Page images
PDF
EPUB

tunity of submitting our views on the proposed legislation now being considered.

At the annual meeting of the North Central States Institute, they recommended compulsory Federal inspection of poultry. Such a program they believe would be beneficial to all segments of the industry, which would include the poultry producers as they would secure benefits through increased acceptability of the product by the consuming public. Those engaged in marketing and handling would likewise benefit from such increased confidence in, and wider acceptance of, the product. Such a program would also put poultry products on an equitable footing with red-meat products which have long been under compulsory Federal program.

For the last 25 years there has been a poultry inspection program conducted by the Department of Agriculture. It is the general opinion that the program has been manned by highly trained and competent personnel. The voluntary inspection program has been under the immediate supervision of qualified veterinarians with long experience in poultry. It is our belief that this is the logical agency to conduct a widened regulatory, or a compulsory inspection in the field of poultry as it has been doing this work and has accumulated experience in this field.

We believe that S. 3588 is constructive and meaningful and will not be distrusted by the public and the public will have greater confidence in one of our fine agricultural food products. S. 3588 will give full assurance to the consuming public that poultry food products have been inspected for wholesomeness and can be marketed in interstate

commerce.

We believe that S. 3588 also makes provisions in which poultry processing plants that are in interstate commerce can compete with poultry plants whose operations are wholly intrastate.

We are in full accord with the authority given the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an effective inspection program to determine wholesomeness but does not tie him to an ante mortem inspection. It would appear to us to be desirable to leave to the discretion of the Secretary, any plan under which ante mortem inspection should be made. It also provides that the Secretary at any time in the future may make full use of any new techniques in poultry processing.

We firmly believe that S. 3588 provides cooperation between Federal and State governments, which we believe is necessary under any inspection program.

Being close to the operation on a voluntary program, we believe when compulsory inspection program is provided that ample time to organize and train a large inspection staff by the Department of Agriculture is necessary to acquaint processing plants as to the necessary regulations in order that they would have an opportunity to comply. It is quite an undertaking for a number of small plants to shift to a compulsory program without having ample time to increase their staff and put into effect the necessary equipment for a mandatory basis and this bill we believe should not be effective until July 1, 1958.

Again I wish to express my appreciation to the committee for affording the North Central States Institute this opportunity to present its views on S. 3588.

Senator CLEMENTS. I am glad to have had your statement. Any questions, Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. No.

Senator CLEMENTS. It was stated earlier by the chairman of the subcommittee that he would take some liberties with the witnesses here this morning by calling out of turn Mr. Russell Kline of Norton Frozen Foods, in Louisville, Ky.

Come around, Mr. Kline.

Before Mr. Kline starts his statement, I would like to place in the record at this point a letter from Senator W. Kerr Scott, of North Carolina, expressing his views on the pending legislation.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Senator EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

JUNE 19, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: Since your subcommittee is now in the process of holding hearings on the poultry inspection bills, S. 3983 and S. 3588, I would like to convey to the members of the subcommittee my views on this matter.

It is my sincere belief that the compulsory poultry inspection program can be more effectively carried out by permitting the Secretary of Agriculture to use his own good discretion in assigning this service to a division within the Department of Agriculture.

Sincerely,

W. KERR SCOTT, United States Senator.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL KLINE, MORTON FROZEN FOODS, INC., LOUISVILLE, KY.

Mr. KLINE. I am Russell Kline, of Morton Frozen Foods, Louisville, Ky.

This statement is made in support of S. 3983, introduced by Senator Murray, and to propose certain amendments to that bill. S. 3983, if enacted, will provide excellent, much-needed safeguards to the consumer of poultry and poultry products and will permit the same confidence in the purchase of those products as has existed toward red meat and red-meat products since adoption of the Meat Inspection Act providing for inspection and regulation of cattle, sheep, swine, and goats and products containing their meats.

