Preslaughter supervision and inspection, says the Department of Agriculture's own Agricultural Research Service, "continue through each stage of the meat's preparation for market. All along the line, the public gets the benefit of any doubt." The Department continues, "Condemned carcasses or parts of carcasses are kept under the inspector's control. Such meat is held under Federal lock and key until it is processed for fertilizer or inedible grease. Salvage of unfit meat combines practical thrift with safe disposal." That briefly is the Department's interest in the public's welfare. I think most of us know of the work of the Food and Drug Administration in the public's behalf. In 1954, we addressed the Secretary of Agriculture inviting his cooperation in bringing about a law which would mean something really in behalf of the consumer. Nearly a month later, we receive a reply from Assistant Secretary E. L. Butz which, I understand, was not much more than is sent in reply to almost anyone who wants real consumer protection. Mr. Butz told us what we knew, that the product in interstate shipment became the responsibility of Food and Drug Administration. He told about inspection for wholesomeness on a post mortem basis and that such plants as were willing to use the voluntary inspection were required to meet certain rigid sanitary and operational requirements. Mr. Butz said that the widely identifiable Department of Agriculture shield label which the consumer sees on the poultry counters "is merely for the purpose of facilitating identification as a basis for entry for the purpose of further processing." Whatever this statement means, it can add little to the peace of mind of the consumer who has reason to believe beyond doubt that the poultry bears such tags as is all he would desire for himself and family. The Department's reply, however, seems to take on significance when we read the remarks of former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, John H. Davis, to the Associated Egg and Poultry Industries which are as follows: "We are more interested in getting industry cooperation to improve the poultry inspection service than we are in where this function is carried out. We will leave it with the poultry division in AMS (Agricultural Marketing Service)) or transfer it to the meat inspection service, as you [italics supplied] recommend." This remarkable announcement that an industry is being permitted to tell the United States Government when, where and how safety and the public welfare will be determined seems to suggest that perhaps nothing less than absolute precaution will be any precaution at all. Then we note the fact that the American Institute of Poultry Industries as recent as August 5, 1953, felt so self-assured that it came up with his statement in its newsletter: "Since poultry and egg inspection and grading are voluntary programs, paid for by the industry, they should be administered as a service to industry, not as a regulatory, policing program." It is difficult to find just where the public fits into a deal like that. And, it is difficult to understand how a voluntary program has more than passing value except for the processor. Seemingly when industry speaks that is sufficient for the Department of Agriculture. Ante mortem and post mortem inspections are of the essence, in our view. This is the principal reason for our support of S. 3983. We believe that if consumer and employe safety can be assured, it can be assured through these means. Once the industry gets used to operating and doing business under a safe and enlightened system, we predict it is going to enjoy it, even as the red meat industry does today. To provide for one type of inspection for one product and a different one for another product is literally to make "fish of one and fowl of another." We are unable to understand how any branch of Government would be willing to undertake such discrimination against consumers. The only way in which we can believe consumers of the third largest agricultural crop can have absolute protection is through enactment of the purpose of S. 3983. Those who buy poultry across the counter can be getting far less than they have a right to expect for their investment. There is much talk of filth, unwholesomeness and lack of protection to the end that some of the output is not much more than garbage. The prices paid today are rather high for garbage. There is in your committee another bill, S. 3588, which may well be a mockery. So, we here and now record our opposition to this bill as lacking in the qualities which we regard as worthwhile and essential in forthright legislation. We do not wish to witness any breakdown in the good name of the United States Government. Labor, industry public health authorities, consumers and farm organizations agree and the record is clear, that regulatory inspection is necessary. But, if such inspection is to be flexible and at the whim as the Agricultural Marketing Service presently is and as is confirmed by Former Assistant Secretary Davis. and now Assistant Secretary Butz, then its effectiveness is entirely acadamic. It is our hope and belief that this committee will not be misled into accepting S. 3588 which is the weakest sort of bill, in our opinion, if we are to take the word of health officers who say that S. 3588 need not be operative as the Secretary of Agriculture so wishes. As we understand the opinion, there need not be any inspection if the Department so decides. (Discussion off the record.) Senator CLEMENTS. The committee will now stand in recess until June 26; but before we recess, I wish to again call attention to the desire of the subcommittee to have any supplemental observations that any of those who have testified today would care to submit to the subcommittee, and particularly on the proposed amendments that were submitted on yesterday by the Department of Agriculture, to S. 3588. There are a number of copies available now, so if there is anybody in the room who does not have a copy, he can come forward and one will be made available to him. