In addition the bill contains labeling requirements for wholesome inspected products and will confer upon the Secretary broad authority to allow variations and exemptions from the requirements.

The experience and observation of the Food and Drug Administration and the Public Health Service convinces us of the need for a Federal poultry inspection program which will effectively protect the consumer against the purchase and consumption of unwholesome poultry and protect the plant workers and poultry handlers from exposure to disease. This view is widely shared and is concurred in by the Institute of American Poultry Industries, a large national trade organization of poultry processing and marketing firms. In December 1955 they published a resolution favoring the development and adoption of sound mandatory inspection for poultry.

We are thus in accord with the objective of this bill. However, without attempting to analyze every detail of the bill we feel the attention of the committee should be called to possible effect of some of the provisions.

1. We think it must be recognized that the inclusion of provisions authorizing Federal inspection of poultry intended solely for intrastate distribution in designated areas of large consumption may raise questions of conflict with the inspection services and food and drug enforcement provisions in the various States. The committee may wish to explore the question whether there is actually a need for such a provision in order to carry out the objectives of this bill.

2. We also have concern over the general provisions of section 18 (a) which places "exclusive jurisdiction in the fields within the scope" of this bill in the Secretary of Agriculture and specifically exempts poultry from the provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, "to the extent that" such products "are covered by the provisions" of this bill. This provision raises two questions.

(a) In the first place the vesting of "exclusive jurisdiction" in the Secretary of Agriculture, whether or not actually so intended, would seem designed to oust the States of concurrent jurisdiction. This is a matter of sufficient importance to require clarification, depending on the conclusion which be reached by the committee as to the need for exclusive Federal jurisdiction.

(b) In the second place, insofar as the relationship of this bill to other Federal laws is concerned, the reference to "exclusive jurisdiction" of the Secretary is unclear and might be construed more broadly than intended.

So far as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is concerned it seems wholly logical that its relation to a poultry inspection act be the same as exists with respect to the Meat Inspection Act. Since poultry and poultry products are for the most part perishable and since mistakes may occur, it is necessary to have provisions for dealing with inspected poultry after it has been introduced into interstate commerce. It is logical that, as in the case of other meats, this be done under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which has the necessary legal provisions.

We would therefore suggest that section 18 (a) be changed to delete the language referring to the Secretary's "exclusive jurisdiction" and that poultry and poultry products be simply made exempt from the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to the extent of the application thereto of the provisions of this bill. This is the nature of the provision with respect to the relationship between the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Meat Inspection Act, and this has worked most satisfactorily for many years. Any reference to State power in this field, if considered necessary, should, we believe, be dealt with in a separate provision.

3. The definition of the term "unwholesome" in the bill differs substantially from the term "adulterated" in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The standards of adulteration and specifications for wholesomeness and fitness for food for poultry should obviously be those of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It seems undesirable and capable of creating great confusion and conflict if the standards for wholesomeness and fitness for food that are imposed under this bill are different from those of the general food law. Moreover, such a situation not only will create a discriminatory situation either for or against poultry products under laws at the Federal level, but would inevitably give rise to confusion and conflict in States whose laws in the food and drug field are either identical with or patterned closely after the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. On the other hand, reenacting or including by reference in the bill the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as the controlling standards of fitness would serve to preserve the decisions and jurisprudence

which has been in effect over a period of 50 years. Such a procedure will tend to make the poultry inspection bill positive and certain and would relieve necessity for interpretation to a larger extent.

4. In order to avoid misunderstanding by the consumer, it seems desirable to provide in the bill that the inspection mark shall not be placed on food which is not labeled as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and regulations issued thereunder. Instead, the bill would provide a series of independent labeling requirements not related to the primary objective of the bill and would give the Secretary authority to permit variations and exemptions from such requirements. We can see no reason for these provisions and believe they would give rise to confusion and discrimination as between poultry and other food products.

5. It seems desirable that the Secretary of Agriculture consult with this Department in determining the propriety or desirability of any exemptions under a poultry inspection law, so that proper account will be taken of the relation and impact of such exemptions upon other foods covered by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

While it is likely that such a cooperative relationship will inevitably be carried on as it is under the meat-inspection program, it nevertheless seems desirable to include a clear provision to that effect in this bill.

