. 3983, if not as the best measure, then as second-best, as we do, so that a mandatory poultryinspection law can be enacted in this session of Congress.

S. 3983 has four provisions different from S. 3176. Most important, it would place the inspection and sanitation program in the Meat Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Research Service; United States Department of Agriculture, rather than the Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

It also contains two exemptions, not in S. 3176. It would permit farmers to sell their own poultry directly to consumers without inspection. We approve this exemption as a proper safeguard against driving small farmers out of business who take their own products across State lines but who might not be offered inspection services.

The second exemption is for those processing plants where the Secretary of Agriculture cannot provide inspection immediately after the effective date of the act. This section will prevent hardships from being placed on either the Meat Inspection Branch or poultry processing plants in meeting requirements of the act. We are happy to see that the exemptions must be terminated as soon as possible and cannot go beyond 2 years following enactment of the act. For although the provision should prevent hardships, it should not become a loophole to push consumer protection into the distant future.

Section 16 states that only poultry which is healthful, wholesome, and fit for human consumption shall be imported. It makes imported poultry or poultry products subject to the act. This section is another good safeguard for the American poultry consumer.

The definition of an "inspector" in section 2 of S. 3983 should be amended. It names the inspector as "any person authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect poultry and poultry products under the authority of this act." We fear that this wording would permit the continuation of the very dangerous practice of the AMS voluntary inspection service in permitting plant employees to carry out some of the poultry program. We respectfully suggest that this definition be amended to make it clear that the inspector must be a qualified Government employee.

Another bill concerning poultry inspection is before this subcommittee. That is S. 3588, by Senator George Aiken. This measure was frequently referred to in the poultry bill hearings recently held before the subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. Public health officers, representatives from public health organizations, and other experts denounced this measure. They testified that many loopholes in the measure make it inadequate to safeguard the public.

Briefly, their reasons for this point of view were:

1. S. 3588 allows the Secretary of Agriculture tremendous leeway concerning inspection. Section 5 says that the Secretary shall make such examinations "as he determines necessary." This definitely means that he can avoid antemortem inspection at any time. Health officers further point out that the inspection provision of S. 3588 can also be interpreted to mean that there need not be any inspection at all if a Secretary of Agriculture wants to rule it out. In other words, it is questionable whether S. 3588 is a compulsory poultry-inspection bill. 2. Inspection under S. 3588 need not come about until July 1, 1960, because the effective date of the bill is July 1, 1958, and the Secretary of Agriculture may grant a 2-year exemption in addition.

3. The wording of the "prohibited acts" section-section 7-of S. 3588 makes it extremely difficult to prosecute violators. Use of the word "knowingly" in this section will make it possible for an owner of a plant to evade responsibility for violations.

4. The provisions of S. 3588 allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to intervene in designated areas of intrastate commerce (secs. 3 and 4) and providing the Secretary exclusive jurisdiction (sec. 18) seriously impair the jurisdiction of 80695-568