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 26, 1956.) (Additional statements filed with the committee are as follows :) STATEMENT FILED BY THE HONORABLE WARREN G. MAGNUSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON I appreciate the privilege of appearing before your committee to urge that you report favorably to the Senate and insist upon passage at the current session of Congress, a bill to provide for mandatory Federal inspection of poultry, moved in interstate commerce, which will prevent unfit, diseased and cull poultry reaching the tables of the American consumer as food. I am a cosponsor of Senate bill 3588 and went into the need for such legislation extensively after the poultry processors of my State, where we have not encountered unfit poultry in our markets, expressed to me their concern because a few chislers in the industry were allowing diseased and unfit folw to enter the trade channels to be sold as food. While I am cosponsor of S. 3588, and spent many hours working with the industry on it, I am not necessarily wedded to that proposal. I strongly urge, however, that this committee report legislation that will stop, once and for all, diseased and cull poultry reaching the tables of the American consumer. I believe either S. 3588 or S. 3983 will achieve that objective. We have tried a voluntary poultry inspection program. It has not been a success, because only about 25 percent of the processors participated in it. Those processors paid the cost of the voluntary program out of their own pockets, reducing the slender profits upon which they operate. Naturally those processors felt they should have a part in drawing up the regulations and I am told, Mr. Chairman, that when they found the regulations were difficult to follow they insisted that the Agriculture Department relax them to meet their requirements. Poultry should be inspected by a qualified Federal agent before and after slaughter. There are some 25 poultry diseases that can be communicated to humans and any poultry that is found to be infected should be destroyed and never permitted to reach the tables of our consumers. Harry J. Beernink, general manager of the Washington (State) Cooperative Farmers Association, who supervises a number of the finest poultry processing plants in the Nation, has urged that mandatory Federal poultry inspection be required and that the Government pay the cost of the program, a proposal to which I agree. He believes that the mandatory program should be retained in the Department of Agriculture where the Poultry Inspection and Grading Section has trained men to enforce it and where the program can be instituted in shorter time than if it is transferred to another agency which will probably require up to 3 years to set up a program and train personnel to enforce it. It will be accomplished with more speed there and that is what is required-a mandatory program which will insure at once that only wholesome poultry reaches our dining tables. We know this can be accomplished because we had a similar experience with meats and to correct that situation we set up meat inspection in the Agriculture Department. We are proud of the accomplishments of that agency for its work has assured that when our citizens purchase meat they get the highest quality sold anywhere in the world. There is no reason why poultry should not be just as wholesome. Mr. Chairman, another Washington State expert on poultry also has urged a program of mandatory Federal inspection of poultry. Mr. Charles J. Mentrin, president of the Northwest Poultry, Egg and Feed Council of Seattle, told me he believed it should remain under the supervision of the Agricultrue Department and agreed there was a pressing need for enactment of the program. Mandatory Federal inspection, paid for by the Government, would put all poultry processors on an equal basis. The 75 percent not now under Federal inspection and the 25 percent who now pay the cost of inspecting their products would be on an equal footing. There would be one law for all processors to observe and one agency to enforce that law. We have had recent situations in which diseased poultry was found in Oregon, and other instances of diseased poultry, after having been condemned by the Army, being sold to consumers throughout the Country. In Oregon and in Texas it has been reported that poultry workers were striken with poultry disease after handling diseased fowl and that sort of danger should be forever banned. I want to see a bill passed calling for mandatory Federal inspection. Both bills before you have definite merit. I assure you I will support either or a combination of both as long as the measure you report does the job. What we need is mandatory Federal inspection of poultry. We need it now and it should be enacted