In addition to rendering this public service, this legislation will, we believe, benefit the poultry growing industry by encouraging the upbreeding of flocks and, if amended as we shall propose, by enabling the poultry processing industry to increase poultry usage through producing wholesome quality products.

A principal member of the family of poultry products is the chicken potpie. Its manufacture accounts for a large segment, generally placed at one-fifth, of the fowl usage in this country.

Morton Frozen Foods, Inc., for whom I speak, are the largest American producer of chicken, turkey, and beef potpies and were a forerunner in this industry. Our sales area includes each of the 48 States and the District of Columbia, and our production facilities for poultry pies voluntarily utilize the inspection service of the Poultry Division of the Department of Agriculture.

It is pertinent that, practically without exception, those companies who began early in this industry and have thereby executed the burden of advertising and consumer education employ the voluntary inspection service.

Because poultry inspection is not compulsory, these companies are, unfortunately, in competition and at a disadvantage with pie manufacturers who choose to operate without Government inspection.

The consumer who buys an inferior product and is disappointed in its quality and content is not likely to continue exploring other brands of the same product in search of a satisfactory purchase. The present situation is that purchases of uninspected, inferior chicken pies are disappointing consumers and are resulting in injury to the entire chicken pie producing industry and to its parent, the poultry-growing industry.

Fortunately, a yardstick exists which gives an indication of the salutary effect compulsory inspection might have on our segment of the poultry industry: Beef pies are produced under compulsory inspection. During the past year, beef pie consumption has continued its established upward trend and, for the past quarter, stood nearly 23 percent higher than in the first quarter of 1955. Chicken pie usage, however, has departed from the upward trend that long prevailed and, during the first quarter of 1956, has dropped 6 percent beneath the first quarter of 1955. We think there is little doubt that, if legislation is enacted causing the quality of chicken pies to equal that of beef pies, the usage rate of these two similar products will follow more closely the higher figure.

We do strongly urge the adoption of an addition to S. 3983 which we believe is vital to the protection of the consumer and which will also have the effect of increasing poultry usage. This amendment is as follows:

PROHIBITED ACTS

SEC. 3. (7) Selling or offering for sale of any poultry or poultry food products by any person, firm or corporation in interstate or foreign commerce under any false or deceptive name; although selling and offering to sell of such products under established trade names or under names which are usual to such products and which are not false and deceptive and which shall be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, shall be permitted.

This amendment conforms to a provision of the Meat Inspection Act under which the Department of Agriculture now has the authority to require labels on red meat products which are neither false nor deceptive.

The further changes we would suggest are as follows:

Section 2 (8) (i) line 21: We wish to point out that this definition of processing will, in our opinion, require inspection in practically all butcher shops and grocery stores, as it is a common and necessary. practice of stores to cut up chickens for retail sale. It does not seem to us that this will prove economically feasible.

Section 2 (8) (k) line 9: Delete the words "the Meat Inspection Branch." Because the poultry industry is a major source of income (approximately $6 billion annually), constituting approximately 11 percent of the agricultural income, and because poultry inspection and most inspection are dissimilar operations, it is our feeling that the poultry inspection function should not be included in the Meat Inspection Branch.

Section 6, line 21: Delete "pursuant to rules and regulations hereunder prescribed" and insert "under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture."

In our opinion, the bill does not sufficiently delineate such rules and regulations, and by this change this section on ante mortem inspection will conform with the following section which states the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe rules and regulations for post mortem examinations.

Section 15 (a): We do not feel that the poultry processing industry should be in competition with the farmer, and we suggest this section be amended to eliminate the requirement for certificates of exception under the conditions described by this section.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Kline, you say that a fifth of the United States chicken production is consumed in potpies?

Mr. KLINE. Fowl. The hens that are worn out from egg laying. Senator CLEMENTS. That is a far greater percentage than I had any idea might be moved. Do you have any questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Kline, I gather that you have endorsed S. 3983 as preferable to S. 3588?