6. To the extent that the prohibited acts under section 8 relate to exports it would seem desirable to parallel the language of section 801 (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This provides in effect that food exported from this country must either comply with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it applies to domestic commerce or, if not, must not be in conflict with the laws of the country of destination and must conform to the specifications of the foreign buyer and be marked "for export." Such provisions should be in lieu of language of the bill which will simply permit exports of certain poultry products "pursuant to rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary."

In conclusion, we feel that this bill, instead of creating the possibility of conflicting and discriminatory standards for different foods should be so drawn as to, in essence, apply the provisions of the existing standards of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to plant inspection of poultry and poultry products and to continue the application of that act to the product after it enters interstate commerce. This should constitute the simplest and most effective method for accomplishing the purposes that are intended and maintain a uniformity between regulation of poultry and poultry products and other foods which is so essential.

In view of the above discussion, we must recommend against the enactment of the bill as now drawn. It is obvious that adoption of the substantive suggestions made above, as well as other needed technical revision, will require extensive redrafting of the bill.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

M. B. FOLSOм, Secretary.

Senator CLEMENT:. Before hearing the first witness, there are several telegrams and letters that I would like to place in the record at this time.

One is a telegram from Mack I. Shanholtz, Virginia State Health Commission, member of the executive committee of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.

Another is from Mr. Henry J. Beernink, general manager of the Washington Cooperative Farmers Cooperative Association.

Another is a letter from Senator Gordon Allott of Colorado, who is unable to attend the meeting this morning due to conflict in his schedule.

And another is from Mr. Stanley J. Leland, director of the New Mexico Department of Public Health.

Finally, here is a telegram from the Pacific Dairy and Poultry Association.

(The letters and telegrams are as follows:)

Senator EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

JUNE 15, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Because of a conflict in my legislative schedule I will be unable to appear personally at the hearings you have scheduled for June 18 to consider S. 3588 and S. 3983 for the establishment of a system of compulsory inspection of poultry.

Although it should be clear from the fact that I have cosponsored S. 3588, I should like to reiterate my belief that such a program is necessary and desirable. Because of the splendid organization, morale, and experience of the Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture I am convinced that the responsibility for poultry inspection should be placed there. I am confident that under the direction of this service a program will be developed that will provide the ultimate protection to the consumer and employees and one which will be operated soundly and economically. Toward these ends, the Secretary of Agriculture should be given substantial discretion to determine in the day-to-day functioning of the program the detailed standards to be met and the extent of inspection which is necessary. The long history of sound and effective inspection of red meats by the Meat Inspection Branch can be relied on to insure that the citizens of this country are provided with only good wholesome poultry and poultry products.

It would be greatly appreciated if this letter could be made a part of the record of these hearings.

Sincerely yours,

GORDON ALLOTT, United States Senate.

SANTA FE, N. MEX., June 11, 1956.

Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: I am writing you in regard to S. 3176, and its companion bill H. R. 9006, to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, so as to prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthy, diseased, unwholesome or unadulterated poultry or poultry products. I would like to state that this Department is strongly in favor of the passage of S. 3176 and H. R. 9006.

There has long been need for an adequate compulsory program of poultry inspection. It is now well known that a large proportion of the thousands of cases of food poisoning and food infections that occur every year in this country are due to unwholesome and diseased poultry products. A compulsory program for the inspection of such products moving interstate would reduce considerably the incidence of such cases, and would help immeasurably in the subsequent adoption of similar intrastate programs, which are also sorely needed. We are very much in favor of having this program come under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. This agency has had a long and meritorious record of protecting the public against adulterated and unwholesome food as well as dangerous drugs. Since poultry inspection is essentially a public health program, it is logical that the program should be a responsibility of a public health agency.

In view of the above we would appreciate your support of S. 3176 and H. R. 9006.

Sincerely,

STANLEY J. LELAND, M. D.,

Director, New Mexico Department of Public Health.

SEATTLE, WASH., June 15, 1956.

Re S. 3588

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Sr.,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: I am advised a hearing is scheduled to be held on the above bill on June 26, and therefore would like to file the following brief

on behalf of Washington Co-Operative Farmers Association, headquarters in Seattle, Wash.

Washington Co-Operative Farmers Association, a farmers' cooperative, is owned by and serves more than 45,000 farm families in the State of Washington. Among our other activities we operate 3 modern poultry and turkey processing plants, and for 30 years have been extensive operators in the canning of poultry and turkeys.