by the present session of Congress. Hon. EARLE CLEMENTS, The United States Senate, Washington, D. C. LOUISVILLE, KY., June 22, 1956. DEAR SIR: The Senate bill 3983, introduced by Mr. Murphy to provide for compulory inspection of poultry and poultry products, has been discussed by the directors of the division of food and drug control and veterinary public health. We feel that this is an excellent bill. The adoption of such a measure would help a great deal in the elimination of hazards to public health that are now in existence due to the indiscriminate traffic in poultry. As representatives of the Kentucky State Department of Health, we feel that this is a step in the right direction and would like to take this opportunity to urge the passage of Senate bill 3983. Very truly yours, RONALD L. HECTORNE, D. V. M., M. P. H., LOUISVILLE, KY., June 22, 1956. Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: The Senate bill 3983, introduced by Mr. Murphy to provide for compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products, has been discussed by the directors of the divisions of food and drug control and veterinary public health. We feel that this is an excellent bill. The adoption of such a measure would help a great deal in the elimination of hazards to public health that are now in existence due to the indiscriminate traffic in poultry. The State department of health feels that this is a step in the right direction and would like to take this opportunity to urge the passage of Senate bill 3983. Respectfully yours, RUSSELL E. TEAGUE, M. D., Commissioner of Health, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Health. CLEVELAND, OHIO, June 28, 1956. Senator EARLE C. CLEMENTS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: I am writing to you as chairman of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, to ask your help on S. 3983, the bill sponsored by Senators Murray, McNamara, and Bender, to provide mandatory inspection of poultry. The board of directors of the National Consumers' League has endorsed this bill. We favor this legislation for several reasons. First, we consider that consumers have a right to expect as a matter of elementary public health to be protected from contaminated food. With the newer developments in processing, the markets for poultry are nationwide, and only a Federal agency can do the job. We find it shocking, in the extreme, that we do not now have such protection. In the second place, the facts brought out in the hearings showing the health hazards to the workers in the poultry-processing industry make even more necessary the need for compulsory inspection. We fail to see any valid argument against this proposal. It is important that the inspection be compulsory-not voluntary and partial as in the present arrangement, through the Marketing Division of the Department of Agriculture, which patently is serving what is considered to be the interest of the industry, rather than the consumers or the workers. We trust that your committee will do all in its power to secure speedy action on this measure. Sincerely yours, ELIZABETH S. MAGEE, General Secretary, National Consumers League for Fair Labor Standards. COMPULSORY INSPECTION OF POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1956 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 324 Senate Office Building, Senator Earle C. Clements presiding. Present: Senators Clements, Hickenlooper, and Williams. Also present: Senator Fulbright and Representative Trimble. Senator CLEMENTS. The committee will come to order. The committee is reconvened this morning to continue the hearings on S. 3983 and S. 3588. We are honored this morning to have two distinguished gentlemen from Arkansas, Senator Fulbright and Representative Trimble. We will hear from both of you in the order that you desire to be heard. But before doing that I will hand to the reporter for incorporation in the record the following documents; a letter from the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, signed by Mr. John J. Riggle, secretary; also a statement from Mr. James F. Fort, assistant to the general counsel of American Trucking Associations; and excerpts from a letter to Representative Morano from Richard C. Muller, Greenwich, Conn. (The letter and statements referred to are as follows:) Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 18, 1956. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter relates to the current hearings before your subcommittee on S. 3588 and S. 3983, bills to provide for compulsory inspection of poultry. The American Trucking Associations, Inc., takes no position on the merits of these two bills, but we do desire to call your attention to certain provisions which appear in S. 3983. Section 3 (1) of S. 3983 prohibits "* * * receiving for transportation or transporting in commerce any poultry or poultry products which have not been inspected, examined, and marked with an official inspection mark." It is suggested that the inclusion of this section may place upon common and contract motor carriers the burden of proving that poultry or poultry products moved by them in their regular course of business have been properly processed by inspectors of the new Poultry Inspection Service. We do not feel that it is the intent of this bill to place upon trucking companies the burden of determining whether or not the contents of freight received for transportation 117 |