Mr. KLINE. I haven't stated it that way.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is what I would like to get clear.
Mr. KLINE. I am not arguing with S. 3588 at all.

Senator WILLIAMS. The reason I raise the question is that I noticed that 2 or 3 of the amendments that you propose to S. 3983 would make it pretty much in accord with S. 3588; therefore, I am wondering how you feel about S. 3588.

Mr. KLINE. I have no criticism of 3588 at all.

Senator WILLIAMS. Would you care to state whether in your opinion S. 3588 as written would do the job?

Mr. KLINE. I haven't seen the amendments as proposed by the Department of Agriculture.

Senator WILLIAMS. We would appreciate the benefit of your opinion.

Mr. KLINE. After I get hold of the amendments I will be glad to tell you.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Kline, I will give you a copy right now. Senator WILLIAMS. Most of the industry has been pretty much unanimous on the proposal that it should be left under the Department of Agriculture and that it should be at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture as to which division should handle it. That is the major difference between the two bills. I notice you propose this other bill be amended to that form. Therefore, I am wondering how you feel about S. 3588.

Mr. KLINE. Well, I haven't anything to say about it other than the fact it looks good, if the amendments carry everything.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, I think most of the proposals you suggested that should be incorporated in the other bill were incorporated in S. 3588, but after further study we would appreciate the benefit of your opinion.

Mr. KLINE. I would be glad to give it to you.

Senator CLEMENTS. If I understand your position, you are very strong for compulsory system, whereby all who deal in the trade where you deal are on competitive basis from the standpoint of compulsory inspection?

Mr. KLINE. That is right.

Senator CLEMENTS. I take it that from your statement that you want the Inspection Service under the Department of Agriculture? Mr. KLINE. Yes, that's right.

Senator CLEMENTS. I take it from your statement that you want it to stand as an independent agency within the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. KLINE. I believe it can be serviced better by being an independent agency.

Senator CLEMENTS. From your testimony I did not get that you were endeavoring to pick out whether it was under the Marketing Division or whether it was under Research Division.

Mr. KLINE. That doesn't matter to me.

Senator CLEMENTS. As far as you are concerned, if it provides the values that can come through a well-regulated compulsory system you only ask that it stand on its own, as an independent agency within the Department?

Mr. KLINE. That is right,

Senator WILLIAMS. And be left pretty much at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture as to how it could best be done?

Mr. KLINE. I think it has all that is necessary, because rules and regulations are very important in carrying on this act.

Senator WILLIAMS. We are in agreement.

Senator CLEMENTS. I am very glad to have your statement. Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS. The next witness will be Mr. H. C. Carbaugh. STATEMENT OF HARRY C. CARBAUGH, PRESIDENT, TENNESSEE EGG CO., CHATTANOOGA, TENN., REPRESENTING THE SOUTHEASTERN POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION, THE GEORGIA POULTRY FEDERATION, AND THE ALABAMA POULTRY FEDERATION

Mr. CARBAUGH. I have at my right, Mr. Paul Williams, the executive director of the Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association.

My name is Harry C. Carbaugh, president of the Tennessee Egg Co., with headquarters at Chattanooga, Tenn., and I am representing the Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association, the Georgia Poultry Federation, and the Alabama Poultry Federation.

The States covered by membership in the Southeastern Poultry Association represent about 50 percent of this present great industry. The processing plants located in these Southeastern States are overwhelmingly what are called uninspected plants.

The above being true, our association is vitally interested in any proposed legislation having to do with the poultry industry. We are taking a position on proposed legislation for mandatory inspection after considerable study upon the subject.

We want to say at the outset that our association stands 100 percent for whatever legislation is best and necessary to protect the health of the consuming public. We do not believe, however, that legislation should be passed which would incur a financial burden upon the public, processors, and growers of poultry unless there is a definite overwhelming knowledge of the need for full inspection of poultry to protect the public health.

« PreviousContinue »