We are in accord with the intent and principles outlined in S. 3588, and would emphasize the following points.

We believe it highly desirable that poultry inspection be continued under the Department of Agriculture with its corps of veterinarians and many years' background of experience in poultry and other meat inspection.

Further, we believe the effective date proposed in S. 3588 of July 1, 1958, approximately 2 years from now, is the shortest time the Department can provide and train the inspectors that will be required to cover the entire industry, likewise giving industry an opportunity to adjust to the new requirements. However, those firms now under voluntary inspection and those that may wish to come under sooner should be permitted the advantages as provided in the bill.

We believe it only fair, as provided in the bill, that the program, primarily in the interest of the public, should be financed from appropriated funds, similar to provisions applying for many years to red meats. Respectfully submitted.

HARRY J. BEERNINK,

General Manager, Washington Co-Operative Farmers Association.

RICHMOND, VA., June 15, 1956.

Senator ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

Chairman, Agriculture Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

On behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers I have been directed to convey to your committee our support of S. 3983 on poultry inspection. It is the opinion of the association that S. 3983 will provide needed protection for the consuming public against unwholesome and diseased poultry and poultry products. The Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture is a competent consumer protective agency already serving the Nation in a commendable fashion. We have no doubt that under the provision of S. 3983 they will do an equally good job on poultry. If we can be of further service to your or your committee please call on us at your pleasure.

MACK I. SHANHOLTZ,

Virginia State Health Commissioner, Member Executive Committee of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.

Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., May 4, 1956.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Membership this association representing estimated 80 percent total processing and distribution of poultry in 9 Western States urges favorable consideration S. 3588 on poultry inspection. Further appeal made that program be retained under Department of Agriculture who, by reason of experience and understanding, have proved capacity to administer program. Further propose this industry request be made part of record this hearing.

PACIFIC DAIRY & POULTRY ASSOCIATION.

Senator CLEMENTS. The first witness that the committee will hear this morning is the distinguished Senator from Vermont who not only formerly headed numerous subcommittees of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, but who has been a very distinguished chairman of this committee. The committee will be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. AIKEN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator AIKEN. One of the outstanding developments in agriculture in the past two decades has been the growth of the poultry meat industry and the increased use of poultry meat as a common item of consumers' diets.

Per capita consumption of poultry meat is increasing rapidly. In 1954 per capita consumption of chicken was 23.7 pounds compared with 13.7 pounds in 1940. During the same period per capita consumption of turkey increased from 2.9 to 4.5 pounds.

This development has been promoted by an aggressive merchandising program by the marketing concerns in the industry-which has emphasized providing the consumer with a wholesome quality product at a reasonable price-a product which will encourage the consumer to buy more poultry meat products. I believe the industry is to be commended for the progress they have made.

Chickens and turkeys are subject to a considerable number and variety of poultry diseases, which cause heavy annual losses to poultrymen.

Occasionally, a poultryman will have a disease condition in his flock and dispose of his poultry before the disease condition becomes generally apparent. Such action is harmful to the industry and to

the consumer.

Most poultrymen religiously dispose of all diseased birds by burying or burning them. The great majority of poultry meat reaching the consumer today is a wholesome product.

Reliable stores won't handle poultry meat not originating from reliable sources. But there are occasional exceptions. Poultrymen and the poultry industry have been discussing this problem for a number of years. Opinion in the industry has, as I understand it, been gradually crystallizing in support of a poultry-meat-inspection program comparable to that which is provided for beef, pork, and lamb.

The bill which I have introduced, S. 3588, is designed to insure that consumers will be provided with poultry meat products with complete assurance as to wholesomeness, but with a minimum of disruptive effect upon the poultry marketing business.

I do not suggest it is a perfect bill. Amendments may be offered which will improve it. I think it is advisable for the subcommittee to thoroughly study the various issues which are involved to the end that desirable legislation may be perfected.

The poultry industry is one of our big agricultural industries, perhaps larger and more important than is generally recognized. Total cash marketing receipts from the sale of poultry and poultry products in 1955 was as follows:

Chickens

Turkey and other poultry-
Eggs

Total

Million $1,035 366

1, 793

3, 194

This is over 10 percent of total cash farm receipts in 1955. Sections 2 and 3 of S. 3588 set forth legislative findings and a declaration of policy-namely to prevent movement in commerce of unwholesome poultry products.